Nuclear Debate Sizewell Yes or No to more nuclear energy in the region?
     CURRENT SITUATION ALTERNATIVES THE DEBATE HAVE YOUR SAY FORUM LINKS NEWS WHAT IS THIS WEBSITE FOR?

The forum


Below are some of your views on nuclear power in Suffolk. If you would like to add a comment, please click on Have Your Say and register with us.



I would be very concerned if Sizewell was seen as an easy place to build the first new nucear power station, and I would be concerned if an easy ride to local acceptance be the main deciding factor. National security is an important issue; the terrorism threat should not be underestimated, the world in 10 years time cannot be counted on to be potitically stable. Sizewell is currently the largest nuclear power station in the country, it wouild make much more sense to begin the new nuclear program by building on or near sites where decomissioning is going on or is about to happen. We would not then be putting too many eggs in one basket. We do not want to be in the position that 30% of the countries energy is being generated and distributed from one site. Going for a site where there is currently only a magnox station would also boost public confidence in the decommisioning process.

John, IP13

top of page


More nuclear power generation is short-sighted, selfish and dangerous. This country still has not solved the long-term solution for disposing of the environmentally lethal waste products of the last few decades of nuclear energy production. There are plans to move this radioactive waste from place to place, but in the long term, the government and nuclear experts have not worked out where or how it will be safely stored - and it will need to be 'stored' for a horifically long time. This is a very real problem that we have already created for our grandchildren and great grand-children to deal with. It would be not just irresponsible but mad to add to this already huge heap by generating more power and therefore more waste.

Mrs C, Manningtree

top of page


The Government makes emphasis on cutting greenhouse gas emissions. But makes little reference to cutting energy consumption. What is the point of cutting emissions when consumption is still increasing as at present? The Government should be setting targets for real reduction in UK energy demand and consumption. Questions need to be asked about what we are using energy for and if it is essential.

Renewable energy should not be used in the form of the large windfarms we see at the moment. This is a centralist way of approaching the problem. The technology should be used on smaller local scale - smaller wind turbines serving blocks of buildings combined with use of solar panels on roof and building surfaces.

Christian, Leiston

top of page


We get nothing for free in this world. All power generation affects the environment therefore we must become more efficient and then have a balanced energy policy. Even wind (and wave) power affects the environment - covering our land or sea's in wind turbines and taking 100's of MegaWatts of energy out of it means it must affect the climate downstream!

We must not rely on other countries for our basic energy requirements therefore we need a balance of fossil, renewable and nuclear power until the time that we find a better alternative.

Glynn, Kesgrave

top of page


It would be ideal if an alternative could be found to generate REAL power. The figure of Megawatts generated neccessary for the the U.K is in the order of 56,000 megawatts! Simple sums using the required space for a wind turbine (with it's modest output) would result in incredible areas of land being taken up. Wind power is a nice supplement when it is available, many advocates do not realise that when a wind farm stops generating, another source has to take over - that currently has to be a REAL generator of 1000 Mw's or more fossil fuelled or nuclear. without a big reliable source of electricity, life would change drastically. All the luxuries -taken for granted at this time would be gone, and we would be into a survival situation - think about it!

I.M Peters, Somerset

top of page


The issues of radioactive waste management have been soluble for decades - Sweden, for example, has no great problem dealing effectively with the waste from their nuclear industry.

In an effort to discredit the nuclear industry's claim to be a minimal source of carbon dioxide emissions, various opponents have had to trawl through the whole life-cycle of a power station to demonstrate that yes, some CO2 is produced. I would be interested to know how much is produced over the life-cycle of other forms of electricity production as well.

Gordon, Kesgrave

top of page


If we need lots of fosssil fuel to make anything doesn't that mean that we can't use anything as a substitute for fossil fuel?

John, Saxmundham

top of page


I think any form of renewable energy source is the way forward and also reducing our energy use and making it more efficient with less wast. I cannot understand anyone who say that on-shore windfarms are a unsightly blot on the landscape. Surely that is better than having no landscape at all to look at when the environment deteriorates due to overconsumption of bad energy and the resultant climate changes.

Amanda, Kesgrave

top of page


We do not believe windpower is a sufficiently viable option - it requires some form of "back-up" both for storage and for when there is insufficient wind.

