#sizewellc — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #sizewellc, aggregated by home.social.
-
#İngiltere’nin doğu kıyısındaki hızlı #erozyon, 40 milyar sterlinlik #nükleer projeyi tartışmaya açtı #SonDakika #SizewellC #NükleerSantral #Çevre #UK
-
#İngiltere’nin doğu kıyısındaki hızlı #erozyon, 40 milyar sterlinlik #nükleer projeyi tartışmaya açtı #SonDakika #SizewellC #NükleerSantral #Çevre #UK
-
U.K. Sets Stage for a Nuclear Rebuild With Ambitious 2026 Expansion Plans
The United Kingdom has big plans for its nuclear sector, with the construction of two conventional nuclear plants…
#UnitedKingdom #UK #Europe #EU #advancedreactors #energystrategy #GBE-N #GreatBritain #HinkleyPointC #NuclearPolicy #regulatoryreform #SizewellC #SMRs #U.K.nuclear #U.S.–U.K.cooperation
https://www.europesays.com/2631984/ -
https://www.europesays.com/uk/630601/ U.K. Sets Stage for a Nuclear Rebuild With Ambitious 2026 Expansion Plans #AdvancedReactors #Britain #EnergyStrategy #England #GBEN #GreatBritain #HinkleyPointC #NorthernIreland #NuclearPolicy #RegulatoryReform #Scotland #SizewellC #SMRs #U.K.Nuclear #U.S.–U.K.Cooperation #UK #UnitedKingdom #Wales
-
U.K. Sets Stage for a Nuclear Rebuild With Ambitious 2026 Expansion Plans https://www.byteseu.com/1624430/ #AdvancedReactors #EnergyStrategy #GBEN #HinkleyPointC #Nuclear #NuclearPolicy #RegulatoryReform #SizewellC #SMRs #U.K.Nuclear #U.S.–U.K.Cooperation
-
#NuclearPower ALWAYS costs more than the estimates!
"She added: 'It is astounding that it is only now, as contracts are being signed, that the government has confessed that #SizewellC's cost has almost doubled to an eye watering £38bn - a figure that will only go up.'"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cev03wer0p2o
#TemporaryJobs #PermamentWaste #NoNukes #NoNukesForAI #WaterIsLife #NuclearPowerCorruptionAndLies #NuclearPowerNoThanks
-
#Nuclear #sizewellC #power #electric I can't believe that anybody thinks this is a good idea. #dangerous #uneconomic #wasteful #polluting 20th century thinking ?
-
#Nuclear #sizewellC #power #electric I can't believe that anybody thinks this is a good idea. #dangerous #uneconomic #wasteful #polluting 20th century thinking ?
-
#Nuclear #sizewellC #power #electric I can't believe that anybody thinks this is a good idea. #dangerous #uneconomic #wasteful #polluting 20th century thinking ?
-
#Nuclear #sizewellC #power #electric I can't believe that anybody thinks this is a good idea. #dangerous #uneconomic #wasteful #polluting 20th century thinking ?
-
With Sellafield leaking toxic material like a god damned sieve, and no fix or replacement in sight, let alone means of making the waste safe rather than “safely storing” it (ha!), the government’s claim that Sizewell C will furnish “clean energy” is at best utterly disingenuous.
And that is before you get to its likely impacts on Minsmere and the rest of the coast.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c3v50qy35pwt -
Sizewell C nuclear power plant ‘could get go-ahead within weeks’ https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jun/03/sizewell-c-nuclear-power-plant-keir-starmer-uk-france-edf #Energyindustry #Nuclearpower #Environment #SizewellC #EDFEnergy #Business #Energy #UKnews
-
11th-century coin hoard discovered at Sizewell C site in England
A unique hoard of 321 silver coins from the 11th century has been unearthed during archaeological work at the Sizewell C nuclear power station site in Suffolk, England. These coins, surrounded by lead and once wrapped in a cloth that has since decayed...
More info: https://archaeologymag.com/2025/01/11th-century-coin-hoard-discovered-at-sizewell-c/
Follow @archaeology
#archaeology #archeology #archaeologynews #Harold #harthacnut #edwardtheconfessor #Suffolk #SizewellC #numismatics
-
Starmer to court UAE for British nuclear power plant investment
Story by Matt Oliver, Dec 7, 2024
"Sir Keir Starmer will court the powerful bosses of United Arab Emirates’ (UAE) sovereign wealth funds this week as he seeks to raise funding for the Sizewell C nuclear project.
"On a tour of the Gulf, the Prime Minister is expected to court investment into British infrastructure, including the proposed nuclear power plant on the coast of Suffolk."
#NoNukes #SizewellC #WaterIsLife #Environment #Wetlands #UKPol #TidalEnergy #RenewablesNow
-
So, why build #SizewellC and #HinkleyC?!! smh
The #UK produced enough #renewable energy to power all its homes in 2023
Jack Loughran
January 3, 2024"UK-based renewables generated over 90TWh of energy in 2023, which is more than enough to power all of the UK’s 28 million homes, an analysis has found.
[...]
"There are also several large new #WindFarms in the pipeline such as an £11bn 3GW project led by Germany’s RWE and UAE’s Masdar, which followed the opening of #Scotland’s largest offshore #WindFarm yet in October."
-
Imagine that. A #NuclearPowerPlant which costs more than planned. It happens all the time! Expensive, dangerous, and polluting!
#HinkleyPointC woes threaten to break UK and France’s nuclear fusion
Cross-Channel dream is turning sour as EDF’s costs mount and Britain faces a long wait for the power to come on
"Two former EDF executives told the Guardian the odds were stacked against Hinkley from the start. 'I would have bet at the time that we would see the costs we have today. And I think they’ll climb higher too,' said one."
