Summary: The Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant in Somerset faces environmental scrutiny as EDF Energy contests the installation of an Acoustic Fish Deterrent (AFD), a measure designed to protect local fish populations. A coalition has presented a scientifically backed report affirming the necessity and feasibility of the AFD, urging EDF and the government to uphold their commitment to this critical environmental safeguard.
A critical environmental situation is taking place at Hinkley Point C, the first in a new generation of nuclear power plants, in Somerset. The builders, EDF Energy, continue to show disregard for the fish kill potential and environmental impact of the plant by continuously contesting a vital environmental protection measure, the Acoustic Fish Deterrent (AFD), for nearly eight years.
In light of this, an AFD Delivery Group has come together and offered a solutions based, scientifically backed report which proves the measure is both necessary and feasible. In support of the report, we call both EDF Energy and the new government to commit to their promises and install this vital measure.
The AFD system is designed to protect aquatic life by deterring fish from entering the cooling systems of the power plant, and was included in the initial design plans of Hinkley Point C. Despite its importance, the removal of the AFD has been a contentious issue.
The Welsh Government Commission has warned that its absence could lead to the death of approximately 182 million fish annually, including sensitive species like shad, sprat, Atlantic salmon, and herring, which are crucial to local ecosystems. Secretary of State Kwasi Kwarteng ruled in a 2022 Public Inquiry that the measure must be applied. Still, EDF continue to contest it, arguing that it would further delay the completion of Hinkley Point C and hold up the UK’s net zero plans.
EDF’s proposed compensation measures - creating wetland habitat for birds and other species and enhancements to fish passage on a small number of existing weirs - are impractical and fail to address the immediate ecological impacts. What will be done with the pollutant of 182 million dead fish per year, for example? The AFD, having been tested and validated in various locations worldwide, is a reliable and scientifically backed solution which has been strongly recommended by key stakeholders.
Now, a coalition of scientists and innovators have come together to provide an answer to the critical environmental situation at Hinkley Point C, proving that the AFD is both a necessary and feasible requirement. A recently launched (Wednesday 16th October) AFD Delivery Report debunks the myths cited by EDF. For example, it proves that the AFD would not require the 72 days estimated maintenance per year, but 19 only; a near 75% reduction.
In the AFD Delivery Report, Professor Mark Everard, University of West of England says “There can in my scientific view be no justification for the removal of the AFD. It makes absolutely no sense to permit very substantial damage to marine biodiversity and hope then that modest mitigation entailing a degree of recruitment only of species reliant on the saltmarsh can offset it. Cost reduction is cited by EDF as one element of its plan to remove the mandated AFD and would appear to be its principal consideration, but one that obviously overlooks the vital purpose of deflecting fish from the intake. Ideally, saltmarsh restoration should be implemented ADDITIONALLY to the AFD to mitigate the still substantial likely entrainment of multiple life stages of fish and invertebrates, even with deflection from the intake.”
Can we truly call energy "clean" if it causes significant environmental harm? Along with the AFD Delivery Group, we call the new government to uphold the original decision made by Secretary of State and ensure that EDF complies with the mandatory installation of the AFD at Hinkley Point C. The commitment to clean energy must encompass both reduced emissions and robust environmental safeguards to truly be worthy of its name.