STOP THE COAL MINE NEAR SELLAFIELD
Posted: 4th May 2021
Letters to STOP THE COAL MINE NEAR SELLAFIELD
Dear All.
If you have not yet sent a letter to the Inquiry, you may want to see mine (below)
NB. Email your letter to [email protected]
and WHEN WRITING YOUR OWN LETTER INCLUDE THE REFERENCE NUMBER AND YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS …...AND SEND IT BY WEDNESDAY
Thanks
Philip
Dear Planning Inspectorate,
Re. APP/H0900/V/21/3271069
I write to urge the Planning Inspector to consider all issues central to concerns about the proposed mine. Prominent amongst these are the potential impact of mining close to Sellafield on nuclear safety and the impact of coal production and use on CO2 emissions on climate. The proposed mine would clearly increase carbon emissions, exacerbating the climate emergency, while its potentially adverse impact on nuclear safety could be catastrophic for the immediate and long term future and viability of not only Cumbria’s health and safety but the health and safety of neighbouring countries. I urge the Planning Inspector to overturn Cumbria County Council’s approval for this uniquely dangerous coal mine.
In doing so, I refer you to evidence which I understand has already been submitted to you by organisations, including Radiation Free Lakeland and South Lakes Action on Climate Change, and would ask you to remember:
1) The proposed coal mine would be located very close the the Sellafield nuclear site which is home to three-quarters of the UK’s atomic waste which, in 2019, according to official data already included 76,100 m3 tonnes of intermediate level nuclear waste and 2,150 m3 tonnes of high level nuclear waste (see https://ukinventory.nda.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2019-Waste-Report-Final.pdf ).
2) It is estimated that as little as 6.5% of the coal produced in the proposed mine could be used in the UK because it’s sulphur content is too high for steel production here, while Lord Deben suggests that only 15% of it could be used in UK steel production. This means that between 85% and 93.5% of the coal would be exported; thus directly undermining WCM’s claims that the proposed mine will reduce the need to transport coal between countries.
3) Lord Deben, in his letter of 29 January 2021, states that “the mine is projected to increase UK emissions by 0.4Mt CO2e per year” and “this is greater than the level of annual emissions we have projected from all open UK coal mines to 2050.” (https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/letter-deep-coal-mining-in-the-uk/ ) Meanwhile, it is estimated that the “end use” emissions would be approximately 9 million tonnes of CO2e per year, causing significant climate change impacts and undermining the UK’s credibility at COP26 in Glasgow this November.
4) Lord Deben’s letter also states that “Coking coal use in steelmaking could be displaced completely by 2035, using a combination of hydrogen direct reduction and electric arc furnace technology to meet our recommendation that UK ore-based steelmaking be near-zero emissions by 2035.” Coking coal from Cumbria is not needed.
5) It would appear from WCM’s own documents that around 80% of the 500 jobs they claim would be created by the proposed mine would need special skills whicht are unlikely to be held locally, leaving only about 100 of the jobs suitable for local people.
6)The mine would have a negative effect on tourism, especially on the Coastal and Coast to Coast footpaths, and would affect plans to encourage visitors into West Cumbria instead of the Lake District “honeypots”.