Nuclear Energy (Hansard, 17 November 2003)

§ Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, the Government recognise that nuclear power is an important source of carbon-free electricity. The possibility of new nuclear build at some point in the future is not ruled out. The costs of new nuclear generation were examined during the analysis for the energy White Paper.

§ Lord Peyton of Yeovil
My Lords, that Answer is a bit thin. On the next occasion that he visits the Department of Trade and Industry, will the noble Lord try to catch someone's attention and explain that time is not on their side, that it is a valuable commodity and that at present it is being wasted? If the words quoted in my Question, spoken in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, are to mean anything, then both security of supply and the retention of skills which are fast disappearing require that plans should be made as a matter of urgency for building one or more nuclear power stations before the existing ones come to the end of their useful lives.

§ Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, it will be a considerable time before our current nuclear power stations come to the end of their useful lives. However, the noble Lord has a point: it is important that we pursue a strategy—as we are doing—which guarantees that skills continue to be developed in the nuclear industry. It is also important to support further research, and resources are being diverted towards that effort. Of course in the circumstance where the Government quite rightly say that the issue of new nuclear build is not ruled out, these kinds of support must be maintained and we intend to do that.

§ Lord Maclennan of Rogart
My Lords—

§ Lord Marsh
My Lords—

§ The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
My Lords, there is sufficient time for both questions.

§ Lord Maclennan of Rogart
My Lords, since the influence of public opinion plays such an important part in determining the Government's approach to energy provision, in particular as regards concerns about the environmental impact of nuclear power, what steps are the Government taking to test public opinion and to inform it about the extent of the blanket coverage that would be required if we had to rely on windmills to supplant the energy currently being generated by nuclear power?

§ Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, the public are well informed on the question of wind farms because public inquiries preceding planning permission frequently take place when extensive farms are proposed. Of course there is lively debate both here and in the other place about the Government's energy policy and the way in which it is intended to meet the targets set out in the White Paper.

§ Lord Marsh
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the lead time before any new nuclear capacity could come on stream is very long indeed? We are talking of periods of 15 to 20 years. To hear the Government say that at some time in the future, if they think it really 1771 important, they will get down to thinking seriously about what will be done as a contingency does not engender confidence.

§ Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, the noble Lord is right to point out that the lead time for a new-build nuclear power station is long, but under the present proposals the last of our current nuclear power stations will not cease energy production until 2035, so we are still discussing these issues within a realistic time-frame.

§ Lord Tomlinson
My Lords, would my noble friend note that this is one of the rare occasions when I substantially agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, who has spoken with great wisdom this afternoon? Can he inform the House how many windmills we would need to replace our nuclear industry? Further, does he agree that it is important that nothing is done to reduce our capacity for nuclear fuel unless and until the alternatives are actually producing the requisite amount of electricity, including that which is needed for economic growth?

§ Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, wise Ministers quake in the face of an alliance such as that between my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I cannot give my noble friend a figure for the actual number of windmills, as he refers to them. However, I can indicate clearly that the Government have a target for the contribution of renewable energy resources to the National Grid, in which wind farms are to play their part. By the same token, the contribution of nuclear energy up to 2020 and beyond is also identified.

§ Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes
My Lords, will the noble Lord ask those responsible to inform themselves about what happened in the state of California when it completely ran out of power supplies because it had not in fact made any plans for new resources? The old sources were dying out and the state reached a crisis point. That situation came about because the planning that is being asked for had not been done.

§ Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, it is music to my ears to hear the other side advocate the merits of planning. Many noble Lords on this side of the House will have looked at the Californian situation and would agree that there were indeed issues to be learned from that experience. We have taken careful note of the crucial role that planning plays in guaranteeing our energy supplies. That is why the Government are identifying exactly the sources from which we expect to derive energy for the foreseeable future and why we have indicated that nuclear energy has its part to play.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords—

§ Lord Ezra
My Lords—

§ Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords—

Noble Lords
The Cross Benches.

§ Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, does the Minister agree that one aspect of keeping the nuclear option open is to have in place effective and reliable arrangements for the long-term storage and disposal of nuclear waste when power stations are decommissioned? What is the present position for the safe management and long-term storage of nuclear waste?

§ Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, those are very important considerations. Of course the noble and gallant Lord will recognise that the White Paper paid due regard to them. I reiterate a point I made earlier: we have no intention of allowing the skills which are necessary to guarantee that we can produce nuclear energy and process its waste products successfully to be lost. Our investment in skills and in the necessary research to ensure that this work can be carried out is guaranteed by the Government.

§ Lord Ezra
My Lords, if the Government should decide not to go ahead with further nuclear plant, how would the resultant electricity generation gap be filled, bearing in mind that, in addition to the progressive withdrawal of nuclear plant, some of the ageing coal-fired power stations might also have to be withdrawn? Do the Government have a Plan B?

§ Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I should like to reassure the noble Lord that the Government plan well beyond Plan B on such an important issue. He will recognise that intensive efforts are being made to ensure that the supply and new development of gas resources guarantees more than just our present supplies. Further, the development of liquid nitrogen gas to ensure that our energy needs are met through fresh sources is being pursued. These issues are all being examined. However, the noble Lord is right to point out that it is important that we look at the energy needs of the country and to consider all the sources from which they will be derived. I shall reiterate an earlier point: for the foreseeable future, nuclear energy has its part to play in these plans.

§ Baroness O'Cathain
My Lords, can I gently draw the Minister's attention to the Question on the Order Paper and ask him if he realises that my noble friend Lord Peyton asked not only what the Government mean by, keeping the nuclear energy option open", but also what is the cost of so doing? The Minister has made no mention of costs. He must have some idea of the cost of maintaining the skills base and the costs surrounding alternative sources. However, what are the long-term costs?

§ Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, the Government are making resources available to ensure that sector skills for the nuclear industry are developed. Turning to research costs, for example, we have made available £5 million towards research into sustainable energy sources, directed in particular towards the investigation of nuclear fission research. However, 1773 when the noble Baroness asks what are the costs of the whole training programme for the nuclear power industry, she will recognise that the Government are not in a position to put a precise figure on that. We are putting in place the structure and making available the resources to guarantee that structure in order that people can be trained in nuclear skills.

§ Baroness Miller of Hendon
My Lords, does the Minister accept the estimates set out in the current edition of The Engineer? Those estimates suggest that within the next six years, the safety cushion of excess energy capacity will drop to as low as 3 per cent. Is it not therefore essential for the Government finally to make up their mind and so ensure that we do not face a terrible catastrophe over energy supplies in this country?

§ Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, it is important that some aspects of the industry should call attention to the needs of the future. As the noble: Baroness will recognise, we are operating within the framework of a market where intelligence about the future is of the greatest significance, particularly where such intelligence is projected not only over years but over decades. When there is a narrowing of the gap between need and provision, that is a signal to the industry to bring more resources on stream. We have seen that during the course of the past few months in regard to electricity generation. We therefore welcome all informed sources to the general debate on our future energy needs.