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 19 August 2020
From Adam Cobbold

Representation

Dear Madame, Sirs, I am writing to try to persuade you not to build Sizewell C. There are multiple reasons why i feel this way. Firstly, but not so importantly, the country road (A1120) I live on will become intolerably noisy. It is also clear that nuclear power is dirty (we all know it creates terrible waste, with a half life of over 500 years. Thirdly it is unsafe, The consequences of an explosion are devastating for local areas for centuries (Fukushima and Chernobyl). Fourthly, and most importantly, it is uneconomical. Apart from producing electricity, there are only three good reasons for building this plant cited by the Sizewell C's 'Latest News' promotional material; Jobs, local contracts and low carbon energy for 60 years. We do not need a Nuclear power plant to satisfy these benefits. We can create jobs, local contracts and low carbon energy by using better alternatives such as Wind, Tidal and Wave energy too. These will offer carbon neutrality forever, with just minimal maintenance and decommissioning costs. In relation to economics the cease against Nuclear is clear. The price for wind power for example is already falling fast. New contracts are being offered with a £47 per megawatt price tag, well in line with free market prices of around £50. So there is no need for government subsidies and guaranteed prices to suppliers. In contrast, nuclear power in the UK requires the Government to guarantee prices well above market - over £90 per megawatt for the next 60 years while also taking responsibility for waste disposal and decommissioning - an enormous cost to taxpayers for the next half century. Some cite an all in cost nearer to £200 per megawatt - a disgraceful financial burden on future generations. Power generation should be self-sustaining in a free market without government intervention. Renewable sources provide this, once build costs are covered. This project is economically senseless, environmentally irresponsible and completely out of step with the future we want to build. Nuclear power should be consigned to the dustbin of history, a post war fad, proven to fail. It has never worked economically and now more than ever, in the face of cheaper, cleaner contemporary alternatives such as wind, wave and tidal power, Nuclear is redundant and unjustifiable. Renewable energy projects are a proud and I think beautiful demonstration of our commitment to a sustainable future, with minimal environmental impact and increasingly minimal cost for both consumers and taxpayers, not just for 60 years, but in perpetuity. Please do not build this unwanted power station. Adam Cobbold