Talk:Sizewell C nuclear power station

Photos
If possible, please could someone source an artists impression from the EDF website about the project. I have no clue how to do this. Example image: https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/nuclear-new-build-projects/sizewell-c/news-views/planning-inspectorate-accepts-sizewell-c-planning-application-for-examination Alex Berrow (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could contact EDF and ask them to release the pictures for Sizewell and Bradwell? Using this article WP:WikiPics This is example of where photos have been released by a company Captain_Tom_Moore_Train_Naming Qazwsx777 (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 21 October 2020
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Berkeley Nuclear Power Station which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Approval
Should this be updated, as on 20th July 2022, the UK Government has approved the plans? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-62235221 Wagnerp16 (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This has now been added to the article, thanks for raising it. Bellowhead678 (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Why is Together Against Sizewell C notable?
TASC is given a prominent section, detailing irrational objections to the plant.

Such groups making unscientific claims are often funded by the oil lobby in the American arena. Is there any access to how they are financed? Does being an "unincorporated group" help us see how money flows through it?

I've already removed a claim that Sizewell C will contaminate the area, something nuclear energy plants don't do during operation or after decommisioning.

I would like to remove the remaining bulletpoints presented as factual, when they aren't even supported with a citation, and don't sound true. Talk⁄Louis Waweru 03:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Whether the group's claims are factual or not, they are their claims. It's not our job to interpret those claims. It is our job to decide whether TASC and any other anti-Sizewell groups are notable enough to mention in the article. Then further to decide whether their chief position of opposition should be reported. We shouldn't pick and choose which claims to list just because we think they are rubbish (which of course they are!) 10mmsocket (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Look at what I have just done. Is that an improvement? 10mmsocket (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you, I think so.
 * I see what you're saying, and I agree including a group's arguments is perfectly fine. It's more that they were unexplained opinions presented as facts or facts that turn out to be untrue or opinions, and all very FUD-ish. I wouldn't see an issue with using them on the group's own article, but here I think they just mislead one to believing in their validity.
 * Bullet-points to highlight key points of a section are great, or even letting them stand alone can be too, if they are supported by something. In this case though, issues that most anyone would agree with in opposing the plant were presented as reasons to oppose the project, only what followed were good standalone edits that just didn't address the points.
 * Here's the impact we learn about in the section thanks to the courts and arboriculturists:
 * - The four acre site was to lose 229 trees and a building, to be offset by 2,500 newly planted trees in the area.
 * And as a reminder, here are their arguments against the project:
 * The funding would be better spent on renewable energy
 * The cost of electricity would increase as a result of the construction as the build would cost more than renewables
 * The health risks are too great as the site would be contaminated for many years after operation
 * The economic benefits to the surrounding area would be minimal
 * The plant would be at risk from rising sea levels as a result of climate change
 * Thanks for taking the time, and sorry for not explaining my POV more clearly. I hope this helps show my concern for caution on this topic. Talk⁄Louis Waweru 03:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Reference 60 leads to a 404 error message - page not found.
Searching the host website does not find the paper previously listed 84.64.12.8 (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Two discussions about the paper - here on Linkedin and here on Beyond Nuclear International. Take your pick... 10mmsocket (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Or just look in Internet Wayback Machine here. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)