How to resolve the Wind Turbine crisis on Ynys Môn

A resolution to the public outcry over wind turbines on Ynys Môn requires some clear strategic thinking coupled with political will.

Because of its flat landscape and the fact that Anglesey County Council has not updated its planning policies on wind energy for over a decade, Ynys Môn has over the past year been specifically targeted by wind farm developers — as testified by the extraordinary surge of planning applications for giant turbines.

Public outcry ensued and, despite having initially been caught with their pants down, Anglesey County Council did the right thing by speedily carrying out a public consultation on new wind energy supplementary planning guidelines (SPG) together with introducing a far more stringent planning 'checklist' for wind developers designed to reduce the number of speculative applications.

A leaked discussion document prepared by planning officers after the public consultation showed that planners were broadly opposed to introducing any blanket guidelines for wind turbines on Ynys Môn — including publicly supported minimum separation distances, maximum height restrictions, and the preservation of Anglesey's AONB together with a suitable buffer zone. The leaved document showed that in essence planning officers would prefer to be allowed to consider each turbine application on its individual merits. This is clearly unsatisfactory but we cannot really blame the officers as their role to merely interpret and be guided by national policy — in this case TAN 8 — and not to propose political fixes, which is the preserve of our elected Councillors.

TAN 8 is the Welsh Government's primary planning policy for wind energy, and establishes a number of geographically defined 'Strategic Search Areas' (SSAs) in which large-scale wind farms should be clustered. It also goes on to provide guidance on what local planning policies can and should be introduced by local authorities. As Ynys Môn falls outside any SSA areas, the most crucial part of TAN 8 to this discussion is as follows (emphasis mine):

"Most areas outside SSAs should remain free of large wind power schemes. Local planning authorities may wish to consider the cumulative impact of small schemes in areas outside of the SSAs and establish suitable criteria for separation distances from each other and from the perimeter of existing wind power schemes or the SSAs. In these areas, there is a balance to be struck between the desirability of renewable energy and landscape protection. Whilst that balance should not result in severe restriction on the development of wind power capacity, there is a case for avoiding a situation where wind turbines are spread across the whole of a county. As a result, the Assembly Government would support local planning authorities in introducing local policies in their development plans that restrict almost all wind energy developments, larger than 5MW, to within SSAs and urban/industrial brownfield sites. It is acceptable in such circumstances that planning permission for developments over 5MW outside SSAs and urban/industrial brownfield sites may be refused."

This essentially tells Councils that although they cannot introduce local policies which would "result in severe restriction on the development of wind power capacity" (which would, for example, rule out blanket height restrictions), they are able to introduce what would in effect become local mini-SSAs to restrict development to one area only ("there is a case for avoiding a situation where wind turbines are spread across the whole of a county"). The question therefore is: which part of Ynys Môn would be most suitable as a housing area for large-scale turbines whilst (a) providing minimum disruption to the Island's landscape and tourism industry; and (b) providing the largest possible public utility to Ynys Môn residents?

Existing wind turbines already visible from the Rhosgoch site

The answer is the 198-acre disused Shell site at Rhosgoch which was gifted to Island in the 1980s and is now administered by the Isle of Anglesey Charitable Trust. The area is fairly out of the way, close to the existing small-scale wind turbine farms in the north of the Island, and the contaminated land which has stopped any other development on the site would not be an issue for erecting wind turbines. Therefore, if a local planning policy was put in place which meant that all wind turbine applications above 15 metres tall were restricted to the Rhosgoch site, then all ground rents from these giant turbines could be captured — through the Isle of Anglesey Charitable Trust — for the public good and used to preserve the various public services, such as leisure centres, now being threatened by cuts. With just 198 acres available (not including the area several football pitches large that could be taken up by the proposed giant transformer farm on Rhosgoch to convert the wind energy coming off the Irish Sea wind from AC to DC) the administrators of the scheme would be able to auction parcels of land off in 25-year leases to developers thus even further maximising revenue.

The scheme could be set-up as a giant Social Enterprise, and even go a step further by allowing various community councils and other local groups first option to rent land, thus allowing them to erect turbines which would provide a regular income for their activities. The scheme would not affect micro-wind generation and farm diversification as smaller wind turbines of up to 15 metres tall would still be possible throughout Ynys Môn outside of the AONB.

Such a policy may be open to legal challenge by developers, but in reality such an outcome would be unlikely as any challenge would be costly and take years — during which time it is likely (bearing in mind the national public disquiet regarding wind turbines) that the current generous subsidy regime for wind energy will be ended. Developers would recognise that if they want to make money on Ynys Môn they would need to rent land on the Rhosgoch site. As per the report in this week's Holyhead & Anglesey Mail about developers 'threatening' planning committee members with appeal, it is clear that developers are keen to rush through their plans as soon as possible to escape whatever restrictions may eventually come via the revised SPG and due to any changes to national policy.

Having any giant turbines on Anglesey may be unpalatable to many residents, however the fact is that without the introduction of a scheme such as I've outlined above then there is no doubt that wind turbine will multiply throughout Ynys Môn and have a real effect on tourism on the Island (all available research shows that between 10-30 percent of holidaymakers will not return to rural areas whose landscapes have been ruined by wind turbines). However, to make such a scheme a reality requires political will and unity from Anglesey's councillors — something which would provide a perfect public showcase for their strategic thinking and care for the Island as the Commissioners prepare to start handing power back to them from October onwards. It would also make 'Energy Island' a far more intelligent concept as a share of money generated from energy schemes on the island would be directly captured for the wider public good.

Wylfagrad B, Leanne Wood, and Political Cowardice.

I'm puzzled. Almost a month has now passed since the German owners of Horizon announced they had decided to pull the plug on Wylfa B — yet Plaid Cymru's new leader Leanne Wood has not uttered a single word about nuclear energy since. This is strange because arguably one of the central planks of her leadership campaign was her outright opposition to ANY Nuclear energy in Wales, including a new plant at Wylfa. Indeed, immediately after she won the leadership contest in mid March she said this to the Daily Post:

“Plaid Cymru’s stated position is in opposition to a new nuclear power station in Wales. That isn’t to say jobs in North Wales isn’t of vital importance. I have put forward an alternative jobs plan for the North West and for Ynys Môn, those jobs are in the renewable energy sector so we can build a clean, green industry that doesn’t risk our future.”

You would therefore assume that when RWE and E.On made their announcement just two weeks later Leanne Wood would have welcomed their decision and reaffirmed her commitment to a nuclear-free Wales. You might even expect her to have redoubled her efforts to promote the "alternative jobs plan for the North West and for Ynys Môn" she mentioned above — essentially to set up a massive Quango on Ynys Môn called the "Energy Department for Wales" funded by the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency.

Instead we have heard absolutely nothing from her whatsoever on the topic. Why not? Apparently anti-nuclear posturing is fine and dandy until what she said she wanted actually happens and thousands of jobs are suddenly put in danger. It looks more and more to me like political cowardice which doesn't bode well for the rest of her term as Plaid leader.

--------

Should we be concerned with reports that Rosatom, the Russian state-owned nuclear energy corporation, is interested in buying up Horizon and progressing with Wylfagrad B? Probably yes, but not for the "Chernobyl" scaremongering by people like PAWB. The disaster at Chernobyl was caused by unauthorised experiments carried out by the operators to see just how far they could push the reactor without causing a meltdown, involving the disabling of several failsafe mechanisms which would normally have prevented it. The consequences were horrifying, but it is fantasy to think that the involvement of Rosatom at Wylfa could lead to anything similar happening here. Should Rosatom be given the go ahead they will have to use the exact same designs developed by the Germans, and make the exact same choice between either the Areva or Westinghouse reactors — essentially the only thing the Russians will be supplying is the funding.