Mr & Mrs Self, Framlingham

top of page


we must thinking about the next 40 years,we dont wont the lights going out!!we have lived with nuclear power stations at sizwell for the past 35 years,they have done a great job,proved they are safe.think of the jobs this would bring to suffolk lets have 3 or 4 power stations at sizewell.come on tony blair pull your finger out and lets get building!!

Ywain, Halesworth

top of page


I do not beleive that Nuclear Fission is the ultimate solution to our, or the world's power needs although I suspect Nuclear Fusion will one day prove to be.
In the meantime we cannot run the risk of leaving ourselves (or our children) critically short of energy and/or open to blackmail by energy exporting countries.
I support the development of biomass projects and renewables but in reality they will in my opinion produce too little energy, too late to deal with the approaching crisis.
There are security risks associated with nuclear energy production but these have to be weighed against the risk to society resulting from insufficient energy.

Richard, Witnesham

top of page


I'm told it would take a few thousand hectares of Photo-voltaic cells to match the shortfall in power generation if we are to meet required emission targets without nuclear power. Seems daunting? Remember the lights flickering when you oput the kettle on during the ads? Well, if a 10-year-old 1m square Solar panel rig can heat about 15 gallons of water a day to 55 degerees C in mid-winter (as ours does)- how many of the 45 million or so houses/business premises rooves with solar panels would it take to cover the problem? Do planners find rooftop solar panels so unsightly?! Literally Billions of Pound Sterling have been invested in developing, building, and decomissioning Nuclear power installations in the UK. Enough to give us half a dozen free panels each! Yet there are moves afoot to cancel grants on installing domestic solar heating in the next year! A solar panel on every roof - at less than the price of a satellite dish - that's what's needed.

Mike, Framlingham

top of page


I believe the government should put more money into finding alternatives to nuclear energy

W Last, Ipswich

top of page


We should seriously consider the concept of reducing the need for people to commute long distances. More use of modern communication technologies could be employed to reduce the need for people to travel long distances indeed office workers could quite easily work from home. Think of London and other big cities without the thousands of office workers. This could drastically reduce the number of trains required. Not to mention the stress caused by the daily crush to get to work. The same could be said for business air travel the majority of which could be dispensed with. The adoption of these strategies could contribute greatly to the carbon reduction targets. The use of nuclear power stations is only a short term solution and the disposal of the waste generated is ultimately an uneconomic course to pursue. The way ahead is to conserve what resources we have and to pursue the use of sustainable means of energy production.

T Alexander, Ipswich

top of page


If a new nuclear plant is the evential direction that the decision takes then Sizwell makes sense as the infrastructure is already there.

Bryan, Ipswich

top of page


I regularly walk and watch wildlife at Sizewell. British-Energy have done a tremendous job in looking after and improving the area for wildlife on their estate, in conjunction with the Suffolk Wildlife Trust. There is a tremendous amount of rare wildlife in and around the Station. Would this be the case if the Station wasn't there. I very much doubt it.

Peter, Saxmundham

top of page


I'm a student writing a report about the phasing out of nuclear by 2020 and how the lost energy capacity can be replaced by renewables. Through research i've found that the UK has extensive renewable resources; where energy from the wind alone can supply more than 8 times our electricity demand! There is also the option of increasing the amount of energy created from biomass sources. Wave, tidal and solar are also possibilities, and should the government decide to get serious on renewables then we certainly have the potential to obtain all our electrical needs in this environmentally positive and safe manner. The only problem stopping us from converting fully to renewables is the lack of encouragement and interest; industries and businesses are currently opting for fossil fuels as it is cheaper and therefor more economically beneficially to them. Surely the solution would be to raise fossil fuel prices and force ourselves to develop and use renewables as an alternative.

The way i see it, we don't need to consider nuclear as part of the equation anymore. Whats the point in building up nuclear as a source of power again when it is not even going to last a substantial amount of time. Did somebody mention uranium supplies will only last 80 years? Why delay renewables any longer for the sake of gaining a short spell of nuclear power that produces a heck of a lot of alot of dangerous radioactive waste!!

I also found the following on the environmental audit committee inquiry, Keeping the Lights on:Nuclear, Renewables,and Climate Change - which can be found on the internet.

