English: 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.
Welsh: A gaf fi ddiolch i Mabon ap Gwynfor am roi munud o'i amser i mi yma heddiw? Rwy'n sylweddoli efallai fy mod ar dudalen wahanol i Mabon, a wnaeth y pwyntiau sydd wedi eu codi yma, ond mae gennyf ddiddordeb gwirioneddol mewn gwrando a deall rhai o safbwyntiau pobl eraill ynghylch ynni niwclear. Fe wneuthum nodi bod cydnabyddiaeth eithaf cyflym ar ddechrau eich cyfraniad i lwyth sylfaenol, ond rwy'n credu bod hwnnw'n fater hanfodol y mae angen inni ei ddeall oherwydd bod llawer o waith da'n digwydd mewn perthynas ag ynni adnewyddadwy, ond yr unig un o'r technolegau adnewyddadwy a all ddarparu'r llwyth sylfaenol hwnnw yw ynni'r llanw, ac nid ydym yn gweld y cynnydd hwnnw ar y raddfa y dylai ddatblygu ar hyn o bryd. Mae pethau da am ffermydd gwynt a phethau da am dechnoleg solar hefyd, ond nid yw'r rheini, fel y gwyddom, yn ddibynadwy ar gyfer sicrhau bod gennym lif cyson o drydan ac ynni i'n grid. Ac rydym wedi gweld hyn yn yr Almaen, onid ydym, lle maent yn aml yn cael eu canmol am symud oddi wrth niwclear a thuag at ynni adnewyddadwy. Dim ond 49 y cant o'u hynni yn yr Almaen y mae ynni adnewyddadwy'n ei gyfrannu o hyd ac mewn gwirionedd, mae traean o'u hynni'n dal i gael ei gynhyrchu gan orsafoedd pŵer wedi eu tanio gan lo, ac nid yw honno'n sefyllfa rydym am fod ynddi ar gyfer sicrhau bod y llwyth sylfaenol yno. Felly, byddwn yn dadlau bod niwclear yn brofedig a bod modd ei gyflenwi a'i fod yn darparu llwyth sylfaenol y gallwn ddibynnu arno yma yng Nghymru. Ail bwynt - . Rwy'n derbyn mai dim ond munud ydyw; mae'n amser byr iawn, onid yw? Ond mae yna frys hefyd i symud tuag at greu trydan sy'n garbon niwtral a brys i symud oddi wrth ddibyniaeth ar wladwriaethau fel Rwsia i gyflenwi nwy. Ac unwaith eto byddwn yn dadlau bod niwclear yn ein galluogi i wneud hynny mewn ffordd sy'n gynt na thechnolegau eraill, i fod yn fforddiadwy, yn ddi-garbon ac yn ddibynadwy yn y dyfodol. Felly, rwy'n gwerthfawrogi'r un funud ac rwy'n gwerthfawrogi eich amser. Diolch.