Representation by Richard Hare
- Date submitted
- 17 August 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I grew up with Sizewell 'A' visible from my Southwold schoolroom in the early '60 and I accepted 'B'. I reject 'C' as there are so many better, cheaper alternatives. Sizewell 'C' is immensely expensive, and this is at a time when the UK economy can least afford wasteful expense. As sea levels rise and the east coast tips into the sea you are fully aware that Sizewell is a baddest place in the country to locate a nuclear power station. I don't believe we were aware of these two vital factors previously. The decision to store nuclear waste on the Suffolk coast is incomprehensible. It is as blinkered as the storage of explosives in Beirut's central harbour. Lebanese politicians and decision makers were warned of this too. Consider Brexit: How does the dependence on the French state owned company and Chinese financial investment square with 'taking back control'? It doesn't. EDF is in huge debt and the British electricity consumer and taxpayer will have no choice other than to mitigate this situation in favour of the French taxpayer. If the British are going to be such a push-over on this I don't blame the French for trying. Taking any investment from Chinese is very inadvisable, particularly as the best Britain can hope from China is 'junior' status. The current application shows no awareness of alternatives like small-scale nuclear reactors. These can be build by British engineering companies and they offer much needed flexibility to encourage the continued investment in much cheaper, safer, and more sensible renewable sources of energy. And then there's Thorium, the 'safe nuclear' . Why is it that the French energy industry is pioneering this while ours buries its head in the sand in its drive to invest in expensive, outdated and toxic technology?