Representation by S Hall
- Date submitted
- 26 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I wish to register my objection to Sizewell C: 1. Scientists warn that climate change is happening faster than expected. Rising sea levels and more frequent, extreme and unpredictable weather represent an existential threat to nuclear reactors built on a fragile coastline and to nuclear waste stored there. East Anglia is likely to lose land and become a series of islands in the future. The Sizewell C proposals don’t take full account of the climate change risks and impacts for the coastline and for the lives of current and future generations. 2. I’m also concerned about the requirement of Sizewell C for large amounts of freshwater. We are already identified as a Water Stress area and The Environment Agency has predicted future water shortages locally. 3. Looking at the large Hinkley EPR site it appears that EDF are trying to cram far too much into the comparatively small Sizewell C site. I am concerned about the safety implications of this for Sizewell and also that EDF may later on ask for more land at Sizewell. We’ve already had a request to fell Coronation Wood – and this is even before Sizewell C has been given any go-ahead. 4. The massive industrial complex of Sizewell C would be completely out of scale and context to the beautiful, precious AONB landscape and amenities. It would destroy local wildlife and biodiversity in the site area itself and impact adversely on adjacent designated wildlife sites in Minsmere and Suffolk Coasts & Heaths AONB. It would also lead to significant losses of marine wildlife. 5. The proposal would have a detrimental impact on recreation, tourism and associated local businesses, destroying the very amenities that people visit the area to enjoy. 6. The road-led transport option would put huge pressure on local roads. 7. Roads, housing and other local services/facilities/infrastructure would be pushed beyond breaking point. 8. A high proportion of workers on short term contracts would be brought in from outside the area with specialist skills rather than long term permanent jobs created for local residents. 9. In the face of climate threats we urgently need to reduce carbon emissions/pollution. EDF understates the large emissions of Sizewell C which include: uranium sourcing/processing; the quarrying/extraction/processing of construction materials; thousands of HGVs bringing in aggregates/ materials to the site; emissions from the construction work itself and the creation of roads/park and ride sites; site workers’ travel to and from the site each day, flights from international workers; the storage of nuclear waste and decommissioning when the site ceases operation etc 10. The spiralling costs of the EPRs in Finland, France and at Hinkley make nuclear energy very expensive compared to the cheap, clean, green, renewable energy which is expanding to meet demand. Sizewell C is simply not needed and would be an expensive White Elephant by the time it came into operation. It would destroy our local environment/ habitats, incur net costs and leave a detrimental legacy rather than net benefits to local residents, visitors, consumers and taxpayers.