Dear Sir,

I note with interest that the funding of new nuclear is once again in the news and open to speculation in the forthcoming budget. As fascinating as it may seem surely it is not a question of how to fund new nuclear but why would any government in its right mind want our country to invest in such an expensive old outmoded form of electricity production. Which leaves hundreds of tonnes of nuclear waste for future generations to guard and keep under vigilance for many hundreds of years, whilst never forgetting the same nuclear waste is also available for use to create nuclear weapons.
It is not just the financial cost, but considering new nuclear shows a total lack of consideration for future generations and the planet which we all share.
It is argued that power from nuclear produces little CO2, this is absolutely inconsequential when you consider all the drawbacks of new nuclear. Tinkering around with nuclear power, which is the most expensive form of electricity production there is, and by not considering the total lack of sustainability, not only from the building of the plant, ( just look at the devastation at Hinkley Point C ) but the massive environmental damage which comes about from mining yellow cake (uranium) in other countries. Uranium processing, cleaning and then exporting it here using different forms of transportation. Finally using it to produce electricity with its radio-nuclide’s going either into the air or out to sea.
 Sadly over the past 60 years Sellafield and Drigg have housed the nuclear waste end product. This is costing billions of pounds to clean up. Nothing about new nuclear is worth the price we pay either in hard cash or the damage it causes to the world wide environment.
All in all nuclear power generation and all it encompasses is a filthy business from start to finish, and I am ashamed that our country is not, and has not, been supporting all the innovative people and businesses who have needed backing and incentive, to enable them to lead the world in clean affordable electricity generated by sustainable means.
Why are the Government not considering funding all the ways and means there are to reduce the need for electricity and reduce usage? For instance why are we not using LED lighting in every street light countrywide, and the list is endless.
Come a day when electric vehicles become a back up to a transformed national grid, and homes and businesses create their own power and use it for their own heating, lighting and recharging their own vehicles. This is just waiting for the Government to enable and encourage this transformation.
 If successive governments had planned for other ways to produce electricity which leave no nuclear waste and little or no CO2 , whilst also planning to reduce electricity use and  allocated as much hard cash into research and development for all forms of clean and green renewables as it has into new nuclear, we may not be facing the frightening doomsday scenario of Climate emergency.
 To our shame we are leaving climate change and nuclear waste for future generations to manage. Therefore
we ask Government to consider an urgent review of energy policy which must include a speedy transition to a fully sustainable future which excludes new nuclear and which protects the human rights of the child and the unborn child.
Sir -- How I agree with Bob Hoggar about Sizewell (Letters, Friday 6 March 2020). Here we are on the North Sea, where the wind blows every day, and where the sun shines longer than in any other part of the country, and yet we are told we need another nuclear power station (or two, if you count Bradwell). Nobody says what we will do with the poisonous waste produced by these toxic factories, and nobody questions the destruction of the coastal environment, and nobody explains why we need them at all, given the natural resources that can generate all the power we need. No more nuclear!
Bernie Corbett

Dear Editor,

The 21st January EADT Business Supplement included an article from John Dugmore, Suffolk Chamber of Commerce's chief executive, saying they had written to the seven successful Tory MP's offering them the Chambers congratulations. This was then followed by asking for the MP's support for eight items which would favour their members. This support was then further followed by a request to ramp up support for Sizewell (SZC&D) not a single, but two reactors. It was stated that they have a supply chain of over 1000 Suffolk firms and those further afield who are anxious to have a tranche of any future work.

I should like to make it clear to all local hopefuls that EDF have, in the past, made it apparent through none other than their very recently departed SZC&D project Director, Mr Jim Crawford, who said that in order to attempt some essential financial savings that they intend to draw heavily upon their already trained staff who would be transferred from their more advanced current but still unfinished EPR single reactor projects at Olkiluoto in Finland and Flamanville in France, and also from the under-construction double reactor Hinkley Point (HPC&D).

Dear Sir,
Bob Hoggar’s letter (EADT Jan 13th) is a clear and precise representation of the enormous and ever increasing costs and complications of building Nuclear Power Stations.
He also demonstrates that nuclear power is now shown to be the most expensive form of electricity generation and the long term management of waste from this process will leave future generations with an immensely costly legacy and burden.
When Mr Hoggar’s arguments are added to the environmental hazards outlined by the research assessments carried out by Heriot-Watt University then surely we can all recognise that the building of nuclear power stations on the beach at Sizewell is lunacy.
There is no question that the building of Sizewell C must be stopped.
martin deighton

Dear Editor,
Well Well Well ! At last it seems that what has been pretty obvious for such a long time to many of us, alongside the anti groups TASC & TEAGS, that SZC&D is a non-starter, (see their websites). As I said in my letter to EADT of September 19th, 2017 and headed "Has the penny finally dropped?"  Having read the article by Andrew Hirst last Saturday 4th Jan in EADT, hopefully this is finally dawning on everybody. "Game over for Sizewell C&D" and nuclear globally. As they have always done, the costs of building nuclear power stations continue to rise astronomically. As EDF are well aware. They are extremely difficult and expensive to build, leaving a legacy of deadly waste material forever for our next generations. Essentially, nuclear energy was a 20th century controlled nuclear explosion to produce bombs. That is why it was introduced in the first place. Nuclear power stations followed. We were always told the electricity produced would be too cheap to even charge for. As we know, this never happened. Dr Paul Dorfman of the University College London, a specialist in these matters, has frequently pointed out the downside and in a debate with Paul Spence of EDF, stated, "the cost of nuclear is just too high" and (I say) too dangerous. He stated "renewables are now less than half the cost of nuclear". Also, renewable energy is produced in a fraction of the time. It can be dismantled instantly if necessary unlike nuclear. In 2005 Sizewell A was shut down but may not be touched for another 70 years and will take as much as over 100 years to remove and then they will have to leave the dangerous reactor core vessel in the base sealed over forever at Sizewell beach, no doubt by then under water.

We have also learned recently that costs at Hinkley Point have escalated by £3 billion pounds so soon into the contract and the time increased by nearly two years forcing costs upwards constantly. Yet Mr Spence insists they, EDF, can learn from HPC&D at Sizewell. He is careful not to mention the north west French 'flagship' Flamanville EPR, still unfinished, or to mention the Olkiluoto EPR in Finland. These are both single reactors but fraught with problems. Flamanville certainly not expected to be commisioned for several more years. Both were begun in or around 2005. This will be the same for HPC&D, that seems certain. Thomas Piquemal, chief EDF financial director, resigned saying he thought HPC&D would cripple EDF. He was replaced by Xavier Girre. Watch this space!

Bob Hoggar.