Nuclear Energy (Hansard, 7 November 1988)

§ 6. Mr. Ian Bruce
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what his Department is doing to reduce harm to the environment by promoting the increased use of nuclear energy in relation to fossil fuels.

§ Mr. Parkinson
The Governments's commitment to continued diversity of fuel supply, including a suitable nuclear component, will help reduce potentially harmful emissions from fossil-fuelled power stations.

§ Mr. Bruce
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Surely we are far behind the rest of the world, particularly France, which has a nuclear component of over 70 per cent., and America and Japan have much higher nuclear components than Britain. Those nations are doing far more than we are to cut down emissions from fossil fuels. Should we not do far more to encourage all future power stations to be nuclear power stations?

§ Mr. Parkinson
Unlike the French and the Japanese, we have substantial reserves of coal, and it would be a mistake for the nation to turn its back on them. We have coal, oil, gas, and nuclear, too. It is right to maintain our nuclear component at its present level. Many of my hon. Friend's constituents work in the nuclear industry. I am sure that he will not fail to point out to them that no other party in the House supports nuclear power.

§ Ms. Armstrong
Will the Minister acknowledge that the equation is not quite as simple as that which was put to the House by the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce)? The Government have not yet begun to come to terms with the problem of the disposal of nuclear waste, 8 but, at the same time, we have the technology and the knowledge to control emissions from coal-fired power stations so that they are not an environmental hazard.

§ Mr. Parkinson
It is not true that the technology for dealing with nuclear waste has not been identified. The reprocessing of spent fuel is now firmly in hand, and the search for a final disposal site is also nearing completion.
No source of energy does not involve clear-up costs. It is estimated that the cost of clearing platforms from the North sea is about £6 billion, about half as much again as the cost of decommissioning Magnox power stations. Every year we dig out 60 million tonnes of dirt to get 90 million tonnes of coal, and we dump the 60 million tonnes of dirt on the surface of Britain. We have subsidence, and 235 million tonnes of carbon dioxide is emitted from power stations. It is mistaken for the hon. Lady to pretend that all other sources of fuel are clean and easy and that coal is absolutely costless.

§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
When promoting nuclear energy, will my right hon. Friend—who knows my part of the world so well—call to the attention of the Central Electricity Generating Board that, in all proposals to store spent nuclear fuel, safety and not the capital programme or the cash flow of the CEGB should be paramount?

§ Mr. Parkinson
The answer is yes. I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about the proposals for a dry store at Heysham, and I can tell her that safety will be a prime consideration there.

§ Mr. Matthew Taylor
Is the Secretary of State aware of the Rocky Mountain Institute report, which says that even a sixfold increase in nuclear power would not have a significant impact on the greenhouse effect? In view of his comment that all forms of energy generation have a cost associated with the environment, why has the right hon. Gentleman continued to cut the budget of the energy efficiency office?

§ Mr. Parkinson
I am aware of the report, although I have only read about it and have not seen it. I believe that it addresses the wrong question. It asks whether nuclear power or energy efficiency can contribute most to the removal of the greenhouse effect. I believe that the greenhouse effect will be alleviated by a combination of factors nuclear power, more emphasis on the control of emissions from coal-fired power stations and energy efficiency. The Government are promoting the lot.

§ Mr. John Garrett
Will the Secretary of State elaborate on his reported speech to the Mid-Norfolk Conservative Association a couple of weeks ago—the newspaper report is headed "Cecil's Energy Jigsaw"—in which he is quoted as saying that electricity production will be less nuclear dominated after privatisation because of his opposition to gigantic nuclear stations?
As for environmental damage, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that his Department has commissioned absolutely no research into the effects of energy production and policy on air pollution? If that is so, he is hardly entitled to give such glib answers.

§ Mr. Parkinson
I do not hold myself answerable to the Mid-Norfolk News, or whatever it is. I formed the 9 impression from talking to the young man who was there that it was almost the first time that he had ever heard of nuclear power, and he found great difficulty in spelling it.
As for the environment, my Department seeks to promote a range of diverse sources of energy. We have access to a substantial number of studies. We know, and the hon. Gentleman does not deny, the huge costs involved in clearing up in the coal and electricity industries, in clearing the platforms in the North sea, and in further dealing with the problems of subsidence.