Dear Sir,

Thankyou for allowing me to put an alternative view to the EDF Sizewell proposals (EADT 14th Oct.) from that of the EDF SZB Chief Executive.
The trouble with us here in Britain is we don't even make our own wind turbines, we rely on others. We are now assembling them but the motors and all the tricky bits are made elsewhere. Foreign imports again. Just as is the case with EDF and partners CGN (Chinese General Nuclear) who are desparately trying to pursuade us Britains to fund SZC&D as EDF has no funds of its own.

There is constant promotion for SZC&D from Simone Rossi, Chief UK Executive, Jim Crawford, Chief Executive, EDF SZC&D, and of late Paul Morton, Chief Executive SZB, stating how important nuclear is and frequently making fabricated statements in the EADT whilst promoting SZC&D. They know this story is so necessary as they are employed by a company that is bankrupt to the French government by some 37billion Euros.

Also, at least eight of the older French nuclear power stations in France need removing at a cost between 50 and 100 billion Euros. EDF Chief Executive, Jean Bernard Levy, has been told in no uncertain terms by President Emanual Macron to stop spending funds they do not have. I was in France recently and the French are furious with the way they are expected to continually fund EDF and their EPR (European Pressure Reactor). This so called 'Flagship' project at Flamanville, north west France, commenced in 2007 and still not completed. Also billions of Euros over budget and years over contract time and not expected to be commisioned until 2023, we are now told, if ever. No wonder the 'Flagship' project is not mentioned at all by our local EDF executives?

The USA has always said the EPR concept will not work. I havn't even mentioned the other failure, Olkiluoto in Finland. EDF has no alternative other than to try and convince us here in Britain to introduce what is known as RAB (Regulated Asset Base) where we are invited to fund their project and invest our pension funds into SZC&D! and I might say our local MP Therese Coffey, and now worse, she, our Works and Pensions Minister, is known to be all for RAB! Scary stuff.

Japan's Hitachi, has recently pulled out of the Wilfa site on Anglesea,Horizon Oldbury and Toshiba have pulled out at the Moorside site Sellafield, after having recently lost billions of dollars in failed USA projects. We are also being requested to pay an annual tax onto each household electricity account to assist funding SZC&D. CGN (China) on the other hand, the smaller EDF partner, is not short of funds and is keen to pursue two of its own nuclear power plants, the HPR 1000 models at Bradwell in Essex.

Allow that to happen and we are all done for. They already own, The National Grid, (both Gas and Electric,) Felixstowe and Harwich Docks, London Thames Port, Mobile phone Companies, UK power Network the list goes on and on. We should try and keep nuclear away from their total grasp at all costs!

Bob Hoggar, Halesworth.

Sir,
 
We must stop the building of nuclear power stations at Sizewell.
Whatever arguments are used for this form of power generation it has been shown to be economically and environmentally unsustainable.
Of even greater significance the Sizewell location is wrong.
 
The Suffolk coastline can be likened to the North Danish Coast. It is eroding and subsiding.
The Rubjerg Knude Lighthouse in Northern Denmark  has been moved seventy metres inland. This will delay the loss of this lighthouse into the sea for only twenty years.
 
We are about to agree to the building of a nuclear power station and a nuclear waste storage dump on the beach of a similar coastline at Sizewell.
One does not have to be a nuclear scientist in order to recognise the inevitable consequences.
It is an act of lunacy.
 
We do not require nuclear power, nor do we need to fill our North Sea with nuclear waste, in order to achieve the elimination of carbon pollution.
 
A European grid, linking photo voltaic solar power generation from the Nations of Southern Europe, with wind, hydro and tidal power generation from the Nations of Northern Europe would provide safe and uninterrupted electricity for the whole of Europe many times above current needs.
This should be our response to the climate emergency. A unified European response to the clear and present dangers we are facing.
 
martin deighton
woodbridge

Sir/Madam,

The proposed development at Sizewell for two new European Pressurised Reactors (EPRs) must be stopped and it can be stopped if the people of east Suffolk in the towns and villages which would be adversely affected by the nine to twelve year construction period are prepared to make their voices heard.

New nuclear power plants are not required to ‘keep the lights on’. Report after report has shown that we can meet all our climate change, cost and electricity generating requirements without resorting to expensive and dangerous nuclear power which creates massive infrastructure problems as well as a waste issue which is truly intergenerational: it is entirely possible that our great-great-grandchildren will still be looking after the highly toxic waste we create in the next fifty years, bearing all the costs but none of the ‘benefits’.

Nuclear power is therefore an option rather than an imperative in respect of the choice we make for the way in which we meet electricity demands over the next century. The nuclear industry is in general decline. Renewables, decentralization, energy efficiency, smart grids, micro-technology and conservation are the directions in which progressive countries are moving – away from the regressive, complicated and antiquated technology of nuclear power. Most countries pursuing new nuclear build programmes already have or wish to acquire nuclear weapons. Sizewell C, like Hinkley C, has more to do with ensuring the retention of nuclear skills in the workforce, securing the nuclear supply chain and the availability of nuclear material required for missile-carrying Trident submarines than it has to do with providing consumers with electricity. Electricity demand has fallen by around 16% in the last decade. Don’t let them tell you that the lights will go out without Sizewell C: it’s just another way to frighten you into supporting the destruction of our environment.

