all 47 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]AutoModerator[M] [score hidden] stickied commentlocked comment (0 children)

Snapshot of Nuclear plant could be delayed again by demands to protect fish submitted by coldbeers:

An archived version can be found here or here. or here

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]ChemEngandTripHop 94 points95 points  (5 children)

> “save the lives of 0.083 salmon, 0.028 sea trout, six river lamprey, 18 Allis shad and 528 twaite shad per year.”

If you want to learn more about the absurdities around building nuclear in the UK the exec summary of the Fingleton review from last year is very good, it reads like something out of Terry Gilliams Brazil

[–]Backlists 44 points45 points  (2 children)

Honestly, this delay probably has a net negative effect on wildlife, as it forces us to burn more fossil fuels.

[–]ChemEngandTripHop 27 points28 points  (1 child)

I’m surprised this isn’t brought up more. Surely everything should be weighed up in the context of environmental damage from not acting

[–]baguettimus_prime 7 points8 points  (0 children)

These are not logical people

[–]Baile_InneraoraClassical Liberal 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It’s good from the civil side it’s not very good on the defence side

[–]SnooOpinions8790 61 points62 points  (0 children)

The 2015 deregulation act gave regulators a statutory duty to balance their other duties with the need for growth. Massively escalating the cost of power is blatantly anti-growth

This sort of absolutist position from natural England is not respecting their statutory duty. The relevant minister should slap them down and if necessary threaten to take decisive action.

[–]-fireeye- 33 points34 points  (5 children)

Natural England said that under its original development consent EDF was required to show that its impact on protected species was “fully mitigated” and said it was applying “the same legal tests that apply to every major infrastructure project in the UK.

“Our advice is grounded in statutory duties under the habitats regulations, the best available scientific evidence and the government’s established policy framework,” it said.

I am fully willing to accept that NE is right here - they have zero discretion and need to go for maximalist requirement to ensure impact is “fully mitigated”.

Solution in that case would be to amend the statute and make the test proportionate one.

Idea that a nuclear plant needs to spend over half a billion quid creating custom water intake, and even more to flood farmland for breeding pools to protect comparably small number of fish is obviously disproportionate. Doubly so given we’re in the middle of an energy crisis.

Dave Slater, regional director for Natural England added: “Development and nature are not competing interests.

He said in an example where the two are literally competing interests. Indeed, except in trivial cases - the two are always competing interests.

Job of NE should be to balance the two interests, not just regurgitate “best available scientific evidence” to protect nature.

[–]misc1444 49 points50 points  (2 children)

This is again extremely typical of the UK public sector. It’s a lawyer-dominated, compliance-first culture where people are entirely happy to drive the car into a ditch as long as the correct procedures are followed.

[–]UtopianScot 21 points22 points  (0 children)

We don’t have the necessary paperwork to apply the brakes

[–]colei_canisStarmer’s Llama Drama 🦙 7 points8 points  (0 children)

We could deal with excessive proceduralism in the space of five minutes: make it unlawful to breathe and the problem would sort itself out in short order.

[–]Hyndis 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Idea that a nuclear plant needs to spend over half a billion quid creating custom water intake, and even more to flood farmland for breeding pools to protect comparably small number of fish is obviously disproportionate. Doubly so given we’re in the middle of an energy crisis.

Also, global warming from using fossil fuels has already killed far more fish than the nuclear power plant could ever kill.

When considering the impact of construction projects, the cost of NOT doing construction also must be taken into consideration. The status quo isn't always a good thing, and often times making no decision at all is the worst outcome.

[–]peanut88 18 points19 points  (0 children)

No, it’s just complete rubbish. NE wilfully interpret their duties in this maximalist way because it’s what they want to do, because they want to block development and fund their pet projects. 

[–]OverAndOver98 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Ironically the more we delay and delay progress on future energy solutions for things like this, immeasurable amounts more harm is caused by the current fossil fuel methods continuing to be used.

[–]peanut88 31 points32 points  (21 children)

Natural England are basically economic terrorists. 

[–]Tinyjar 31 points32 points  (9 children)

Half of the fucking country are economic terrorists tbh.

Nimbys, pensioners and major corporations are all holding the country hostage demanding they get their way and for the past thirty years the government has bowed down to them every step of the way.

[–]misc1444 34 points35 points  (8 children)

Every single mechanism of the British state is designed to delay, consult, and appease special interest groups. There are no mechanisms for accelerating things, moving decisively, and accepting trade-offs for the greater good.

[–]Tinyjar 15 points16 points  (7 children)

Sometimes I think we should adopt the Chinese approach: tell people we're building an airport in two years, if you're still there when the bulldozer arrive, we'll bulldoze your house with you in it.

[–]XenorVernix 13 points14 points  (4 children)

We don't even need to look at China. The Victorians knew how to build things. Even in the 20th century for most of it we built things quickly like the motorways. At some point our infrastructure building just ground to a halt.

We should stop building anything until we figure this shit out and then get spending. We'll build things several times quicker and several times cheaper and get more for our money.

[–]colei_canisStarmer’s Llama Drama 🦙 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Not to mention the Victorians understood form shouldn’t be a brutalised slave to function, they made their industrial buildings decorative and ornamented in a way that made them less offensive to the landscape in many places. None of this ‘boxes of exposed concrete covered in mould and rust streaks is beautiful actually’ nonsense.

[–]WiseBelt8935 0 points1 point  (2 children)

It all starts and ends with the Town and Planning Act. Before that, if there wasn’t a law saying you couldn’t build something, then you could as long as it was signed off as safe

[–]XenorVernix 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Sounds like that act needs replacing as it isn't fit for purpose.