The more pertinent question regarding Russian involvement at Wylfa is whether the UK really wants a country which has used energy supply as a diplomatic weapon in the past obtaining a foothold in our own energy market?

For what it is worth I suspect that there are many more runners and riders in the race to buy Horizon and that the Russians are just the most vocal.

Wylfa: What next?

Regular commenter Mairede Thomas succinctly sums up Ynys Môn's current position and dilemmas:

"As far as Anglesey is concerned this is how it stacks up:- the Biomass plant site at Anglesey Aluminium, that has gained planning approval, may be able to source cheap waste wood and other imported biofuel but if the experience of DRAX the Uk’s biggest co-firing coal station is anything to go by the cost of buying in imported biofuel could be prohibitive. In mid February Drax decided not to build a £1.3billion pair of 290MW biomass plants reasoning that the Uk subsidy is not attractive enough. And the Banks are not playing ball either, so putting together the finance is not proving too easy. So big biomass projects like the one on the north of our island may not materialize.

Now the Wylfa B site is up for grabs but EDF and Centrica will want taxpayer support too. Who knows what the Russians will want, but do we want them?

There does not appear to be any type of new, sizeable and reliable power generation plant, that is also acceptable in terms of the C02 targets the Uk has burdened itself with, being brought forward for development by the international power companies, or indeed smaller developers, unless they are given assurances that they will get a huge public subsidy.

So do we ditch the CO2 targets and go for coal and gas? Or do we nationalise nuclear?

I would look seriously at both of these options otherwise we may not have enough reliable new power plant and infrastructure being built to keep the lights on. And unless we find some significant new gas reserves (shale?) we will be at the mercy of imported fuel prices to heat our homes and run our businesses.

I hope our politicians will do everything possible to ensure that the skills built up in Anglesey over many years in the nuclear industry are not lost to the island or dispersed abroad. The excellent facilities at Coleg Menai offer young people who study there the prospect of sustainable and rewarding careers, let’s hope they can fulfil their career ambitions on Anglesey."

In the meantime, French energy giant EDF has shown its hand early and declared that it is not interested in taking on Wylfa whilst back on Anglesey the Head of the council's Energy Island project has announced that she is leaving.

++ Horizon partners pull out of Wylfa B ++

Instead of an expected announcement of what reactor type they planned to use at Wylfa B, Horizon's joint venture partners E.ON and RWE npower have this morning instead announced that they will NOT proceed with plans to build Wylfa B and will instead seek to sell Horizon as an ongoing concern to new investors. The press release from RWE describes the reason as follows:

• The global economic crisis has meant that capital for major projects is at a premium and nuclear power projects are particularly large scale, with very long lead times and payback periods; 

• The effect of the accelerated nuclear phase out in Germany, which has led to RWE adopting a number of measures, including divestments, a capital increase, efficiency enhancements and a leaner capital expenditure budget;

A combination of these strategic factors, together with the significant ongoing costs of running the Horizon joint venture, has led to a situation where capital investment plans have been reviewed.

Press releases here, here and here.

Rumours began to surface last July, following the Fukushima disaster and Kanzler Merkel's decision to close German nuclear plants, that E.ON and RWE npower would "struggle to convey to investors the billions of euros in investment that would be required for building new reactors in the U.K. at a time when cash flows and earnings are under increased pressure after Germany decided to exit all nuclear energy". More recently there had been further rumours that the two partners were looking for a third partner in order to spread risks. With hindsight it becomes clear why the reactor vendor announcement has been continually delayed for the past few months. 

The implications of this news is catastrophic for Ynys Môn as so many other developments are predicated on Wylfa B going ahead, the following being just two examples:

• Land & Lakes holiday resort development on the majority of the Anglesey Aluminium site has a business plan based on providing housing for Wylfa B construction workers
• Coleg Menai's Energy Centre built to train a new generation of nuclear workers

Will this be the end of Wylfa B? I don't believe so: the Department of Energy and Climate Change's own estimates show that of a total of around 75GW in UK generating capacity, 20GW will disappear by 2015 as various ageing nuclear and coal plants will need to be decommissioned over the next few years. And as they current peak demand is around 65GW and growing, that means that the UK could be facing energy blackouts within the next decade — as made clear by the adjacent graph from The Economist.

The reality is that the UK government needs Wylfa B more than Horizon needs to build it — which means that by hook or by crook Wylfa B will eventually have to be built.

The fact of the matter is that the decision to replace the UK's ageing nuclear reactors should have been made years ago, instead Labour spent its 13 years in power obsessing over renewable energy and introducing ever more stringent carbon targets, under Energy Secretary Ed Milliband, which have led to our countryside being covered with hundreds of useless windmills but with no replacement for lost baseload capacity. (Ironically, according to the RWE and E.On's press releases they plan to instead invest in more UK renewable projects, no doubt due to faster returns due to a crazy market deforming subsidies!) 

If you don't believe me that Labour didn't make the necessary decisions, then believe Unite regional secretary for Wales, Andy Richards, who told the Daily Post in January 2009:

"The origins of [Anglesey Aluminium's problems] pre-date the current economic crisis, which is why Unite has been calling for the Labour Government to make the important decisions on energy supply for years. The procrastination over Wylfa means we are now looking at a probable closure, which would be catastrophic for Anglesey and Wales."

It wasn't until the Coalition government came into power two years ago that plans to replace our ageing nuclear fleet were finally put in place. The delay by the previous Labour government has meant that the UK now needs to make the necessary immensely costly infrastructure investments both post-Fukushima and during Europe's lowest economic ebb since WW2. Which puts the recent furore about Pastys into perspective.

Leanne Wood, the bell curve, and Wylfa B

There are very little votes to the Left of Labour

Yesterday Leanne Wood was elected as the new Leader of Plaid Cymru. A self professed socialist and avowed republican, she was throughout the leadership campaign the Plaid Activists' choice (the various Plaid supporting blogs have spent the last months collectively swooning over her). The problem for any political party however is that there is generally something of a gulf between what its own activists want, and the views of the average person who may vote for that party. This will be especially true for Plaid Cymru which has anyway relied on cobbling together support from two diverse demographic constituencies: the 'iaith a gwlad' vote in North West Wales and the Left of Labour vote in the South. Ieuan Wyn Jones actually manage to hold these two groups together pretty well, but I think its obvious that Leanne Wood — a first language English speaker from South Wales who wants to attack Labour from the Left — will probably end up alienating a considerable portion of Plaid's traditional support in the North. No doubt she will appeal to some who have never voted Plaid before, but the problem for her is that the majority of votes are to be found in the centre ground of the political bell curve: on the centre-left and centre-right. Putting forward a policy agenda on the friges of the centre-left may excite Plaid's activists, but it will necessarily bring only diminishing demographic returns. 

(Incidentally, in case you are thinking "well, he would say that wouldn't he", I note that John Dixon, Plaid's former National Chair, has just written something similar).

