What is Sizewell C and what does it mean for Suffolk?
Plans for the Sizewell C nuclear power station have taken a step closer to the final go-ahead after the government announced significant funding. But what exactly is Sizewell C and what are the arguments for and against it?
What is Sizewell C and where will it be built?
French energy company EDF wants to build a new two-reactor nuclear power station on the east Suffolk coastline that could generate 3.2 gigawatts of electricity.It claims Sizewell C could power the equivalent of about six million homes and will generate electricity for 60 years.The power station will sit right next to Sizewell B that has been operating since 1995, just off Sizewell beach, close to the town of Leiston.The decommissioned Sizewell A site, which first opened in 1967, can also be found here.
What is nuclear and is it safe?
To generate nuclear power in non-military reactors, uranium atoms are bombarded by much smaller neutron particles.This causes the atoms to break down in process called nuclear fission, which releases huge amounts of energy as heat.The heat is used to boil water, producing steam, which drives turbines and generates electricity. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the plants are among the "safest and most secure facilities in the world" and are subject to strict international safety standards.
When was Sizewell C first proposed?
In 2008, the then Labour prime minister, Gordon Brown, said the UK needed to increase its nuclear power capacity.Two years later during the coalition government between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, Sizewell was identified as a site suitable for a new power station.In November 2012, EDF launched its first public consultation to get the feedback of local people ahead of any formal planning application.Three other public consultations were held, with the final one finishing in September 2019.Sizewell C said more than 10,000 East Suffolk residents had been involved in the consultations.
Does Sizewell C have planning permission?
In May 2020, EDF submitted an application for a development consent order to build the power station.This is a legal document that grants permission for large-scale and nationally significant projects in England and Wales.This was granted by the government in July 2022 despite the Examining Authority recommending it was not approved over water supply and nature concerns.The site has also had its nuclear licence granted too in May 2024.While both these have been given, there were still questions over how it would be funded.
How much will Sizewell C cost and how much money has already been given?
The power station is expected to cost about £20bn.EDF previously rejected claims the project would cost £40bn, but did accept its nuclear plant being built at Hinkley Point, in Somerset, would cost more than that figure.The government confirmed a total of £3.6bn worth of investment had been put into the project so far.This included some funding from a subsidy scheme called Devex.
What does today's news mean?
The government said it would now be investing £14.2bn to build Sizewell C - this figure included £2.7bn announced in November last year, a spokesperson for the Department for Energy Security confirmed. It means £17.8bn has been invested in the project in total.However the government said a final decision on the funding model was due later this summer as the project was still in need of private investors.Ministers and EDF previously said there had been plenty of potential investors coming forward and an agreement was close to being finalised.
What is the argument for Sizewell C?
No new nuclear power plant has opened in the UK since 1995 when Sizewell B began operating.According to the government, all existing nuclear stations with the exception of Sizewell B, are likely to be phased out by the early 2030s.The government has previously said it was on a "mission" to deliver clean power by 2030 and reach its net zero target. Nuclear power stations do not produce greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide or methane while in operation and therefore it could be key to help with this goal.The government also said this "clean, homegrown power" could play a part in building economic growth, improve its energy security and reduce the country's dependency on fossil fuels.Another key argument around the project is the jobs it could create for the surrounding areas.While in construction, the project could employ up to 10,000 people and once in operation there will be 900 people employed at Sizewell C.
What do campaigners say?
There has been strong opposition against Sizewell C since it was announced.Campaign groups Stop Sizewell C and Together Against Sizewell C both fear the plant could have negative effects across a range of different areas.Both have significant worries over the environmental impact and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has similarly protested in the past over this fear.Sizewell C has argued it has worked to protect the wildlife around the site by rehoming displaced animals in new nature reserves it has created.The campaign groups also argue the project is "too slow" to combat climate change and is too expensive.Alison Downes, director of Stop Sizewell C, said the government would come to "regret" its most recent investment announcement and felt the money could be spent elsewhere.
When could Sizewell C be operational?
If the final investment decision on the funding model this summer goes ahead without issue, Sizewell C could be operational by the 2030s. Sizewell C also recently announced plans to open a post-16 college in Leiston which it hoped would help train up its future workforce.
