Sir,
 The artists impression published by EDF in the EADT of Sizewell C on the beach alongside a blue and tranquil North Sea tells all of the lunacy of Sizewell.
Those of us who live in Suffolk have a more realistic view of the North Sea.
EDF say they will build a sea wall that will protect the Nuclear Power Station and the Nuclear waste dump from a 1953 tidal surge.
They are wrong. The sea level of the North sea has risen by 0.67 metres since 1953.
In 1953 over 60% of the tidal surge swept into Holland’s delta taking the lives of 1,870 Dutch people.
Since then the Dutch have erected huge barriers and dams that will prevent this water entering any part of Holland.
All of that water will now be added to the surge on the Coast of Suffolk and Essex.
This could add up to 2.5 metres to the surge at Sizewell.
Moreover, the surge that entered the Thames in 1953 will now be arrested by the Thames barrier.
That may protect London but it will again add to levels on the coasts of Suffolk, Essex and North Kent.
 
Whatever we think about the risks and costs associated with the provision and long term management of Nuclear power generation we must all recognise that the building of a nuclear power station on the beach of an eroding and sinking coastline in the face of a rising sea is wrong. And the establishment of a storage dump for nuclear waste with a half life of over 1,000 years on that same beach is lunacy.
 
We must unite and stop the building of Sizewell C.
 
martin deighton
woodbridge.
 
Dear Sir
Your VIPs' Open Letter supporting Sizewell C because of the jobs is a strange approach to a very serious issue. Does it mean that all other considerations should be set aside? If so, is there any merit in the job creation argument ?
if it were built, about 150 to 200 new permanent jobs would be provided, in the main highly specialised. They would come from a massive capital investment of about £20bn, much of it paid for by a 35 year inflation-proofed price subsidy which would also be a wage subsidy, of course. This would be paid for by us as consumers and taxpayers. It woukd give Sizewell a 40% price advantage and guaranteed profits for over half of its 60 year life.That's truly a gigantic pot of money for not many jobs, and subsidised wages of a kind that most ordinary Suffolk workers can only dream about.

It begs the question about whether this sort of money might not be better spent and create considerably more jobs...Doing continuous coastal protection might be better value, permanent and considerably more labour intensive. Fair questions, since the project is to be publically subsidised, regulated and guaranteed, and not just a private market venture. The fact that its profits will go to the French government and China's nuclear company means, of coyrse, that we are being taxed without even getting the putative benefit back. And we, consumers and taxpayers meet all the risks into the bargain.

Dear Sir,
Mike Hazelwood should not trivialize my concerns, and those of others, in his letters EADT 19th & 20th June, over the proposals for the development at Sizewell C&D, insisting everything will be just fine. I very much suspect he is employed at Sizewell by EDF as he used the phrase "We take precautions to ensure that accidents can't happen." I have heard that phrase so often before. Sometimes followed by a statement, 'Lessons will be learned'!  It is now a well proven fact that nuclear is a failed twentieth century technology with a huge very dangerous nuclear waste legacy requiring dangerous storage forever.

EDF, and CGN their partners, are also unable to attract private investment due to the immense financial risks and huge previous losses. This has necessitated EDF trying to get us all to pay an annual tax levy on top of our electricity costs to help fund the huge EDF cash deficit they have. This is said to be some 37bill Euros to the French Government.   In addition, Jean Bernard Levy, Chief EDF Exec., is being directed  by Emmanual Macron, French president, to start making safe as many as 20 of their 58 older nuclear power stations, at  an enormous cost.  As a result of all of the financial short comings, we have now been introduced to another newish method of proposed funding called RAB ( Regulated Asset Base).    In addition, the government also agreed to pay EDF/CGN in 2016, before commencement at Hinkley Point C&D, a guaranteed price starting at £92.5  per Megga /Watt hr, index linked for 35 years now twice the current Renewable Energy cost since commencement. I was told while on a recent trip to visit Hinkley Point the amount has already  moved to £ 105 per M/W Hr. The bad news for EDF/CGN, these sums are not due until completion . EDF builds nuclear power stations, Britain chose Sizewell not EDF.  They must be stopped.!.

Our younger generation  have recently pleaded with the current generations to drastically change their self endulgent lifestyle for the sake of the planet and their futures. Sir David Attenbourgh has been doing this for 30 years.  I saw and read just recently how guests flocked to the EDF Suffolk Show stand. They heard a presentation by the Sizewell C&D project development director, Mr Jim Crawford of EDF, and then were entertained and enjoyed drinks and a full page Business section of photographs. Eager guests, many of whom would be on 'The list' we hear about, hoping to gain from a Sizewell C&D development. Also,more sadly was the British Tory DEFRA minister, Dr Therese Coffey, keenly advocating  development at Sizewell -AONB  alongside  Mr Tom  McGarry of EDF.  I would suggest the guests and MP at the gathering, take a walk as I and many others did recently over the area to be decimated. It is heart breaking.  One thing that really  hurt me was to see 200 year old oaks and other trees, all for the chop, to make way for this outdated monster.