On top of all this, and as fellow Plaid leadership contender Lord Dafydd Elis-Thomas himself repeatedly said, Leanne Wood will also especially alienate Ynys Môn voters because of her hardline stance against Wylfa B. She reiterated her complete opposition to Wylfa B just last month in front of local Plaid members during a campaign visit to Llangefni — a meeting in which she also first revealed her plan to replace the thousands of lost Nuclear jobs by siting a massive Quango called the "Energy Department for Wales" on Ynys Môn instead. According to Leanne this will be paid for by winning "control of Crown Estate revenue and a fair share of nuclear decommissioning funds". Even in the unlikely case that Crown Estate monies could be won, I find it extremely difficult to understand how money which is supposed to be spent on safely decommissioning Wylfa could instead be diverted into funding Leanne's pet Quango? Obviously this policy was not meant to be taken seriously — it is merely a convenient crutch for her and Plaid's Ynys Môn local election candidates to use next year to try to show that, despite all evidence to the contrary, they do not want to further damage Ynys Môn's stumbling economy for the sake of burnishing Leanne's 'socialist', anti-nuclear credentials. 

Dafydd Elis-Thomas, Pylons, and the perils of Google Street View.

A very interesting 'Yr Byd ar Bedwar' on S4C this evening dealing with various aspects of the protests against wind turbines on Ynys Môn. At the end of the programme, Plaid Cymru leadership contender Dafydd Elis-Thomas was interviewed and dismissed concerns that giant wind turbines would destroy the landscape by saying that where he lived in Dyffryn Conwy he was surrounded by pylons.

Well, as Elis-Thomas's address is published on the Assembly election nomination papers, we can take a look at the actual view over his house:

Dafydd Elis-Thomas's house, nestled somewhere in the trees in the centre of this image

Bechod! Must be awful to be surrounded by so many pylons...

Whither 'Energy Island' as 250 protest wind turbines (& other energy projects) outside Anglesey County Council

Over 250 Ynys Môn residents joined this afternoon's mass demonstration outside the Council offices to protest against the large number of planning applications which have been submitted on the Island for ‘monster’ wind turbines of up to 100 metres (330 ft) in height — the equivalent of almost four Marquis of Anglesey’s Columns stacked one on top of the other. The large turnout on a weekday furthermore proves that Ynys Môn residents are far more concerned about wind turbines than they are about Wylfa B.

The protesters sought to highlight Anglesey County Council’s lack of preparedness for dealing with these industrial-sized turbines and to encourage residents to participate in the council’s ongoing consultation on new planning guidelines for wind turbines. The demonstration was timed to coincide with the last meeting of the council’s Planning Committee before the end of the consultation on February 10th.

Peboc biomass protesters

Significantly, for the first time, members of all the major energy project protest groups on Anglesey joined forces. Wind Turbine protesters were joined by people from Bodffordd against the Anaerobic Digestion plant and also Llangefni residents protesting against the massive proposed Biomass plant at Peboc. This highlights the fact I have stressed before that Anglesey County Council has got itself into a real mess with its Energy Island strategy because the majority of energy projects actually coming to Ynys Môn:

• are massively oversized — whether a 100m wind turbine or a 180,000 tonne biomass plant 
• deliver no discernible green benefits considering the long distances the source materials need to travel (wood coming from Nova Scotia, Canada, in the case of the proposed Peboc plant; abattoir waste from Powys in the case of the Bodffordd AD plant)
• ultimately provide relatively few low-skilled, manual jobs without a proper assessment of the overall net effect on jobs (wind turbines in particular will generate no jobs at all on Ynys Môn)
• require the shipping into Anglesey of large amounts of unpleasant waste (the Peboc biomass plant alone estimates 78 daily deliveries of wood; 5 daily deliveries of tallow and vegetable oil, and 88 trips related to the shipping of pellets. Thats a helluva lot of HGVs everyday)
• do not lead to Ynys Môn becoming a 'Centre of Excellence' in any of these technologies
• potentially have a dubious effect on tourism and other businesses

A senior councillor candidly admitted to me today, "the council has been caught with its pants down with these turbines". I agree. Now, as today's joint protests prove, its time for a major rethink of both Anglesey's planning and Energy Island policies. Ynys Môn needs a coherent strategy which will both protect existing industries (such as tourism) whilst also leading to the Island becoming a Centre of Excellence for emerging renewables technologies (like the tidal schemes at the Skerries) — and not a dustbin for unwanted, over-large, under-employing and inappropriately sited energy projects.

UPDATE: Some remarkable photos of the protest have been posted by Glyn Davies, Ynys Môn's most celebrated landscape photographer. More on his blog here.

Photo: Glyn Davies

Anglesonians, to the barricades...!

Monster Turbines, coming soon
to random spots all over Ynys Môn?

Whatever your views on the effectiveness of wind turbines, I don't think anyone would argue that they shouldn't be appropriately sized and sensitively sited if we are to have them. 

Accordingly I would hope that most people would recognise that the directionless and ad-hoc manner in which Anglesey County Council is currently attempting to deal with applications for a number of wind turbines of up to 100m (330 ft) in height is not ideal. 

To make matters worse the planning guidance for on-shore wind turbines which the Council is currently consulting on is so wooly that it would allow any kind of turbine, of any height, virtually anywhere on the Island. 

For a county which markets itself as an 'Energy Island' and which is about to become an Energy Enterprise Zone, this lack of any coherent strategy simply isn't good enough. Accordingly, I urge everyone who is free, to join the protests planned for tomorrow (or today, depending when you read this!) in Llangefni with the aim ensuring that councillors and relevant officers get the message that they need to think deeper about how to deal with the large influx of planning applications for these monster turbines.

Date:         Wednesday, 1st February

Time:        11.30 - 13.00

Location:   Outside Anglesey County Council offices in Llangefni.

Everyone welcome.

Squeezed: the connection between Ynys Môn farm incomes and wind turbines

This post is intended as a short addition to my last post, a critique Ynys Môn's Energy Island strategy. In it I mentioned that a squeeze in farm profitability was pushing farmers towards various farm diversification schemes, including — controversially — the erection of wind turbines. Figures just released by Aberystwyth University's annual Farm Business Wales Survey show just how steeply farm incomes (with the exception of dairy, of which there is relatively little on Ynys Môn) have dropped over the past 12 months:

"Upland cattle and sheep farms recorded a decrease in the value of outputs of almost 1 per cent between 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, while inputs rose by 7 per cent – resulting in an income decrease of 18 per cent. 

"The value of outputs on lowland cattle and sheep farms in the identical sample rose by 3 per cent, while inputs increased by just over 12 per cent, leading to a similar 18 per cent fall back."

After a difficult decade including the Foot and Mouth disaster and continued government dithering over tackling Bovine TB, and now with such a considerable reduction in farm profitability due to the rising outgoing costs of feed and fertiliser, there is little wonder that additional income from the currently massively over-generous Feed In Tarifs are becoming so attractive.

The pressure on farmers is unlikely to ease up anytime soon. The Eurozone crisis adds huge amounts of uncertainty as both livestock prices and CAP payments are very sensitive to the Sterling-Euro exchange rate. CAP reform will see income support payments reduced whilst also requiring farmers to be be "greener", meaning they will need to protect "habitat" and take land out of production further squeezing income. Furthermore farmers in Less Favoured Areas (LFAs; roughly half of Ynys Môn is classified as LFA) will no longer receive higher levels of support. The list goes on and on.

Accordingly, with all this going on and its controversial side-effects on our landscape, it is both ironic and inexplicable that the Welsh Government decided to do away with a Rural Affairs Minister at cabinet level and downgrade and split its rural affairs department.

For those interested, the relevant sections comparing upland and lowland farm incomes over the past twelve months are below. Farm Survey

An ill wind blowing across Ynys Môn

Wind Turbine locations on Ynys Môn
(source: AAWT)

Considering that Ynys Môn has been promoting itself as an 'Energy Island' for a few years now (and will soon become an Welsh Government sponsored Energy Enterprise Zone), the council itself seems remarkably ill-prepared and lacking in direction when it comes to any forms of energy other than Nuclear.

