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 17 August 2020
From Alice Bull

Representation

There is no evidence that Sizewell C will aid the UK's economic recovery: a third of construction value and up to half of investment revenue is predicted to leave the UK. Large infrastructure projects are not sustainable and do not create lasting wealth. The project will damage Suffolk’s resilient SME-based local economy for only 900 long-term jobs. Post COVID there is increasing public support for a Green Recovery, in which new nuclear power generation has no place. Sizewell C is not a solution for net zero carbon emissions By 2035 when SZC may be completed at a cost of £20bn the UK’s energy landscape will be very different, favouring cheaper renewables and green hydrogen. Sizewell C is not competitive and is dependent on a “nuclear tax” We urgently need a revised UK energy long term policy. Every pound invested on new nuclear could be spent on cheaper, faster renewables, investment in energy efficiency, storage, CCS, tidal and vital flexibility adaptations to the grid plus efficiency adaptations to our homes. Like Comms giant Huawei, EDF's controversial partner China General Nuclear is blacklisted by the US military. Following the government's U-turn on Huawei the same arguments surely apply to our UK energy security and safety - there are very serious and far reaching concerns about putting our critical national infrastructure in the hands of a Chinese state-owned company. Sizewell C threatens Internationally-renowned wildlife reserves. Habitats for rare birds, animals and plants will be lost forever. The RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust are opposed to the project. In addition the Sizewell site is at risk from flooding and coastal erosion, exacerbated by the effects of climate change. New analysis raises serious questions about the security of the site, undermining EDF’s claims that the offshore banks provide “micro-stability” for the Sizewell coast. Sea level rises could fully or partially “island” the power stations. Sizewell C will damage Suffolk’s local economy including tourism. The Suffolk Coast has a thriving employment economy based on tourism. There is huge potential for this to grow, especially post-COVID. But 10-12 years of construction will drive visitors away, destroying existing jobs and preventing real and sustainable local jobs being created Traffic will become a major problem. EDF has abandoned a jetty and extensive use of rail, meaning over 1,000 lorries/day at peak, plus thousands of vans, buses and cars on Suffolk’s A12 and inadequate road network. There is no solution in sight for nuclear waste.The spent fuel from an EPR would have to stay on Suffolk’s eroding coastal site for 140 years. The UK has made no progress on building a “permanent” waste facility. I ask you to reconsider the government's commitment to nuclear energy generation, to produce a comprehensive UK energy plan based around investment in renewables and non polluting technologies,and in particular to pull out of the Sizewell C project. I am writing to you to express my profound concern about and opposition to the construction of the Sizewell C nuclear EPR reactor for the following reasons: There is no evidence that Sizewell C will aid the UK's economic recovery: a third of construction value and up to half of investment revenue is predicted to leave the UK. Large infrastructure projects are not sustainable and do not create lasting wealth. The project will damage Suffolk’s resilient SME-based local economy for only 900 long-term jobs. Post COVID there is increasing public support for a Green Recovery, in which new nuclear power generation has no place. Sizewell C is not a solution for net zero carbon emissions By 2035 when SZC may be completed at a cost of £20bn the UK’s energy landscape will be very different, favouring cheaper renewables and green hydrogen. Sizewell C is not competitive and is dependent on a “nuclear tax” We urgently need a revised UK energy long term policy. Every pound invested on new nuclear could be spent on cheaper, faster renewables, investment in energy efficiency, storage, CCS, tidal and vital flexibility adaptations to the grid plus efficiency adaptations to our homes. Like Comms giant Huawei, EDF's controversial partner China General Nuclear is blacklisted by the US military. Following the government's U-turn on Huawei the same arguments surely apply to our UK energy security and safety - there are very serious and far reaching concerns about putting our critical national infrastructure in the hands of a Chinese state-owned company. Sizewell C threatens Internationally-renowned wildlife reserves. Habitats for rare birds, animals and plants will be lost forever. The RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust are opposed to the project. In addition the Sizewell site is at risk from flooding and coastal erosion, exacerbated by the effects of climate change. New analysis raises serious questions about the security of the site, undermining EDF’s claims that the offshore banks provide “micro-stability” for the Sizewell coast. Sea level rises could fully or partially “island” the power stations. Sizewell C will damage Suffolk’s local economy including tourism. The Suffolk Coast has a thriving employment economy based on tourism. There is huge potential for this to grow, especially post-COVID. But 10-12 years of construction will drive visitors away, destroying existing jobs and preventing real and sustainable local jobs being created Traffic will become a major problem. EDF has abandoned a jetty and extensive use of rail, meaning over 1,000 lorries/day at peak, plus thousands of vans, buses and cars on Suffolk’s A12 and inadequate road network. There is no solution in sight for nuclear waste.The spent fuel from an EPR would have to stay on Suffolk’s eroding coastal site for 140 years. The UK has made no progress on building a “permanent” waste facility. I ask you to reconsider the government's commitment to nuclear energy generation, to produce a comprehensive UK energy plan based around investment in renewables and non polluting technologies,and in particular to pull out of the Sizewell C project.