#NoNukes #EDF #Wetlands #EndangeredSpecies #WaterIsLife #SizewellC #HinkleyPoint
-
Sizewell C nuclear plant could kill 500m fish, campaigners say
#Environmental groups claim planned Suffolk power station will devastate marine life and key bird habitat
by Karen McVeigh
Wed 28 Apr 2021 08.15 EDTArticle image: Sizewell B nuclear power station looms over the RSPB Minsmere wetlands. The proposed plant would be built on nature reserve’s southern boundary.
"More than 500 million fish, including #protectedspecies, could be sucked into the cooling system of a proposed £20bn #NuclearPowerPlant in Suffolk if construction goes ahead, environmental campaigners say.
"A local campaign group, Together Against Sizewell C (#Tasc), claims the subsequent deaths of millions of fish is 'inhumane and unacceptable' and flies in the face of the government’s #GreenAgenda. Also opposing the development, the #birdconservation group RSPB expressed concern over predicted levels of fish loss on the #marinebirds that feed on them.
"The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), a government agency, has assessed the marine impacts of the plant and said it was confident the mortality rates caused by Sizewell C would be 'sustainable' and the impact on the wider marine community 'insignificant'.
"#EDF, the French state-owned company behind the plan to build Sizewell C, claims the proposed plant could generate 3.2GW of electricity, enough to provide 7% of the UK’s electricity needs, or power 6m homes. The Nuclear Industry Association describes it as “a vital next step” in the UK’s efforts to secure new low-carbon electricity as older nuclear reactors are shut down.
"However, environmental campaign groups, including #Greenpeace, argue that nuclear reactors are unnecessary and expensive, compared with a combination of #RenewableEnergy and #BatteryStorage technology. The RSPB and the local community group #StopSizewellC said the reactor poses a risk to the natural habitats along the Suffolk coast and the adjacent Minsmere nature reserve. Campaigners say a new nuclear power station will have a severe impact on marine life.
"Planning documents published by EDF have revealed that almost 8 million fish were “impinged” – or sucked into the cooling system – by the existing plant Sizewell B each year between 2009 and 2013. Extrapolating from these figures, Tasc has estimated that 28 million fish could be impinged in the cooling system of both plants each year, which is 560 million over the two decades the plants are expected to operate, between 2035 and 2055. The proposed plant is larger than Sizewell B and will take in 2.5 times the amount of seawater, Tasc said.
"Pete Wilkinson, the chair of Tasc and a co-founder of Greenpeace UK, said the estimates were “staggering”. Such wildlife loss was the “tip of the iceberg”, he said, as it did not take into account fish fry, eggs, crustacea and other aquatic life.
“Tens of millions of fish, crustaceans and other marine biota will be sacrificed for the purposes of cooling a plant which is not needed to keep the lights on, which will do nothing to reduce global carbon emissions, which will be paid for from the pockets of all UK taxpayers and bill-paying customers, leaving future generations with a lasting legacy of an impoverished environment,” he said.
Wilkinson said he expected Cefas to condemn the impact on fish at the inquiry stage of the Sizewell C planning process.
“Cefas’s stated aim is ‘to help keep our seas, oceans and rivers healthy and productive, and our seafood safe and sustainable … ’ Instead, it seems that Cefas appears quite at ease presiding over the deaths of millions of fish and clearly feels the huge number of fish deaths is acceptable in that the overall health of fish stocks will not be compromised.”
“Adam Rowlands, the RSPB’s Suffolk area manager, said: 'It is our position that the project should not go ahead. The potential impacts on the environment are too great. Fish impingement is one of our concerns. These fish provide a valuable food supply to rare birds nesting and breeding in the area.'
“Protected species breeding in the area include little and common terns and in the winter there are a number of internationally important red-throated divers. 'They won’t feed on dead fish,' Rowlands said.
“Asked what impact such a loss of fish might have, Rowlands said: 'We haven’t seen evidence to convince us that removing that amount of fish from the population wouldn’t have an impact.'
“If the plant goes ahead, it will be built on part of Sizewell marshes, a site of special scientific interest. It will also be adjacent to the southern boundary of the RSPB-owned Minsmere nature reserve, a Ramsar (internationally important wetland) site and special protection area. Minsmere is one of only five sites in Britain to receive the Council of Europe European Diploma for protected areas award, whose renewal depends on Sizewell C not causing any damage.
“A spokesperson for Cefas said: 'There is no scientific evidence that the proposed new nuclear developments will cause large-scale destruction of marine life or impact protected species.'
“Its role in relation to the Sizewell C project was to ensure 'the marine evidence base is scientifically robust, to fully assess the potential marine impacts and, where feasible, to work with EDF engineers to reduce potential impacts by design optimisation', the spokesperson said, adding that issuing any objection to the proposal was outside its remit.
‘”Our objective is to ensure that the adverse impacts of human activities don’t affect the long-term viability of communities, habitats, or populations of vulnerable and declining species.
“‘Where impacts do occur, such as mortality of fish on power station intake screens, we assess these against other sources of mortality (natural and anthropogenic) and the ability of the population to withstand such losses. Compared to the natural population size, relatively few fish will be impacted and we are confident that mortality rates caused by the new nuclear industry are sustainable and the impact on the wider marine ecosystem will be insignificant.'
“It said it had produced three chapters of the environmental statement, including on marine ecology and fisheries, submitted by Sizewell C to the planning process for public and regulatory scrutiny. It added: 'In undertaking this nationally important work for EDF to develop UK’s new nuclear capability, we avoid conflicts of interest by not providing advice to government regulators on new nuclear developments.'
