That's the end of voting for today, but that's not the end of our work, and we'll move on now to the short debate. And the debate today is presented by Mabon ap Gwynfor on the subject 'Atomic dreams: Nuclear power and blind faith in an ageing technology'. I'm intrigued, Mabon. Mabon ap Gwynfor.  

Thank you very much, Llywydd, and I've agreed to give some time to Carolyn Thomas, Sam Rowlands and Mike Hedges to contribute to this debate also. Now, there are many reasons given in favour of nuclear energy, and on the surface, they can be convincing, but look a little deeper and you will see that these arguments are very superficial indeed. Some say that nuclear energy is needed to provide for the required energy baseload. That's not true. Baseload in itself is contentious, as it doesn't provide the necessary flexibility in modern times. Energy planners say that there must be flexibility for baseload, and it's possible to ensure this with the right mix of energy—be it solar, wind, hydro, tidal or blue hydrogen.

But for those who are tied to the belief that we need a baseload, then we have the most effective resource here in Wales, which is the tide, with parts of the coast of Wales having some of the biggest tidal ranges in the world. If one is looking for baseload, then we can get this by investing in the natural resources already here, linked to storage technology.

The latest reason given by the Government here for the development of nuclear is for medical nuclear. This is particularly attractive on the face of it—who could argue against medicine that helps with the diagnosis of cancer, or Alzheimer’s, or a host of other diseases? But, in this context again, the arguments are superficial and it doesn't justify the building of a new nuclear power plant, and this is why. A few years ago, there was an acute shortage of the main isotope used for nuclear medicine, namely technetium-99. As the nuclear power plants in the Netherlands and Canada aged, the isotopes became more and more scarce. This is what has brought about the idea of developing a medical nuclear centre here.

But, to safely produce isotopes, you need a research reactor. Producing isotopes from a conventional reactor is extremely dangerous, and a power plant for energy is the priority here. So, between the decommissioning and the small modular reactor plans, there is no room on the site at Trawsfynydd, for example, for a research reactor as well. Never mind that, the shortage of technetium is being resolved. Germany is building an irradiation facility for the production of technetium at München university, and the Jules Horowitz research reactor is being built in France. Indeed, that's an international partnership, and the UK is a key partner. These two research reactors will produce more than enough isotopes for Europe's needs, as well as the UK's.

But even better than that, the excellent work of Dr François Bénard from the University of British Columbia has led to the ability to produce technetium-99 by using cyclotrons—equipment smaller than a small car, without the need for any kind of nuclear reactor, and we can have many of those across the country. I would encourage the Government to work with the University of British Columbia in order to take advantage of that technology.

Of course, there is always radioactive waste attached to nuclear medicine too, but the half-life of technetium is six hours. It can be disposed of safely within weeks. This is very different to the half-life of thorium, which is 80,000 years, or plutonium, which is 28,000 years. And that's the reality—nuclear is dangerous. From the moment it's extracted from the earth to be used as fuel, and then waste, it is fatal and it exists for hundreds of thousands of years. It's a dirty industry ecologically, environmentally, and it is dangerous to all living things. 

I've spoken with the Anishinaabe peoples of Ontario, and the Mirarr peoples of Northern Territory of Australia, who have told me about the serious damage that continues to affect their people and their land as a result of uranium mining in their territories. Their communities suffer from high levels of cancer and other health conditions, and from appalling poverty, because the truth is that the nuclear industry is a colonial industry. The industry is stripping lands of dangerous minerals against the will of those communities, and it’s not me saying that, but the Ojibwe, the Shoshone, the Adnyamathanha, the Kazakhs, and others who are saying this. And what about the waste? There are still dangerously high levels of caesium 134 and 137 that continue to be found in Trawsfynydd lake, according to the latest Environment Agency reports—20 years after the nuclear power plant finished producing electricity there. And despite the talk of solutions to the waste, nobody has found any way of dealing with the waste safely. 

The Deputy Presiding Officer took the Chair.

