Representation by Roy Dowding
- Date submitted
- 24 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
It is my resolute belief that the SZC Project should not proceed. As time has progressed, not one of the shortcomings revealed during the four stages of public consultation has been satisfactorily addressed. The serious questions over shore defence measures, meeting its water supply requirements, the effect on flora and fauna, disruption to daily life and tourism, the real number of proper jobs being created, the route of a proposed relief road, its basic economics in comparison to alternatives – all remain either totally unanswered, supported by very debatable arguments or maths, or simply and dismissively ‘subject to further study’. The time has come to concede that there are no material benefits to East Suffolk to be derived from SZC proceeding. There is an old saying: "Two wrongs don't make a right". But SZC is the wrong project, at the wrong time, in the wrong place, making three wrongs, and raising the real prospect of creating Armageddon in East Suffolk. The wrong project: The EPR is already outmoded, over-complex, bedevilled by technical problems (valves in Finland, steel strength in France) and as yet unproven in the west. Further, it is due to be built by a company (EDF) with an appalling track record for major errors, over-runs and exceeding budgets. Such is the extent of their own uncertainty that they have stated they are unwilling to proceed unless we (British taxpayers or financial institutions) provide the funding up front, removing EDF from any risk and effectively absolving them from responsibility to manage the scheme. Even Simone Rossi -EDF's boss in the UK - has said that: “there may be better ways than nuclear to get to zero in the future"! The wrong time: Besides being yesterday's technology, it will take too long to build, even if EDF keeps to its projected completion date, to contribute to the possible shortfall as existing power stations come offline. And it would take 6 years of generation before it offsets the CO2 it created during its own construction– that’s 2040, far too late to meaningfully contribute to meeting net zero targets. Its enormous cost could be so much better spent on the advancement of renewables and storage, which could be accomplished so much quicker and cheaper. The wrong place: The double whammy of (a) building a nuclear plant, and (b) storing its waste for centuries to come, on a stretch of coastline subject to erosion, the extent of which cannot be foreseen or defended. Add to this the devastating effect on the area while construction takes place. Flora and Fauna cannot read EDF's propaganda attempting to assure us that reinstatement of desecrated land will (eventually) take place - by then the wild life will be long gone, unlikely ever to return. And the same will apply to a substantial proportion of tourists – even EDF are prepared to admit this could be a reduction of around one third - upon whose income so many small companies and individuals depend, having invested heavily to encourage visitors. And so many other factors – a prime example being traffic levels that will threaten daily life through delay, disruption and pollution, impose life-threatening delays to the emergency services in responding to calls etc., dramatically increase road accidents – all of which detract from the very aspects that have made East Suffolk the idyll it is. Roy Dowding [Redacted]