“A spokesperson for Sizewell C said: 'Our assessments show that the fish impacted are mainly sprat and herring. The intake of these species by Sizewell C is 0.01% of the stock in the area. Fisheries scientists describe the impact of new nuclear power stations on the marine ecosystem as ‘insignificant’.'
“The spokesperson said they would use a more modern 'fish returns system' than the one at Sizewell B, to ensure higher survival rates and that the returned fish that did not survive would be 'eaten by other sea life'.
“A spokesperson for the Environment Agency said it was responsible for 'stringent regulation' of the nuclear industry to prevent harm to the environment and local communities. Speaking about an #EDF subsidiary created to build and run #HinkleyPoint C and Sizewell C nuclear power stations, they said: 'We are currently considering NNB Generation Company’s environmental permit application for their proposed cooling water discharge, and will determine it once we have assessed the impacts to the marine environment – including fish populations.'
“The Sizewell C planning process began in May 2020 and an examination is now under way by the Planning Inspectorate. This stage of the process is expected to take about six months, during which local people and organisations can make representations."
-
Sizewell C nuclear plant could kill 500m fish, campaigners say
#Environmental groups claim planned Suffolk power station will devastate marine life and key bird habitat
by Karen McVeigh
Wed 28 Apr 2021 08.15 EDTArticle image: Sizewell B nuclear power station looms over the RSPB Minsmere wetlands. The proposed plant would be built on nature reserve’s southern boundary.
"More than 500 million fish, including #protectedspecies, could be sucked into the cooling system of a proposed £20bn #NuclearPowerPlant in Suffolk if construction goes ahead, environmental campaigners say.
"A local campaign group, Together Against Sizewell C (#Tasc), claims the subsequent deaths of millions of fish is 'inhumane and unacceptable' and flies in the face of the government’s #GreenAgenda. Also opposing the development, the #birdconservation group RSPB expressed concern over predicted levels of fish loss on the #marinebirds that feed on them.
"The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), a government agency, has assessed the marine impacts of the plant and said it was confident the mortality rates caused by Sizewell C would be 'sustainable' and the impact on the wider marine community 'insignificant'.
"#EDF, the French state-owned company behind the plan to build Sizewell C, claims the proposed plant could generate 3.2GW of electricity, enough to provide 7% of the UK’s electricity needs, or power 6m homes. The Nuclear Industry Association describes it as “a vital next step” in the UK’s efforts to secure new low-carbon electricity as older nuclear reactors are shut down.
"However, environmental campaign groups, including #Greenpeace, argue that nuclear reactors are unnecessary and expensive, compared with a combination of #RenewableEnergy and #BatteryStorage technology. The RSPB and the local community group #StopSizewellC said the reactor poses a risk to the natural habitats along the Suffolk coast and the adjacent Minsmere nature reserve. Campaigners say a new nuclear power station will have a severe impact on marine life.
"Planning documents published by EDF have revealed that almost 8 million fish were “impinged” – or sucked into the cooling system – by the existing plant Sizewell B each year between 2009 and 2013. Extrapolating from these figures, Tasc has estimated that 28 million fish could be impinged in the cooling system of both plants each year, which is 560 million over the two decades the plants are expected to operate, between 2035 and 2055. The proposed plant is larger than Sizewell B and will take in 2.5 times the amount of seawater, Tasc said.
"Pete Wilkinson, the chair of Tasc and a co-founder of Greenpeace UK, said the estimates were “staggering”. Such wildlife loss was the “tip of the iceberg”, he said, as it did not take into account fish fry, eggs, crustacea and other aquatic life.
“Tens of millions of fish, crustaceans and other marine biota will be sacrificed for the purposes of cooling a plant which is not needed to keep the lights on, which will do nothing to reduce global carbon emissions, which will be paid for from the pockets of all UK taxpayers and bill-paying customers, leaving future generations with a lasting legacy of an impoverished environment,” he said.
Wilkinson said he expected Cefas to condemn the impact on fish at the inquiry stage of the Sizewell C planning process.
“Cefas’s stated aim is ‘to help keep our seas, oceans and rivers healthy and productive, and our seafood safe and sustainable … ’ Instead, it seems that Cefas appears quite at ease presiding over the deaths of millions of fish and clearly feels the huge number of fish deaths is acceptable in that the overall health of fish stocks will not be compromised.”
“Adam Rowlands, the RSPB’s Suffolk area manager, said: 'It is our position that the project should not go ahead. The potential impacts on the environment are too great. Fish impingement is one of our concerns. These fish provide a valuable food supply to rare birds nesting and breeding in the area.'
“Protected species breeding in the area include little and common terns and in the winter there are a number of internationally important red-throated divers. 'They won’t feed on dead fish,' Rowlands said.
“Asked what impact such a loss of fish might have, Rowlands said: 'We haven’t seen evidence to convince us that removing that amount of fish from the population wouldn’t have an impact.'
“If the plant goes ahead, it will be built on part of Sizewell marshes, a site of special scientific interest. It will also be adjacent to the southern boundary of the RSPB-owned Minsmere nature reserve, a Ramsar (internationally important wetland) site and special protection area. Minsmere is one of only five sites in Britain to receive the Council of Europe European Diploma for protected areas award, whose renewal depends on Sizewell C not causing any damage.
“A spokesperson for Cefas said: 'There is no scientific evidence that the proposed new nuclear developments will cause large-scale destruction of marine life or impact protected species.'
“Its role in relation to the Sizewell C project was to ensure 'the marine evidence base is scientifically robust, to fully assess the potential marine impacts and, where feasible, to work with EDF engineers to reduce potential impacts by design optimisation', the spokesperson said, adding that issuing any objection to the proposal was outside its remit.