"Contrary to popular belief, electricity produced by nuclear power is not CO2 free. Construction of the station itself would be a major carbon emitter and to keep it running requires the burning of fossil fuels in mining and refining the ore, with extra emissions from operating the station, and reprocessing and storage activities.
Carbon emissions from mining and refining will increase as the uranium ore quality diminishes. A report by Jan-Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith (See note 9) concludes "The use of nuclear power causes, at the end of the road and under the most favourable conditions, approximately one-third as much CO2-emission as gas-fired electricity production. The rich uranium ores required to achieve this reduction are however so limited that if the entire present world electricity demand were to be provided by nuclear power, these ores would be exhausted within three years. Use of the remaining poorer ores in nuclear reactors would produce more CO2 emission than burning fossil fuels directly."

Anne-Marie, Nairn

top of page


I believe that Nuclear Power is an essential contribution that is needed if the UK wishes to have secure and reliable energy in the future. Nuclear Power has demonstrated that it can produce electricity as safely as other energy sources and is far less damaging to the environment than alternatives such as oil, gas, coal etc. Wind power and other renewables should also be developed but they are not a secure and practicable option on their own, only a contribution to what should be a balanced energy mix. An energy mix that needs to include Nuclear if it is to be secure and environmentally friendly, any such policy also needs to act quickly as most Nuclear Power stations are now nearing the end of their life.

Nick, Bedfield

top of page


While the debate is important we need to act in a timely manner. The decision to commence new nuclear build needs to be made quickly. It needs to be supported by along term plan and policy to establish a programme immune to political whims, focussed on meeting the country's energy needs, maximising technical development in the UK, supporting and developing UK industry and jobs.

If we get the right approach we can become a world leader in specific areas of nuclear engineering and operation opening up the opportunity for export and growth.

John, Kesgrave

top of page


There is no one answer and no group should think it is totally correct in the pursuit of the perfect solution for energy shortages.

We must learn to utilise what is best for each area. Off shore wind farms are preferable to inland for Suffolk. However in the Pennines where the wind is prolific use them.

No one wants neuclear but it has its merits. Clean, efficient and when used in its latest form will produce twice the power for half the cost of other forms on offer.

In light of recent supply problems from the eastern block countries' gas bought in is not a safe secure option. Oil and coal are a limited commodity but new technology is producing further resources from previously exhausted bore holes. The technology is only a few years off being a viable source.

Far and away the easiest form of energy is to save by using more energy efficient equipment that is acquired from recycling.

New house builds must be made to incorporate new technology such as solar power and wind turbines where applicable.

Once again I must state there is no one solution all sources must be incorporated to give us the best possibilities for our environment and future.

Duncan, Stutton

top of page


Security of energy supply is vital, is gas supplied from Russia and the Middle East going to be stable? Energy should be used as efficiently as possible, alternative energy sources will play their part but it is essential to have Nuclear Power in the mix. Without it CO2 targets will not be hit.

Alan, Kesgrave

top of page


I would firstly like to say that I favour nuclear power as a safe, clean and reliable source of energy and that this opinion is based on experience and fact as I have worked in the nuclear industry for 29 years (both at Sizewell A and B). I do not necesarily regard nuclear power as the only solution however and firmly believe that a balanced mix of energy sources and technologies is the only long term solution.
Britan once led the world in the generation and supply of electricity and if investment and development were forthcoming then it could be again.
One factor that does concern me in this whole debate is the apparent general ignorance and misunderstanding of the issues. The public as a whole require a good deal more accurate information regarding the energy debate so that informed decisions can be made. For example, as things stand at the moment approximately 400 large wind turbines would be needed to replace the electricity generated by Sizewell B. In addition the technology is umproven, the current designs are leading to unreilability and higher than predicted maintenance costs, and the turbines cannot be connected to the grid.
If this situation is to improve we all have to be more responsible for our power consumption and understand the consequences of making the wrong decision, or even worse doing nothing.
Personally I feel that the government has made a bold decsion to open this debate but it is too important to ignore. Nuclear has to remain part of "the mix" and that will require investment and new build in the next few years. But I would rather suffer the short term financial cost of more expensive energy (it might even encourage us to use less) as opposed to the incalculable environmental price the planet's future generations will have to endure.

Tim, Leiston

top of page


We need a balanced energy mix, which is clean and British owned and run. Nuclear power has a vital role to play as the only bulk form of clean, green energy.

Ben, Ipswich

top of page


In the medium to long term, Nuclear Power offers a way to help manage the Environment by cutting Green House gases. It will also allow us to reduce our dependence on imported gas which is likely to increase as North Sea gas production reduces.

Martin, Wickham Market

top of page


The cost of nuclear power stations is too high and until the answer is found to the disposal of the waste it is totaly irresponsible to keep on creating more for future generations

Keith, Hollesley

top of page


I do feel that nuclear power is the only reliable short term fix for the energy crissis that we are facing because we know it works on a large scale NOW, unlike the ALTERNATIVE fuel & energy sources we have NOW.Saying that I feel that scientists of the world should still search for an alternative,mass productive,reliable,evo friendly energy source.
We know it works now so nuclear is the only FAST FIX but we must not give up on the future ALTERNATIVES.
GOOD LUCK

Mark, Leiston

top of page


I believe the government needs to begin building nuclear power stations very soon before we become too dependent on imported gas. Russia will be our main supplier and do we really want to be allied politically with the Americans and yet importing our energy from Russia?

Everyone would like to have a renewable cheap, reliable energy source but this is not a possibility for quite some years even with large amount of development funding. We need to bite the bullet and build new nuclear stations until the technology is available for alternatives.

Peter, Saxmundham

top of page


Future demand for electrical power cannot be met by renewable resources,also to reduce harmful atmospheric emissions and reduce global warming urgent action is required by 1.building and commissioning new Nuclear power stations,the reqiured infrastructure to distribute generated power from Sizewell already exists.2.open up deep storage of highly radioactive material urgently by act of parliament if neccessary.
The anti-nuclear lobby are deluding themselves and the public if they think that wind farms and other renewables (usually 3 times the cost of nuclear) address the future likely power shortfall.
We must redouble efforts and resources to tackle the problem of degrading nuclear waste and to achieve generation by safe nuclear fission and other means.

J.R Harbottle, Kesgrave

top of page


Nuclear Power is the only real way forward as it is a more reliable source than renewables and its has a proven safety record in the UK. British Energy has put in safety measures over and above that of what is required which should give everyone confidence in the safety of future plants.

Steven, Leiston

top of page


I always say to people who object to windfarms on their doorstep, that I think you would change your mind if without them you had no more power.

Alexis, Yoxford

top of page


Living as we do in the middle of the age of cheap fossil fuel, we use copious quantities of this in making everything we produce, including nuclear power stations & fuel elements, wind turbines and bio-diesel. Therefore it seems to me that we need accurate information on just how much fossil fuel each proposed "alternative" to fossil fuel actually uses before we can make sensible comments on them.

John, Saxmundham

top of page


The world is running out of uranium faster than oil and gas. There are no uranium mines in the UK so we are a 100% importer of nuclear fuel. The French are over dependent on nuclear power as their own mines are exhausted. The USA consumes 33% of the world's uranium while mining only 4% of its needs. It is in competition with the rest of the world for its oil and LNG and will be for its uranium. We need a new lifestyle based on around a quarter of the energy we use now.

John, Bury St Edmunds

top of page


Nuclear fuel is much more efficient than most fuels and in the long term can provide more energy with less negative environmental effects than coal/gas powered sources. If it is disposed of correctly and run well, nuclear power is a very promising, safe alternative for the future and should be used more.

Chesney, Battisford

top of page


The waste from a nuclear power station, although very toxic, is miniscule compared with the millions of tons from a conventional station. That consists of carbon dioxide and, if coal fired, ash and clinker. The conventional stations also use the oxygen from our atmosphere and lock it up in carbon dioxide. I think that dealing with waste from a nuclear station is a minor problem in comparison.

Renewable resources must be developed as well but can only provide the bulk of our power in the very long term.

C P Davies, Westerfield

top of page


How can nuclear be considered "safe". Just consider for Hemel Hempsted replace with Sizewell. For houses nearby distroyed replace with Suffolk and its inhabitants. For black smoke fallout replace with nuclear fallout in East Anglia.

Are we hearing the truth about terrorist; why so quick to dismiss maybe the public need to be kept calm!!

John, Kesgrave

top of page


Unfortunately your questionnaire only allowed a single answer to a number of the questions whereas I wished to select a number of the options. To reduce our dependency on fossil fuels we need to adopt more renewable energy, to reduce our energy consumption AND to get a proportion of our energy from Nuclear Power. If the debate becomes nuclear versus renewables then the likely outcome will be an impasse on energy policy - nuclear and renewables should be fellow travellers in the journey towards a sustainable and enivironmentally friendly future.

