Pressurised Water Reactors (Hansard, 10 May 1989)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper)
My Lords, it is for the electricity supply industry, not the Government, to build power stations. Magnox stations representing about three gigawatts of capacity are due to retire between now and the turn of the century. The Government are aware of the intention of the CEGB to construct three further PWR stations after Sizewell B replacing this capacity. Applications for consent to build PWRs will be handled in accordance with the relevant electricity and planning legislation. Any public inquiry that may be necessary will be held under the appropriate inquiries procedure rules.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, is it the case that the Prime Minister intends to announce on Friday at Torness that there will be another 10 to 12 power stations built in the near future? Secondly, is the noble Baroness aware that research from the Rocky Mountain Institute in Colorado has shown, as regards the greenhouse effect, that energy conservation is seven times as efficient as the production of electricity through nuclear power stations?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I am not in a position to confirm or deny what the Prime Minister may or may not do or say on Friday. As to the relevant part of the supplementary question, perhaps I may say that, of course, we are concerned with the environment. It is an important part of the nuclear industry's projected future that nuclear energy is in many ways beneficial to the environment in a way that fossil fuels are not. That relates to the greenhouse effect. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord knows from previous occasions when we have discussed this subject, the Government's response is that there is not one solution to the greenhouse effect and environmental problems. We are taking into account the effects of energy efficiency and conservation as well as the nuclear programme in our plans.

§ Lord Ezra
My Lords, will the noble Baroness indicate to what extent she considers economic considerations would be taken into account in any future planning inquiries for new nuclear stations? Does she not agree that whereas in past years nuclear was deemed to be more economic than other forms of electricity generation, that is no longer the case? Therefore, while it is perfectly desirable to diversify sources of electricity, there must be a limit where cost is concerned.

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, the fact is that the cost of nuclear energy has always been there. What has happened recently is that the public have become more aware of the cost, and that is largely as a result of our privatisation proposals. I have no doubt that the economics of the case figure as an important factor in any public inquiry.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that it is much better to have nuclear power stations than any other form of producing energy? Nuclear produced energy is safer, better and in the long run cheaper.

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, there is a great deal to be said for the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish. I simply reiterate that the Government's attitude is that the solution to both our future energy requirements and to many of the environmental problems facing us is that we should have a package of a broad and diverse supply.

§ Lord Harmar-Nicholls
My Lords, is my noble friend prepared to speculate that if the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is right in telling us what the Prime Minister is to say on Friday he is either the recipient of a leak or psychic?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I leave my noble friend to speculate on that.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, if the noble Baroness agrees so forcefully with the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, that the more nuclear power stations the merrier, will she explain why we need PWR technology, which, after all, is imported? What is wrong with the British AGR technology?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, PWR technology is a well tried, economic and efficient means of nuclear generation. The case for PWRs was exhaustively discussed and examined in the course of the Sizewell inquiry. I think it is clear that PWR technology is the right solution in view of some of the difficulties that have arisen over the AGR programme.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that 60 per cent. of Scotland's electricity requirements are now met by nuclear generation and that the British AGR system is the basis of that policy? Is she further aware that electricity is being produced from nuclear stations using AGR reactors at less than half the cost of the expected price of electricity from the PWR ordered by the CEGB?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I am of course aware of the capacity now being generated in Scotland. Nevertheless, the scientific arguments and the advisability of going for the pressurised water reactor programme have been well considered and discussed.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether the Government's plans include building two PWRs in Wylfa and Trawsfynydd in Gwynedd? As regards public inquiries, will the Government through the appropriate departments be calling these proposals in for public planning inquiries?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, each application for a power station is treated on its merits. I am certainly aware that the CEGB submitted an application on 18th April for consent to construct a PWR station at Wylfa, but I am not aware of any further direct applications.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, what does that reply mean? What different merits can there be in various parts of the country? If a PWR is proposed 653 in one area as against another, what difference in merit can there be to differentiate in the need for a local public inquiry?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I believe that there must always be some sort of geographical influence, as the processes of public inquiries have shown that there are local reactions to proposals in a particular area. I believe that that and considerations of supply are among the criteria taken into account.

§ Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran
My Lords, the noble Baroness in response to that part of the Question which asks, what form public inquiries will take", replied in general terms about procedures. In view of the great delays arising from such procedures in the past, have the Government any proposals to modify those procedures in any way to help save some time, money and expense?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, to be a little more specific, the relevant rules are the Electricity Generating Stations and Overhead Lines (Inquiries Procedure) Rules of 1987 and Statutory Instrument No. 2182 of 1987. I realise that that does not necessarily help the noble Lord, but clearly the effect of the public inquiries that have already taken place—particularly the Sizewell B inquiry, which was extremely lengthy—will have some bearing on the length of subsequent inquiries into PWRs because many of the general arguments will already have been satisfied and discussed.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, the Minister appears confident that the pressurised water reactor is preferable to our own AGR. Is the noble Baroness aware that in the United States, the home of that type of reactor, no PWR has been constructed for the past 11 years and nor is there one planned? Is she also aware that in this country the advanced gas-cooled reactor has achieved load factors—the key to the future of reactors—particularly in Scotland, that are far in advance of the world power factor of PWRs?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I am not a great scientist; therefore, I take the advice of experts. Experts have been consulted in this matter and, as I said, the Sizewell B inquiry went thoroughly into all the arguments. I can say that PWRs are well tried in other parts of the world and have proved to be an effective and economic method of producing nuclear power.

§ Lord Glenamara
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the perfectly outrageous proposal to build a nuclear power station on one of the most beautiful beaches in Northumberland? If she is not aware of that proposal and cares to visit the area, I shall be happy to take her round. She can bring my noble friend Lord Mellish with her if she wishes. She will then see what a catastrophe such a power station would be from an environmental point of view.

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestion and invitation. No 654 doubt if the case is being treated on its merits I will be able to accept that invitation if I am in the same position as I am in now.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, the noble Baroness said this was not a matter for the Government; but it is a matter for the Government because they have included the protection of the nuclear industry within their Electricity Bill. The noble Baroness also said that energy conservation will be taken into account. May I therefore repeat this question? Is she aware that it has now been established by research that energy conservation is seven times as effective as nuclear energy for the provision of electricity? In regard to the second part of my Question concerning public inquiries, will the noble Baroness promise the House that for future public inquiries the kind of evidence now being collected by geologists on the seismic effect, particularly in the Irish Sea basin, will be available and open to consideration?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, in the Government's proposals contained in the Electricity Bill non-fossil fuel obligation is intended to provide security of supply as a result of encouraging diversity of supply. In that respect we are not speaking only of nuclear power but also of the renewable forms of energy which the obligation will encourage. The distribution companies, on whom the obligation will rest, will not be restricted in any way in meeting that obligation. As to the points raised by the noble Lord concerning energy efficiency and public inquiries, there is of course nothing to prevent these matters being raised as evidence in the course of a public inquiry.

§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone
My Lords, will my noble friend explain to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that there is no comparison between energy conservation, which is a means of conserving energy, and the various different methods of generating energy, of which nuclear generation is one? Is it not a rather simple concept? Has not the noble Lord misled the House by thinking that the two are comparable?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I agree with my noble and learned friend that the important objective in all this is to keep the lights on. We have to ensure that these factors are taken into account both in terms of supplying electricity and any other methods that are taken to make the production and use of electricity efficient.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, is it not possible to explain to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that a reduction in the demand for electricity means that we need fewer new power stations?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, greater efficiency with electricity can have two effects; it can mean not only that less electricity is consumed, but also that people demand higher standards of comfort in the use of their electricity. Therefore it does not necessarily mean that the level of production of electricity has to be lowered.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, in order to get the record straight, is the Minister aware that I shall be delighted to go to Northumberland especially with her?