‘”Our objective is to ensure that the adverse impacts of human activities don’t affect the long-term viability of communities, habitats, or populations of vulnerable and declining species.
“‘Where impacts do occur, such as mortality of fish on power station intake screens, we assess these against other sources of mortality (natural and anthropogenic) and the ability of the population to withstand such losses. Compared to the natural population size, relatively few fish will be impacted and we are confident that mortality rates caused by the new nuclear industry are sustainable and the impact on the wider marine ecosystem will be insignificant.'
“It said it had produced three chapters of the environmental statement, including on marine ecology and fisheries, submitted by Sizewell C to the planning process for public and regulatory scrutiny. It added: 'In undertaking this nationally important work for EDF to develop UK’s new nuclear capability, we avoid conflicts of interest by not providing advice to government regulators on new nuclear developments.'
“A spokesperson for Sizewell C said: 'Our assessments show that the fish impacted are mainly sprat and herring. The intake of these species by Sizewell C is 0.01% of the stock in the area. Fisheries scientists describe the impact of new nuclear power stations on the marine ecosystem as ‘insignificant’.'
“The spokesperson said they would use a more modern 'fish returns system' than the one at Sizewell B, to ensure higher survival rates and that the returned fish that did not survive would be 'eaten by other sea life'.
“A spokesperson for the Environment Agency said it was responsible for 'stringent regulation' of the nuclear industry to prevent harm to the environment and local communities. Speaking about an #EDF subsidiary created to build and run #HinkleyPoint C and Sizewell C nuclear power stations, they said: 'We are currently considering NNB Generation Company’s environmental permit application for their proposed cooling water discharge, and will determine it once we have assessed the impacts to the marine environment – including fish populations.'
“The Sizewell C planning process began in May 2020 and an examination is now under way by the Planning Inspectorate. This stage of the process is expected to take about six months, during which local people and organisations can make representations."
-
Sizewell C nuclear plant could kill 500m fish, campaigners say
#Environmental groups claim planned Suffolk power station will devastate marine life and key bird habitat
by Karen McVeigh
Wed 28 Apr 2021 08.15 EDTArticle image: Sizewell B nuclear power station looms over the RSPB Minsmere wetlands. The proposed plant would be built on nature reserve’s southern boundary.
"More than 500 million fish, including #protectedspecies, could be sucked into the cooling system of a proposed £20bn #NuclearPowerPlant in Suffolk if construction goes ahead, environmental campaigners say.
"A local campaign group, Together Against Sizewell C (#Tasc), claims the subsequent deaths of millions of fish is 'inhumane and unacceptable' and flies in the face of the government’s #GreenAgenda. Also opposing the development, the #birdconservation group RSPB expressed concern over predicted levels of fish loss on the #marinebirds that feed on them.
"The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), a government agency, has assessed the marine impacts of the plant and said it was confident the mortality rates caused by Sizewell C would be 'sustainable' and the impact on the wider marine community 'insignificant'.
"#EDF, the French state-owned company behind the plan to build Sizewell C, claims the proposed plant could generate 3.2GW of electricity, enough to provide 7% of the UK’s electricity needs, or power 6m homes. The Nuclear Industry Association describes it as “a vital next step” in the UK’s efforts to secure new low-carbon electricity as older nuclear reactors are shut down.
"However, environmental campaign groups, including #Greenpeace, argue that nuclear reactors are unnecessary and expensive, compared with a combination of #RenewableEnergy and #BatteryStorage technology. The RSPB and the local community group #StopSizewellC said the reactor poses a risk to the natural habitats along the Suffolk coast and the adjacent Minsmere nature reserve. Campaigners say a new nuclear power station will have a severe impact on marine life.
"Planning documents published by EDF have revealed that almost 8 million fish were “impinged” – or sucked into the cooling system – by the existing plant Sizewell B each year between 2009 and 2013. Extrapolating from these figures, Tasc has estimated that 28 million fish could be impinged in the cooling system of both plants each year, which is 560 million over the two decades the plants are expected to operate, between 2035 and 2055. The proposed plant is larger than Sizewell B and will take in 2.5 times the amount of seawater, Tasc said.
"Pete Wilkinson, the chair of Tasc and a co-founder of Greenpeace UK, said the estimates were “staggering”. Such wildlife loss was the “tip of the iceberg”, he said, as it did not take into account fish fry, eggs, crustacea and other aquatic life.
“Tens of millions of fish, crustaceans and other marine biota will be sacrificed for the purposes of cooling a plant which is not needed to keep the lights on, which will do nothing to reduce global carbon emissions, which will be paid for from the pockets of all UK taxpayers and bill-paying customers, leaving future generations with a lasting legacy of an impoverished environment,” he said.
Wilkinson said he expected Cefas to condemn the impact on fish at the inquiry stage of the Sizewell C planning process.
“Cefas’s stated aim is ‘to help keep our seas, oceans and rivers healthy and productive, and our seafood safe and sustainable … ’ Instead, it seems that Cefas appears quite at ease presiding over the deaths of millions of fish and clearly feels the huge number of fish deaths is acceptable in that the overall health of fish stocks will not be compromised.”
“Adam Rowlands, the RSPB’s Suffolk area manager, said: 'It is our position that the project should not go ahead. The potential impacts on the environment are too great. Fish impingement is one of our concerns. These fish provide a valuable food supply to rare birds nesting and breeding in the area.'
“Protected species breeding in the area include little and common terns and in the winter there are a number of internationally important red-throated divers. 'They won’t feed on dead fish,' Rowlands said.
“Asked what impact such a loss of fish might have, Rowlands said: 'We haven’t seen evidence to convince us that removing that amount of fish from the population wouldn’t have an impact.'
