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 07 September 2020
From Dominic Adams
“1. Site Selection • I believe it is the right project in the right place • Sizewell C will be built to withstand a 1 in 10,000-year event characterised as sea elevations 6.43m above the present mean high-water spring tidal elevation with 1.9m of sea level rise BEEMS (2014) • Minimal coastal footprint compared to any form of tidal energy • Modest impact on sites of ecological significance. Many orders of magnitude less than biofuel importation from overseas where SSI’s don’t receive the same protection • Additional supporting infrastructure requirements are minimised due to co-location with existing nuclear facilities and grid connection. 2. Community, Economic and social impacts • A decade of disruption to Sizewell, both positive and negative, could provide over 60 years of reduced pollution for communities impoverished by dirtier, more extractive energy sources we currently depend on • Very few communities within 1km of construction • 900 Long term skilled operation jobs with high salaries which inevitably trickle into local economy • Fantastic opportunity for locals to get their foot in the door of an industry with emphasis on STEM and multiple routes for personal development 3. Environment and Landscape • Owing to the energy density of Uranium, Sizewell C will occupy 2 orders of magnitude less land than renewable alternatives such as the proposed Cleve Hill Solar park which will lock in dependence on dirtier back up energy incurring further environmental damage • Most of the concerns about pollution, although perfectly sound, are all temporary and the advantage of pollution free energy for a minimum of 60 years after construction is clear • While it’s not possible to perfectly compensate for landscape and ecological damage, the additional 2,500 trees to be planted is a huge benefit and the potential to prevent more environmentally damaging energy production is far more important both locally and globally • CO2 from construction offset in 6 years • Concerns over flooding, as well as not being sound to begin with (regarding the operations of the reactors) are actually a strong argument for rapidly transitioning to low carbon energy like nuclear 4. Marine and Coastal processes • To put it mildly, nuclear has significantly less impact on coasts than oil spills • Marine processes are significantly impacted by CO2 from fossil fuels both because of ocean acidification and temperature rise. Sizewell is an important part of our transition off fossil fuels which is critical for the health of the global marine ecosystem not just locally This is my personal Relevant Representation as an individual with a BSc (hons) in Biomedical Sciences and an interest in not subjecting my grandchildren to dangerous climate change”