For example, the proposed 25,000 tonne Anaerobic Digestion plant in Mona has been criticised as being far, far too large. With only 35,000 tonnes of appropriate biodegradable industrial and abattoir waste in the whole of North Wales, the plant would need to ship in source materials from as far away as Mid Wales according to Friends of the Earth (a body which normally supports AD plants!). The Welsh Government enshrined a 'Proximity Principle' in TAN21, which states that waste should be treated or disposed of as near to the source of origin as possible. What therefore is the logic of placing an AD plant of that size in Mona? Indeed, in what appears to be a tacit acceptance of this fact, the developer has since hired several hundred acres of land in Valley to grow silage to feed the plant when it is approved. Not only is this pushing up the price of silage on the Island for farmers who need it to feed livestock, the application was originally given planning approval on the grounds that it would divert waste from landfill; now we learn that he is going to have to grow a crop to feed it. Thats the equivalent of erecting a wind turbine and then placing a enormous electric fan opposite to blow air at it!

The Biomass Plant proposed on the Peboc site in Llangefni is a remarkably similar story. It will apparently burn up to 180,000 tonnes of "locally sourced" timber every year. Seen any huge forests around Ynys Môn lately? Me neither. Instead the developer will be shipping it from Scotland and, amazingly, Nova Scotia in Canada. What's green about that?

Considering where the source materials are coming from, neither of these plants seem to have any logical reason whatsoever to be located on Ynys Môn — other than because Anglesey is promoting itself as an Energy Island and is possibly being thought of as a soft touch by grant-seeking developers. Furthermore the benefits of having them here are also not entirely clear — especially when you consider how few local jobs they will produce. For example, the developer of the Peboc biomass plant claims it will create 250 temporary jobs and 150 permanent jobs. Curiously their own Transportation Assessment mentions that the plant will only require 25-30 staff... furthermore there is no analysis of what effect building a massive incinerator (because that's what a 'biomass plant' actually is) will have on present and future employment in Llangefni — let alone on the tourism industry. What will be the net effect on jobs?

Then we come to the recent proliferation of planning applications for Wind Turbines on the Island. Personally I am yet to be convinced of their effectiveness as a means of reducing carbon emissions — especially when they anyway require fossil-fuel plants running on permanent standby to produce energy when the wind doesn't blow.

More than any other 'energy' development on Ynys Môn, wind turbines have created the largest popular opposition movement in the shape of Anglesey Against Wind Turbines. Around 200 people attended a stormy Penmynnydd Community Council meeting last week to object to an application to build some 100m-tall wind turbines in the area. Significant numbers also attended a similar meeting of the Llanfair-Mathafarn-Eithaf community council this week when a similar application was discussed in Brynteg. CAP reform and the 'greening' agenda will see farmer's incomes squeezed so they legitimately need to diversify and find other revenue streams, but it is difficult to argue that 100m-tall turbines will not be a massive blot on the landscape, are hugely unwelcome to those who live near them, and could potentially effect the wider tourism industry.

The Council has now announced a public consultation into Supplementary Planning Guidelines governing Onshore Wind Energy applications — but it seems a little late in day considering there are currently already over 50 planning applications for turbines on the Island, each of them being considered independently of the rest. It seems to me that the Council needs a clear strategy for wind farms. Like Conwy, which only allows extremely tall turbines to be erected in one defined area and has imposed a fairly low height restriction on them elsewhere, Anglesey council needs to do some serious thinking rather than letting them proliferate throughout the island on an ad-hoc case-by-case basis.

So in my view, apart from the preparations for Wylfa B, the council has got itself into a real mess with its Energy Island 'strategy'. With the exception of the underwater turbines off the Skerries, the developments being proposed so far:

• deliver no discernible green benefits considering the long distances the source materials need to travel
• ultimately provide relatively few low-skilled, manual jobs without a proper assessment of the overall net effect on jobs
• require the shipping into Anglesey of large amounts of unpleasant waste (the Peboc biomass plant alone estimates 78 daily deliveries of wood; 5 daily deliveries of tallow and vegetable oil, and 88 trips related to the shipping of pellets. Thats a helluva lot of HGVs everyday)
• do not lead to Ynys Môn becoming a 'Centre of Excellence' in any of these technologies
• potentially have a dubious effect on tourism and other businesses

So what is the point being an 'Energy Island' if we don't gain anything from it? Surely the vision behind the Energy Island strategy originally was to promote Anglesey as a Centre of Excellence in energy technology, not a dumping ground for dubious, grant-seeking, "dirty" developments. The same is true of wind turbines: they are not a new technology, the community as a whole does not benefit from them, and we can't compete with the Danes or Germans in the development and manufacturing of them as they already have the expertise, experience and economies of scale.

Ynys Môn needs to be looking to utilising its unique Island resources and promoting renewable technologies in their infancy — as with the Skerries underwater turbines. In other words we need some vison, better strategic long-term thinking, and higher aspirations.

UPDATE: You can now register your objection to the Peboc biomass plant here.

Any port in a (funding) storm. (Updated)

I wrote back in March this year about the Offshore Wind Site Development Competition organised by the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) to allocate £60m of funds to help port authorities and developers looking to develop new offshore wind manufacturing and assembly facilities. Ports which wished to apply had to prove that they:

• have access to sufficient land that could be developed into wind turbine manufacturing facilities;
• are suitable for the transport of large and heavy products;
• and already have heavy duty surfacing capable of bearing heavy loads in place. 

There was much hope at the time that, in line with the Energy Island concept, Holyhead's now defunct Anglesey Aluminium plant, which has a deep water dock, would be a very suitable location.

Happily the £60m funds have survived the Comprehensive Spending Review and the competition is still open -- although it has now emerged that because this is classed as 'business support' (i.e. a devolved function) the lions share of the £60m will be reserved for England with only Barnett consequentials available to Wales, Scotland and Northern Island. The good news is this guarantees that the Welsh Assembly will receive £3.5m towards developing a Welsh port (and just by looking at the adjacent map, it can only really be Holyhead). The bad news however is that no matter how eligible or suitable Holyhead may appear, it cannot receive any more than that amount. This has cued outrage from Albert Owen, who has said this is "another example of the Tories and Liberals marginalising Wales", whereas Ieuan Wyn Jones, asserts the decision shows a "complete lack of respect" for the Welsh economy.

My personal view is that its highly unlikely that £3.5m alone will be anywhere near enough money to properly transform the Anglesey Aluminium plant and dock into one suitable for manufacturing and shipping offshore wind turbines. Accordingly it would have been far better for the government to take a more strategic view and divide the total budget between the two or three most suitable ports (no matter in which region they are located) so that the sums each location received would be sufficient enough to deliver a considerable impact.

However -- and here's a novel thought -- instead of forever whinging about supposed slights by the coalition government, why doesn't the Welsh Assembly Government step up and show us that it can take action when required? WAG has a £15bn budget; of that approximately £1.2bn is earmarked for Economic Development and Transport. As Ieuan Wyn Jones has announced that half the Economic Development budget will now be spent on as yet undefined infrastructure projects, why can't some £11.5m of this money (i.e. 9 percent) be added to the £3.5m from DECC to make a pot of £15m for developing Holyhead port? Presumably an investment of this kind could help make Holyhead the key staging area for 'Round 3' offshore wind farms in the Irish Sea -- whilst also supporting the development of a sustainable new industry in the UK's poorest area.

