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 18 September 2020
From Sarah Cousins
“I would like to make these points: • Nuclear Power using Uranium has too high a risk if something goes wrong • There are more sustainable, cleaner and safer power alternatives we should be considering • If we stick with nuclear, alternative energy sources such as Thorium would be safer • If it takes 9 - 12 years to build Sizewell C won't our technology, our needs and our infrastructure have moved on during that time? Building a uranium fuel reactor is outdated when EDF and CGN could be leading the way building a sustainable, clean, green, safe alternative instead • In your application/promotion saying "thousands of well paid jobs for the region" would apply whatever the energy/power source • In your application/promotion saying "investment in education and skills" shouldn't be dependent on Sizewell C • In your application/promotion saying "a net gain in land for biodiversity" shouldn't be dependent on Sizewell C • These three promotions above are offsets to try to influence community goodwill. • In your application/promotion saying "powering 6 million homes" isn't a lot compared to our current population of c68million and in 9-12 year's time if our population is an additional 8 million as estimated this means <8%. That's a risk of a uranium breach/meltdown destroying the country and impacting the world in return for energy for less than 8% of the current population.”