“If the plant goes ahead, it will be built on part of Sizewell marshes, a site of special scientific interest. It will also be adjacent to the southern boundary of the RSPB-owned Minsmere nature reserve, a Ramsar (internationally important wetland) site and special protection area. Minsmere is one of only five sites in Britain to receive the Council of Europe European Diploma for protected areas award, whose renewal depends on Sizewell C not causing any damage.
“A spokesperson for Cefas said: 'There is no scientific evidence that the proposed new nuclear developments will cause large-scale destruction of marine life or impact protected species.'
“Its role in relation to the Sizewell C project was to ensure 'the marine evidence base is scientifically robust, to fully assess the potential marine impacts and, where feasible, to work with EDF engineers to reduce potential impacts by design optimisation', the spokesperson said, adding that issuing any objection to the proposal was outside its remit.
‘”Our objective is to ensure that the adverse impacts of human activities don’t affect the long-term viability of communities, habitats, or populations of vulnerable and declining species.
“‘Where impacts do occur, such as mortality of fish on power station intake screens, we assess these against other sources of mortality (natural and anthropogenic) and the ability of the population to withstand such losses. Compared to the natural population size, relatively few fish will be impacted and we are confident that mortality rates caused by the new nuclear industry are sustainable and the impact on the wider marine ecosystem will be insignificant.'
“It said it had produced three chapters of the environmental statement, including on marine ecology and fisheries, submitted by Sizewell C to the planning process for public and regulatory scrutiny. It added: 'In undertaking this nationally important work for EDF to develop UK’s new nuclear capability, we avoid conflicts of interest by not providing advice to government regulators on new nuclear developments.'
“A spokesperson for Sizewell C said: 'Our assessments show that the fish impacted are mainly sprat and herring. The intake of these species by Sizewell C is 0.01% of the stock in the area. Fisheries scientists describe the impact of new nuclear power stations on the marine ecosystem as ‘insignificant’.'
“The spokesperson said they would use a more modern 'fish returns system' than the one at Sizewell B, to ensure higher survival rates and that the returned fish that did not survive would be 'eaten by other sea life'.
“A spokesperson for the Environment Agency said it was responsible for 'stringent regulation' of the nuclear industry to prevent harm to the environment and local communities. Speaking about an #EDF subsidiary created to build and run #HinkleyPoint C and Sizewell C nuclear power stations, they said: 'We are currently considering NNB Generation Company’s environmental permit application for their proposed cooling water discharge, and will determine it once we have assessed the impacts to the marine environment – including fish populations.'
“The Sizewell C planning process began in May 2020 and an examination is now under way by the Planning Inspectorate. This stage of the process is expected to take about six months, during which local people and organisations can make representations."
-
Sizewell C nuclear plant could kill 500m fish, campaigners say
#Environmental groups claim planned Suffolk power station will devastate marine life and key bird habitat
by Karen McVeigh
Wed 28 Apr 2021 08.15 EDTArticle image: Sizewell B nuclear power station looms over the RSPB Minsmere wetlands. The proposed plant would be built on nature reserve’s southern boundary.
"More than 500 million fish, including #protectedspecies, could be sucked into the cooling system of a proposed £20bn #NuclearPowerPlant in Suffolk if construction goes ahead, environmental campaigners say.
"A local campaign group, Together Against Sizewell C (#Tasc), claims the subsequent deaths of millions of fish is 'inhumane and unacceptable' and flies in the face of the government’s #GreenAgenda. Also opposing the development, the #birdconservation group RSPB expressed concern over predicted levels of fish loss on the #marinebirds that feed on them.
"The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), a government agency, has assessed the marine impacts of the plant and said it was confident the mortality rates caused by Sizewell C would be 'sustainable' and the impact on the wider marine community 'insignificant'.
"#EDF, the French state-owned company behind the plan to build Sizewell C, claims the proposed plant could generate 3.2GW of electricity, enough to provide 7% of the UK’s electricity needs, or power 6m homes. The Nuclear Industry Association describes it as “a vital next step” in the UK’s efforts to secure new low-carbon electricity as older nuclear reactors are shut down.
"However, environmental campaign groups, including #Greenpeace, argue that nuclear reactors are unnecessary and expensive, compared with a combination of #RenewableEnergy and #BatteryStorage technology. The RSPB and the local community group #StopSizewellC said the reactor poses a risk to the natural habitats along the Suffolk coast and the adjacent Minsmere nature reserve. Campaigners say a new nuclear power station will have a severe impact on marine life.
"Planning documents published by EDF have revealed that almost 8 million fish were “impinged” – or sucked into the cooling system – by the existing plant Sizewell B each year between 2009 and 2013. Extrapolating from these figures, Tasc has estimated that 28 million fish could be impinged in the cooling system of both plants each year, which is 560 million over the two decades the plants are expected to operate, between 2035 and 2055. The proposed plant is larger than Sizewell B and will take in 2.5 times the amount of seawater, Tasc said.
"Pete Wilkinson, the chair of Tasc and a co-founder of Greenpeace UK, said the estimates were “staggering”. Such wildlife loss was the “tip of the iceberg”, he said, as it did not take into account fish fry, eggs, crustacea and other aquatic life.
“Tens of millions of fish, crustaceans and other marine biota will be sacrificed for the purposes of cooling a plant which is not needed to keep the lights on, which will do nothing to reduce global carbon emissions, which will be paid for from the pockets of all UK taxpayers and bill-paying customers, leaving future generations with a lasting legacy of an impoverished environment,” he said.
Wilkinson said he expected Cefas to condemn the impact on fish at the inquiry stage of the Sizewell C planning process.