The Welsh Assembly has been only too happy to waste our money on expanding mostly unnecessary universal benefits (such as free prescriptions and free breakfasts for primary school children) which neither generate jobs nor possible future sustainable revenue streams for Wales. Its time for WAG to get its priorities in order, stop using the excuse that it is 'underfunded' (according to the Holtham Report, through the Barnett Formula Wales receives £112 for every £100 spend on devolved activities in England) and go out an earn the 'respect' it says it deserves.

UPDATE: I am grateful to commenters who point out that the Port of Mostyn near Holywell, with ready access to the A55, M62, M56, and M6, is already well ahead in establishing itself as the ideal servicing location for offshore wind farms in the East Irish Sea. This clearly shows that for Holyhead to compete, DECC/WAG support to modify the port will be meaningless unless it first manages to attract wind turbine manufacturers to set up production operations in the town. Just before the election there were a number of front page stories in the Daily Post about how the then Welsh Secretary, Peter Hain, was in talks with a unnamed company to set up just such a wind turbine factory on the Anglesey Aluminium site. Hain even described it as "the beginning of good times" for Anglesey -- though predictably, as sure as today's front pages become tomorrow fish'n'chips wrappers, we never heard anything about the whole thing ever again.

I think that the 'Energy Island' concept is a good one, and, in theory, Anglesey is ideally located to take advantage of a trend towards lower carbon energy sources, be they nuclear or renewable marine technologies. But as I have written previously:

"For the Energy Island concept to be a full success Anglesey must become an originator of energy technology -- not just a destination for off-island companies to place various schemes. Accordingly the council must work to incubate Anglesey-based energy start-ups. The only way to do this would be to work with local research centres, such as Bangor University, to develop some kind of Energy Science Park located somewhere on the Island. I would further suggest that using the "Shell Fund" to provide "seed money" for such start ups would be a far more productive use of the money then purely funnelling the majority of it into Oriel Môn each year."

Huhne says 'yes' to Wylfa, still says 'no' to subsidies (updated)

Following on from the good news earlier this week that the existing reactor at Wylfa will have its life extended for two more years, the Sunday Telegraph reports that the Energy Secretary, Chris Huhne will announce this week that Wylfa B will be among those sites approved by the Government for a new nuclear power station.

However, this announcement still does not mean that Wylfa B will be built -- it merely provides Government permission for the private sector developer, in this case Horizon Nuclear Power, to build a nuclear power station at that location if they believe there is a viable business case for it. And this is unfortunately were the problems for Horizon start because the Government has not softened its stance on nuclear subsidies: there will still be no government money available to support either the construction or future de-commissioning of any new plants. Horizon has repeatedly asserted that modern nuclear reactors are far more expensive to build than conventional coal and gas-fired stations and therefore need some financial support to be both viable and competitive over the long term. In order to get around the "no government subsidy" policy they have suggested a consumer-funded levy, i.e. a government sanctioned surcharge collected from all energy bills -- however this was seemingly rejected by Chris Huhne last month in favour of simply setting a "minimum carbon price floor" which would make cheaper but higher polluting energy (i.e. that made from coal and gas) more expensive, thus making expensive but cleaner energy (such as nuclear and other renewable sources) more competitive.

Will Horizon be able to proceed on this basis? We don't know -- and as I wrote last month the two German companies (E.on and RWE npower) which own Horizon will anyway be hit by a new German tax on nuclear fuel rods from next year which will anyway seriously impact their profits. As Islanders we will have to now wait with crossed-fingers and see what pronouncements Horizon make following Chris Huhne's official statement next week.

That said, as the excellent Dylan Jones-Evans writes today, there is plenty that the Welsh Assembly Government can be doing in the meantime to move things forward:

"[T]his could mean that there is a great opportunity for Wales to become a real centre of expertise in this sector, and it is now up to the Welsh Assembly Government to ensure that European Structural Funding can be used effectively to help build up value added projects for the new power station. For example, helping to create an energy technology park around the new development and ensuring that the skilled workforce needed for the power station and its construction are sourced locally are just two simple examples on how the project could benefit the Anglesey economy.

I fully expect WAG to announce a detailed strategy for supporting the Wylfa B development and how it will benefit the local economy over the next few months."

Yes, WAG, we will be watching and waiting...

Albert Owen questioning
Chris Huhne

UPDATE: With thanks to 'Avatar' who spotted it, I recommend that interested parties watch this clip (from around 11.41 onwards) of Albert Owen last month questioning Energy Secretary, Chris Huhne, on what does and does now constitute a subsidy for the nuclear industry. To be fair to Albert he asks some good questions -- but does momentarily withdraw back into his famous 'Albert Fantasyland' when he tries to claim that Labour were not against Nuclear subsidies (a tactic he also deployed during the general election) - they were.

Even more problems for Wylfa B (updated again)

Yesterday's Times newspaper reported that Horizon, the joint venture between E.On and RWE npower -- and the company which is planning to build Wylfa B, has urgently contacted Energy Secretary Chris Huhne to seek clarification over remarks he made last week which seem to indicate he will reject Horizon's proposal for a consumer-funded levy to support new nuclear builds, such as in Wylfa. Horizon's position is that modern nuclear power stations are far more expensive to build than conventional coal and gas-fired stations and therefore need some financial support (such as a consumer-funded levy) in order to make the business case viable.

Mr Huhne is reported to have said that he thought the industry had converged on the view “that the carbon price floor will be enough” to make new nuclear plans viable economically. Setting a carbon price floor would essentially make cheaper but higher polluting energy (i.e. that made from coal and gas) more expensive, thus making expensive but cleaner nuclear energy more competitive. The current price of a tonne of carbon allowances is around €13, whereas nuclear competitor EDF, the French state controlled giant, believes that carbon price floor of around €50 per tonne would be sufficient to make nuclear energy competitive. Mr Huhne appears to agree with EDF, thus allowing him to keep to coalition policy of promoting new nuclear power stations as long as they do not require public subsidy. Setting a floor price for carbon would not be a hidden subsidy to nuclear energy alone as it would also make expensive renewable energy technologies more competitive. Of course, the end result is that we all end up having to pay more for our energy... (and we should not forget that it was carbon-trading schemes like this which were one of the largest contributing factors towards the closure of Anglesey Aluminium by making its operation economically unviable inside the EU).

Personally I find Horizon's stance a little surprising as a "consumer-funded levy" is essentially a subsidy by another name -- whereas it has long been known that the long-standing policy position of both the Labour and Conservative parties on new nuclear builds has been to reject the need for any further subsidies to the nuclear industry. Therefore to be fair to Huhne he simply appears to be adhering to this long standing cross-party stance and official coalition policy. As far as I can see, the fuss seems to be more related to competition between German-owned Horizon and French-owned EDF. EDF currently owns a fleet of eight UK nuclear power stations and the setting of a carbon price floor would boost the profitability of these existing stations whilst at the same time making new nuclear builds, such as Horizon plans at Wylfa, less profitable in comparison because of the estimated approx £7bn construction costs.

Anyway, this all goes to show that Wylfa B is by no means a certainty yet.

UPDATE: I thank learned commentators for alerting me to it, but its seems that the German government has announced plans to impose a tax on nuclear fuel rods from 2011 onwards which will have a large impact on German nuclear utility firms, such as E.On and RWE npower. According to reports by the Wall Street Journal, this could see E.On's after tax profits reduced by up to €1bn every year for the next six years. Chris Huhne's remarks therefore represent a substantial double-whammy to Horizon's owners, E.On and RWE npower and again show just how incredibly precarious the proposed £7bn investment in Wylfa B actually is.

