§ 3.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGHMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement concerning the allegations of Mr. Duncan Burn in his book, The Political Economy of Nuclear Energy, that Britain no longer leads the world in the development of civil nuclear power.]
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK)My Lords, in comparing the costs of different reactor systems it is essential to establish exact comparability, in relation both to the financial and operating conditions and to the physical environment of the station. Mr. Burn's comparisons of unit generating costs are vitiated by the failure to ensure strict comparability.
Although by 1970 the U.S.A. will become the largest producer of nuclear power, if their present plans are operated according to timetable, the fact is that at the moment Britain has generated three times as much nuclear power as the United States and considerably more than the whole of the rest of the world put together. The background of reliability in operation of our reactors underlying this experience, taken with our development of the advanced gas-cooled reactor, the steam generating heavy water reactor, and the fast reactor, and our participation with our Continental friends in the Dragon high temperature gas-cooled reactor, casts some doubt on Mr. Burn's allegation that the British reactor programme is unduly restricted. It is generally accepted that Britain has 1072 an appreciable lead over any other country, except possibly the Soviet Union, in fast reactor development.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGHMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer, which is most reassuring. It is exactly what I wanted to hear from him. There are one or two additional questions. I wonder whether the noble Lord would amplify the point about the difference in the computation of costs. It is extremely important. Could he also give the Government's view on Mr. Burn's suggestions regarding the avoidance of monopoly, the undesirability of creating a single design organisation and that companies should become responsible for the development of different reactors—in short, that the A.E.A. should be more like the A.E.C.? Could the noble Lord comment on these suggestions?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, as I am sure the noble Earl knows, the assumptions on which the costing of output is based in this country are a life of the generating station of 20 years and a load factor of 75 per cent., whereas in the United States they assume a life of 30 years and a load factor of 85 per cent. If we accepted their assumptions for the purpose of costing we should find that even the last four of the stations built under the Magnox programme would be producing cheaper electricity than their coal-fired contemporaries.
As for the second part of the noble Earl's question about the structure of the industry in this country, I think I can say that both my right honourable friends the Minister of Technology and the Minister of Power are very concerned to get the most efficient possible structure. That does not mean to say that we accept that for the circumstances in this country the set-up in the United States would be appropriate. Nevertheless, my two right honourable friends are discussing this whole question with the A.E.A., the Central Electricity Generating Board and the three consortia, to see what changes, if any, may be effected.
LORD HAWKEMy Lords, would not the Minister agree that his answer shows how advisable it would be to adopt the 1073 assumptions which I have always advocated—namely, 85 per cent. availability and a 30-year life for atomic-power generation, which is the same as that adopted in the United States? Is he further aware that the scientific correspondent of the Financial Times has already replied to this allegation very effectively, and that our commercial competitors abroad always take advantage of this national habit of denigration, to our detriment?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, in reply to the first part of the noble Lord's question, I think he would probably agree that so far as our national resources are concerned it makes very little difference whether we accept a 20-year or 30-year assumption. I agree that from the point of view of publicity, however, it might have been more effective had we been a little less cautious and conservative than we have been. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord on his second point. There are too many people very ready to allow their prejudices to overcome their assessment of technical facts in order to run down their own country.
§ LORD STRATHCLYDEMy Lords, is the noble Lord not able to say that the fast breeder reactor, the prototype of which is being erected at Dounreay, is in advance of any other system?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I think that if the noble Lord looks at the last part of my first Answer he will see that I said precisely that.