This is my submission to the Consultation: Trevor Lockwood BSc FRSA
I have read the Sizewell C Stage 2 Pre-Application Consultation document and the Summary document.
Before addressing the substance of these documents I wish to comment:
1. The UK spends over £2 billion every year at its main research establishment at Sellafield.
In that case why are we allowing two foreign countries to build our new nuclear power plants?
2. These consultation document are produced by the contractor: doesn’t the government, on behalf of the people, have a Response to Consultation with a more detailed specification? Work is now planned to start, largely on the speculations stated in these documents, and that raises great concern. Not just the speed but that the contractor seems to be driving the project.
3. No alternatives have been considered. We are presented with two, not one, but two EPR reactors. These raise questions:
3a) Are these the best, most reliable nuclear reactors available?
3b) How much will they cost – assuming that estimates at this stage are likely to at least double (in real terms) by the start of production and continue to rise throughout their life.
3c) It will be raised again but the waste from this facility is to remain on site – yet the eustatic effects to this stretch of coastline will affect the site before it is planned to end.
4. Alternative systems
This contractor’s outline assumes that this is the only decision to be considered. However with a ten-year construction time frame other options need to be considered.
4a) Better location: a safer location needs to be examined. What evidence is there to categorically state that Sizewell is the best site in the UK? Or is it just the cheapest? At least eight locatons could be viable.
4b) Russia is now building a Tesla Tower. If this works it will produce unlimited power, and nuclear power will not be required.
4c) Alternative fuels, namely Thorium, could be used. It will not make plutonium (weapon grade fuel) but is inherently safe and renewable. No serious objections have ever been raised, and it has been tested and found to be workable.
4d) Renewable energy: Several countries, including Holland, are creating local area linked power units using alternatives, such as solar panels -solar-battery powered cars are now being used to store excess energy. The comparative costs, flexibility and safety make such systems viable alternatives.
4e) Hows wll the generated power be transferred to points of us? We now now that copper is not the only transfer vehcile, and other formats could allow different system: local generation, long-distance transfer fro (say) desert areas.
Let me now turn to the Consultation 2 Document
References shown here refer to the paragraph headings of the Consultation Document. These are only the most obvious questions raised, and I’ll admit that by Section 8 I’d become so diillusioned that I couldn’t continue. Clearly there are too many variables that have not been examined, and too many assumptions made, so that the whole document is not more than the rablings of an undergraduate essay.
1.2.1 EDF is described as one of the largest energy companies in the UK. That a foreign company can make such a claim, during a time when we are planning to leave the EU, is inherently dangerous.
1.3.1 The NPS-EN1 and NPS-EN6 are now outdated, and will certainly be before this project is completed. They can no longer be relied upon.
3.3.1 If there is an urgent need for energy then nuclear power is not the answer. Alternatives are available, for example: all new housing should be energy efficient – with solar panels or other renewables.
3.3.3 Nuclear power is not clean, secure or affordable when its lifetime is considered.
Sizewell is only one of eight sites considered. It is by far the most dangerous. With a crumbling coastline, too close to Europe and in the middle of a tourist area and AONB.
3.3.9 Replacing an SSI does not provide a workable substitute – you can’t serve notice of ejection upon wildlife.
3.5 The National Police Statements provide too many objections, particularly defence interests; – less than 40 miles from the European coast, coastal change; changes daily, with flooding as a risk. Traffic with only the A12 (an unimproved A road0 already overloaded in summer, landscape and visual and aircraft movements all in danger.
4.2 It\s assumed that only 1,500 of the planned 5,000 workers will come from the UK. The back page of the Summary lists contact details for Portuguese, Polish, Bengali, Lithuanian and Romanian potential workers.
The assumption is that these foreign workers will form the greater part of the workforce. No training for UK workers is seriously considered. Cheap workers from abroad will do nothing to increase the skills base of UK workers.
4.2.10 Daily movements are not properly considered. Weasel words and phrases will not suffice. This is beautiful countryside that cannot be replaced once ruined.