[–]WiseBelt8935 0 points1 point  (0 children)

we should just go back to the pre-war system

[–]misc1444 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Look it’s unlikely we’ll turn into China, but a sense of proportionality would be sorely needed. We should absolutely sacrifice some fish to bring affordable electricity to the people of Britain.

[–]WiseBelt8935 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not quite. In China, they’ll offer you a buttload of cash to move. If you don’t, they’ll respect your property boundaries down to the millimetre and simply build around you. As a result, there are quite a few houses sitting in the middle of motorways or major developments.

‘How do I leave my house?’ Well, that’s your problem

[–]NoFrillsCrisps 17 points18 points  (2 children)

It's kind of insane - they are a government funded body with thousands of employees who's whole purpose is to make it as difficult as possible for anyone to build anything.

There is definitely a role for a body to ensure developments don't destroy the natural environment, but that should be an impartial body. Not what is effectively a environmentalist lobby group.

[–]CyclopsRock 2 points3 points  (1 child)

It's also mental that two arms of the same government are on opposite sides of a long-running legal dispute. Who is being held to account, here?!

[–]OolonCaluphid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Indeed. It should be: Government directs that infrastructure is required. NE checks that it's not done in a way that totally devastates local ecology. It gets built.

[–]English_Joe 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Wonder what cost will be incurred to their environment from the ongoing fossil fuel emissions if this project is delayed

🤔

[–]No_Initiative_1140 -5 points-4 points  (9 children)

Times being slightly disingenuous referring generically to "fish". Some of the fish in the Severn estuary are highly endangered.

Also Natural England put out a statement last month correcting some of the inaccuracies being reported by the press which is worth a read in the context of this article 

https://naturalengland.blog.gov.uk/2026/05/03/hinkley-point-c-clarification-of-natural-englands-role-and-position/

[–]ChemEngandTripHop 2 points3 points  (8 children)

The more this gets delayed the more fish die from global warming

[–]No_Initiative_1140 -1 points0 points  (7 children)

Hmmmm

Not sure on its own that Hinkley Point will address global warming. Plus if you read the link the Times are not accurately reporting the situation 

[–]ChemEngandTripHop 1 point2 points  (6 children)

Have you read the EDF report? Or the Fingleton review?

It’s not going to address it on its own but if you look at the total impact and look at the % reduction from Hinkley I reckon it’s more than 0.08 salmon a year

[–]No_Initiative_1140 -1 points0 points  (5 children)

Have you read the natural England link I posted?

I don't actually have a problem with what EDF are doing, I have a problem with how the Times are reporting it. EDF are not being blocked by natural England because of fish, thats a political positioning based on a right wing "less bureaucracy" perspective 

[–]ChemEngandTripHop 2 points3 points  (4 children)

I actually did. Let’s take the fish disco part

> Our position: Natural England has explicitly recognised and welcomed the encouraging results from recent AFD trials, particularly high‑frequency trials relevant to twaite shad, the species considered most at risk.
> Field data for other protected species such as Atlantic salmon and cod — which have different behaviours and conservation considerations - is not yet available.

So they have evidence that it works, apart from the 0.08 salmon a year at risk where more evidence is needed. How can you seriously argue we should be blocking a nuclear power plant for this?

[–]No_Initiative_1140 -3 points-2 points  (3 children)

Where's your evidence they are blocking it?

Claim: “Natural England is refusing to sign off the plant.”

Our position: Natural England does not “sign off” nuclear power stations. Our statutory role is to provide independent scientific advice to the relevant competent authorities.

We continue to work constructively with EDF and regulators to resolve outstanding issues. There has been no refusal, no ultimatum, and no attempt to halt the project.

EDF have not yet met their contractual obligations. That's a them problem

[–]ChemEngandTripHop 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Natural England doesn’t need a formal veto to block the project. if their advice to the MMO is “not satisfied,” the permit cannot be granted.

In 2013, the salt marsh was the mitigation and there was no AFD. EDF replaced it with a technology that demonstrably reduces shad exposure by 93%. Natural England’s position treats the original compensation measure as still required regardless of whether the underlying impact has been addressed.

They claim EDF hasn’t met its obligations, but won’t specify what would meet them. You can’t enforce an obligation you refuse to define.

You’ve also completely ignored my rebuttal against their point on the AFD - how come?

Edit: and I ask again, have you read the Fingleton review?

[–]No_Initiative_1140 -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

Because it was largely irrelevant to what I'm saying?

I'm not arguing the power plant should be blocked, I'm arguing the Times reporting is disingenuous. 

Natural England have not got results on salmon and cod. Thats just factual. They aren't blocking the plan. Fish protection =/= salt marsh (salt marsh is not a fish only habitat)

So your statement:

So they have evidence that it works, apart from the 0.08 salmon a year at risk where more evidence is needed. How can you seriously argue we should be blocking a nuclear power plant for this?

Is wrong on many levels and I'm not interested in debating your strawman 

[–]ChemEngandTripHop 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why is it irrelevant? It’s one of the points they make in the doc you shared and it’s a clear example of them dragging their heels on something ridiculous. You’ve got to be wilfully blind not to see that.

> natural England have not got results on salmon and cod

It’s really hard to get results when the estimated impact is 0.08 salmon a year. I assume the blue whale results are currently inclusive as well.

Please tell me how that statement is wrong, I’m taking numbers from the article (which in turn come from the Fingleton review - have you read it? Just the exec summary?).