“Cefas’s stated aim is ‘to help keep our seas, oceans and rivers healthy and productive, and our seafood safe and sustainable … ’ Instead, it seems that Cefas appears quite at ease presiding over the deaths of millions of fish and clearly feels the huge number of fish deaths is acceptable in that the overall health of fish stocks will not be compromised.”
“Adam Rowlands, the RSPB’s Suffolk area manager, said: 'It is our position that the project should not go ahead. The potential impacts on the environment are too great. Fish impingement is one of our concerns. These fish provide a valuable food supply to rare birds nesting and breeding in the area.'
“Protected species breeding in the area include little and common terns and in the winter there are a number of internationally important red-throated divers. 'They won’t feed on dead fish,' Rowlands said.
“Asked what impact such a loss of fish might have, Rowlands said: 'We haven’t seen evidence to convince us that removing that amount of fish from the population wouldn’t have an impact.'
“If the plant goes ahead, it will be built on part of Sizewell marshes, a site of special scientific interest. It will also be adjacent to the southern boundary of the RSPB-owned Minsmere nature reserve, a Ramsar (internationally important wetland) site and special protection area. Minsmere is one of only five sites in Britain to receive the Council of Europe European Diploma for protected areas award, whose renewal depends on Sizewell C not causing any damage.
“A spokesperson for Cefas said: 'There is no scientific evidence that the proposed new nuclear developments will cause large-scale destruction of marine life or impact protected species.'
“Its role in relation to the Sizewell C project was to ensure 'the marine evidence base is scientifically robust, to fully assess the potential marine impacts and, where feasible, to work with EDF engineers to reduce potential impacts by design optimisation', the spokesperson said, adding that issuing any objection to the proposal was outside its remit.
‘”Our objective is to ensure that the adverse impacts of human activities don’t affect the long-term viability of communities, habitats, or populations of vulnerable and declining species.
“‘Where impacts do occur, such as mortality of fish on power station intake screens, we assess these against other sources of mortality (natural and anthropogenic) and the ability of the population to withstand such losses. Compared to the natural population size, relatively few fish will be impacted and we are confident that mortality rates caused by the new nuclear industry are sustainable and the impact on the wider marine ecosystem will be insignificant.'
“It said it had produced three chapters of the environmental statement, including on marine ecology and fisheries, submitted by Sizewell C to the planning process for public and regulatory scrutiny. It added: 'In undertaking this nationally important work for EDF to develop UK’s new nuclear capability, we avoid conflicts of interest by not providing advice to government regulators on new nuclear developments.'
“A spokesperson for Sizewell C said: 'Our assessments show that the fish impacted are mainly sprat and herring. The intake of these species by Sizewell C is 0.01% of the stock in the area. Fisheries scientists describe the impact of new nuclear power stations on the marine ecosystem as ‘insignificant’.'
“The spokesperson said they would use a more modern 'fish returns system' than the one at Sizewell B, to ensure higher survival rates and that the returned fish that did not survive would be 'eaten by other sea life'.
“A spokesperson for the Environment Agency said it was responsible for 'stringent regulation' of the nuclear industry to prevent harm to the environment and local communities. Speaking about an #EDF subsidiary created to build and run #HinkleyPoint C and Sizewell C nuclear power stations, they said: 'We are currently considering NNB Generation Company’s environmental permit application for their proposed cooling water discharge, and will determine it once we have assessed the impacts to the marine environment – including fish populations.'
“The Sizewell C planning process began in May 2020 and an examination is now under way by the Planning Inspectorate. This stage of the process is expected to take about six months, during which local people and organisations can make representations."
-
Sizewell C nuclear plant could kill 500m fish, campaigners say
#Environmental groups claim planned Suffolk power station will devastate marine life and key bird habitat
by Karen McVeigh
Wed 28 Apr 2021 08.15 EDTArticle image: Sizewell B nuclear power station looms over the RSPB Minsmere wetlands. The proposed plant would be built on nature reserve’s southern boundary.
"More than 500 million fish, including #protectedspecies, could be sucked into the cooling system of a proposed £20bn #NuclearPowerPlant in Suffolk if construction goes ahead, environmental campaigners say.
"A local campaign group, Together Against Sizewell C (#Tasc), claims the subsequent deaths of millions of fish is 'inhumane and unacceptable' and flies in the face of the government’s #GreenAgenda. Also opposing the development, the #birdconservation group RSPB expressed concern over predicted levels of fish loss on the #marinebirds that feed on them.
"The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), a government agency, has assessed the marine impacts of the plant and said it was confident the mortality rates caused by Sizewell C would be 'sustainable' and the impact on the wider marine community 'insignificant'.
"#EDF, the French state-owned company behind the plan to build Sizewell C, claims the proposed plant could generate 3.2GW of electricity, enough to provide 7% of the UK’s electricity needs, or power 6m homes. The Nuclear Industry Association describes it as “a vital next step” in the UK’s efforts to secure new low-carbon electricity as older nuclear reactors are shut down.
"However, environmental campaign groups, including #Greenpeace, argue that nuclear reactors are unnecessary and expensive, compared with a combination of #RenewableEnergy and #BatteryStorage technology. The RSPB and the local community group #StopSizewellC said the reactor poses a risk to the natural habitats along the Suffolk coast and the adjacent Minsmere nature reserve. Campaigners say a new nuclear power station will have a severe impact on marine life.
"Planning documents published by EDF have revealed that almost 8 million fish were “impinged” – or sucked into the cooling system – by the existing plant Sizewell B each year between 2009 and 2013. Extrapolating from these figures, Tasc has estimated that 28 million fish could be impinged in the cooling system of both plants each year, which is 560 million over the two decades the plants are expected to operate, between 2035 and 2055. The proposed plant is larger than Sizewell B and will take in 2.5 times the amount of seawater, Tasc said.