4.2.13 Landing wharfage has been reduced from Stage 1 – to reduce costs. A better strategy would be to insist that all materials are brought by sea. Both Felixstowe and Lowestoft are equipped to handle larger vessels and to part load to Sizewell.
4.3.2 No mention is made of the long-term storage of nuclear waste – for perhaps thousands of years. It is to remain at this site! Just to save the contractor money, and leave the problem to the local population.
4.4.4 Rail route seems an excessive cost for a temporary structure – as it cuts across farmland. What will be the cost of re-establishing and compensation?
4.4.10 and 4.4.15 exit and access is plans unclear, and will slow traffic on A12 considerably – turning right or left will be a problem.
Figure 4.10 seems a better option but I’m unable to judge.
5.3 and 5.4.5 Employment, skilled employment, is vital to this area. At this stage temporary and long term tasks should be identified – those having long-term potential should be reserved for local people, and the appropriate training systems put in place now.
5.4.16 Remembering the problems at Leiston of Sizewell B workers there must be concern that this is prevented this time. It is proposed that temporary accommodation for some 3,000 workers will be constructed.
Why can’t this be planned as a permanent village to help with our housing crisis? I suspect it’s about cost – 4-storey portacabins are cheaper. Very short-term thinking. Costs of restitution will be considerable – why not think ahead.
This will have an adverse affect on tourism. During construction there will be excess traffic, pile driving, civil disruption by young workers. Towns, like Aldeburgh, may never recover.
5.5.21 Community safety plans are inadequate. Reporting events after they happen do not restore confidence.
6.5 Traffic management – this is an old-world agricultural community. It will not react well to disruption. The modelling graphs (Figure 6.2 etc) are inaccurate (no weekends shown, no daily flows).
6.8.15 Air quality measures should also consider the continuous easterly polluted air flow from Felixstowe’s 3.35 million TCU movements
7.3.2 This is nonsense – build a pond beside a sea that is likely to flood until a UK Geological Disposal Site is available – that is NOT going to happen. We shall leave this nuclear waste for future generations. That is wrong.
7.4.14 put beside the hedgerow removal we have seen in Suffolk over recent years this is a disgraceful restoration.
7.4.41 A cut-off wall is currently being modelled? What will happen when you pump away all the water needed for agriculture? What volumes are you considering?
7.4.51 fishermen now fish close to the warmed water outlet. Will CEFAS study really provide assurances required? It needs clarification.
7.4.66 As an ecologist I’m really concerned that you believe a mitigation strategy is all that is required.
The Thames Crossway project has eight tunnel boring machines – rent one for here, the Options given will not work.
7.5.36 et al That’s OK then. God has spoken sea wind and tide have been warned – there will never be another event like 1953, Dunwich will be returned. EDF marketeers have decided.
You state that a jetty will cause no problems nor will any dredging – how much spoil will be removed – can we sell it to the Dutch? Analysis is required.
For much of the remaining sections of the document I am too close to apoplexy to be safe to continue.
A four-storey accommodation block is to be screened by vegetation. Noise will be prevented. Modelling is continuing, environmental areas will be replaced – so it goes on. This is all written by a team of skilled liars.
We don’t need these constant references that the contractor plans to look at this problem – there are far too many.
There’s no appreciation that this is the closest portion of coastal land for most people. That it is a tourist area – visited by millions every year. That there is an internationally important nature reserve, which is just a stage in development of wildlife access that will stretch to Lowestoft,and link to the Broads.
I was a surveyor that worked on the Sizewell B training centre at Cliff Quay, Ipswich – which was an afterthought to the Sizewell B construction. A similar facility is not even mentioned here.
My patience ran out at this point. Here we are at Section 8, still writing about temporary works. Where’s the long-term development? Where’s the discussion about alternatives.
Why is this just a speculative document produced by a foreign contractor?
What are the implications of Brexit? How will the UK develop its own skill base? Why can’t we build this ourselves.
Can we see a financial comparison of the different energy options before assuming that this nuclear plan, using outmoded ideas, stuck alongside this environmentally sensitive coast is the only option we have.
I’m convinced it is not