UPDATE 2: Interestingly it appears that the Council has arranged an open seminar with Horizon and Centrica on Friday this week for Anglesey businesses to learn how they could benefit from the Energy Island project. From the Council website:

"On Friday September 24th 2010, Horizon Nuclear Power and Centrica Energy Renewable Investment Ltd will outline potential supply chain opportunities relating to the proposed new nuclear build programme and offshore wind power development.

This special event - to be held at Cartio Môn, Bodedern, between 8.30am and 1.00pm - will conclude Anglesey's first ever Business Week. (At junction 4, off the A55).

Energy Island Programme Director, Sasha Wynn Davies, explained, "Friday's event will give businesses a unique opportunity to actively engage with both companies as well as gain a greater understanding of the business opportunities associated with the Energy Island programme."

"The event will also be used to raise awareness of existing Nuclear / Decommissioning supply chain opportunities and the proposed off shore wind Centrica development. Local businesses and companies present will have an opportunity to ask questions about these developments and the wider Energy Island Programme."

If you would like to attend the event, please contact Energy Island Programme Coordinator, Linda Wyn Jones, on (01248) 752462 or e-mail: lwjpl@anglesey.gov.uk"

Did anybody else know this week is Anglesey Business Week? No? Me neither... 

Albert Owen distorts reality over Anglesey Aluminium closure again

Yesterday it was announced that Anglesey Aluminium will officially commence decommissioning the holyhead plant meaning that aluminium smelting will never again return to Anglesey. In response to this bad news, Albert Owen MP has popped up to once again to apportion blame for the plant's closure on anyone other than his own Labour government. Previously Albert has blamed "Conservative hypocrisy" for its closure, this time he lays the blame squarely on Anglesey Aluminium itself, saying "If the company was serious about continuing to smelter it would have taken up the generous government offer in 2009 to help bridge the gap over a difficult economic period".

Just as Albert never tires in peddling these blame-avoiding half truths, the Druid never tires in setting the record straight here. 

The UK's declining energy capacity
compared to rising peak demand levels
(Source: The Economist)

Anglesey Aluminium was forced to close because it used to consume daily 12% of Wales' total electricity and therefore depended on a cut-price electricity deal with the nearby Wylfa nuclear power station. Now, It was clear for years that the Wylfa reactor - which has been producing electricity since 1971 - would need to be decommissioned around this time, and when that happened the economic viability of Anglesey Aluminium would be severely compromised unless a new reactor was already in place at Wylfa. Unfortunately, as we all know, the previous Labour government's obsession with 'renewable energy' and expanding the proliferation of windmills across the country led it to take its eye of the ball of preserving our essential power supplies. The fact is that most nuclear plants (including the current Wylfa reactor) and half of UK's coal plants are due to close over the coming decade and the Labour government had no concrete plan on how to replace them. The Department of Energy and Climate Change itself estimated last year that, of a total of around 75GW in generating capacity, 20GW will disappear by 2015. And as the current peak demand is around 65GW and growing, that means that the UK could be facing energy blackouts by as soon as 2015.

Anyway, as the current Wylfa reactor inevitably neared the end of its working life, it was acquired by the Government's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) to be decommissioned. Now essentially government owned, the NDA's lawyers had to inform Anglesey Aluminium that Wylfa would no longer be able to supply it with the cut-price electricity on which it depended as that would constitute 'state aid' under EU law. Indeed, this was made clear by the NDA in January 2009 when its spokesman said this:

"There’s been no breakdown in the relationship between ourselves and Anglesey Aluminium but we have explained to them the situation. We cannot extend the current contract with them due to new European legislation on providing subsidies to private companies.”

Furthermore, Anglesey Aluminium was anyway sensing difficulties ahead due to the then Labour government's pledge to reduce UK carbon emissions by a staggering 80% by 2050 (incidentally this pledge was made by Ed Milliband - the very man Albert Owen is now backing to become Labour leader). To meet these goals, the EU has introduced a carbon trading scheme - an administrative approach to control pollution (in the shape of 'carbon') by providing economic benefits to companies for achieving reductions in the emissions of carbon. During a debate about the closure of Anglesey Aluminium in the Houses of Parliament, Robert Goodwill MP, the then shadow transport secretary, had this to say about the EU scheme:

"is not the fundamental problem the operation of the European Union emissions trading system, which is making it increasingly difficult for primary metallurgical industries to operate in the EU? It would be all well and good if it resulted in the reduction of global CO2, but it merely results in carbon leakage to other economies such as China and India, which are not constrained in the same way."

Exactly right, and precisely what happened in the case of Anglesey Aluminium - many of whose managers were headhunted to work at Dubai's new state-of-the-art aluminium smelter, operating safely outside the EU's emissions trading system. The simple fact is that charging for carbon adds yet another layer of anti-competitiveness for already struggling heavy industries operating within the UK or Europe.

Due to this 'double whammy' affecting its future viability, is it any surprise that Anglesey Aluminium -without a secure supply of cheap energy - decided to turn down a pre-election bribe of £48m from a panicking Labour government eagerly trying to paper over the cracks of its incompetence and lack of foresight in the field of Energy Policy? 

Bonus Extra: If you need any more persuasion then please read this blogpost where I explain how both the Corus Steelworks in Teeside and Anglesey Aluminium died of the same causes.

Shock news: Local Politician Claims Credit for Wylfa B

    
With the election so close at hand one shouldn't be too surprised with the brazenness of local politicians seeking to claim credit for yesterday's news on Wylfa B. However, even I was slightly taken back aback by this quote from Albert Owen in today's Daily Post:

“Getting to this point did not happen by accident, but by design; through strong campaigning. I have proactively led that campaign both in Parliament and on Anglesey, working alongside the Secretary of State for Wales, the current First Minister, the local community and the Isle of Anglesey County Council."

Strange therefore that Horizon Nuclear Power explicitly cited these two reasons why they chose Wylfa over other sites:

• Because of overwhelming popular support on the Island
• Because Wylfa's position on the Irish Sea did away with the need to construct large water cooling towers

Neither of which, as far as I know, have anything to do with Albert Owen at all.

Anyway, seeing how Albert Owen is apparently singlehandedly responsible for Wylfa B, perhaps he might like to answer these questions:

• Considering that Labour has been in Government for three terms why will there be a gap of at least 10 years between the current Wylfa reactor being decommissioned and the new Wylfa B reactor coming online? Especially considering that even the Department of Energy and Climate Change predicts energy blackouts by 2015, why hasn't the Government begun replacing Britain's ageing power stations, including the Wylfa reactor, earlier? 
• According to the latest list of Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) projects Wylfa was slated to get an application in for November 2011. Yet according to Horizon's announcement yesterday, an application for Wylfa is only “scheduled for “2012,” a year behind their original schedule. Why is this?
• In 2008, then-Secretary of State at BERR John Hutton said, “We consider that a decision by an operator to proceed in principle with building a new nuclear power station and therefore to request from the Government a fixed unit price for waste disposal in a Geological Disposal Facility could come as early as mid 2009”. The Fixed Unit Price is the government’s clever idea to protect taxpayers from hikes in the cost of new build waste management, and it is absolutely central to making the sums for new nuclear even remotely workable. Hutton hoped that in 2009 operators would be given a set price that they must put aside to cover the estimated costs of dealing with waste at the end of the reactor’s life. Well, we’re in 2010 and DECC have only just launched a consultation on the Fixed Unit Price. This won’t finish until the summer, so an operator like Horizon won’t be able to get a figure until into 2011. This effectively translates as DECC creating a delay of 2 years in the space of 2 years. Why is this?
• Is it true that EDF still holds land vital to the new Wylfa project? Apparently EDF doesn’t have to sell the land it owns at Wylfa until it is granted planning permission for two new reactors at both Hinkley Point and Sizewell. There’s no guarantee this will ever happen.

