https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/opinion-andy-wood-adnams-sizewell-power-plant-1-6950551

Suffolk Community Foundation’s latest report on our county’s Hidden Needs makes for some heart-breaking reading.

Whether it is somebody in an isolated village with no transport or a young person from a family where multi-generational unemployment is the norm, or someone old and lonely, this report highlights that targeted and often complex solutions are called for.

It reminds us that spending money to create long-term new jobs may be good for the economy but will not necessarily benefit everyone and not necessarily those that have been left behind. We should be wary of suggestions that the “boom times” are just around the corner because of a major construction project such as the proposed new nuclear power station at Sizewell.

Leiston, host to Sizewell A and B, was described by Suffolk Safeguarding Partnership in this newspaper earlier this month as “a significantly deprived population with higher levels of childhood obesity, tooth decay and smoking [with] little social mobility.”

If it ever found the funding, and overcame numerous objections locally and nationally, Sizewell C should create 900 new long-term jobs according to EDF, at a total cost of £20 billion. That’s over £22 million per new job. A fraction of this sum invested in the sort of solutions required to alleviate Suffolk’s hidden needs would have a much bigger impact and leave plenty of change to create new long-term careers in sectors which are much more suited to this county’s significant strengths, such as in tourism, offshore wind and IT to name a few.

Whilst we were told in the Prime Minister’s 10-Point Plan that the government was supportive of large nuclear projects, this is not unconditional. Tucked away in background materials is the phrase “subject to value for money”. That is key to my own and others’ opposition to Sizewell C.

Sizewell C would be the biggest construction site in Europe, adding 12,000 vehicles each day to the A12. EDF has made no secret of its need to save money and reduce the significant risks of a complicated build by using the Hinkley Point supply chain and workforce. 6,000 relocated workers will need accommodation, pushing up rents and house prices for local people, especially those in lower cost housing. Many of the remaining workers are expected to travel from 90 minutes away – not exactly local and well outside the county.

EDF admits many hundreds would be displaced from existing employers, causing recruitment problems. Meanwhile, independent studies found that up to £40 million would be lost to our valuable tourism industry each year of construction. With a build time in excess of a decade when its technology is highly likely to have been superseded, is this really worth the risk to Suffolk and its communities?

It would be wrong to object to Sizewell C without either evidence of its impacts or offer alternative solutions. Of course, our young people deserve training and the opportunity of a rewarding career, but Sizewell C is not the only option. This part of Suffolk needs more well-paid, long term jobs which work with the grain of the existing economy rather than threatening it.

Both public and private sector leaders need to come together to celebrate the area’s many strengths and help it to remove remaining barriers so that it becomes the best place to start a new business. Small and medium-sized businesses create most of the new, long term employment opportunities in our area and there is huge potential for these to expand and grow. Many exploit ideas and technologies which do not depend on being in cities to succeed and Suffolk, with all its amenities, has much to offer.

Local estate agents have reported a tide of interest from city dwellers who already realise this and want to bring their own business ideas to less-congested counties like Suffolk.

There are significant opportunities linked to our green recovery. Investment in offshore wind, responsibly delivered to shore, is going to bring us much cheaper energy and many more jobs in the medium and long term than the eye-wateringly expensive Sizewell C.

The green think tank e3g has calculated that labour intensive tasks like insulating homes can cut CO2 emissions and create jobs at a fraction of the cost of Sizewell C.

Despite EDF’s many years and millions of pounds spent persuading us that Sizewell C will be good for Suffolk, more and more of us are realising that the opposite is true.

We have no issue with the existing Sizewell B, but it is time we fought back against a proposal which will damage existing jobs and could ruin the place upon which so many of our livelihoods are founded. It is not too late to stop Sizewell C.

https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/boris-10-point-plan-sizewell-c-reaction-1-6935670

Top-level talks on funding for Sizewell C but no green light yet

PUBLISHED: 17:28 18 November 2020 | UPDATED: 19:04 18 November 2020

Richard Cornwell

Campaigners said opposition was “strong and growing” and the government’s financial commitment to nuclear was a “drop in the ocean” compared with Sizewell C’s cost.

Mr Johnson said £525 million would be earmarked to help develop “large and smaller-scale nuclear plants”, and research and develop new advanced modular reactors. This could support 10,000 jobs in total.

Sizewell C managing director Humphrey Cadoux-Hudson said “Sizewell C is the only large scale nuclear project ready to begin construction. It will deliver the always-on low-carbon power Britain needs.

“Sizewell C will be a great British project: It will copy the UK-adapted design being built at Hinkley Point C, with 70% of the value of engineering and construction contracts going to suppliers based in this country, and can be majority owned by British investors. When it gets the go-ahead, it will create thousands of jobs.

“Sizewell C builds on the great progress being made by UK nuclear at Hinkley Point C and, as a direct copy, it can benefit from lower construction and financing costs.