Follow Suffolk news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Rachel Reeves only has herself to blame for this recession
Companies were hammered by a steep rise in employment taxes. Business rates went up sharply as reliefs were wound down. The living wage was pushed up, and stamp duty breaks were slashed. Against that dismal backdrop, it is probably a miracle that the GDP figures for April published today recorded only a 0.3 per cent month-on-month decline in output. The Chancellor Rachel Reeves will shamelessly try to blame that on the tariff war started by president Trump. But the blunt truth is this. The unfolding recession was entirely predictable – and she has only herself to blame. April was always going to be a tough month for anyone struggling to run a business in the UK. Employer National Insurance went up, and we saw the initial impact of that in the annual loss of 274,000 jobs in the employment data reported earlier this week. Likewise, one of the biggest rises in the living wage was imposed, and we saw the effect of that in declining hours worked in sectors such as shops and restaurants, which need lots of modestly paid staff. Business rates went up sharply, as reliefs were wound down, with many pubs facing an extra £12,000 or more in the amount that they have to pay to the local council, and closures are now running at 100 a month. Stamp duty went up as reliefs were phased out, and we have already seen the consequences of that in the 0.4 per cent decline in home prices reported by Halifax last week. In the background, industrial electricity prices have remained by far the highest in the world, forcing factories to close their doors. One by one Reeves has taken the major sectors of the British economy – property, hospitality, retailing and manufacturing – and whacked them with huge extra charges. Sure, it didn't help that the US imposed tariffs on the UK along with its other major trading partners. And yet, in reality, the sharp fall in output witnessed in April was entirely self-imposed. It took an extraordinary level of incompetence, and a breath-taking level of arrogance, to sequence such a punishing round of tax increases so that they all kicked in at the same time. It is not as if Reeves was not warned of the devastating impact of her tax rises on businesses. The M&S boss Stuart Machin called for the NI rise to be phased in back in February but was ignored. The British Beer and Pub Association called for help with business rates, but no one at the Treasury paid any attention. Rightmove called for stamp duty relief to be extended, and so did many other estate agents, but the Government didn't listen. The list goes on and on. Time and time again, businesses have told the Chancellor that her policies are killing their trade, only to be ignored. As it has turned out, however, they were completely right, and today's GDP figures have proved that. It is going to get much worse over the next few months. We have only seen the start of the fall in employment after the NI rise. After all, if your wage bill is out of control, it takes time to slim staff numbers. There are procedures to follow before you dismiss someone, and most small companies will rely on natural wastage, and simply not replace people, instead of risking the cost of an employment tribunal. Stamp duty has only just gone up, and it will take buyers a while to figure out they can no longer afford to move. Meanwhile, retail sales are falling again, and the inevitability of more tax rises on business in the autumn is deterring investment. Reeves chose to ignore the warnings that her tax raids would crash the economy. She will now have to reap the consequences of those decisions – and unfortunately so will the rest of us.
Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reeves dismisses Khan in row over police funding
Rachel Reeves has rejected claims made by Sir Sadiq Khan that her spending review will result in the number of police officers being cut. In her spending review on Wednesday the Chancellor announced a 2.3 per cent real-terms increase in police spending power. But the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) said the funding settlement 'falls far short of what is required to fund the Government's ambitions and maintain our existing workforce'. Sir Sadiq, the Mayor of London, said he was concerned the spending review 'could result in insufficient funding for the [Metropolitan Police] and fewer police officers'. Asked if Sir Sadiq was wrong, the Chancellor told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: 'I really don't accept that there needs to be cuts when we are actually increasing the money that the police force gets.' Told about the NPCC's warning, Ms Reeves said: 'The police have been allocated a budget which has a real-terms increase of 2.3 per cent a year and they now need to live within those budgets.' Making 'sums add up' Ms Reeves said the police were getting a 'substantial' increase in spending power. She told BBC Breakfast: 'That [2.3 per cent] is a substantial increase and that is for every year of this spending review period, so for the next three years. 'So there is no reason for those numbers to decline. The spending power of police is going up substantially and the spending that we set out yesterday was an average across all parts of government of 2.3 per cent a year, and so policing are in line with that average across other government departments. 'But look, I wasn't able to say yes to everything that people asked for in the spending review. People always are going to want more whether it is in health, education, defence or indeed for policing. 'But my job as Chancellor is to make sure that the sums add up and we can't spend more than we have coming in.' Senior officers have warned that a lack of funds will put at risk Labour's promises to deploy an extra 13,000 neighbourhood police officers, as well as their pledge to halve violence against women and girls and reduce knife crime. The extra funding for the police is expected to amount to just £200 million in real-terms by the end of the decade.
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
Australia's defense minister downplays concerns over Pentagon review of multi-billion submarine deal
Australia 's defense minister dismissed concerns Thursday that a deal between the U.S., Australia and Britain to provide his country with nuclear-powered submarines could be in jeopardy, following a report that the Pentagon had ordered a review. Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles told Sky News Australia that he had known about the review of the deal 'for some time," saying that it was a 'very natural step for the incoming administration to take.' He noted that the UK's government also reviewed the deal, the centerpiece of a three-way alliance known as AUKUS after it was elected, and that his own government had looked at it as part of its own review of Australia's entire defense posture. "I think an incoming government having a look at this is something that they have a perfect right to do and we welcome it and we'll work with it,' he said. The deal, worth more than $200 billion, was signed between the three countries in 2021 under then President Joe Biden, designed to provide Australia, one of Washington's staunchest allies in the region, with greater maritime capabilities to counter China's increasingly strong navy. The deal also involves the U.S. selling several of its Virginia-class submarines to Australia to bridge the gap as the new submarines are being jointly built. In January, Australia made the first of six $500 million payments to the U.S. under the AUKUS deal, meant to bolster American submarine manufacturing. Marles met with U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on the sidelines of a defense conference in Singapore less than two weeks ago, and told reporters afterward that he had come away with 'a sense of confidence about the way in which AUKUS is proceeding.' 'AUKUS is on track and we are meeting all the timelines that are associated with it,' he said. 'We are very optimistic.' Hegseth's address to the defense forum made multiple mentions of cooperation with Australia but no reference to AUKUS, however, though he did later mention the deal when he was taking questions. Hegseth did urge allies in the Indo-Pacific to increase their defense spending, and underscored the need for a 'strong, resolute and capable network of allies and partners' as the U.S. seeks to counter China.