Some talk about following Finland and burying the waste miles underground, covering it with clay. But that's not a long-term solution. They tried to bury the tailings of the Eldorado company's uranium plants in Ontario, with a type of clay 40 years ago, but they failed, and over 100 megatonnes of radioactive waste are spread over 1,000 hectares of land there still. The United States used the most up-to-date cement technology on Runit Island, in the Enewetak atoll, at the end of the 1970s in order to bury nuclear waste from the horrific experiments in the Marshall Islands. Forty years later, that cement is already cracking, with radioactive material seeping into the Pacific Ocean. No technology exists to tackle waste that is radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. Of course, we don't have to talk about Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island or Windscale, but back in 1993, we were within a whisker of adding another name to that list of disastrous nuclear accidents: Wylfa. This was The Times headline in September 1995:

'Nuclear reactor faced meltdown. Wylfa power station in Anglesey.'

And that was after the grab fell into the core of one of the reactors without anyone noticing for hours. We have to count ourselves very lucky indeed.

Now, climate change is the other argument for justifying nuclear. Climate change is happening before our eyes, and we must take urgent steps to reverse the damage done. We have seven years only in order to prevent the world from warming by two degrees over what the temperature was in pre-industrial times. We must see decarbonisation at a broad scale, and quickly too. Now, 'nuclear is the solution', according to Governments, but don't believe the hype. Nuclear cannot play the same role in decarbonisation quickly. Look at Hinkley Point C, for example. This project was announced in 2010. It was licensed two years later in 2012, and work began in 2017. The scheme is already two years behind schedule, and it's unlikely to be commissioned until 2030 at the earliest, costing at least £8 billion more than the original budget, bringing the cost of this one nuclear power plant close to some £30 billion. Even if the work of commissioning the eight nuclear plants promised by Boris Johnson, or the 11 plants promised by Tony Blair were to start tomorrow, then it would be 2033 at best before we would see a single watt of electricity being produced from them.

Indeed, in thinking about the difficulties of Hinkley C, it's worth noting that the University of Aarhus research shows that this is the norm. Ninety seven per cent of the world's nuclear power plant projects run over time, taking 64 per cent more time to build and going 117 per cent over budget. This is without considering the new small modular reactors, which are being given some attention, yet not one has been built and not one has been licensed either. It will be many years before we see this technology in action and, indeed, the work of Stanford University and the University of British Columbia shows that SMRs will be dirtier than conventional ones.

Over the last decade and a half, we've seen billions of pounds of public money flowing into nuclear companies, for them to carry out research based on grand promises, but they haven’t delivered at all, and in the meantime, climate change is accelerating quicker than ever. But we do have mature technology in order to develop renewable energy, by using wind, solar, tidal, and the ability is there to commission these in less than five years. So, why haven't we seen these billions of pounds being invested in mature technology, showing that we are truly serious about tackling climate change? And why is there so much talk about nuclear, with billions being invested in it? Well, this is why: this state has always been at the forefront of developing nuclear weapons. This state was a key partner in the Manhattan project, for example. From the very beginning, the state has hidden these military developments behind civil nuclear developments. Calder Hall was the first nuclear power plant in the UK that was supposed to produce energy that was dirt cheap. The fact is that it was a plutonium production factory. This is now public fact after the United States Government admitted that they used plutonium from Calder Hall for one of its bombs in Nevada and many more.

In 2009, the US Government's department for energy announced that the Trawsfynydd nuclear power plant had produced over 3.6 metric tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium during its operational life. But the state has now lost the necessary skills for military nuclear, and they have to refill that talent pool with talented people who can do the very complex work required to develop nuclear submarines and naval ships armed with nuclear weapons.

In talking constantly about nuclear, their intention, therefore, is to get that flow of people into the sector and to transfer those essential skills from the civilian to the military. I'm not giving any secrets away here, but stating facts that are in the public realm now. These are the words of Tom Samson, chief executive of Rolls-Royce's SMR division:

'Developing a UK SMR also would help Rolls-Royce maintain UK capabilities for the country's military nuclear naval programme'.

Or, these are the words from a Rolls-Royce SMR promotional leaflet:

'One particular application for deployment of the talent developed through the UK SMR programme would be in the ongoing maintenance of the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent.'

Or what about the words of UK Government Ministers when discussing their nuclear policy?

