Climate benefits claimed for Sizewell “C” are fake

My submission to the Planning Inspectorate public consultation on Sizewell “C” is below: The so called “Sustainability appraisal key findings” on nuclear benefits generally and Sizewell C specifically to combatting climate change, as presented on page one of the Sustainability Statement are fake. The Applicant asserts that Sizewell C ‘s CO2 equivalent emissions would be “similar to wind and lower than solar ”. This is untrue. Nuclear power will not provide any useful dent in curbing harmful emissions, as when the carbon footprint of its full uranium ‘fuel chain’ is considered- from uranium mining, milling, enrichment ( which is highly energy intensive), fuel fabrication, irradiation, radioactive waste conditioning, storage, packaging to final disposal – nuclear power's CO2 emissions are between 10 to 18 times greater than those from renewable energy technologies, according to a recent study by Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, California. (https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/ReviewSolGW09.pdf) If the applicant is either so incompetent that it has not checked the figures it presents on carbon emission benefits , or has checked them, but has dishonestly presented them, either case disqualifies the applicant to be trust to build or operate a nuclear power plant. In addition, the building and operating nuclear power plants is one of the least effective technology-based ways to address the climate change crisis, due to its costs, complexity and construction times. Its opportunity cost is severely negative. I would recommend the Applicants be required to read and absorb the arguments made by Amory Lovins (Co-Founder and Chairman Emeritus, Rocky Mountain Institute, Snowmass, Colorado, U.S.) in his 4,000 word chapter “Climate Change and Nuclear Power “ , found in the 2019 version of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, which comprehensively demolishes any evidence-based arguments on the utility of nuclear to help address climate change. (see: https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The-World-Nuclear-Industry-Status-Report-2019-HTML.html#ccanp) I also find that the supplementary “Sustainability Performance of Associated Development “totally ignores the in-situ environmental impact on communities where uranium is mined and milled. The out-of-sight, out-of-mind approach is immoral. I find this an unconscionable omission in a so called sustainability assessment, and disqualifies the document as inadequate, as it is incomplete and utterly fails in its addressing the significantly globally much wider deleterious environmental impact of the uranium fuel supply chain. A full sustainability assessment including these aspects is needed, and the applicant should be required to produce a comprehensive statement on the front end of the nuclear fuel chain. I recommend that the applicant starts with the recently published Uranium Atlas, especially the Chapter headed “A RESPONSIBILITY ABANDONED” available in English at: https://beyondnuclearinternational.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/uraniumatlas_2020.pdf Offsite local development means much more than local roads or regional amenities. It is shameful that the applicant is not aware of this. I have also been unable to find any document addressing security in the voluminous material presented by the Applicant. No operating license could ever be granted unless the security dimension of the project were fully examined in detail.