“We look forward to moving ahead quickly with the Government on an innovative funding arrangement to achieve best value for money for consumers.”

Alison Downes, from Stop Sizewell C, said: “Despite heavy briefing by EDF and the nuclear industry, the Prime Minister’s 10 Point Plan has not yet given a green light to Sizewell C, nor any suggestion on how it might be funded.

“The pledge of £525m to be split between large, small and advanced reactors is a drop in the ocean compared to the £20billion cost of Sizewell C.

“Of course, we continue to wait for the Energy White Paper, but Sizewell C remains a ridiculously expensive project that won’t contribute to net zero until at least 2040, won’t help ‘level up’ the UK and threatens RSPB Minsmere. Quite simply, Sizewell C has no place in a truly green recovery and there is still time for the government to realise this.”

Charles Macdowell, also from Stop Sizewell C, added: “If EDF were hoping the Prime Minister’s announcement would give the go-ahead to Sizewell C, they will be sorely disappointed.

“Even with the PM’s restatement of his support for nuclear energy, history has shown that it isn’t easy to deliver on political promises to build such projects. Nuclear may be the third point in the PM’s plan but it is neither green nor clean.”

EDF says Sizewell C – if given the go-ahead – could be contrubuting to net zero by the early 2030s and woudl continue to do so as electricity demand increases substantially due to electrification of heat, transport and industry – roughly doubling from today’s level.

Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) said the Prime Minister’s plan was “lacking imagination, ambition or vision” and called for a programme which commits to at least 80% power generated by renewables by 2030, mandatory solar panels on new homes and buildings, a comprehensive programme for retrofitting of buildings to make them more energy efficient, a scrapping of the National Grid and a more radical shake up of the way electricity is generated and distributes.

TASC chair and deputy chair of the Sizewell Stakeholder Group, Pete Wilkinson said: “Whatever you were hoping for in the statement, it’s likely that you’ll be disappointed. The Tory government has been in labour for years and has produced a mouse. An opportunity to show vision, imagination and to lay the groundwork for how it sees the ‘build back better’ programme unfold has been squandered.

“Large-scale nuclear can only mean Sizewell, Bradwell and possibly a revived interest in Wylfa, all of which, as Treasury knows only too well, will need funding from sources other than EdF which is hugely in debt and has admitted it does not have the funds to complete a £20bn Sizewell project.

“Support for small modular reactors (SMRs) offers a handout to Rolls Royce for the development of reactors which are untried, unlicenced and which will require complicated planning approvals if they are to be used close to centres of population to make use of their district heating potential from waste heat. It’s unlikely that communities will accept the generation of nuclear waste and live with the risk of a nuclear accident on a ‘local’ basis. SMRs are yet another attempt to throw a lifeline to the failing nuclear industry at the public’s expense and represent another nuclear expensive punt more in hope than expectation.

“We are pleased that, despite heavy lobbying by EDF and the nuclear industry cheerleaders, Sizewell C has not been given the green light but we are mindful of the fact that the government is yet to publish its energy White Paper. We call on the government to reject the nuclear option in that paper and to recognise that nuclear’s climate change credentials have time and again been roundly demonstrated to be greatly overstated. Even Secretaries of State continue to claim it is a ‘zero carbon’ source of electricity, which it is not.”

https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/sizewell-c-hgv-rail-and-sea-changes-revealed-1-6934043

More rail and sea deliveries proposed for Sizewell C, but opponents hit out

PUBLISHED: 07:00 18 November 2020 | UPDATED: 08:47 18 November 2020

As revealed last month, the company wants to increase substantially the amount of materials being delivered by rail and sea, cutting by 20% the amount travelling by road if the twin reactor nuclear power station is given the go-ahead.

Opponents though say it is “laughable” it has taken so long for changes to be made to the 
strategy for delivering construction materials – after years of protests.

And they claim EDF is still not disclosing important offshore survey results which are “critical” for its second beach landing facility plans.

Richard Bull, head of transport planning for Sizewell C, said: “Following feedback from East Suffolk and Suffolk County Councils, and from responses to our Development Consent Order (DCO) proposals, we have continued to investigate ways to increase rail and sea deliveries.

“We have been able to identify more of our required material from areas with good rail and sea connections. There is now potential to reduce the total amount of material being moved by road to around 40%.

“If this can be achieved it will be possible to reduce HGV numbers on an average typical day at the peak of construction to 250 (500 two-way movements) and 350 HGVs (700 two-way movements) on the busiest day. This represents a reduction of 150 HGVs on the very busiest day (300 two-way movements) compared to the numbers in the DCO submission.”

Documents issued today in connection with the 30-day consultation say the company is looking at building a beach landing facility for the delivery of large loads by sea and a second temporary landing facility.

Talks are ongoing with Network Rail to see how many extra trains could run.