Bob Hoggar Halesworth.

Dear Sir/Madam,

The suggestion (reported in EADT 12/06/19) that all the UK’s electricity bill payers will pay an upfront subsidy/levy to the French government owned EDF to enable the company to build Sizewell C’s twin EPR nuclear reactors on Suffolk’s Heritage Coast underlines the lack of market confidence in nuclear power, both technically and financially. This contrived funding method, called the Regulated Asset Basis (RAB) would transfer the commercial risk of the Sizewell C project from EDF to the customer and appears to be only available to new nuclear projects, even though this is old technology. Surely this would give the nuclear industry an unfair, and totally immoral, advantage over renewables’ contracts. By transferring part of the financial risk, the commercial imperative for EDF to get the plant built on time and within budget is significantly weakened.

Given that EDF’s unfinished flagship project to build their first EPR reactor at Flamanville, France will be at least 8 years behind schedule and 3 times the original budget, the scale of risk to UK consumers and UK taxpayers is further increased beyond the usual expectation that the public purse would be required to bear the excess costs in the event of the inevitable delays or total failure of the project. Consumers could be paying the £6 surcharge for at least 12 years, the actual period being dependent on delays and would all be payable before a single kilowatt of electricity is generated. Given EDF’s previous budgeting failures will we see the £6 figure creep ever upwards? The RAB method of financing has been described by many as giving developers, such as EDF, a blank cheque.

The real cost of Sizewell C will, of course, be the devastation of the environment and the major disruption that the residents, farmers and businesses of East Suffolk will suffer. 1,000 HGV journeys per day; thousands of outside workers travelling to/from the site; 24/7 noise, air and light pollution during the 10/12 year build; elevated road devastating Sizewell Marshes SSSI; new road cutting the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB in two; spoil heaps and borrow pits impacting large areas of the AONB; new roads/railway/7 roundabouts/accommodation blocks/cement batching plant; negative impact on RSPB Minsmere and the waterways; harm to tourism; priority consumption of 2 million litres of drinking water per day; 2.5 billion gallons of sea water sucked daily into the cooling pipes along with tons of fish and other marine life; encroachment on environmentally sensitive coastal strip; permanent structures on the beach; tons of greenhouse gases and other pollutants generated by the mining, milling, fabrication and enrichment of the uranium fuel; tons of carbon generated from the construction of the power station and its infrastructure and from the transportation of materials and personnel; and much more, is a heavy price to pay for a project that is a government choice, not an imperative.

For EDF to propose that electricity consumers cough up billions of pounds, payable to the French government, in advance, for such an assault on our precious coastal environment is an insult and an outrage. Surely now, people of East Suffolk will demand the project is cancelled and that EDF leave us in peace.

Chris Wilson

I refer to the article EADT 31st May in which Paul Morton, Sizewell B station director, announced EDF are to close the plant for two months. He boasts it is for routine maintenance it having run for 485 days producing low carbon energy. This is the only time nuclear is 'low carbon', while the reactor runs between outages. 485 days this time, is not even 18 months as stated, which is 545 days! Was there an urgency which brought about a 60 days (two months) early closure which us locals should know about? With an increase of 200 imported specialists more than the normal 1000, was it the urgency of the work to the turbines necessitating this early closure or maybe other important issues? Will the normal £60mill cost for this outage be exceeded I wonder?

Now begins the real high carbon production as Sizewell B is 'switched off' when the 1200 highly skilled specialists are flown in from around the world. Along with the 538 regular  workers employed at SW B, an extra 262 employees to total 800 as stated, will descend on the 'shut down' to carry out, I presume, the general maintenance tasks, while the highly skilled 1200 will endeavor to move some of the very dangerous spent fuel rods to what are known as 'the ponds'. All requiring immense amounts of outside sourced electricity from the National Grid  to run all of their massive demands. The spent fuel rods will sit in the ponds for 5 years when, after, they will be moved to the American designed 'Hi Storm ' 6 metre high containers we have seen shown off in earlier EADT feature articles and placed on site in the £200million dry fuel hanger for centuries. Until such time, we are told, a so called 'Geological Deposit Facility' site can be secured. Once there, to be stored for at least 20,000 years, buried deep into the earth and having to be accessed at all times to monitor the casings condition for lethal leakages. 'Low carbon,' don't make me laugh Mr Paul Morton.

As I said in an earlier letter, this is really dangerous stuff we are dealing with, a cupful if exposed onto the centre spot at a sports stadium would kill everybody in a few minutes. (BBC Radio Four Programme 'Dismantling a Nuclear Power Station')

From the dangerous  mining of the uranium, global transportation, conversion to enriched nuclear power station plutonium, designing and building the complicated plants over decades, outages and eventual decommissioning and dismantling over tens of decades all creating very high carbon and of course the waste storage forever!   Don't be fooled by the sales promotion rhetoric and PR.

Bob Hoggar