Over to you, Albert...

  

Hat Tip: this post on Left Foot Forward.
  

Will GE really build a wind turbine factory on Anglesey?

  

The Daily Post breathlessly informs us today that "Anglesey is in the running to win a £100m wind turbine manufacturing plant that would create 1,900 new jobs" and that "urgent calls are being made by the Government to GE directors to persuade them that the the island is the 'ideal site'". This comes only a month after Peter Hain informed us that he was in talks with unnamed company (not GE) which also wants to convert the former Anglesey Aluminium smelter into a wind turbine factory.

What are we to make of all this? Its certainly true that GE yesterday announced their plans to invest £99m over the next decade on building a turbine manufacturing plant somewhere in the UK to take advantage of the Government's plans for 8,000 wind turbines by 2020 in giant offshore wind parks in the North Sea and Irish Sea. However, despite what the Daily Post informs us, even if GE chooses Holyhead, it will not create 1,900 new jobs in Anglesey. GE's figures make it clear that the plant itself will only employ around 500 people, with an additional 450 jobs created in other sites in the UK. GE also estimates that their investment will also support a further 950 positions at other UK companies which will supply the components - which is where the Daily Post finds the 1,900 figure. Still 500 jobs would be fantastic news for Anglesey after having lost around 3,000 over a very short period of time.

In terms of location GE have not yet decided where to build the plant but have made it clear that it will be dependent on the site they choose receiving some or all of the £60m funding announced in this week's budget to help develop British ports to support the offshore wind industry. Apparently this £60m fund will be allocated by the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) as the core part of their Offshore Wind Site Development Competition. The DECC is inviting bids only from port authorities and developers proposing to develop new offshore wind manufacturing and assembly facilities, which:

• have access to sufficient land that could be developed into wind turbine manufacturing facilities, 
• are suitable for the transport of large and heavy products 
• and already have heavy duty surfacing capable of bearing heavy loads in place. 

This all sounds good for the former Anglesey Aluminium plant in Holyhead which certainly fulfils all the above criteria. However it seems that Blyth in North East Eangland, which is already home to the National Renewable Energy Centre (Narec), is the favourite to win at least a large chunk of this funding especially as it has already secured a commitment from the company Clipper Windpower to locate its blade manufacturing facility there. Accordingly, if Anglesey is to be considered ahead of Blyth, Peter Hain needs to move very quickly indeed to secure a commitment from GE to choose the Anglesey site.

What does this new development tell us about the other unnamed company which was announced with huge fanfare in the Daily Post last month? Peter Hain even called it the "beginning of the good times" for Anglesey but is now apparently being "tight-lipped" about. Was it not quite the sure thing it was presented as last month when its announcement conveniently overshadowed the Welsh unemployment data which was also released on the same day (as the Druid blogged about here)?

So, as we have seen, for Anglesey to benefit from all of this we need a lot of planets to line-up perfectly: GE have to be persuaded to choose Holyhead, the DECC has to be persuaded to award a large chunk of the £60m to support the deal, and all this has to happen quickly before Blyth bags all the cash... Perhaps this is the time for Peter Hain to resurrect the £48m grant he originally offered Anglesey Aluminium last November to continue production?
 

Hung parliament will kill Wylfa B (Updated)

Speaking at the Future of Utilities conference in London this week, the chief executive of RWE n.power,  Volker Beckers, has made it clear that in the event of a hung parliament Wylfa B will not be built. He is reported to have said:

"It could possibly make some investment inconceivable, for instance nuclear" … He said although the opposition Conservative Party supported the ruling Labour government's push to replace Britain's ageing nuclear fleet with new reactors, it was unclear what stance a new government, that might include the Liberal Democrat Party, would take on nuclear power.

The Lib Dems oppose plans to build more nuclear power stations, which they say "will soak up subsidy, centralise energy production and hinder development of Britain's vast renewable resources."

RWE n.power is one half of the Horizon Nuclear Power joint venture which is currently planning to develop the new reactor in Wylfa so Beckers' comments can be seen as a clear indication that Horizon's plans will not proceed in the event of a hung parliament.

It looks like Anglesey's economic future may be held to ransom by the Lib Dems - a party which polled less than 2,500 votes in Anglesey at the last general election; who's Anglesey Association strangely has an address in Cardiff; and selected a 26 year old ex-barman from St Asaph as their parliamentary candidate for the Island.

 
UPDATE: In this context it is also informative to note that Plaid Cymru are actively campaigning for a hung parliament - here is the Plaid candidate for Anglesey, Dylan Rees, in a recent letter to the Daily Post:

[T]his general election is very likely to produce a hung parliament. In that event Plaid Cymru will have an even more influential role to play as it seeks to win a fairer deal for the people of Wales.

He fails to mention that the most significant consequence of a hung parliament for Anglesey would be to kill off any hopes of Wylfa B.  Remember that when you are in the voting booth.
    

Should Anglesey be 'paid' to host the Wylfa power station?

There has been much fuss regarding the establishment by the government of the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), a body set up to fast-track planning applications for so-called "nationally significant infrastructure projects" so as to save them being held up or halted by unwilling local authorities and public inquiries. This is important to Anglesey residents as potentially the decision to grant planning permission to a second nuclear reactor at Wylfa could be adjudicated by this body.

However, the Conservatives - who have every chance of forming a government in May - are pledged to abolish the IPC on the grounds that it is anti-democratic insomuch that it transfers certain planning decisions away from elected local authorities and ministers and instead puts them in the hands of unelected appointees. Under Conservative proposals the decision therefore whether to grant planning permission to Wylfa B will be devolved back to the Secretary of State.

Frankly neither of these processes are entirely satisfactory as the ultimate decision on whether Wylfa B goes ahead or not will be taken a long way from the people of Anglesey - who will ultimately have to live with the presence of the new reactor. Now, the Druid is personally 100% behind Wylfa B and believes that the jobs created by its construction and operation will be crucial to the future prosperity of the Island - however its also fair to say that Anglesey, the poorest county in the UK, is 'taking the strain' in hosting a critical piece of the UK's national energy infrastructure which is unwanted elsewhere and should therefore be rewarded above and beyond the jobs which the plant will generate.

The maverick Tory MEP, Daniel Hannan may not be to everyones taste but he is always a thoughtful and original political thinker. In his Telegraph column this week he describes how some US States have come up with a very interesting way of incentivising local communities to 'host' unpopular but necessary state-wide installations such as power stations or incinerators. He writes:

"The answer here, surely, is to allow local communities to put a price on accepting them. Let us say that a county wants an incinerator, and identifies a dozen potential sites. It should then invite the local authorities from each affected area to submit a sealed bid, stating how much it would want in return for accepting the facility. The one to submit the cheapest bid would win.

The council could then spend the fee as it wished: it could give residents a tax rebate, write them cheques, or use the money for something else. A similar system works successfully in a number of US states. Apart from anything else, it would encourage local people to weigh the costs and benefits, instead of automatically opposing every proposal on grounds that it is being forced on them from outside. Tell a group of people that they must take a mobile phone mast, and they will understandably protest. Invite them to sell permission for a site … and they might take a different attitude."

