"Anglian" letters start 2018 with crop of good letters saying Sizewell is not suitable for new nuclear
The "Anglian" newspaper, possibly because of a shortage of letters or maybe a new editor, or maybe even an evolving viewpoint, has recently published several strong letters setting out the general and specific cases against Sizewell C. Cases are varied: a general "not suitable" trend is emerging, and specifics c9ver safety and new security concerns, and new cost cutting now that it looks like new nuclear is not competitive without big subsidies, however disguised they may be. Risks and the actual removal of nature assets and the strategic growth of the tourist industry feature strongly alongside impossible roads and, implicitly, the common experience that Suffolk's infrastructure is being massively overloaded by the wrong kind of housing development and historic underfunding of its infrastructure. The social burden of the largely imported workforce on Leiston and villages and towns in the 20 kilometer "impact zone", not forgetting the traffic impact of the admitted peak 900 big lorries per day on Suffolk's A and B roads must be getting through. One "pro" letter repeated the "nuclear is the least worse option in a climate change world " argument. Renewables development is rapidly making that one out of date, and the idea that nuclear is low carbon is not even being promoted by the government any more. Its new Environment Impact Assessment Regulations (2017)require whole life cycle "sustainability" measures for nuclear. That's a very different metric.