Guy, Kesgrave

Editors note: We have received a number of comments stating a preference for making multiple choices on the questionnaire and we are looking into making this possible.

top of page


Absolutely we should have new nuclear power stations; and the people of Suffolk should be welcoming them with open arms. We need, clean abundant, cheap sources of power. This is nuclear.
Nuclear is extremely cost effective; studies by respected institutions such as MIT, RAE etc find nuclear power to be cost competitive with all current forms of generation; and in some instances; cheaper. We are seeing some windfarm plans being put on hiatus because they are currently uneconomic (as reported by national press).
The nuclear industry is one of the safest around, and is very heavily regulated. How many people died at Chernobyl? How many people died last year alone mining coal in China?
Less than 1 % of the radiation dose you receive is due to nuclear power plants. Your dose from cosmic radiation is much more (National Radiological Protection Board 1994)
Nuclear plants are secure, and to say they are a terrorist target is pure, unashamed scaremongering. The latest report by the Director of the Office of Civil Nuclear Security which is available on the DTI website states: "For some, particularly British Nuclear Fuels Ltd, British Energy Group Plc, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and the Urenco Group, my requirements impose a significant regulatory burden on their activities which they shoulder willingly, promptly and responsibly".(www.dti.gov.uk/energy)
Nuclear waste does need to be dealt with. The amount of high level waste left after 40 years of safe nuclear power production is very small indeed. The majority of waste from nuclear plants is stored and treated, as opposed to waste from other energy sources which, on the most part isn't.
One 7 gramme uranium fuel pellet has as much energy as 1780 lbs of coal. (US Nuclear Energy Institute)
Current reserves of uranium would probably last about 100 years at current usage rates (estimates vary). That's known reserves - people haven't looked for more because there is no need. After that - reprocessing of spent fuel will yield uranium. You can even extract it from seawater.
Cancer clusters around nuclear power stations? Don't think so. One of you commentors hasn't read the official report from COMARE (Committee On Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment) which says there is no evidence of increased cancer rates around commercial nuclear power stations.

Energy efficiency? Well, perhaps, but what do you do with the money you save by installing low power light bulbs, insulation etc? Spend it on goods or services, invest it? Well all those actions require energy too.
Energy efficiency can only help so much.

Wake up and smell the uranium!!

Mark, Ipswich

top of page


Forget NIMBY - most of the comments on this site tend towards BANANA

Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody....

WAKE-UP AND MEASURE THE CO2!

We need renewables (WInd, Waste, Biomass etc...) but they will only EVER provide a small proprtion of our energy needs. Especially if we can persuade people to move to electric/hybrid cars. Cutting Energy Consumption only ever has a small (and temporary) effect on emissions - people simply use the cash they've saved to buy a car with a bigger engine - you can't legislate for human nature.

SO WE NEED MORE NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS!

Nuclear is cost-effective in any country where the market conditions aren't slanted against it. The builders of recent wind farms get more money from trading the low-CO2 certificates than they get from teh electricity they generate --- because the government set it up that way (and incidentally prevented nuclear power from qualifying for the same certificates, the nuclear industry's ONLY source of income is the electricty it generates).

Waste.. don't talk to me about waste. No really DON'T! Not if you're going to claim that we don't know what to do with it... The nuclear power industry, along with many other producers of radioactive waste - such as your local hospital! - have been dealing with it for 60 years. Of course mistakes were made in the early days (show me an industry that got things right from day-one?) but radioactive waste is now collected stored and (where possible) disposed of responsibly. All that's left to achieve in the UK is a bit of political will (as in France, Finland, USA etc...) to develop a long-term repository for the more active wastes - and we may see that decision made as a result of the CORWM report next summer.

Plutonium.... WONDERFUL stuff! It's a better fuel than Uranium. OK so we're not loading it back into reactors at the moment but to treat it as simply waste is short-sighted... even if the Uranium is going to last hundreds of years (which it will!). And what's wrong with a long half-life? Basic Physics people... the longer the half-life the lower the activity....!! Industrial wastes (e.g. asbestos, cadmium, arsenic, mercury) don't have half-lives...

Cancer Clusters... this is one of those self-perpetuating myths. Some uninformed, non-peer reviewed, healine grabbing report gets published by a self-styled expert and the newspapers are full of it. When the REAL epidemiologists get hold of the data and show it for the incomplete or selective bunkum that it really is... well this doesn't usually get the same publicity. BUT every respectable, independent group that has ever looked at this has shown that these clusters simply don't exist. A more trivial example... a REAL epidemeoligist showed, a few years ago, that there were clusters of about the same size around long-standing UK military installations - Medieval Castles!