"Pete Wilkinson, the chair of Tasc and a co-founder of Greenpeace UK, said the estimates were “staggering”. Such wildlife loss was the “tip of the iceberg”, he said, as it did not take into account fish fry, eggs, crustacea and other aquatic life.
“Tens of millions of fish, crustaceans and other marine biota will be sacrificed for the purposes of cooling a plant which is not needed to keep the lights on, which will do nothing to reduce global carbon emissions, which will be paid for from the pockets of all UK taxpayers and bill-paying customers, leaving future generations with a lasting legacy of an impoverished environment,” he said.
Wilkinson said he expected Cefas to condemn the impact on fish at the inquiry stage of the Sizewell C planning process.
“Cefas’s stated aim is ‘to help keep our seas, oceans and rivers healthy and productive, and our seafood safe and sustainable … ’ Instead, it seems that Cefas appears quite at ease presiding over the deaths of millions of fish and clearly feels the huge number of fish deaths is acceptable in that the overall health of fish stocks will not be compromised.”
“Adam Rowlands, the RSPB’s Suffolk area manager, said: 'It is our position that the project should not go ahead. The potential impacts on the environment are too great. Fish impingement is one of our concerns. These fish provide a valuable food supply to rare birds nesting and breeding in the area.'
“Protected species breeding in the area include little and common terns and in the winter there are a number of internationally important red-throated divers. 'They won’t feed on dead fish,' Rowlands said.
“Asked what impact such a loss of fish might have, Rowlands said: 'We haven’t seen evidence to convince us that removing that amount of fish from the population wouldn’t have an impact.'
“If the plant goes ahead, it will be built on part of Sizewell marshes, a site of special scientific interest. It will also be adjacent to the southern boundary of the RSPB-owned Minsmere nature reserve, a Ramsar (internationally important wetland) site and special protection area. Minsmere is one of only five sites in Britain to receive the Council of Europe European Diploma for protected areas award, whose renewal depends on Sizewell C not causing any damage.
“A spokesperson for Cefas said: 'There is no scientific evidence that the proposed new nuclear developments will cause large-scale destruction of marine life or impact protected species.'
“Its role in relation to the Sizewell C project was to ensure 'the marine evidence base is scientifically robust, to fully assess the potential marine impacts and, where feasible, to work with EDF engineers to reduce potential impacts by design optimisation', the spokesperson said, adding that issuing any objection to the proposal was outside its remit.
‘”Our objective is to ensure that the adverse impacts of human activities don’t affect the long-term viability of communities, habitats, or populations of vulnerable and declining species.
“‘Where impacts do occur, such as mortality of fish on power station intake screens, we assess these against other sources of mortality (natural and anthropogenic) and the ability of the population to withstand such losses. Compared to the natural population size, relatively few fish will be impacted and we are confident that mortality rates caused by the new nuclear industry are sustainable and the impact on the wider marine ecosystem will be insignificant.'
“It said it had produced three chapters of the environmental statement, including on marine ecology and fisheries, submitted by Sizewell C to the planning process for public and regulatory scrutiny. It added: 'In undertaking this nationally important work for EDF to develop UK’s new nuclear capability, we avoid conflicts of interest by not providing advice to government regulators on new nuclear developments.'
“A spokesperson for Sizewell C said: 'Our assessments show that the fish impacted are mainly sprat and herring. The intake of these species by Sizewell C is 0.01% of the stock in the area. Fisheries scientists describe the impact of new nuclear power stations on the marine ecosystem as ‘insignificant’.'
“The spokesperson said they would use a more modern 'fish returns system' than the one at Sizewell B, to ensure higher survival rates and that the returned fish that did not survive would be 'eaten by other sea life'.
“A spokesperson for the Environment Agency said it was responsible for 'stringent regulation' of the nuclear industry to prevent harm to the environment and local communities. Speaking about an #EDF subsidiary created to build and run #HinkleyPoint C and Sizewell C nuclear power stations, they said: 'We are currently considering NNB Generation Company’s environmental permit application for their proposed cooling water discharge, and will determine it once we have assessed the impacts to the marine environment – including fish populations.'
“The Sizewell C planning process began in May 2020 and an examination is now under way by the Planning Inspectorate. This stage of the process is expected to take about six months, during which local people and organisations can make representations."
-
The grim reality of #nuclear #colonialism
RAE STREET highlights the dangers of #UraniumMining and its impact on #Indigenous peoples
November 16, 2023
"THERE is an abundance of reasons why it is folly to continue with building nuclear reactors.
"There is the cost which is huge compared with investing in more genuine sustainable energy. There is the problem with #RadioactiveWaste, for which there is no solution yet for the legacy waste, let alone producing more.
"There is the potential for attack: if wind turbines were attacked it would make for a difficult situation, but if a #NuclearReactor were to be sabotaged it would be the equivalent of a #NuclearBomb going off.
"And the latter also goes for a breakdown at a plant. We need to remember the effects of Chernobyl and Fukushima which continue to this day.
"Looking at #Britain, many of the nuclear reactors are sited on the coast and the proposed #SizewellC on the east coast. With #GlobalWarming, the sea level will rise and there is the chance of tidal surges with a threat to these reactors.
"But there is another factor which is never mentioned by the proponents of nuclear energy — the fuel used is uranium, and it will be in the future.
"This is mined mainly on the lands of indigenous people across the world. Countries and regions where uranium is mined include the land of the #FirstNations in Canada, the lands of the Navajo (Dine) in the southern United States, the land of the indigenous people of #Australia, Namibia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (the DRC), Niger, Greenland and #Kazakhstan.
