English: 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:
Welsh: A hynny ar ôl i ddarn o bwysau y grab ddisgyn i mewn i graidd un o'r adweithyddion, a neb yn sylwi am oriau. Mae'n rhaid inni gyfrif ein hunain yn andros o lwcus. Newid hinsawdd ydy'r ddadl arall dros gyfiawnhau niwclear. Mae newid hinsawdd yn digwydd o flaen ein llygaid, ac mae'n rhaid cymryd camau ar frys i wirdroi y niwed sydd yn digwydd. Mae gennym ni saith mlynedd yn unig er mwyn atal y byd rhag cynhesu i ddwy radd dros y tymheredd ydoedd cyn yr oes ddiwydianol. Mae'n rhaid gweld datgarboneiddio ar raddfa eang a sydyn, felly. 'Niwclear ydy'r ateb' medd y Llywodraethau, ond peidiwch â chredu'r hype. All niwclear ddim chwarae yr un rhan yn yr ymgyrch i ddatgarboneiddio sydyn. Edrychwch ar Hinkley Point C, er enghraifft. Fe gyhoeddwyd y prosiect yma nôl yn 2010. Cafodd ei drwyddedu ddwy flynedd wedyn yn 2012, a dechreuwyd ar y gwaith yn 2017. Mae'r cynllun eisoes ddwy flynedd ar ôl amser, ac mae'n debygol na fydd yn cael ei gomisiynu tan o leiaf 2030, gan gostio o leiaf £8 biliwn yn fwy na'r gyllideb wreiddiol. Bydd cost yr un atomfa yma yn unig tua £30 biliwn. Hyd yn oed pe cychwynnir ar y gwaith o gomisiynu'r wyth atomfa yr addawodd Boris Johnson, neu'r 11 atomfa a addawodd Tony Blair, yfory, yna byddai'n 2033, ar y gorau, cyn y gwelwn ni'r un wat o drydan yn dod allan ohonyn nhw. Yn wir, wrth feddwl am drafferthion Hinkley C, mae'n werth nodi fod ymchwil prifysgol Aarhus yn dangos mai dyma'r norm. Mae 97 y cant o brosiectau atomfeydd niwclear y byd yn mynd dros amser, gan gymryd 64 y cant yn fwy o amser i'w hadeiladu a chostio 117 y cant yn fwy na'u cyllidebau gwreiddiol. Dydy hyn heb ystyried yr atomfeydd modiwlar bach newydd, yr SMRs, sy'n cael tipyn o sylw, ond eto, does na'r un ohonyn nhw wedi cael eu hadeiladu, ac hyd yn oed yr un ohonyn nhw wedi cael eu drwyddedu. Bydd yn flynyddoedd cyn inni weld y dechnoleg yma yn weithredol, ac yn wir, mae gwaith prifysgol Stanford a British Columbia yn dangos y bydd atomfeydd modiwlar bach yn fwy budr na'r rhai confensiynol. Dros y ddegawd a hanner diwethaf, rydyn ni wedi gweld biliynau o bunnoedd o bres cyhoeddus yn llifo i mewn i gwmnïau niwclear, er mwyn gwneud ymchwil ar sail addewidion mawr, ond nid ydynt wedi delifro dim, ac yn y cyfamser, mae newid hinsawdd yn mynd rhagddi yn gynt nag erioed. Ond mae gennyn ni dechnoleg aeddfed eisoes yn bodoli, er mwyn datblygu ynni adnewyddadwy, a hynny drwy ddefnyddio'r gwynt, yr haul, llanw a thrai, ac mae'r gallu yno i gomisiynu y rhain mewn llai na phum mlynedd. Felly pam nad ydyn ni'n gweld y biliynau yma yn mynd at dechnoleg aeddfed, gan ddangos ein bod ni'n wirioneddol o ddifrif ynghylch mynd i'r afael â newid hinsawdd? A pham fod yna gymaint o sôn, felly, am niwclear, efo'r biliynau yma'n cael ei fuddsoddi ynddo? Wel, dyma pam: mae'r wladwriaeth hon wedi bod yn flaenllaw wrth ddatblygu arfau niwclear erioed. Roedd y wladwriaeth hon yn bartner allweddol yn y Manhattan project, er enghraifft. Ers y cychwyn, mae'r wladwriaeth hon wedi cuddio datblygiadau niwclear militaraidd y tu ôl i ddatblygiadau niwclear sifil. Calder Hall oedd yr atomfa gyntaf yn y Deyrnas Gyfunol oedd i fod i gynhyrchu trydan oedd mor rhad â baw. Y gwir ydy mai ffatri cynhyrchu plwtoniwm oedd o. Mae hyn bellach yn ffaith gyhoeddus, ar ôl i Lywodraeth yr Unol Daleithiau gyfaddef iddynt ddefnyddio plwtoniwm o Calder Hall ar gyfer un o'u bomiau yn Nevada a llawer iawn mwy. Yn 2009, fe gyhoeddodd adran ynni Llywodraeth UDA fod atomfa Trawsfynydd wedi cynhyrchu dros 3.6 tunnell metrig o weapons-grade plwtoniwm yn ystod ei oes weithredol. Ond, mae'r wladwriaeth bellach wedi colli'r sgiliau angenrheidiol ar gyfer niwclear militaraidd, ac mae'n rhaid iddyn nhw ail-lenwi'r pwll hwnnw o bobl gwbl dalentog a all wneud y gwaith affwysol o gymhleth sydd ei angen i ddatblygu llongau tanfor a llongau arfor niwclear ac arfau niwclear. Bwriad y sôn cyson yma am niwclear, felly, ydy er mwyn cael y gweithlu talentog yma i fynd i'r sector a throsglwyddo sgiliau hanfodol o'r sifil i'r militaraidd. Dwi ddim yn rhyddhau unrhyw gyfrinachau yma - dim ond datgan ffeithiau sydd yn gyhoeddus erbyn hyn. Dyma eiriau Tom Samson, prif weithredwr adran SMR Rolls-Royce: