A banner was displayed prominently on both sides of the Wickham Market bridge over the A12 a few days ago.

Thanks to the Shut Down Sizewell Campaign

http://www.shutdown-sizewell.org.uk/

TASC members have raised concerns over the amount of fresh water that Sizewell C would require. EDF have yet to explain where this water will be sourced, as there is not an adequate existing supply. The text is copied from an article in the East Anglian Daily Times 11-08-19. The original article is here

Where will 2,000,000 litres of water a day to cool Sizewell C reactor come from?

Campaigners have voiced concerns over where up to two million litres of drinking quality water will come from every day to cool the reactors of the new Sizewell C nuclear power station if it is built.

Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) says that Suffolk is one of the driest places in the UK and is worried about the £14billion project's impact on and security of local mains water supplies.

EDF Energy says investigations are under way to see how water demand can be managed.

TASC has been left frustrated because full details of where the water will come from have yet to be provided and claims its questions have been "ignored, skipped over or evaded".

A spokesman said: "We know that East Anglia is the most arid region in the UK, our water resources are already over stretched and there is little prospect of finding new sources of water, a reality acknowledged by Essex and Suffolk Water in their 2019 Draft Water Resource management plan.

"This was echoed by the Environment Agency: 'The confined chalk groundwater in the East Suffolk area is fully committed and no further consumptive abstraction can be considered.'

"We also know that climate change will bring more droughts and floods as weather patterns become increasingly chaotic. England, Scotland and Wales are projected to be in deficit by 1.4 billion to 5 billion litres of water per day by 2080.

"If Sizewell C is built, the water supply for it will have to be consistent. The water will be needed to replenish the cooling pond and cool parts of the reactor. Obviously, keeping these processes operating safely is vital, and the supply cannot be cut even in times of drought. So when there is not enough water for farmers, households and industry, the power station will still have to be supplied every day, week in, week out, for decades into the future."

EDF Energy, Essex and Suffolk Water and the Environment Agency are engaged in "constructive discussions" regarding the construction and operation of Sizewell C.

An EDF spokesman said: "We recognise the issue of water supply is an important one for the local area.

"We are investigating how peak and seasonal water demand may be balanced to ensure there is no detriment to surface water flows, so as to ensure that Water Framework Directive compliance assessment criteria can be complied with, and that no ecological detriment will occur as a result of the project.

"The identification and development of potential measures - which may be used to both reduce and balance demand - is therefore being developed collaboratively with the right stakeholders, at the right time, to make sure our DCO submission is robust."

This is copied from a Press Release from Woodbridge Town Council. The link to the original is here

"Woodbridge Town Council has resolved to oppose the building of Sizewell C.
The Woodbridge Town Mayor, Councillor Eamonn O’Nolan, said ‘for all the good intentions that may lie behind it, Sizewell C is a dangerously reckless project that must be stopped. The fine engineering minds employed on it should be giving their attention to the question of how to make safe the reactor that is already there, not building a new and bigger one alongside it.In terms of environmental impact, nothing discussed so far in the consultation process comes close to the reality of a Fukushima scenario. Yet that is what we could be facing -the prospect of our region becoming globally known in the same terms as Fukushima or Chernobyl: Effectively uninhabitable.The technology may have improved slightly, but the fundamental fact remains that uncontrolled water and nuclear reactors do not mix safely.EDF’s planners speak of Sizewell as standing on “a stable part of the Suffolk coast”. This is simply not true. Sizewell stands roughly halfway between Dunwich, where a medieval city now lies under the sea, and Slaughden, a village that was swept away in a storm barely a century ago. Its familiar white dome is within sight, or a short walk, of both. The people of Suffolk know how “stable” this coastline really is.’Councillor O’Nolan went on to say, ‘there are many unanswered questions:

  • We know too that sea levels are going to rise -but how far and how fast?
  • We know climate change is already affecting storm activity -but how great will the change be?How much will even a small rise in sea level affect the ability of the offshore shallows to absorb storm energy?
  • Is any existing or planned protection of the Sizewell site enough to defend it adequately against these certain changes?

EDF don’t have accurate or reliable answers to these questions -because nobody does. No doubt their engineers are confident. No doubt the engineers who designed Fukushima were confident too. Are our engineers that much cleverer and foresighted than their Japanese counterparts? If you think they might be, would you stake your life on it -and the lives of your children?It's not even as if we need the promised power. The argument that renewable energy is unreliable is simply out of date. Solar, wind and potentially tidal sources provide ample power -and the question of availability on demand is answered by developments in thermal energy storage.’At less than 20 miles distance, Woodbridge is potentially within a future Sizewell disaster exclusion zone, and we believe there is no justification for putting the inhabitants of the town and the whole of the Suffolk coastal area at such high risk"

Ends

The vote was unanimous.
Thank you to TASC members who spoke to council members and gave them an alternative view to the one EDF is peddling

This article has been copied from the BBC website on July 07 2019 . A link to the original is here

Joan Girling - fighting for her "beloved coast"

Joan Girling has been fighting the nuclear industry most of her adult life.

She was at school when the new Magnox reactor was begun on the Suffolk coast at Sizewell in the 1960s.

Her father told her it was a "necessary evil".

But when she moved to Leiston, just a few miles from the nuclear power station, and work began on Sizewell B in the 1980s, she could no longer ignore it.

