Representation by Adele Maria Geere
- Date submitted
- 29 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I would like to raise concerns about Sizewell C: 1. Nuclear is dangerous An accident with radioactive substances, either at the power plant or with fuel or waste convoys, carries the risk of high numbers of casualties and environmental damage which could last for thousands of years. 2. Not cost-effective For example, £20billion could fund: National Energy Foundation: 10,000 anaerobic digesters @£2million each, producing 500kWH = total 5GW of energy, 1.8 GW more than Sizewell C. 30,000 permanent jobs once completed with ongoing cost @ 5p/kwh + feed in tariff [Redacted] £20billion does not include cost of decommissioning 3. No long-term solution for radioactive waste Geological Disposal Facility, GOV UK : ‘Has any region been selected for a GDF? At this stage, no host site for a geological disposal facility has been identified and no region is being targeted over another.’ [Redacted] Increased flood risk from climate change ‘nuclear sites such as Sizewell, which is based on the coastline, may need considerable investment to protect it against rising sea levels, or even abandonment/relocation in the long term’ [Redacted] 4. Disruption to local communities Over 50 councils asked EDF to delay submitting the Development Consent Order [Redacted] Up to 1000 HGVs a day on local roads for years 5. EPR is an unproved technology Flamanville, France: a decade late, 4 times over budget [Redacted] Olkiluoto, Finland: 12 years behind schedule and three times over budget [Redacted] 6. Sizewell C would not support energy independence for the UK Project is dependent on imports of uranium and relies on foreign state-financed companies, EDF (France) and CGN (China). Local, less expensive and smaller projects, such as anaerobic digestion, could attract UK investment, create jobs nationwide and provide more autonomy. 7. Environmental damage, not carbon neutral, not renewable, water intensive • Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Site of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI), RSPB Nature Reserve. Threat to wildlife and biodiversity from noise pollution, traffic and construction vibrations, chemical pollution and loss of land for habitat. High water intake from sea or groundwater. • CO2 from construction: concrete and steel • CO2 from transport: shipping uranium and construction vehicles • CO2 emissions from decommissioning and waste storage • CO2 from Uranium mining and milling ‘It takes about 200 tonnes of U3O8 per year to keep a large (1000 MWe) nuclear reactor running; mining and milling uranium…would, therefore, emit 2000-50000 t CO2 each year. This is similar to the total CO2 emission from the Falkland Islands in 2004.’ ‘environmental costs will increase over time as high-grade ore deposits decline and the industry turns to lower grade ore or deeper deposits. Extracting uranium from lower grade ore not only means higher energy costs and greater CO2 emissions, but is likely to increase pressure on water resources.’ [Redacted] The two 1.6GW reactors planned for Sizewell C would cause emissions 3.2 times greater than the above calculations = 6,400 – 160,000 tonnes of CO2 a year • Environmental damage near Uranium mines 8. Negative impact on health for workers and communities near Uranium mines