Obviously one can foresee a lot of problems with this approach which would need to be ironed out - but to the Druid it makes a lot more sense than the current systems outlined above.

And imagine what a huge difference a significant annual payment for hosting Wylfa B could make to the whole island - especially if it was invested wisely by the council in an economically sustainable way such as, for example, reducing rates for local businesses thereby both boosting employment and incentivising new businesses to setup on the island. Sounds good to me.
   

What should have been asked on Question Time last night.

   
Following the disappointment which was the Question Time broadcast from Cardiff last night - without a single question put about the situation in Wales - the Druid has been pondering what questions should have been asked to a panel of Welsh politicians. Here are his suggestions:

• Is Peter Hain correct to say Wales is a "wealthy country"? And is Rwanda the right country to be benchmarking ourselves against?
• Why is it that despite spending more money per head on economic development than any other region in the UK, Wales still remains at or near the bottom of economic health indicators such as GVA, unemployment and business failures?
• Wales used to be known as a nation of farmers. Why is it that the contribution of agriculture to the Welsh economy has declined by 68% over the past ten years compared to just a 7% decline elsewhere in the UK?
• Is Plaid Cymru's election pledge to increase the state pension by 30% credible in the current economic climate - or is it just electioneering?
• With even the Department of Energy and Climate Change predicting energy blackouts by 2015, should the Government have begun replacing Britain's ageing power stations, including the Wylfa reactor, earlier? 
• Does the fact that the Welsh Assembly has announced yet another 'Economic Renewal Programme" with another round of consultations with businesses mean that all the billions spent to date have been wasted?
• Is the deepest recession in 60 years the right time for the Welsh Assembly to spend time debating a referendum for more powers?

And finally, to replace the ridiculous John Terry question we had last night, I would suggest this alternative:

• Was the Welsh Rugby Union right to drop Andy Powell from the squad for his antics after the Scotland match?

If you have any other suggestions for questions, the Druid would love to hear them...

   

Anglesey Aluminium and Corus both died of the same causes

   

Anglesey Aluminium and Corus - both died of the same causes

As I wrote about one BBC programme yesterday, I thought I may as well write about another one today: 'QuestionTime' from last Thursday (19th February, 2010).

Many of you may have watched it, in which case you'll know it was broadcast from Teeside and the closure of the Corus steelworks with the loss of 1600 jobs was the dominant topic. During the programme the panel discussed that the cause of the plant's closure was reduced demand due to the global recession. There probably is a lack of demand but if the fundamentals of a business are sound a temporary lack of demand can be ridden out until the economy improves again. Clearly there must be other reasons for the plant's closure - and that is why a blog about Anglesey is writing about the closure of a steelworks hundreds of miles away in Redcar. The fact is that the real reasons behind the closure of the Corus plant are almost identical to those behind the closure of Anglesey Aluminium and its worth examining them in detail as it shows that Anglesey Aluminium's closure was not an isolated incident but is the direct result of policy failure by our current government.

1. Energy Policy Failure

As previously discussed here, when Anglesey Aluminium was operating it used to consume daily 12% of Wales' total electricity and depended on a cut-price electricity deal with the nearby Wylfa nuclear powerstation. With Wylfa approaching its official decommissioning date that cheap electricity deal came to an end on 30th September, 2009, and the closure of Anglesey Aluminium came very shortly afterwards. Anglesey Aluminium's own management said at the time that it had "worked intensively with the UK Government and others" to find an alternative power supply, "but had been unable to do so". Similarly, the Corus steelworks was also one of the UK's largest electricity customers with an annual bill in excess of £80 million and was also suffering from lack of cheap electricity. Here is Labour MP, Denis MacShane in the Commons last year:

"Corus Engineering Steel has been crippled by high electricity prices compared to the EU average".

He goes on to blame EDF Energy for this, but the real reason is that electricity prices are being pushed up because demand is rising whilst supply is dwindling, as evidenced by the below graphic from The Economist.

The fact is that most nuclear plants (including the current Wylfa reactor) and half of UK's coal plants are due to close over the coming decade and as of yet there is still no concrete plan on how to replace them. The Department of Energy and Climate Change itself estimates that, of a total of around 75GW in generating capacity, 20GW will disappear by 2015. And as the current peak demand is around 65GW and growing, that means that the UK could be facing energy blackouts by as soon as 2015.

And this surely is the crux of the matter: this government has for too long prevaricated about rebuilding a series of power stations which are essential for both the UK's industry base and home-life. In other words it has failed to deal with one of the most fundamental requirements of a modern society: a secure and efficient energy supply. And the knock-on effects of this is not only more expensive energy for consumers but also the loss of huge amounts of jobs in energy-hungry heavy industries which depend on competitively-priced electricity in order to be competitive themselves on the world markets. Furthermore the likelihood is that Anglesey Aluminium and Corus, being amongst the largest electricity users, are probably just the first companies to be forced to close because of Labour's lack of a coherent energy policy.

2. Climate Change and Carbon Trading

On top of the energy problems above, the second issue we need to explore are the side-effects of the government's slavish adherence to the theory of man-made global warming. As many of you will know, in the name of fighting climate change the current government has pledged to reduce UK carbon emissions by a staggering 80% by 2050. To meet these goals, the EU has introduced a carbon trading scheme - an administrative approach to control pollution (in the shape of 'carbon') by providing economic benefits to companies for achieving reductions in the emissions of carbon. During a debate about the closure of Anglesey Aluminium in the Houses of Parliament, Robert Goodwill MP, the shadow transport secretary, had this to say about the EU scheme:

"is not the fundamental problem the operation of the European Union emissions trading system, which is making it increasingly difficult for primary metallurgical industries to operate in the EU? It would be all well and good if it resulted in the reduction of global CO2, but it merely results in carbon leakage to other economies such as China and India, which are not constrained in the same way."

Exactly right, and precisely what happened in the case of Anglesey Aluminium - many of whose ex-workers were headhunted to work at Dubai's new state-of-the-art aluminium smelter, operating safely outside the EU's emissions trading system. The simple fact is that charging for carbon adds yet another layer of anti-competitiveness for already struggling heavy industries operating within the UK or Europe.

Even more perversely such schemes can actually make the closing of heavy industrial businesses, like Corus, more profitable than keeping them open. As Dominic Lawson wrote in January:

"The owners of the Corus steel company stand to gain up to $375m (£234m) in European Union carbon credits for closing their plant in Redcar, only to be rewarded on a similar scale by the United Nations’ Clean Development Mechanism fund for switching such production to a new “clean” Indian steel plant."

The simple fact is that the government's pledge to dramatically cut emissions by 80% is in effect a manifesto to subsidise the closure of large swathes of the UK's industrial base and transfer those jobs to developing countries. If you believe in man-made climate change then perhaps you believe that such drastic actions are necessary - but it should be made absolutely clear to the electorate by whichever government is in charge that following such policies will result in dramatic job losses as heavy industries in this country become less competitive. And right now it is not clear whether all the jobs being lost in Anglesey Aluminium and Corus can be replaced by the promised 'green jobs' of the future.

There are other reasons behind the closure of Anglesey Aluminium and Corus such as high regulatory costs, high rates of corporation tax, and the recession forcing steel or aluminium using industries outside of the UK or Europe thus forcing up transportation costs. But the Druid believes that the above two issues are demonstrably the two major factors - and neither are to do with the global recession/reduced demand etc but are the direct result of political incompetence.