The nuclear option for electricity is dirty and dangerous. On Anglesey lets focus on renewable to generate more jobs and a sustainable future without the risk to the locality and the planet, with no radioactive waste. Talk to the people of Trawsfynydd, they thought it was safe now look at all the families devastated by cancer, a radioactive lake and an eyesore there for a thousand years.

The Government should not interfere, alter, or ride roughshod over the duly elected officials who are there by the people's will.

We citizens of Lancashire, put politicians in place to represent our needs. We are sovereign, and have the highest form of political authority--you are temporary. Our local council, made up of councillors democratically elected by us, and charged with serving our interests, is exactly the right body to make decisions on local matters. The government have displaced our democracy in Lancashire and we intend to make our vote count next time round. WE THE UNDERSIGNED: PLEDGE TO VOTE FOR NO CONSERVATIVE MP IN THE UPCOMING PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS

Fracking causes misery worldwide, with death's, cancers and disease. It is unethical and should be banned. It is no different to importing blood diamonds. This is supposedly banned so why not shale gas? I say we ban its use. I say ban its usage and the imports and drilling for it will end.

Because 1. Buying Hinkley Point is a colossal mistake 2. Mrs May inherited the project from Osborne & Cameron, keen to develop Chinese trade, 3. but now finds it politically embarrassing to back out of this very bad deal Consequently, we need to inform the public 1. why the deal is bad 2. that there are better alternatives and 3. the Chinese and French can be placated while serving British interests Why is Hinkley Point such a bad deal? 1. It is far too expensive 2. There are undeclared costs associated with the nuclear legacy which make nonsense of published costs – we will have to look after the abandoned reactors and radioactive waste for centuries and nobody knows how to do it or cares how much it will cost 3. There is a huge risk of failure – no such reactor has yet been completed and the ones started (Finland 2005, France 2007) are unfinished, in deep technical trouble and seriously (by billions each) over budget 4. The risks are ultimately borne by us, not the French contractors or Chinese financiers – the project is too big to be allowed to fail by the Government of the day (not Mrs May) 5. Nuclear technology is in any case the wrong choice for filling our anticipated supply gap: nuclear energy gets more expensive as new ideas to improve safety are incorporated in the design; in contrast other well established methods of electricity generation such as gas or coal-fired turbines and particularly offshore wind and solar energy get cheaper by the day owing to accumulating experience and rapid technical development 6.IF it has to be nuclear, the Hinkley Point reactors are too big (small modular reactors can be built instead as needed, at a fraction of the cost and in much less time) and probably also the wrong technology (a debatable, but only secondary, point) Why is the Government pursuing it? The above problems with the Hinkley project are well known to Mrs May and her advisers, but 1. Mrs May inherited it from Messrs Cameron & Osborne, who promoted it mainly in order to develop tempting business relations with China. 2. Brexit makes such relations even more important as proof of GBplc's viability outside the EU Are there any alternatives? Technical alternatives are set out above, but how to meet the political and commercial imperatives? We must persuade the public, and thus influence the Government, to 1. Abandon Hinkley even at this late stage and with possible compensation costs and offer the Chinese and French Governments partnerships in implementing the chosen technical alternative (the Chinese are leaders in solar cell development and production and both the French and Chinese may be interested in offshore developments, small reactors and advanced research). 2. Maximise the benefits to UKplc by ensuring that a good share of work is retained (for example involving UK contractors and Rolls-Royce if small modular nuclear plants form part of the chosen technical mix). Balint Bodroghy BASC DIC (nuclear engineering) 5 Palmeira Avenue Mansions 17-19 Church Road, Hove, BN3 2FA REFERENCES Why Hinkley Point is a nuclear folly of Titanic proportions New Scientist 28.07.16 Michael Le Page Forget the economics of Hinkley Point, the politics are convincing Daily Telegraph Matthew Lynn 15 SEPTEMBER 2016 • 6:21PM If there’s one sure-fire way to irritate de Rivaz of EDF, it’s to mention Christmas turkeys. Emily Gosden, energy editor, Daily Telegraph 17 SEPTEMBER 2016 • 8:00PM Let's ditch Hinkley Point and HS2 to get more bang for our bucks, Daily Telegraph Liam Halligan 17 SEPTEMBER 2016 • 12:59PM Hinkley Point fires up Britain's nuclear ambitions Daily Telegraph 17 September 2016, 8:00pm Rolls submitted designs to the Government for Small Modular Reactors capable of generating 220MW, that could be doubled up to 440, a 10th of the size of a traditional nuclear power station. Rolls Royce Publicity: For some 50 years, Rolls-Royce has been helping Naval and utility customers maximise plant operation and safely extend plant lifetimes. Britain is “ideally placed” to take a global lead in the SMR market, which could be worth £400bn,

it would obviously help generate the power we need,also it would stop good arable land going to waste,not to mention the eyesore in the country syndrome.