Terrorism... Just try it. Have a look at the tests the Americans did: Plane + Reactor Containment building = noplane + no damage to the building....
(7/7 happened in London).

The Safety Case for any modern power station takes rising sea levels into account - and hurricanes, and fires, and heatwaves, and freezes, and floods and earthquakes and rabbits (yes, really rabbits!). After that lot hits Suffolk, Sizewell B will be the only thing left standing!

Security, Materials Accounting, Transport etc... What kind of irresponsible imbeciles do you think work at these stations? WE LIVE IN SUFFOLK TOO! SO DO OUR FAMILIES!

Those in the industry know the facts; the REAL experts outside know the facts... I can't help wondering if the Leaders of the Anti-Nuclear Lobby ALSO know the facts but use them to construct convincing-sounding half-truths which they then peddle to the rank-and-file knowing that they'll probably swallow them without question!

As I said: WAKE UP!

Colin, Wickham Market

top of page


There is a fundamental gap between the capabilities of renewables and nuclear as energy sources. The former can only ever supply a small proportion of our needs. Looking the current favourite, wind, current capacity is 1337 MW being generated from 1445 turbines (figures from the DTI and BWEA): this is only just greater than the 1188 MW from Sizewell B. Even if most new turbines are megawatt scale generators like the new 1.5 MW at Swaffham, this still means that nearly 800 would be required to replace Sizewell B and each of the similar second generation reactors (assuming each turbine is generating at the same time)! I know what I would prefer to have as a neighbour. To repace the generation capacity of all of the soon to be decommissioned nuclear stations would require thousands of turbines. Vast tracts of land would be consumed, not to mention the noise and the threat to wildlife. This would be environmental damage on a truly monumental scale - and all for an inefficient technology that requires backup capacity for when the wind doesn't blow.

John, Boxford

top of page


I support the development of further Nuclear power generation at Sizewell for a number of reasons (but with some reservation).

Pros:
1. Power transmission pylons already in situ.
2. Skilled local workforce
3. Potentially the cheapest option as coal, gas and Oil will dramatically increase in price as reserves dwindle and exploration costs rise.
4. Burning gas which is already a fuel to generate electricity, (a secondary fuel) is wasteful and very inefficient.

Cons:
1. Size and visual impact on area of outstanding natural beauty.
2. Security issues regarding the safety of the plant and transportation of used radioactive material and terrorist threats (on land and by air).

My suggestions to eliminate the concerns would be to build two identical deep shafts underground, totally lined with concrete to act as the containment vessel and locate the nuclear reactor core at the base. All spent fuel would be stored on site deep underground. you then construct a new power station in the secondary shaft while the first power unit generates electicity. When the first power plant ends its useful life the whole area is encased in a concrete cap, and the third station is built on top. Similarly when the second station ceases production it too is encased in concrete and the fourth plant built.
That way the visually intrusive containment domes are not needed. The problem of transporting waste is eliminated. Power production could be in place almost indefinately. construction would be ongoing but all specialist materials, skills and labour always available.
Conceivable you could have two plants contributing energy at the same time. What the eye doesn't see, tends to be acceptable to the public with time. Personally although I have no direct or indirect reason to support Sizewell or nuclear power I believe it is the only way forward. I hope my contribution is valid and should not be an insurmountable engineering problem.

Kevin, Kesgrave

top of page


I do not think we should leave ourselves open to blackmail by other coutries by relying on them solely for our power source, we are all demanding more energy and it is having a devastating effect, nuclear may be risky but so is coal gas etc etc; windfarms will not be able to generate enough energy for our needs,as we study nuclear more we will hopefully discover better ways to deal with the waste,but should not dismiss it in favour of other sources which in todays climate will be the whole of the british isles as one big wind farm.if we care for our world then we should do something about the global warming sooner rather than later, before we regret it and are not able to leave our children a sustainable planet to live on.

Carrol, Felixstowe

top of page


nuclear power is the only way to go, if all of the collieries were still open then you could argue for fossil fuel. but thanks to thatcher and scargill they killed off the pits and now we are getting low on coal and gas. as an ex employee of nuclear electric at sizewell B i can say that yes the waste is a problem,but if saving the climate is our objective then this is the way, and remember even the activists need electricity

David, Felixstowe

top of page


Nuclear is not a clean alternative, CO2 created in mining ore, CO2 created in transporting ore, CO2 created in building new plants. Not to mention the small issue of the nuclear waste.