'The government will work with the sector to enable bespoke programmes that support the transitioning between sectors, including civil and defence'.

The state's priority is to have a constant flow of talent going into the nuclear sector in order to be able to maintain its new Dreadnought programme on the banks of the Clyde, and to be able to provide nuclear ships for the AUKUS pact. And, don't forget that Boris Johnson lifted the cap on the number of nuclear weapons here, increasing from 160 to 240. The military budget is not big enough to achieve this, so when agreeing a high strike price for energy from nuclear power stations, billions of pounds of our money, as electricity consumers, will go indirectly to pay for maintaining the military nuclear sector.

Yesterday, we celebrated 40 years of a nuclear-free Wales. Let's stop being part of the Westminster Government's intention to maintain and produce even more destructive nuclear weapons. Let us make a clear statement that Wales will continue to be a nuclear-free Wales, for the good of this nation and for the peace of the people of the world for today and in the future.

Thank you, Mabon, for giving me a minute of your time for this important debate. Making our energy systems sustainable is one of the challenges of our time. Like the climate crisis, it's a challenge that reaches beyond our borders, therefore finding a solution must be an international task. Nuclear is both controversial and potentially dangerous, and it splits opinion. We have to be honest with ourselves about the world in which we live, one too often filled with division, violence and war. As we have seen this year in Ukraine, nuclear power plants are not intended for conflict zones, but we can never be confident that they won't become part of one.

Decades ago, two of the predominant reasons for cautious investment in UK technology were the time and costs associated with its development, and today, those exact same arguments are being made to stifle investment in climate-friendly renewable technologies of the future, such as green hydrogen and tidal. Instead of repeating the mistakes of the past, it's time to work together globally to create a truly green and renewable future. Thank you. 

Can I thank Mabon ap Gwynfor for giving me a minute of his time here today? I appreciate that I may be on a different page to Mabon, who made the points that have been raised here, but I'm genuinely interested in listening and understanding some of the perspectives of others' points of view around nuclear energy. I did note that there was a fairly quick acknowledgment at the start of your contribution in relation to baseload, but I do think that that's a fundamental issue that we do need to get our heads around because there's a lot of good work around renewables, but the only one of the renewable technologies that can provide that baseload is tidal, and we're not seeing that progress at the rate that it should progress at the moment. There's good stuff around windfarms and some good stuff around solar technology as well, but those, as we know, are not reliable in terms of ensuring we have a consistent flow of electricity and energy into our grid. And we've seen this in Germany, haven't we, where they're often lauded for moving away from nuclear and towards renewables. Renewables are only still contributing 49 per cent of their energy in Germany and, actually, a third of their energy is still produced by coal-fired powered power stations, and that's not a position we want to be in in terms of ensuring that baseload is there. So, I would argue that nuclear is proven and deliverable and delivers a baseload that we can rely on here in Wales.

A second point—. I appreciate it's only a minute; it's a very short time, isn't it? But there is an urgency as well to move towards a carbon-neutral creation of electricity and an urgency to move away from reliance on states like Russia in terms of supplying gas. And again I would argue that nuclear enables us to do that in a way that is faster than some other technologies, to be affordable, carbon free and reliable in the future. So, I appreciate the one minute and I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Can I also thank Mabon for giving me a minute of this debate and for what he said previously? We have, since Calder Hall in 1956, gone through a large number of nuclear-reactor types—Magnox, pressurised water reactor, advanced gas-cooled reactors, and now the generation 3 plus nuclear reactor proposed at Sizewell C. When technologies develop, costs should reduce. They should reduce rapidly. That has not been the case with nuclear. What has characterised nuclear power is problems—cost overruns in construction, maintenance and malfunction issues more costly than expected, cost of dealing with nuclear waste material, finding storage for the nuclear waste material. This is reminiscent of the other 1960s and 1970s future technology—which those people old enough will remember—the hovercraft. Since then, the amount of fuel they take and the maintenance costs have meant it is no longer feasible to use them. And now, like the hovercraft, it is time to say 'no' to nuclear power and 'yes' to renewables.

I call on the Minister for Economy to reply to the debate. Vaughan Gething.