"The traffic and the noise was so bad... I had to move house to the other side of Leiston. I had three children. I couldn't let them be exposed to that," she said.

Then in 1989 the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) proposed a Sizewell C and Joan decided she had to do something.

At a fractious meeting at the Leiston Film Theatre in the High Street opposite the fish and chip shop, she founded Community Against Sizewell C.

Joan and an array of other anti-nuclear groups won that fight. Sizewell C was cancelled. The plan was resurrected in 1993 and Joan helped fight and win that one as a local councillor. But she has no illusions about what swung the argument.

"It was the finances that didn't work out for them, " she says resignedly. "Not the environment. It's always finance that has the final say."

Joan picks her way along what botanists call the "vegetative shingle" that lies on the beach in front of the Sizewell dome, and spots plants like one might spot old friends: "There's Sea Campion, and Lady's Bedstraw. There's Sea Kale and Sea Holly. That one there is a sedum. The Sea Pea, that lives further up the beach."

EDF and Sizewell C

The CEGB is now long gone. Today it is the giant French energy group EDF who wants to build Sizewell C. The protestors now call themselves Together Against Sizewell C (TASC).

In the next few weeks the plans will go to the Planning Inspectorate and then on to Secretary of State. If it is approved Joan expects ten years or more of construction, millions of tonnes of aggregate roaring in by road or rail, spoil heaps and a campus of more than 6,000 workers, on what she calls "my beloved coast."

"Look at the pictures of Hinkley Point in Somerset. Look at that mess. I don't want that here," she says

The nuclear argument

In the 1980s, while Joan was campaigning against Sizewell B, Jim Crawford was starting his career at Torness nuclear power station. Today he is EDF's Project Development Director at Sizewell. Nuclear is almost as much a part of him as his Glaswegian accent.

While Joan talks of Fukushima, of Chernobyl, of the cracks and mishaps in France's Flamanville plant, wall after wall of Jim's offices carry posters proclaiming EDF's relentless pursuit of safety.

For Jim, the nuclear argument is one of necessity. Coal is being phased out by 2025. If we are to meet the zero-carbon emissions target by 2050, gas will have to be cut as well. Half our aging nuclear capacity is going to be decommissioned by the end of the next decade.

Meanwhile, we will need more electricity not less, as the economy demands more electricity for data centres, cars, trains, even, some believe, planes. Renewables will not be enough says EDF.

Bringing down costs

As for the cost, Mr Crawford says duplication is the key: "For the first time the UK has an opportunity to build a fleet of Pressurised Water Reactors, all of them the same.

"If, in a few years, you were to go into the turbine hall at Sizewell or Hinckley you shouldn't be able to know which one you're in. That brings down costs, spare parts, training, maintenance and minimises regulatory approval."

A proven duplicated design should mean less risk to investors, which in turn brings down the cost of borrowed money, arguably the biggest cost of all: while Hinckley Point pays its investors 9% interest, Sizewell, hopes to borrow at 5-6%. That's a lot less when you're borrowing billions.

Sizewell and Hinckley would then be a blueprint for a nuclear future.

Joan sighs at the thought: "No, nuclear plant, never, not one, has come in on time and on budget."

Protected areas

Sizewell is hemmed in with every kind of protected area. Philip Ridley, Head of Planning and Coastal Management at East Suffolk Council, admits: "If you were looking for a place to build a nuclear power station you could not have chosen a more environmentally sensitive spot."

The whole coast is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The shingle beach is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Sizewell Marshes, just behind the plant is a Special Protected Area (SPA). The Leiston Sandlings to the south are another SPA. There's even an ancient monument nearby, Leiston Abbey.

But Mr Ridley believes a compromise can be reached. After all, there are thousands of jobs, local supply chains, skills and training that will all follow in Sizewell C's wake.

Minsmere

But it is hard to compromise on Minsmere, a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and an SSSI. The thousand hectares of marsh, less than a mile to the north, is the pride of the RSPB, where in 1947 the avocet, now the emblem of the charity, started breeding again for the first time in 100 years. It is home to 5,800 plant and animal species, marsh harriers, otters, water voles and bearded tits.

Adam Rowlands, Minsmere senior site manager, says: "For the RSPB, the scale of risk is higher than anything else we have ever been faced with before.

"The proposed footprint extends into the marshes behind the site which is managed by the Suffolk Wildlife Trust, and we are concerned at the loss of habitat over the ten years of construction due to noise and light and disturbances, and also the effects on the water table."

At the moment Minsmere's water levels are delicately controlled by sluices. Mr Rowlands says any unexpected rise or fall of a few centimetres could flood nests and destroy habitats.

It's not just the fresh water inland but the salt water of the North Sea that worries the RSPB.

It is an unpredictable and mobile coastline. The RSPB fears that higher sea defences and a concrete landing strip for barges could drastically alter the shoreline - and Minsmere

Consultations

In response EDF has issued lengthy consultation papers. The local Suffolk Wildlife Trust's response to the latest and most detailed one is littered with references to "inadequate assessment".

What's more, there are fears EDF will only release a full assessment immediately before the plans go before the Planning Inspectorate, giving local groups little time to respond.

Jim Crawford insists the whole process is one of constant negotiation: "Don't imagine we are going to keep everything quiet, say nothing and then at the last minute go ta-da! and surprise everyone. No. This is a process of continual negotiation and talking."

PRESS RELEASE

30th May 2019

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”.