Lets have a long term environmental plan put in place that isn't just for economic reasons please.

Tim, Colchester

top of page


The problem with wind farms no matter where they are situated is the fact that there are days when there is too strong a wind for them to operate & conversely days when the wind is too light they cannot operate either; a reliable constant method of generation is required. Probably the answer will lie in a mix of methods but because of the problem of nuclear waste disposal I am against the nuclear option.

Dobson, Ipswich

top of page


We did a unit on energy and renewable energy at school and having done lots of research on renewable energy I believe that tidal and wind energy are the best options. There will always be tidal energy avalible because the sea is predictable and we live on an island! I think it's rubbish that people think that on-shore windfarms are awful, because they don't look that bad and in the end they'll help to stop global warming. People should just accept on-shore windfarms! Holland has lots of on-shore windfarms, and they don't seem to have any complaints!
I also think that building more nuclear power stations is a terrible idea, because when you abandon a site it stays dangerous for years.

Tara-Jane, Rushmere St Andrew

top of page


The way your site is constructed its not possible to give more than one answer. For example in section 9 I would have liked the option to put off-shore and on-shore windfarms, also biomass development, because I believe all options, other than nuclear should be considered. I also think we should be reducing energy consumption in the first place, because in the long-term, no amount of energy however it is generated, will be enough to meet predicted demands in the future. We seem to be forever developing new gadgets that require more and more energy, eg. toothbrushes, power-dependant phones etc. with no thought for the future.

Rachel, Ipswich

top of page


It clearly is absolutely essential that we reduce our CO2 emissions one only has to look at the charts to see we are already in uncharted territory for the globe and things are spiralling out of control. But how do we solve this, is Nuclear a solution? Suffolk is on the doorstep of any potential issues rising too so are we NIMBY’s if we complain? I am guided by the statement issued by Centre of Alternative Technology this centre, in Northern Wales, which is as far as anyone can get from potential issues arising from the nuclear industry!!

  1. The full end to end costs need to be considered. The life of the waste is significant and its affect needs to be considered carefully. How much does this cost. My personal view is NO the tax payer does not pick up this bill it is the polluter that pays! Is Nuclear given the full costs anymore a cost effective solution?
  2. The solution proposed by the Centre of Alternative Technology and is being promoted so many times to help with CO2 emissions is REDUCE! Light bulbs, TV stand-by, one degree down on heating controls, wall and loft insulation. How many people have heard of a pullover!! All very simple solutions. I was in Ipswich Borough Council Civic Centre last week for a meeting (on Green Living!!) and we were discussing whether we should have changed into shorts it was so steaming hot! And shop keepers in Ipswich are no better. The streets of Ipswich are subjected to leaking heat everywhere; indeed my partner and I were so hot in one shop we positively discriminated against shopping there and walked out! There is no excuse that shops are moaning about making inadequate money, nor the council about putting up rates, when they are in effect throwing it out the door!
  3. Is Nuclear safe? Yes maybe the industry has made things 99.99999% safe etc but we are living in a society with terrorism. Here is a target that would have devastating effects.
  4. There are solutions with wind and solar today. We just have to deploy them and not put up unreasonable objections. If we object we are in effect saying that we support Nuclear on our door-steps instead!
  5. Suffolk is in the forefront of EU funded advancing technology for off-shore wind farms these would easily by far replace all the nuclear plants and many more. We have experience of the offshore industry and so can capitalize on wind-farm development. We can even look to China as a potential major market.

Let’s as a country get on with all the developments for “green energy” and in the meantime make do with what power we generate today by us all taking a few simple steps to consume less. No excuse for saying “I cannot afford it” because if you genuinely cannot there are schemes to pay 100% for loft and roof insulation.

John, Chairman SEReNe (Suffolk Environment Regional Network), Kesgrave

top of page


I think the problem has to be addressed in more than one way.