The Financial Times reports that the Korea Electric Power Corporation, KEPCO, wants to build nuclear reactors in Britain. It hopes to start by installing a Toshiba/Westinghouse reactor at Moorside near Sellafield, and then build more with its own technology. (Ref 1) Nearly four years ago South Korea’s nuclear watchdog said that, over the past nine years, safety certificates for more than 7600 items procured for reactors were forged. Several Korean reactors malfunctioned and two were closed for months. (Ref 2) Ref 1 Koreans near investment in new Cumbrian nuclear plant by: Jim Pickard and Andrew Ward Financial Times web site 11 September 2016 Ref 2 South Korea to investigate nuclear plants by: Song Jung-a and Simon Mundy Financial Times web site 7 November 2012

The current Nuclear proposal is on hold but significant pressure from China and the scientific establishment lobby groups not offering up an agreed alternative means we are at one minute to Midnight. The current option is unproven nuclear technology funded by China and is not fully accounted for in terms of even finishing the initial build, waste management and safety. Some scientists say that we cannot rely on renewables due to lack of energy storage. However, there are many storage systems that with just a fraction of £18 Billion invested in them could deliver. As the energy storage business is small in comparison to the nuclear industry its lobby power is small but should not be overlooked. Also, investing in the nuclear industry does not lead to export opportunities that a powerful energy storage business could offer as most western nations have turned their backs on nuclear but are highly interested in mass energy storage systems. The remit of the committee should include export opportunities for mass energy storage systems, energy efficiency and policy, as these are currently delivering only a fraction of the potential there .

Barclays has a 97% stake in Third Energy - the company who want to frack North Yorkshire. One of Barclays values is to "find ways to positively impact all of the communities we interact with". The people of North Yorkshire don't want fracking! Third Energy are planning to build 950 wells over 19 sites which will have a seriously negative effect on health, climate, the local economy etc.

In 2014, Public Health England published their final version of a health report on fracking. The report was narrow in its contents and missed out some significant health evidence that indicated hydraulic fracturing impacted upon public health. Since that report, hundreds of other health reports have been published with critical evidence that now needs to be taken into account before any shale activity should proceed within the UK. Medact have released two reports into public health and fracking, both of which have been ignored by the Conservative government. Medact said they have “called for a moratorium on fracking because of the serious risks it poses to public health. Fracking has already been suspended in Wales and Scotland because of health and climate risks and New York State has banned fracking because of the ‘significant health risks’. “The [Medact] report highlights the limitations of Public Health England’s report on fracking, including the fact that it was narrow in scope and failed to critically assess the adequacy and reliability of the regulatory system. “Working with various experts in energy policy and climate change, Medact’s report also describes how shale gas produces a level of GHG emissions that is incompatible with the UK’s commitments to address climate change.” A letter published in the British Medical Journal stated: “The arguments against fracking on public health and ecological grounds are overwhelming. There are clear grounds for adopting the precautionary principle and prohibiting fracking.” This letter was signed by 18 academic and medical professionals. In Lancashire it was left to the county council’s own director of public health to assess health impact. He advised that there was no regulatory system in place, in that health outcomes are not part of the regulatory bodies’ agenda. He could provide no assurance of baseline or any ongoing monitoring of health. More recently, an important study has been released by Johns Hopkins University linking fracking to an exacerbation of asthma. Public Health England’s mission is: "to protect and improve the nation’s health and to address inequalities" If Public Health England is to fulfil their public duty and mission statement, then to not acknowledge and act upon the wealth of contraindications towards hydraulic fracturing, they could be in breach of their position and may face a legal challenge. A full and concise article by Alan Tootill, with references on this subject, can be found here: http://www.frackingdigest.co.uk/health.htm

We are encouraged daily to switch suppliers for a better deal. This would be so much easier if this method could be adopted.

In the interest of safety and security we request that the switching out of lights in residential streets between midnight and 6 am be withdrawn and that LCC follow the example of Doncaster Borough Council by replacing lamps with energy efficient LED lights that will reduce electricity costs by 70% and reduce maintenance costs due to their long life (25 years compared with 6 years). Residents are very concerned that the creation of dark spaces in the town at night will encourage burglaries, anti-social behaviour and accidents. Do let us know of your concerns and any experiences you have related to the lights being out.