The debate surrounding the potential removal of the Acoustic Fish Deterrent (AFD) at Hinkley Point C raises significant environmental concerns.
In its consultation early this year, EDF Energy, the operator of Hinkley Point C suggested replacing the AFD, an essential and governmentally mandated technology, with a salt marsh. This suggestion has caused controversy and concern among environmentalists and local stakeholders.
Let’s examine the implications of the replacement, the effectiveness of the AFD, and the potential effects of the proposed nature reserve.
The Importance of the Acoustic Fish Deterrent
The AFD system at Hinkley Point C prevents fish from entering the cooling system’s massive water intakes, which are located 20 metres underwater. The technology works by emitting sounds that deter fish. Experts estimate that around 182 million fish per year could be killed by entering the cooling system if the AFD is not used.
This includes a 100% mortality rate for sensitive species like shad, sprat and herring and more than 50% for salmon and sea trout. The AFD plays a crucial role in preserving these populations by preventing their entry into the intake system.
The Proposed Salt Marsh Is Not A Workable Alternative?
The purpose of the proposed nature reserve is to compensate for the environmental impact caused by the removal of the AFD. However, the effectiveness and viability of this reserve as an alternative to the AFD is under scrutiny.
The nature reserve, while potentially beneficial in providing habitat for various species, does not directly address the specific needs of the fish species affected by the cooling system intakes. The creation of the reserve may also lead to other environmental consequences, such as the destruction of existing farmland, hedgerows and habitats, which could further disrupt local biodiversity.
Comparative Analysis: AFD vs. Nature Reserve
The AFD’s specific design is to protect fish populations from the direct threat of the cooling system, whereas the nature reserve takes a more general approach to habitat conservation without directly preventing fish mortality at the intake heads..
The long-term environmental benefits of maintaining the AFD are clear in terms of the direct impact on fish populations. In contrast, the nature reserve’s benefits are more unknown, particularly in relation to shad, trout, herring and salmon.
Government agencies, local wildlife experts and environmental scientists have previously supported the installation of the AFD, recognizing its role in protecting marine life.
The decision to potentially replace the AFD with a nature reserve at Hinkley Point C is fraught with environmental risks and uncertainties. The AFD’s targeted approach to protecting vulnerable fish populations from the specific dangers of the cooling system intake is critical and not replicable by the proposed nature reserve. The potential destruction of other natural habitats to establish the reserve adds another layer of environmental concern.
The most sensible and sustainable approach would be to maintain the AFD in accordance the original plans agreed upon by government, scientific and environmental organisations in 2012 and reaffirmed in a public enquiry in 2022. This would ensure the continued protection of local fish populations and the overall health of the marine ecosystem at Hinkley Point C. Further consultation and adherence to scientific recommendations are imperative in making an informed decision that truly benefits both the environment and the community.
