In this section you will find information surrounding the possible new build at Sizewell. We will be adding more sections in the future.
The Issues
Together Against Sizewell C
2 days ago
Emissions omissions
Nuclear isn’t carbon-free, no matter what EDF says
Together Against Sizewell C
6 days ago
EDF's vision for funding Sizewell C and Suffolk Day reminders
I am putting up a link to another group - Theberton and eastbridge Action Group. They are not against Sizewell C per se , but oppose bits of it - there is a part on the post that suggests steps that you can take to object to the latest funding model being proposed which will load the construction costs onto us even before it is built.
https://mailchi.mp/a3a6293de6f0/16mayszbobjection-516701?e=3db88a51bc
EDF names its price£6/year for Sizewell C&D? There has been extensive news coverage of EDF's proposals that an estimated £6 levy be added to the bill of every UK energy customer, to provide guaranteed income against which the company can borrow capital to build Sizewell C&D (at a total cost of £...
Together Against Sizewell C
1 week ago
Why your energy bill could rise by £6 a year to pay for Sizewell C
Households could be asked to pay a £6 a year levy to help foot the bill for a controversial new nuclear power station on the Suffolk coast.
Together Against Sizewell C
1 week ago
Experts warn Glasgow and Edinburgh may be contaminated with radiation
Nuclear experts have warned that two Scottish reactors should not be reopened because of cracks that could force both Glasgow and Edinburgh to be evacuated.
Together Against Sizewell C
1 week ago
Home
A interesting discussion with environmental and local experts about the impact of Sizewell C on the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB
EDF Energy says that Sizewell C has "the potential to generate the reliable low carbon energy the country needs for decades", while opponents say the development will "lay waste" to vast swathes of the countryside - much of which is legally protected. Charlie Moores went to Suffolk to talk with ecologist Tom Langton, Rachel Fulcher, coordinator of the Suffolk Coastal group of Friends of the Earth, former local councillor Joan Girling, and Adam Rowlands, Senior Site Manager at RSPB Minsmere to get their take on what Sizewell C would mean to the local environment and to local communities.
http://tasizewellc.org.uk/index.php/25-links/272-interesting-interviews-and-discussion-about-sizewell-c-by-charlie-moores
Rigorously Challenging the Case For Sizewell C
Together Against Sizewell C
2 weeks ago
Four Villages bypass project rejected by government - no new road to Suffolk coast
Hopes of a new bypass around four villages on the A12 between Wickham Market and Saxmundham have received an apparently fatal blow after the government said it could not support the proposal.
Together Against Sizewell C
2 weeks ago
Energy bills used to subsidise nuclear subs
UK bills are inflated partly because households are subsidising nuclear submarines, MPs are told.
Together Against Sizewell C
2 weeks ago
Together Against Sizewell C accuse EDF Boss of Schoolboy Errors in his Defence of Nuclear Power
Together Against Sizewell C chairman, Pete Wilkinson, claims that EDF CEO Jean-Bernard Lévy makes some schoolboy errors in his fatuous defence of nuclear power in his IEA February 25th speech, this having been recently reported by World Nuclear News, 20 May 2019. Pete Wilkinson says “M. Lévy is careful to use the word ‘direct’ when claiming that nuclear power produces electricity without emissions; by this, he presumably means that the only part of the nuclear fuel cycle that can even come close to being ‘low carbon’ is that which ‘burns’ uranium in the reactor. Of course, he knows, as do we all, that across the entire fuel cycle, nuclear requires an acceptance of a carbon footprint from uranium mining, milling, enrichment, fuel production, transport, nuclear plant construction, storage and the still-unknown CO2 burdens created by final spent fuel and waste management conundrums. To claim otherwise is disingenuous, especially from someone in such a position of responsibility.
It is true that the fight against climate change is challenging, but to conclude that nuclear power is essential to winning that fight is wrong and designed to defend a technology which is antiquated, costly, polluting and presents us with a wealth of unresolved health issues related to childhood leukaemia. Sixty studies, including the seminal German government-sponsored KiKK Report indicate elevated rates of leukaemia and other cancers as a result of exposure to ionising radiation.
The Oxford Research Group produced a report some years ago which clearly demonstrated that, given the global nature of the problem of climate change, it would require the building of at least 3000 nuclear plants to have a noticeable impact on the problem – that’s one new plant a week for 60 years. Impossible, yes, but wholly undesirable as well since the nuclear waste legacy that scale of programme would create is unthinkable: we can’t even deal with the 500,000 cubic metres of legacy waste in the UK after 60 years of merrily creating it without a thought about how to manage it safely. Even after ten years of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the UK is still no closer to a universally safe and secure means of dealing with the legacy waste, let alone the hotter and more radioactive waste which M. Levy’s reactors will leave us over the next few decades in return for huge amounts of UK tax payers’ cash should the plant at Hinkley ever be finished and should Sizewell become more than an EdF aspiration.
A further reason why nuclear power cannot hope to have more than a minor role to play in the fight against the climate emergency, is the fact that the plants take so long to build. The ‘nuclear renaissance’ in the UK was mooted on the back of energy security and low carbon. The lights in the UK were, at the time of Blair’s announcement in 2005, predicted to go out in 2017. It is now 2019, the lights didn’t go out and no new nuclear is contributing electricity to the national grid in the UK and is unlikely to be doing so for at least another six or seven years – probably longer, given the historic over-runs of time and budget which accompany nuclear plant. Nuclear is an option for the future, not an imperative: that much has been shown time and again with analyses from highly reputable and responsible green and academic groups. Nuclear just can’t contribute fast enough and even if and when it does, its contribution will be only marginal at best, negative at worst.
By definition, renewables are potentially endless. They rely on the Sun, the wind, the tides and ambient energy. Moreover, the source of the energy arrives free-of-charge, without mining for rare, unstable and potentially lethal metals or digging for fossil fuels to burn, releasing their carbon back into the atmosphere. Combined with efficiency measures, decentralised electricity generation, smart grids and conservation measures which have already seen electricity demand fall in the UK by some 16% in the last decade, we can meet all our climate change, cost and demand targets without nuclear. This has been demonstrated time and time again: nuclear is an option, not an imperative, and it is an option we should refuse.
Quite apart from the fact that EdF’s flagship EPR Flamanville plant is facing a further two year delay as a result of ASN’s likely demands that reactor core welds are repaired, it is appropriate to remind M. Lévy that EdF is hugely in debt, that its board of Directors are not united in their view of the company’s new build programme and that the victim communities around the proposed sites for new build are fearful of the wholesale disruption to their lives, the environment and the tranquility they currently enjoy in these largely remote and isolated sites”.
3 weeks ago
Hiya. Could the person who was at XR meeting during the 'people's assembly' bit and spoke about sizewell c contact me please.
Together Against Sizewell C
4 weeks ago
UN chief concerned nuclear 'coffin' leaking in Pacific
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres raised concerns Thursday that a concrete dome built last century to contain waste from atomic bomb tests is leaking radioactive material into the Pacific. The "coffin" is a concrete dome, built in the late 1970s on Runit island, part of Enewetak atoll, as a dump...