Thank you to Mabon ap Gwynfor for bringing this debate and for the other contributions. I welcome the debate as an opportunity to both note the importance of the nuclear sector in Wales, but also to recognise, from my point of view, the contribution the sector makes in sustaining local economies, developing communities and helping to create jobs. I appreciate I have a different perspective from Mabon ap Gwynfor on this point.

I'd like to first develop the point about the assertion that there's blind faith in supporting nuclear technology. That suggests that people who support another generation of nuclear power or exploitation ignore the technology's limitations and plain and obvious challenges, and are intent on supporting nuclear-power generation despite the concerns about security, safety and waste management. Nothing could be further from the truth. Supporters of nuclear power today have to be pragmatists and to conclude whether we believe net zero can be achieved or not with nuclear as part of the wider energy mix. I think it is part of the wider energy mix that is required. That's despite the fact that concerns do remain about security, safety and waste management, and those would have to be addressed and should be addressed in an open and transparent manner.

I understand the implication of ageing technology to be that, because we've been generating electricity from nuclear sources for about 60 years, nuclear is a technology of yesterday. Well, if it was the length of time of the technology, we may no longer support wind or hydro power, because, actually, from the earlier generations of those technologies, we're seeing those advance and develop. Generating electricity from wind power is a relatively recent innovation and demonstrates that technological advancement is not necessarily limited to new technologies. Nuclear technology itself is constantly evolving, and far from being the ageing technology of yesterday, I still think—as indeed do a number of other experts, different to the ones that Mabon has quoted—that it's a technology for our journey to tomorrow, especially when progress in the nuclear fusion area is taken into consideration. I think that proponents of small modular reactors would say it's a mature technology that you understand and, actually, SMRs, which I'll talk about later on, don't require the sort of challenges of significant investment that larger scale nuclear power does.

Now, nuclear fusion, if we can develop it, offers substantial generation of commercial quantities in the future with far fewer issues around safety and waste management than those associated with fission. However, there is still work to be done to test fusion deployment, and in the meantime fission continues to offer a tried and tested means of generating high-volume, low-carbon and always-on baseload electricity.

Now, on our net-zero agenda, net zero and energy security are focused on deploying nuclear and renewables together to sustain our low-carbon energy transition, and we all accept the reality that more work is needed to decarbonise power supply in Wales and across the UK, and we have seen that colleagues in Germany are stuck in a position where they're still relying on coal power, which I think is a significant and immediate threat for the future of the planet. Some of the key reasons why this Government continues to support nuclear deployment are that it is a low-carbon energy source. It is a powerful energy source, and I believe it is essential for the low-carbon transition. It's constant and controllable energy. It provides continuous 24/7 electricity and can be adapted to variations in electricity demand. Even the reliable patterns of tidal power don't provide energy that is on all the time, and we still need to generate much greater technology in terms of storage of tidal power, which I'm keen that we continue to do.

It's competitive in the sense that nuclear power is one of the least expensive sources in generation. In France, about 70 per cent of its electricity is generated from nuclear. The challenge is the build costs and the decommissioning costs. And I do believe it's energy that will help us to get to the future that we want. We've now got 8 billion people living on the planet, and we're going to need to find alternative ways to help us to generate enough power for us all to survive with the quality and the standard of living that we expect, and others, whilst achieving carbon neutrality. I appreciate what Mabon's had to say, but I do think there is a real case that this Government accepts that we're unlikely to be able to do that without further nuclear power investment. It's also recognised, in that sense, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the International Energy Agency, when they look at renewable energies and nuclear power, that there is a requirement for some nuclear power baseload to get to a more fully formed, wholly renewable future.

