
Recent storms have wreaked havoc across Anglesey, testing the resilience of its infrastructure and raising critical questions about the future of energy development. One striking example is the damage sustained by the solar panel farm near Cemaes. While solar power is a vital component of the green energy mix, this incident highlights the limitations of renewables under extreme weather conditions and sparks a broader debate about energy security.
The Solar Farm at Cemaes: Lessons from the Storm
The solar farm near Cemaes, a flagship renewable energy project, faced significant setbacks during the storms. High winds and torrential rain caused panels to be dislodged and damaged, while localized flooding disrupted operations and surrounding farmland. While repair efforts are underway, these incidents underscore an uncomfortable truth: solar farms, like other weather-dependent renewables, are increasingly vulnerable to the very climate change they aim to combat.
This vulnerability is not just an issue of maintenance costs—it also raises concerns about energy reliability during periods of extreme weather, a phenomenon that is only expected to increase.
Why Destroying Anglesey’s AONB is a Mistake
The current push to develop parts of Anglesey’s Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) for renewable energy projects is deeply flawed. These protected areas are not only vital for preserving biodiversity and mitigating the effects of storms but also form the backbone of Anglesey’s tourism economy.
Developing the AONB for energy projects would:
- Increase Vulnerability: Removing natural defenses like wetlands and coastal vegetation exacerbates the effects of storms, as shown by the flooding near Cemaes.
- Harm the Local Economy: Tourism thrives on Anglesey’s unspoiled landscapes. Industrial development in these areas risks alienating visitors.
- Undermine Long-Term Sustainability: Replacing diverse ecosystems with industrial infrastructure trades short-term energy gains for long-term environmental damage.
Given these risks, the destruction of the AONB is not just unnecessary—it’s reckless.
The Case for Nuclear Power
As we consider the future of energy on Anglesey, one solution stands out: nuclear power. Historically, Anglesey has been home to Wylfa Nuclear Power Station, which provided reliable energy for decades without the need to sacrifice natural landscapes. Bringing back nuclear power is not only feasible but also offers significant advantages:
- Weather Resilience: Unlike solar panels and wind turbines, nuclear power stations are designed to withstand extreme weather conditions. Globally, there have been no reports of nuclear plants being damaged or destroyed by storms, making them a more stable option for Anglesey’s energy needs.
- Cheaper in the Long Run: While the initial costs of building a nuclear power plant are high, the operational costs are relatively low, and plants can operate for 40-60 years. This long-term affordability makes nuclear a more economical choice compared to the maintenance-heavy requirements of solar and wind.
- High Energy Output: A single nuclear power plant can generate far more electricity than solar farms or wind turbines, reducing the need for sprawling energy developments that encroach on natural spaces.
- Energy Security: Nuclear provides a consistent energy supply, independent of weather conditions, ensuring Anglesey has reliable power even during the most severe storms.
A Balanced Path Forward
Anglesey is at a crossroads. While renewable energy is essential in the fight against climate change, over-reliance on weather-dependent sources like solar and wind poses risks that cannot be ignored. Instead of sacrificing the AONB to build more vulnerable infrastructure, we should focus on:
- Reinvesting in Nuclear: Reviving Wylfa or developing a new nuclear power station would provide clean, reliable energy without damaging Anglesey’s natural beauty.
- Diversifying Energy Sources: A mix of nuclear, renewables, and energy storage solutions would create a more resilient system.
- Protecting Natural Landscapes: Prioritizing the use of brownfield sites and leaving the AONB untouched ensures we preserve Anglesey’s unique character and biodiversity.
Conclusion
The storms that battered the solar farm near Cemaes are a stark reminder of the challenges we face in building a sustainable energy future. They also highlight the need for a balanced approach—one that embraces both renewables and the proven stability of nuclear power. By rejecting plans to destroy Anglesey’s AONB and instead reinvesting in nuclear energy, we can secure a brighter, greener, and more reliable energy future for generations to come.
Let’s learn from the past, respect our natural landscapes, and embrace technologies that offer long-term sustainability and resilience. Anglesey deserves nothing less.
