Representation by Lucia Daniels
- Date submitted
- 30 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
This project fails to meet the necessary benchmarks to make it viable in terms of: a) cost, b) security of supply, c) environmental impact a) COST o The enormous price of construction, including mitigating some of the impact on existing businesses and the community o Building adequate sea and flood defences and their ongoing maintenance will be a major additional cost, long term o A very long lead-time makes it a poor return on investment since by the late 2030s it will struggle to compete with alternative sources of energy at far lower prices o Investor confidence in this form of nuclear energy will diminish in the face of other, more competitive sources, leaving Sizewell an expensive white elephant o Negative impact on what is a thriving local economy with relatively low levels of unemployment o Less visible, yet significant, is the cost to the local community in terms of loss of amenity, quality of life and essential services people have the right to expect b) SECURITY OF SUPPLY o Inundation from flooding, which is very likely in this area, will undermine the security of supply. Maintaining sea defences will price the fuel out of the market, meaning it will be difficult to justify its continued maintenance long enough to make the power station begin paying for itself. o The size of the site would make it vulnerable to sabotage or terrorist threat, with disastrous consequences as well as threatening security of supply. To help spread the risk, smaller, more agile nuclear reactors and other sources of power would be a better way to minimise the risk of a major power outage. o Given EDFs track record at other continental sites, security of supply cannot be relied upon in the foreseeable future, meaning this will come too late to be fit for purpose. c) ENVIRONMENT o Adverse impact on an area of outstanding coastal beauty, with internationally recognised SSSI sites. These also enhance the area and its growing leisure and tourism businesses, coupled with other sites of amenity and cultural heritage nearby. o Renewable energy can help power our grid, but we cannot renew our environment once nuclear waste is stored in it, for thousands of years. We owe it to future generations to do all we can to reduce both our carbon footprint and our nuclear legacy. o Light pollution, waste pollution and traffic pollution will blight the area for well over a decade during the build stage of the project. Even once the site is up and running, it will not become carbon neutral for many years to come. In the meantime, traffic will clog the A12, driving more local traffic onto B roads and clogging these up. As well as unacceptable levels of HGV traffic on a daily basis, workers at Sizewell living on the East side of the A12 will not be required to use the bus service to get to the site, but will be allowed to drive there in their own vehicles, further adding to local noise and congestion. o Kettling thousands of workers on-site, living in close quarters, poses a serious risk to health of the workers themselves and to support staff commuting into the site who may spread the Covid virus (and possibly mutated versions to come) into the community. As well as being an environmental disaster, hold-ups during lockdowns will further add to the cost of the project, which brings me back to my first point. In addition to the above, I also support the Relevant Representation submitted by Stop Sizewell C Lucia Daniels [Redacted]