The Sizewell C Project

The views expressed in this page do not represent those of the Planning Inspectorate. This page consists of content submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by the public and other interested parties, giving their views of this proposal.

The Sizewell C Project

Received 27 July 2020
From Clive Tickner

Representation

1) POOR RECORD. EDF's record with EPR reactors is dreadful. Finland and France, are still both facing costly construction delays. Flamanville, is 7 years behind schedule, still not online, and currently 50 billion Euros over budget. 2)RESPONSIBILITY. Failures and delays will be paid for by UK residents whilst any money earned will go out of the country. 3) DEBTS. EDF is grappling with huge existing debts, whilst still needing to spend 55 billion Euros upgrading other (non-EPR) existing domestic reactors. Should EDF go into liquidation, a half finished plant in the UK will have the British taxpayer faced with completion costs. 4) COMPLIANCE. The model for Sizewell C and Hinckley C, don’t comply with the ‘independence principle’ for safety, following the French Atomic Energy Commission's (CEA) conclusion that technical innovation cannot eliminate the risk of human errors in nuclear plant operation. 5) FAULTS. The French nuclear safety agency reported that cracks had been found in the concrete base at Flamville and the regulator, ASN, reported further welding problems on the secondary containment steel liner. 6) DISASTERS.Globally, there have been at least 99 recorded nuclear power plant accidents from 1952 to 2009 totaling US$20.5 billion in property damages. Since then we have; Fukushima, 2011, Chernobyl 1986; and the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island 1979, where 140,000 people were evacuated after a partial nuclear meltdown, 7) ALTERNATIVE ENERGY. This now accounts for 40% of UK electricity. Alternative energy prices for the generation of electricity are cheaper than nuclear. Alternative energy prices for electricity are falling, Nuclear prices are rising. The low carbon emission in the building of an EPR are vast next to those emissions resulting from the construction of alternative technology apparatus. 8) EMPLOYMENT. The burgeoning wind-farm and photovoltaic industries are demanding thousands of workers. 9) A EPR reactor is soft target for terrorism. 10) ENVIRONMENT. The Sizewell C plan will decimate thousands of acres of AON, SPA and SSSI land. 11) TRAFFIC. The planned road and parking areas throughout Suffolk are horrendous, ugly and damaging to the environment. 12) NOISE. Like Hinckley there will be enormous construction and traffic noise and light pollution for twelve plus years. (in the unlikely event of the plan keeping to schedule) 13) WASTE If the plan goes ahead there will be 3 power stations in Suffolk producing waste that we currently have no plan for storing. Nuclear high-level waste threatens the future of generations to come. The claim that nuclear power is a low-carbon method of generating electricity ignores the hugely negative affect of this waste product storage. 14) The Joint County and District Councils at Stage 2, were convinced that the impact of this project outweighed any possible advantages. 15) With rising sea levels the location of Sizewell C is unintelligent.
attachment 1
attachment 1