Nuclear is definitely on the cards, but will never provide a significant amount of electricity supply. The best place to look for all the details is the NESO Future Energy Scenarios reports, both current and previous years
In simple terms it’s due to inflexibility. Nuclear doesn’t load follow well, and if you do try it reduces the life of the plant and makes more waste. Consequently nuclear stations run flat out all the time. The fleet is sized from the summer night time demand, which isn’t high
Wylfa got its flexibility from Dinorwig and Trawsfynydd from Ffestiniog, later stations from gas power stations (which are hugely flexible). But having said all that there will be maybe 14 GW of nuclear by 2050
However, nuclear power is the most expensive there is (see the DESNZ cost of generation reports) with solar and wind the cheapest, so there will be a mix of technologies, and all are supported by U.K. government policy, last updated in December 2023. Consequently, new nuclear at Wylfa would not be a policy reason to refuse solar there also
To the best of my knowledge there are no renewables proposals within the AONB. That would be directly against both Welsh Government and U.K. Government policy
There are plans in place to cover the equivalent land mass of Holyhead in solar farms near Cemaes, which will take up a lot of farming space and ruin the look of the spectacular views. This is going to be on my doorstep and something I am against.
I’m well aware, but it’s not in the AONB
This is a matter of opinion. As a resident of Anglesey and the area this eye sore will affect, where we live will be affected by this project and it is unwelcome by all.
It’s not a matter of opinion. An AONB is a designated landscape defined in law. I don’t support the huge solar proposals but they are definitely not in the AONB. Near Cemaes the A5025 is the boundary with the AONB on the coastal side. Porth Wen solar is not in the AONB and neither are the Alaw Môn or Maen Hir proposals. I believe the boundaries of the AONB should be expanded, and gave this feedback for the last consultation on the AONB Management Plan
Interesting response. Are you involved with saving Penrhos Nature Reserve? That is AONB and under threat of being flattened by developers.
At Holyhead the AONB boundary follows the line of the old A5 (Telford’s London Road) before it was diverted to site Anglesey Aluminium in the 1970’s. As such part of the AA site is within the AONB as well as all of Penrhos. The boundaries of the AONB are shown on OS maps or sources such as DataMapWales. Such designated landscapes have levels of protection far greater than non-designated landscapes (such as where the solar proposals are)
The Penrhos holiday camp saga is long and tortuous, given significant impetus by the drive for new nuclear around 2010-2012, and it’s still a possibility that would be the first use of the accommodation if it goes ahead (the nuclear build project would effectively fund the holiday camp)
U.K. government policy (EN-1) puts heavy emphasis for thermal power stations (like nuclear) on combined heat and power (CHP), and a new nuclear station at Wylfa would be obliged to consider this
If, as Rolls Royce have stated, the site would be ideal for four SMRs, there would be sufficient waste heat for 1,500 acres of commercial greenhouses, which would hugely benefit from the low carbon heating
This would bring an additional 2 GW onto the grid which will require a second line of pylons across Anglesey (following EN-5) and a second line either to Connah’s Quay or Swansea
If the limit is two GE-Hitachi SMRs (@ 300 MW) then depending on other generation the grid might just squeeze these in
As a resident of Anglesey my preference would be for a Wylfa B. The solar farms are a blot on the landscape. Not reliable and obviously prone to storm damage. The wind turbines are often turned off for various reasons. Certainly not a continuous source of power. I also read an article recently that the government were paying energy suppliers to turn off their green turbines and solar systems as the grid could not handle the supply.
As I explain above, nuclear’s “continuous source of power” is its great failing, as we don’t use power continuously and nuclear is inflexible
The plan for the GB grid (NI is separate) is to have 100 GW offshore wind, 100 GW solar, 40 GW onshore wind and 14 GW nuclear, plus gas with carbon capture, biomass and some tidal. We have to have a mix of cheap but variable, expensive but inflexible, and flexible
The only reason mega solar has come to Anglesey is Wylfa! Without Wylfa there would be no substation which is what attracts solar farms
Wind turbines are turned off, or constrained, when the grid does not have sufficient capacity, and in some cases turbines are turned off just because it’s easier and cheaper than turning the nuclear stations off