We need to
1. USE LESS energy
2. Develope offshore and onshore windfarms
3. Develope Biomass initiatives
4. Encourage alternatives to motor fuel eg Sugar Beet etc
5. Encourage Solar Power for heating

Helen, Hollesley

top of page


People seem to be afraid of nuclear power due to the inevitably high profile caused by an accident. They may feel that just by having a nuclear reactor anywhere near them they are being irradiated constantly as the reactor is bound to leak.
The way i see it, our planet is heating up. Whether this is directly due to greenhouse gasses or merely a cycle in global weather, it cannot hurt to be reducing the amount of waste we put into the atmosphere. By burning more gas we are still contributing to this waste output. Wind farms, on or off shore, i would guess are going to fall way short of supplying our energy requirements. So, the sensible solution would be to produce cheap and plentiful energy through nuclear power.
Of course it's a disaster when it goes wrong but i would put my faith in those in control to ensure that it is as safe as it can possibly be.
We cannot use fossil fuels forever and we are already feeling the pressure of higher costs, let alone the environmental cost i'm sure we are still to realise fully.
If wind and wave farms were viable to supply all our energy without becoming blots on the landscape then i may go for them first but i don't see that they would be enough by themselves. Nuclear, i believe is the more rational solution.
Everybody wants cheap electricity but they don't want a reactor anywhere near them. Sizewell is about as far away from a major population as we can get without using a new site so if nuclear is the way forward, it makes sense to have it there.

James, Felixstowe

top of page


I am annoyed to find you have restricted choices on this site. Renewable sources should be combined with reducing power consumption. Windfarms should be both off and on-shore. The Government is going for the quick fix. Consumption should be cut now before the crisis hits and the time bought used to find an economical and reliable alternative source of power. People need educating on power saving. Money should be spent to this aim eg reduce the cost of energy saving bulbs etc and grants given to anyone who could support their own energy needs with a renewable source especially solar and wind.

Jill, Leiston

top of page


Nuclear power is currently the least worst option to resolve the expected energy gap in the short term. Extensive research must continue in developing viable renewable sources in the long term and new laws passed to minimise the amount energy consumed by appliances, particularly when they are not in use (i.e. on standby). Finally, security around nuclear sites needs to be seriously re-evaluated: One suicide bomber in the wrong place could spell the end of East Suffolk.

Barry, Chelmsford

top of page


I would like to see the development of all types of energy production that isnt dependent on fossil fuels. To include nuclear, wind, wave, bio fuel etc.

Chris, Leiston

top of page


No nuclear power because
1) It has never been cost effective
2) The problem of storing waste, this has never been solved. Plutonium has an half-life of 24,400 years, so basically poluting the planet for ever.
3) Around every nuclear power station are clusters of cancer.
4) Nuclear power stations are a prime target for terrorists, this could once again polute the planet for ever.
5) Rising sea levels in Suffolk could cause contamination, especially as the government wants to leave us to the fate of the sea.
6) Nuclear material has gone missing from power stations, with no knowledge of where it is.
7) Danger of transporting radioactive waste, both from accidents or terrorism.

Hilary, Ipswich

top of page


Other methods of power generation must also be expanded - biomass, wind and tidal, even coal!

John, Bury St Edmunds

top of page


What happens when uranium runs out in 50 years? Is there more left to mine?

John, East Bergholt

top of page


If nuclear is the only way to guarantee UK energy resources for the immediate future then that is the preferred option. However, we need to reduce this need for the longer term by investment in alternative energy supplies that do not destroy the ability of the environment to provide energy indefinitely.

David, Kesgrave

top of page


How can the continued use of nuclear power be justified when there are no plans for the disposal of waste?

Hazel, Ipswich

top of page


If the existing nuclear plants are considered to have been sucessful, then it makes sense to build another alongside. All of the infrastructure's there and the distribution's there and the people and knowledge are there. And in the long run, when the A plant needs removing, build another where it was. ...and it brings work into the region...

Jack, Ipswich

top of page


in conjunction to using renewable energy the government should impose power consumption restrictions on household appliances (ie make them more efficient)...also make industry more efficient...also other measures needed to conserve current power resources (public awareness initiatives etc)

Phil, Ipswich

top of page


If we are to make any real difference fast then nuclear is the only way forward. Like all medicines, there are side effects to taking them - nuclear power is our medicine to cure the current mess we are in. Not to say that renewables will not play their part in the near future.

Ian, Felixstowe

top of page


I'd rather see a windfarm off the coast of felixstowe than have to build more nuclear power stations. Just seems like a quick fix that we'll leave for our children's children to deal with when they reach the end of their useful life.

Samantha, Felixstowe

top of page


A new nuclear power station at Sizewell may secure our energy supply for now, but what about in the future when we have the responsibility of getting rid of hazardous waste? A wind farm is surely a better, safer option for our county?

Jessica, Ipswich

top of page