4th Jan to March 29th 2019

Preamble

TASC is strongly opposed to the building of Sizewell C.

But we feel it is our duty to respond to the 3rd Consultation

a) Many of our members have lived in East Suffolk all their lives. It was so obvious to TASC at Stage 1 consultation that a building project of this magnitude in the proposed situation on the coast at Sizewell was going to cause massive environmental, societal and untold disruption in and around East Suffolk.

b) However we had no idea then of the magnitude of what is now suggested for our area. In trying to make the project fit and pacify people who have quite rightly shown concern we believe the 3rd Consultation has shown us all exactly what devastation is to be foisted upon us.

Disrupting everyone’s way of life, rural roads, beach and coastline, walks and bridleways, the special environment and the tranquillity which people who visit from far and wide require for their health and well being.


c) We have no doubt that EDFE have considered some aspects of the 10 to 15 year building project and the eventual impact of 2 nuclear reactors on the Heritage Coast and we recognise the work undertaken over the past two years to present the latest round of Consultation.

d) EDFE has tried to paper over all their cracks and have failed dismally. In trying to make the project fit into this unsuitable area the project has spread over a much larger area. EDFE know, as do the Government and our elected leaders, exactly what devastation is to befall us, having seen the problems and disruption at Hinkley Point C. The propaganda is all about selling the project and we hear over and over again of the economic benefits, the well paid jobs, apprenticeships, but very little of the environmental destruction or of the damaging effect and problems it will have on the local population for 12 years.

 TASC is more convinced than ever that the Sizewell C potential site is totally unsuitable and the list of environmental and societal dis-benefits far outweighs any perceived benefits. We are aware that BEIS is consulting on a revised NPS EN6.

Since its first publication in 2008 there has been a great deal of development in alternative means of generating electricity and the cost of wind and PV solar are continuing to reduce.

Notwithstanding the SZC location is nominated as a potential site in the existing EN6, why is EDFE pursuing such a profoundly sensitive site at Sizewell with its many environmental hurdles, in such a remote spot in an AONB and Heritage Coast with unsuitable means of transport?

SZB spent nuclear fuel is stored at Sizewell, We are very concerned at the prospect of additional spent nuclear fuel being stored from SZC for the lifetime of the plant and beyond.

It would appear that EDFE wish to go ahead with their plans however impossible, and the existing population and environment will have to live with the total disruptive consequences if Planning Consent is eventually given by the Secretary of State.

E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.www.scoastalfoe.com
Download a pdf of the response here

Members’ responses to Sizewell C Stage 3 consultation

1. SIZEWELL C PROPOSALS OVERALL

Friends of the Earth are opposed to civil nuclear power because of its association with nuclear weapons and because there is still no satisfactory answer to the problem of the waste, some of which will not degrade for 240,000 years – far longer than modern humans have walked this planet. It is not possible to ‘dispose’ of nuclear waste. There are many other reasons for objecting to Sizewell C, some of which are described below.

Policy context

Chapter 3 of volume 1 Stage 3 Consultation refers to the planning policy context and the need for nuclear power. However, the government’s energy policy as stated in EN-6, published in 2011, is now out of date and this is currently being revised. Since then renewable forms of energy have overtaken nuclear in terms of cost and speed of construction, showing that nuclear is now old-fashioned. The government’s statement that the need for nuclear power is ‘urgent’ is clearly false, as the lights have not gone out. The reality is that there is no need for nuclear.

Finance

Nuclear power is hugely expensive and it is our belief that the public should not have to pay for it through subsidies, guarantees and insurances. Decommissioning and storage of waste need to be factored in. It is still unclear how EDF and CGN will raise the funds to pay for Sizewell C.

We cannot believe that it is possible to build a copy of Hinkley Point C at Sizewell at 20% less the cost, bearing in mind that the site for the reactors is a marsh as opposed to a rocky foundation. Having to create a curtain wall and go down to a depth of at least 35m is surely extremely expensive.

Response to EDFE Sizewell C Stage 3 Consultation

from: SZC Liaison Group-S.A.G.E. Monitoring

A pdf of the response can be downloaded here

28th March, 2019

INTRODUCTION

The observations in this consultation response are based mainly on Chapters 1,2 & 3 of Volume 1 in the full Stage 3 Report, with additional specific comments on Questions 1, 2 & 15.

There are four areas of principled concern:

1 The suitability of the project for the site and the amenity of host communities

2 The necessity/relevance of the project

3 The sustainability of the project, including legacy values for the impacted communities

4 Consultation standard & public interests

Drawing on these, we present arguments and recommendations about the consultation process and the energy policy context of the project, about the project's economic legacy values and, thirdly, about the overall approach to nature protection duties revealed in the Stage 3 Report. We argue overall that a comprehensive and final Stage 4 consultation is needed to fulfil EDFE's duties of consultation.

Sizewell C Stage 3 Consultation Submission
on behalf of the Waveney Green Party 29/03/2019


1)What are your views on EDF Energy’s proposals to build a new nuclear power station, Sizewell C, and associated development

The Green Party oppose plans to build new nuclear power plants in the UK. Nuclear power is an outdated technology that is unsuitable and dangerous for a world facing the unpredictable consequences of climate change.

In the stage 3 pre application document, EDF sets out the government legislation that was developed a decade ago in order to justify the need for nuclear power. At that time the government was hoping that a new nuclear renaissance would fill the looming energy gap forecast to hit as old nuclear power stations were shut down and coal phased out in order to enable the UK to meet its legally binding targets in reducing CO2 emissions.

It is now abundantly clear that with long lead times, nuclear power plants are not going to be built in time to fulfil our obligations to reduce CO2 by deadlines set under the Climate Change Act. In fact, because of the huge capital costs and construction time, nuclear power is a hindrance to us reaching those targets rather than a solution. As Steve Holliday, a former CEO of National Grid,said in 2015:

This industry is going through a tremendous transformation. We used to have a pretty good idea of what future needs would be. We would build assets that would last decades and that would be sure to cover those needs. That world has ended.”i

Nuclear Power: Systemic Risk And Climate Change

Summary

Humanity faces a large number of challenges in future decades including increasing population leading to increased competition for dwindling resources and climate change. These challenges could lead to ‘collapse of civilisation’ i.e. the complex system of exchange of good and raw materials, energy, food and water would be susceptible to shocks or many even collapse altogether.

The nuclear industry is unique in the danger it poses from systemic shocks or collapse. Without of power supply, fresh water and human expertise it creates the risk of reactor core meltdown and/or a spent fuel fire which could release massive amounts of radioactivity with catastrophic results.

Although the consultation document has taken into account a possible scenario of a 3.2m sea level rise (SLR):

2.12.63. The main platform would be at a level of 7.3m AOD, which is similar to the 1 in 1000 annual probability extreme still water levels in the year 2110 for the worst credible H++ climate change scenario (3.2m SLR, including land motion). The H++ scenario identified in UKCP09 is beyond the likely range, but within physical plausibility. The main platform would therefore be safe and resilient for its whole operational life against the worst credible climate change predictions.1

only the direct risk from the sea level rise in the vicinity of the power plant has been taken into account. However, it is necessary2 to take into account indirect risks from such a sea level rise and associated climate change factors outline in the H++ scenario.

The full response to the consultation can be found here.