Options being considered include running four trains (seven overnight movements) rather than three trains (five overnight movements); using five trains a day during the busiest period of construction; and running trains six days a week (Monday to Saturday). Mr Bull said: “We fully understand the concerns about noise on the East Suffolk Line – particularly for overnight freight deliveries. We are investigating continuous welded rail lines, the use of slower speeds and the types of trains that could be used to keep noise to a minimum.”

To cut the amount of materials needing to be moved, EDF would reduce the volume of material that needs to be moved away from the site by using it as fill or for landscaping. Rail and sea will be used “where practicable” and where road remains necessary the aim will be to ensure reduced local impacts via the use of defined routes and systems to control the number and timing of HGV movements.

Humphrey Cadoux-Hudson, Sizewell C managing director, said: “We take the feedback from the councils, MPs and local people extremely seriously and would like to make these updates to our proposals in good time so they can be considered by the planning inspectorate and all interested parties during the next phase of this process.

“We hope these changes will give even greater confidence to local communities that the benefits of this project for Suffolk will far outweigh the potential impacts during construction.”

But Paul Collins, chair of Stop Sizewell C, said: “It’s laughable that it has taken almost 1,300 responses to EDF’s DCO application, and the opposition of the county council and scores of parishes and four previous consultation stages for EDF to begin to listen about HGV traffic and site access.

“EDF is still not making public its surveys of the offshore Sizewell Dunwich Banks – critical for its proposals for a second Beach Landing Facility and its sea defences – nor its evidence over how much CO2 will be emitted during construction.”

Mr Collins said residents were also unhappy at having received more letters for fields and gardens needed in connection with road infrastructure plans, which he described as “land grab”.

Nature experts in Suffolk are also angry over the proposals for the £20billion Sizewell C project – and say they would be “catastrophic” for the county’s wildlife-rich and fragile coast.

EDF Energy has outlined changes to its plans which it says will reduce the use of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty by using brownfield land for critical buildings that need to be moved, and also to create more fen meadow.

However, the Suffolk Wildlife Trust is still opposing the plans – which are currently before the Planning Inspectorate – and says the development would be “devastating for nature”.

This week the Government has announced ‘greater protections for England’s iconic landscapes’ and has promised to designate more AONB and “to protect and restore our natural environment and diverse ecosystems”.

SWT says Sizewell C would destroy or damage an area the size of around 900 football pitches – 500 hectares – in the middle of the officially designated Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB, while a Special Area of Conservation, Special Protection Area and a RAMSAR site would also be impacted.

The land includes nationally rare wildlife habitats such as heathland, oak woods, sand dunes, shingle, fen, marsh, reedbed and natural grassland, home to many rare plants, insects, and birds such as barn owl, marsh harrier and kingfisher, and mammals such as water vole.

Christine Luxton, chief executive of Suffolk Wildlife Trust, said: “Sizewell C would destroy a vast swathe of the Suffolk coastline in one of the most beautiful natural parts of the UK. People visit this part of Suffolk from all over the country to enjoy the wild countryside. If this vast development gets the go-ahead, an area of the coast the size of 900 football pitches will be directly affected by the development. Barn owls, water voles and kingfishers will see their habitat destroyed.

“Nature is already in huge trouble and the sheer scale of this development will make a bad situation much, much worse. We will not solve the climate crisis by destroying natural habitats that lock-up carbon. This is the wrong time and the wrong place for such a colossal and damaging development.

“We do not believe it would be possible to make up for the damage Sizewell C would cause to the natural world on this extraordinarily beautiful stretch of coastline.

“We are deeply concerned that the suggested mitigation and compensation would never balance the huge loss to biodiversity and the impacts on our protected sites and species. Whilst compensation sites can be vital to offset any habitat destruction, they cannot replace the higher value of long-established sites with a rich mosaic of species.

“At a time of climate and ecological emergency, we need to find truly sustainable solutions which do not add to the problem by destroying internationally and nationally-important wild places for nature.”

The latest changes proposed by EDF’s consultation include an additional site as further mitigation for a small loss of fen meadow habitat on the SSSI. Along with the existing sites at Benhall and Halesworth, a site near Pakenham in West Suffolk has been identified for a project to enhance the biodiversity of the land.

Other changes include a proposed redesign of the SSSI crossing to a 30m long single-span bridge with embankments. The bridge design would retain “significantly more space” around the Leiston Drain and reduce the amount of SSSI land take. It would provide additional flood relief and greater connectivity for species including water voles, otters and bats, helping wildlife populations.

Katy McGuinness, environment planning manager for Sizewell C, said projects like Aldhurst Farm nature reserve and the Studio Field complex at Sizewell Gap had been developed already with the aim of mitigating the impact building Sizewell C could have on wildlife in and around the temporary construction area.

She added: “Taking inspiration from a similar project in Dorset, we intend to establish an independent Environmental Trust to manage the ongoing re-wilding and biodiversity of the growing Sizewell estate. We will commit to contributing to the Trust every year during the operation of Sizewell C, with a view to expanding and connecting further parcels of land identified for re-wilding and habitat creation.”