"The miners and their families have suffered over the years from mining this dangerous radioactive mineral in poor conditions, with illness and early death.
"In a recent statement printed in the Morning Star, the people of Niger (note this is not Nigeria but Niger, a former French colony) said that they were fed up, 'because for over 50 years, #France has relied on uranium from #Niger for its energy security. We know that French farmers were generously compensated when their land was requisitioned in the 1970s to build nuclear reactors. But for our people the mines have only meant dangerous working conditions, ill health, and historically poor remuneration.'
"From the #DRC, a former Belgian colony, Joe-Yves Salankang Sa Ngol, of the Congolese Civil society in South Africa, said: “Before the uranium would destroy life in #Japan [referring to the nuclear bombs the US dropped on #Hiroshima and #Nagasaki] it first started by destroying life in Shinkolobwe.'
"The #Shinkolobwe mine in the DRC was owned by a Belgian company which sold its first 4,200 metric tons of uranium to the US for the #ManhattanProject.
"Here is what #JoshuaFrank said in his book, #AtomicDays, about the conditions. “Paid very little, at times less than the minimum wage, these miners would enter deep uranium shafts and chip away at the walls, often 1,500 feet below the earth’s crust.
“They filled their wheelbarrows with the uranium ore, all the while choking on soot and dust particles. It was dark. There was no ventilation. It was tremendously difficult, perilous work. They ate in the mines and drank water that dripped from the walls. The water contained high quantities of radon — a radioactive gas emanating from the ore.”
"He continued: '#Radon exposure causes lung diseases, the dangers of which were well known to scientists and the medical community prior to World War II. But the Dine [the #Navajo] were deemed expendable.'
"And Frank also said: 'In addition to the impact on #Dine health, their land too was ravaged. Upwards of three billion metric tons of waste was created as a result of extraction on Dine lands, a dizzying amount to poison native communities throughout the south-west [of the US] to this day.'
"These, and many more stories of the same situation across the globe, show how supporters of nuclear power have turned a blind eye to the suffering of the miners and their families, not to mention the devastation done to their land.
"However, in different regions the local people are fighting back. For example, in #Greenland, in 2021, a ban on uranium came into force after the Inuit government’s successful election campaign.
"There had been a ban earlier, but this was then overturned in 2013. But with the indigenous #Inuit now in control of the government, the ban will probably hold.
"If we turn to Britain, there is no significant amount of uranium to be found and there is no commercial mining. So, Britain must import uranium from #Canada and #Namibia.
"No thought seems to have been given by the two main political parties which support new nuclear build, or the trade unions, or the media proponents of nuclear power, to the shameful history of uranium mining which will continue if new reactors are built. It has been called nuclear colonialism.
"Several recent reports show that there is no need for nuclear; 100 per cent genuine #renewables can provide Britain with enough energy.
"Supporters of nuclear power should think hard about their positions. Surely, for example, workers in Britain would want to act in solidarity with their mining comrades across the world?"
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/harsh-reality-nuclear-colonialism
#NuclearColonialism #EnvironmentalRacism #NoNukes #WaterIsLife #SeaLevelRise #RethinkNotRestart #NoNewNukes
-
#TogetherAgainstSizewellC (TASC)
June 22, 2023
"#TASC is sorry to have to announce that the long-awaited #SizewellC judicial review decision went against us. Obviously, we are devastated by the news, but we assure our supporters that the verdict in no way signals the end of our efforts. Together with our lawyers, Leigh Day, we are examining all possible options open to us and, in one form or another, TASC's campaign will continue.
"This decision enables EDF and the UK government to carry on with their plans to construct two EPR nuclear reactors, even though the Sizewell C project still has no guaranteed mains water supply for the 2.2 million litres needed daily to operate. In TASC’s opinion, the UK government’s determination to risk £billions of #UK taxpayer funds to build #EDF’s flawed EPR reactor design on #Suffolk's eroding coast, without a guaranteed mains water supply required for its 60 years of operation in what is already a #drought-prone area, is a travesty and will prove to be a financial and #environmental disaster."
#ClimateCrisis #ErodingCoastline #Nuclear
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/save-suffolks-heritage-coast-w/
-
Reminder that #nuclear plants are thermal plants that require large amounts of #water to run.
A lawsuit against #Sizewell C #argues in court that the environmental impacts of securing a #water supply for the proposed Suffolk #nuclear plant were not assessed.
To proceed with #SizewellC while being fully aware that it is highly vulnerable to #SeaLevelRise, storm surges and #flooding only adds to the inter-generational burden we pass on."
#EnergyTransition
https://www.energylivenews.com/2023/03/23/legal-challenge-to-uks-sizewell-c-nuclear-project-approval/ -
@PGBeattie
Agree yet they will benefit greatly from the ridiculous agreed cost of KW hours from #hinkley whenever it goes online and no they added cost to consumers from #Sizewellc the #tory having used #brexit to cut us off from Europe are now as you say having us subsideise the French Government😩 -
@StopSizewellC
The old and the new #SizewellC logos. Spot the difference? All association with state-owned French and Chinese companies ditched...
#StopSizewellC -
@StopSizewellC
The old and the new #SizewellC logos. Spot the difference? All association with state-owned French and Chinese companies ditched...
#StopSizewellC -
@StopSizewellC
The old and the new #SizewellC logos. Spot the difference? All association with state-owned French and Chinese companies ditched...
#StopSizewellC -
@StopSizewellC
The old and the new #SizewellC logos. Spot the difference? All association with state-owned French and Chinese companies ditched...
#StopSizewellC -
@StopSizewellC
The old and the new #SizewellC logos. Spot the difference? All association with state-owned French and Chinese companies ditched...
#StopSizewellC