Electricity Generating Capacity: Nuclear Power (Hansard, 1 March 1990)

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not order power stations. They have, therefore, not cancelled any order for the proposed Hinkley Point C station to which I believe the noble Viscount refers. The CEGB's proposals for that station were the subject of a public inquiry, the report of which is expected in the next few months. The Government have, however, made it clear that the non-fossil fuel obligation will be set at a level which can be satisfied without the need for new nuclear stations beyond Sizewell B. The Government intend to review the prospects for nuclear power in 1994. In the meantime, there is ample time for new generating capacity to be built to meet the expected increase in demand foreseen for the latter part of this decade.

§ Viscount Hanworth
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. However, has he seen the recent report of the CEGB which estimated that by the year 2010 our generating capacity would be reduced to half simply taking into account the expected life of our power stations? I am concerned—this is the point on which I seek assurance—that we should do something now. Will the Minister address himself to that point?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, obviously, if no further capacity is built, there is a rundown of existing stations. That is to be expected. The noble Viscount will understand that the next nuclear power station will be commissioned sometime during the earlier part of the next decade and that the number and type of new power stations will now be determined in the market-place by a variety of factors including projections for the future electricity supply-demand balance made by both generators and public suppliers.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, in view of the Gardner Report, would it not be undesirable to proceed with any further nuclear power stations, given that the risks to personnel operating the stations and to those living in the surrounding area appear 829 to have been seriously underestimated? In those circumstances, would not the Government be well advised to concentrate on and to reactivate their research into wind and wave power rather than to resign themselves to the inevitability of nuclear power, which seems to hold out greater risks than they have hitherto believed?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, I think that the completion of the first PWR reactor is important. It also keeps our nuclear option open. No doubt the noble Lord will be pleased to know that the department has received no less than 300 applications for consideration for renewable source supply. These have meant that the department requires another two months before setting the tranche of that non-fossil fuel obligation at a level which can be undertaken by some of those projections.

§ Lord Ezra
My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that the time would now be opportune to put more emphasis on forms of energy which are environmentally satisfactory—for example, combined heat and power, a barrage scheme and other possible projects? It seems that these are still moving forward fairly slowly. In the circumstances does he agree that they should be stimulated?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, I understand that at the moment some 2 gigawatts of energy are already being produced by combined heat and power plants. There is an interest in a number of others. I have details of some which are now just up and running. The Department of Energy is keen to see renewable energy taking its place among all the other sources.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, will the noble Viscount take this opportunity of clarifying government policy on the PWRs? Is he aware that we had a Statement from the noble Lord the Leader of the House saying in effect that the Government were to continue with Sizewell B and not continue with Hinkley Point C, Wylfa B and Sizewell C? That was the Statement as we understood it. Yet is he not aware that the Hinkley Point inquiry into Hinkley Point C is still continuing at great expenditure of public money? Do, or do not, the Government intend to continue with Hinkley Point C?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, Nuclear Electric will not build any new stations before 1994 when the review of nuclear energy will be undertaken. Its immediate priority is to run its existing stations safely and efficiently and to complete Sizewell B. To turn to the other part of the noble Lord's question, my right honourable friend is awaiting the inspector's report on Hinkley Point C. In view of his quasi-judicial position, I cannot comment on the application.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, if Nuclear Electric is not to build any more PWRs, why does it persist in making an application under the terms of the public inquiry on Hinkley Point C?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, I believe I have already answered that question. My right honourable friend is awaiting the inspector's report on Hinkley Point C.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, referring to the CEGB report to which the noble Viscount also referred, when he says that Sizewell B will be proceeded with, is he aware that the report shows that the estimated costs of decommissioning were doubled before the PWRs and nuclear energy were taken out of privatisation? Has he any idea now what the cost of completing Sizewell B will be and what will be the future costs of decommissioning Sizewell B and other nuclear stations?

§ Viscount Ullswater
No, my Lords. As I explained to the noble Lord on a previous occasion, a review of the costs of Sizewell B is being undertaken and is not yet complete. I gave him on a previous occasion the figure of £1.87 billion.

§ Viscount Hanworth
My Lords, would the noble Viscount confirm that there is now nobody who is legally responsible for ensuring that we obtain an adequate replacement for power stations of any sort?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, the licence conditions on all suppliers will enshrine the current standards of security. They will also ensure that suppliers provide sufficient information to the Director General of Electricity Supply to enable him to take a view on the levels of security provided. If he believes that levels of security must be increased, he can seek modifications to the licence conditions.