Quite apart from uncertainties surrounding the health impact of exposure to even low level, routine radiation emissions and the total inadequacy of the emergency plan to evacuate people from a radiation cloud caused by a major incident at the plant, the decade or more of Sizewell C development will require the construction of five new roundabouts on the A12, road widening and straightening, worker campuses, massive park and ride facilities, compulsory purchase orders and the acceptance of upto 1,000 heavy goods vehicle movements every day to and from the site. Noise, dust, light pollution and the influx of thousands of workers will make daily life a living hell for thousands in the once-tranquil villages of rural east Suffolk. Woods will be felled and cleared. Our heritage coast will be diminished. The new reactors will be sited in a flood zone, vulnerable to tidal surges, more extreme weather and flooding. Within 100 years, coastal erosion will turn Sizewell into an island, on which will be stored an unimaginable amount of radioactivity. The planned development is to take place in possibly the worst of all locations.

And what of the nuclear waste to which EdF representatives will tell you there is a ‘solution’? We already have 500,000m3 of waste – five times the capacity of the Albert Hall in London – created by the first round of nuclear power stations, the Magnox and AGR programmes which came to a halt with the construction of the only Pressurised Water Reactor in the UK, Sizewell B. That legacy waste is here, we can’t magic it away and it has to be dealt with somehow and in some way. The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), recommended that disposal in a deep geological facility (GDF) was not the best but the least-worst option and disposal was adopted as government policy ever since CoRWM published its report in 2007. But CoRWM made a series of conditions on its recommendations, the most important of which is that disposal should not automatically stretch to new nuclear build spent nuclear fuel which is hotter, and more radioactive than the current fuel. Creating a new and more dangerous waste stream brings with it a raft of moral and ethical considerations, such as ‘do we have the right to knowingly create a new radioactive waste inventory for future generations when there is no demonstrable means of dealing with it?’ Government cannot press ahead with the generation of such a stockpile based solely on the assumption that the problems associated with disposal will somehow and at some time be overcome. No self-respecting planning authority should ever grant permission for a plant creating poisonous chemicals without convincing evidence of its ability to treat its waste streams. That evidence is currently absent.

Nuclear regulators, advisers and the industry itself know that there are many significant technical and scientific hurdles to disposal. They also know that Sizewell C will likely be a white elephant producing electricity which will quite possibly be surplus to the requirements of the country in ten to fifteen years, by which time demand will have fallen even further as we use what we have more efficiently and as we take more demand away from the national grid.

And now, to add insult to injury, EdF want us to pay for the degrading of our own back yard by charging us a £6 annual premium on energy bills which will go straight to the French government to finance Sizewell C. It will also make every bill payer an accessory to the further destruction of our heritage areas by helping EdF to build its redundant white elephant on our precious coast. This ridiculous scheme, supported by the government, represents the shifting of the financing for new nuclear plants from the original and much-trumpeted one of ‘no subsidies’ to the unavoidable reality of ‘transfer the cost to the public’, which includes picking up some of the financial risk for the inevitable overruns in costs that will occur from building Sizewell C. It is a bad deal all round for consumers in the UK and for the residents of east Suffolk.

EdF and the government will make light of the issues raised above, but you have the ability to inform yourselves and to tell your councillors that you reject Sizewell C, EdF and the government’s failing and chaotic energy policy. Together we can stop it.

Pete Wilkinson

Chairman TASC

 

Sir,
 The artists impression published by EDF in the EADT of Sizewell C on the beach alongside a blue and tranquil North Sea tells all of the lunacy of Sizewell.
Those of us who live in Suffolk have a more realistic view of the North Sea.
EDF say they will build a sea wall that will protect the Nuclear Power Station and the Nuclear waste dump from a 1953 tidal surge.
They are wrong. The sea level of the North sea has risen by 0.67 metres since 1953.
In 1953 over 60% of the tidal surge swept into Holland’s delta taking the lives of 1,870 Dutch people.
Since then the Dutch have erected huge barriers and dams that will prevent this water entering any part of Holland.
All of that water will now be added to the surge on the Coast of Suffolk and Essex.
This could add up to 2.5 metres to the surge at Sizewell.
Moreover, the surge that entered the Thames in 1953 will now be arrested by the Thames barrier.
That may protect London but it will again add to levels on the coasts of Suffolk, Essex and North Kent.
 
Whatever we think about the risks and costs associated with the provision and long term management of Nuclear power generation we must all recognise that the building of a nuclear power station on the beach of an eroding and sinking coastline in the face of a rising sea is wrong. And the establishment of a storage dump for nuclear waste with a half life of over 1,000 years on that same beach is lunacy.
 
We must unite and stop the building of Sizewell C.
 
martin deighton
woodbridge.