Wylfa and Trawsfynydd in Wales have supported around 800 to 900 long-term and well-paid jobs for 50 plus years, as well as several hundred more in the local supply chain, and of course these are communities where there are not other opportunities in more built-up areas of larger populations. And there's something here about making sure there are economic opportunities in parts of Wales that don't have very large population centres. The Welsh Government believes that regions and local communities hosting nuclear infrastructure projects should secure economic benefits beyond the immediate on-site jobs. That's part of the reason we established Cwmni Egino in 2021, to pursue Trawsfynydd-related opportunities. Those include the ongoing work around decommissioning that Mabon ap Gwynfor has mentioned previously. Now, those jobs continue to be supported, and I'm interested in how we'll gain more from the supply chain, and Trawsfynydd has already become a de facto centre for decommissioning excellence across the Magnox estate. It has long been the lead and learning centre on how to deal with complex decommissioning issues—for example, the treatment of contaminated resins and fuel element debris. It's also the proposed first site for innovative, continuous decommissioning. That would see the complete demolition and removal of reactor buildings as part of the ongoing decommissioning, rather than in 60 years following a care and maintenance period and reactor cool-down.

So, we're already looking at what can happen and seeing Trawsfynydd as an opportunity to do so. A report by Arup for Cwmni Egino in late 2020 on potential benefits for future work from Trawsfynydd surmised that, in the event of a continuous decommissioning approach, future job demand could escalate through 2025, reaching a peak of around 600 in the period from 2030 to 2035, before dropping at the end of that decommissioning period.

On SMR reactors, I believe that we are on track to see potential opportunities, not just with Cwmni Egino, but potentially it's also transferable to the other site in Wylfa. There's a challenge around whether you can continue to build on SMR reactors in a single site to potentially generate a faster rate of build, but also whether you can manage costs in a different way in doing so. It's one of the claims that needs to be tested. But significant progress has already been made on the site lease negotiations around Trawsfynydd since we created Cwmni Egino, and the early market engagement exercise with potential technologies will conclude before Christmas. We'll be in a much clearer position after that exercise has been undertaken. That should lead to a recommendation on two or three technologies with which Cwmni Egino will engage further and look to have further discussions with Great British Nuclear. It would also help, of course, if there was a clearer mission for what Great British Nuclear will and won't be. And I do look forward to a meeting coming up in the not-too-distant future with Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Ministers to try to understand when that clarity will be provided. 

The cost of an SMR project compared to a gigawatt-scale project is a significantly smaller amount. It should be more manageable in terms of the lower risk in terms of the cost of finance, and indeed the speed and the prospects of delivery. And, again, the Arup report considered the implications of SMR deployment, plus manufacturing and supply chain opportunities, and they estimate that the peak in employment will be in the late 2020s, during the construction phase, with over 2,500 workers on site, and a commissioning and operational workforce of approximately 450 on-site longer term jobs from the early 2030s. Now, that would obviously have a significant impact, not just on the local economy in Dwyfor Meirionydd, but across the wider region. There are likely to be people travelling from other parts of north-west Wales for that. The estimate given is an estimated gross value added for north-west Wales of £41.6 million and £133 million across the north Wales economy. 

Now, I recognise that Mabon ap Gwynfor has also touched on some of the issues around a medical radioisotope and research reactor, and, with respect, I disagree with his assertion that there isn't room for an SMR and a medical radioisotope and research reactor on the Trawsfynydd site. It does present a significant opportunity for a medical radioisotope production facility. Medical-grade isotopes are essential in the battle against cancer, and research indicates that, while demand is rising, their production is diminishing. I was interested in what he had to say about potential sites in Germany. The exercise that I've undertaken with officials here in the Welsh Government, and, indeed, others, is that we don't share his optimism that there'll be sites in Germany ready in time to meet all the demand for our own health and care systems and also other potential research facilities. Now, our view is that Trawsfynydd is the ideal site within the UK for a medical radioisotope and research reactor. Far from being the technology of yesterday, our view is that these nuclear sector related projects and programmes that are targeting technology of both today and tomorrow, offer much needed and genuine opportunities in both energy production and health outcomes. 

I appreciate Mabon's persistent and consistent opposition to new nuclear power. I don't see nuclear power preventing continued and significant investment in a renewable energy future. I'm very keen that we do both. We see nuclear as a route to a future where we won't need it in the future itself. We will continue to pursue both power and research radioisotope futures, together with a renewable energy future for Wales, and I'm optimistic of significant economic benefits in doing so.  

Thank you, Minister, and thank you, everyone. That brings today's proceedings to a close. 

The meeting ended at 18:58.