Great British Energy Bill

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests: I am the honorary president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association. The amendments listed in my name all relate to the same issue so, with the permission of the House, I will group them together. Their purpose is to give clarity and not to exclude vital technology

The UK is at a pivotal moment in energy transition and these amendments would update the Bill to reflect the role of CCUS and hydrogen in achieving a sustainable, reliable and low-carbon energy system. It is a very useful Bill, but it does not explicitly include these technologies in the definition of “clean energy”. Accepting these amendments would be a means for the Government of highlighting to investors and to the industry their commitment to supporting both renewable energy and low-carbon technologies in a balanced and inclusive way.

The purpose of the amendments is simply to broaden the definition of “clean energy” and ensure that GBE can support a wider range of innovations that will foster investment and partnership. That will be crucial to the UK achieving clean power targets by 2030.

In the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, which was established in 2006, we recognise that we have the commitment of the Energy Secretary and, indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who speaks of CCUS often to promote the concept of clean energy. However, to reach out to the myriad companies anxious to develop CCUS, it will be necessary to be a lot more precise. There are many out there who are very keen to get in on the act, not just here but around the world.

In the Bill, “clean energy” is defined as any energy

“produced from sources other than fossil fuels”.

Our argument is that you can “clean” energy. That is what carbon capture is about: cleaning the energy that has already been applied.

Some people think that carbon capture, utilisation and storage is a new concept, but it has been around for at least 25 years. When I was an Energy Minister about 25 years ago, it was described as clean coal technology. In 2006, Dr Chapman established the Carbon Capture and Storage Association. It has grown, and the benefit to the environment has been recognised. I have been to a lot of conferences on carbon capture and storage. It is not a terribly exciting issue to most people—it is to me—but the most recent conference in November was packed out. It was held in Central Hall Westminster and the sheer scale of interest was quite dramatic. Businesses see the opportunity.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Climate Change Committee have both taken a great interest in CCUS as an integral part of limiting global temperature rises and the route to net zero. Indeed, the Climate Change Committee estimates that the UK needs to capture over 50 million tonnes of CO₂ per year by 2035 to keep in line with emissions reductions.

The ambition, certainly on this side of the House, is to get to a clean power energy system by 2030, as we promised during the election. That might not be possible without carbon capture and storage. Indeed, CCUS is absolutely essential for industries such as cement. Without CO₂ there is no cement industry; CO₂ production is an essential part of the process of creating cement.

CO₂ storage has operated for 25 years in Norway. There are now 50 operational large-scale CCUS facilities worldwide and 44 are under construction. These are countries that are out there, desperate to get in the lead. The IEA has stated that global CCUS deployment has

“tripled over the last decade”.

However, we cannot afford the delays that we have seen in the past. Yesterday, I was delighted to see that Drax can proceed with a £2 billion carbon capture upgrade at its north Yorkshire plant. It is more important to get things moving rapidly now, because there are so many businesses that are interested in carbon capture in the UK which are getting to a stage where they are wondering whether we are going to do anything about it.

Last week, the Public Accounts Committee published a report that was very sceptical about the delivery of CCS. Yes, it does not come cheap, but the much-quoted £22 billion is over 25 years; you do not have to put your hand in your pocket right now for £22 billion to pay for it. However, what we do have to watch is the pressure on the fuel bills for households; they must not carry the cost of other delays. The PAC report challenges the department more than the industry, not least on dispersed sites and the slow response to issues that we saw repeatedly with the previous Government—not helped by repeated reshuffles.

The time for CCUS is now. It will create jobs, not least for those currently in the energy industries who can bring knowledge and experience to the table. All I ask is for the Government to make clear their commitment and to get this country in the lead in cleaning up our energy systems. We will all benefit. I commend Amendments 2 to 6, 11 and 12 to the House.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 7 in the name of my noble friend Lord Offord, to which I have added my name. This modest amendment merely asks the Government to insert

“the production of nuclear energy”

at the end of Clause 3, page 2, line 18. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Trenchard, who sadly is unable to be in his place today, for his Amendments 10, 33 and 36, which all focus on the nuclear sector.

The Minister for nuclear will not be surprised that I bring this back on Report. He will understand that we merely wish to ensure that nuclear energy plays its full role in our energy mix; putting it on the face of the Bill signifies the Government’s intention that it should do so. I will not repeat the arguments in full that I made at Second Reading. The Government have already acknowledged the importance of nuclear in various speeches at Nuclear Week in Parliament, and the recent announcement that the nuclear national policy statement, EN-7, is to be updated is very welcome.

By accepting this amendment, the Government can bridge the gap between their stated aspiration and its implementation. It will also send a strong signal to investors, developers and the broader energy sector that the UK is serious in its ambitions for nuclear. While we can sadly no longer aspire to claim a world first in the development of new nuclear technologies—Canada has already claimed that crown—it is not too late to be building domestic supply chains and a home-grown industry that will contribute to our own energy security. At the same time, one must of course recognise the potential for creating good-quality jobs and careers in areas such as north Wales that need them most.

Of course, the relationship between Great British Energy and Great British Nuclear remains the big unknown. If properly resourced, GBN could have been uniquely positioned to co-ordinate and drive nuclear developments across the country. It still can. It was created 18 months ago and the small modular reactor drawdown was launched in October 2023. We await the outcome of that competition and I hope that the Government will pick up the pace.

Finally, noble Lords have been silent about the equally important relationship between Great British Energy and UK Industrial Fusion Solutions or the International Atomic Energy Agency. While the STEP project at West Burton will not help the Government towards their 2030 ambitions, in the long term fusion remains the holy grail and is one sector where the UK really does lead the world. I ask the Minister to give the House a clear assurance that Great British Energy will have a role in developing our nuclear energy capability.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 10 is a minor amendment and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has asked me to speak on it in his absence. I believe his amendment evinces frustration at the tendency of those who are averse to nuclear energy to exclude it from their definition of “clean energy”. He has therefore proposed that the Bill should state that clean energy means renewable energy, nuclear energy and energy produced from sources other than fossil fuels.

In assessing the hazards of nuclear energy, one must separate the issues of nuclear cleanliness, by which I mean the absence of nuclear pollution, from issues of nuclear safety. The latter range from concerns about the accidental spillage of radioactive materials to the risks of rare occurrences such as the accidents of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

A degree of laxity characterised the early nuclear industry, but the industry has since developed a stringent attitude towards cleanliness. The radioactive emissions of our nuclear power stations are negligible. They are a fraction of the emissions from the granite rocks of Aberdeen, and the human exposure is far less than that of a high-flying airline passenger on a scheduled flight. The industry’s attitude to cleanliness extends far beyond the question of radioactive contamination; I have seen the senior management of a nuclear power station become apoplectic at the discovery of a cigarette butt embedded in a gravel pathway.

The major accidents that I mentioned were occasioned by the meltdown of nuclear power stations embodying pressurised water reactors. They have led to a heightened emphasis on the safety of such power stations. That is evident in the design of the Hinkley C power station, where the consequences of the worst imaginable malfunctions would not extend beyond the power station itself. The same is true of the current designs of small modular reactors, which are also pressurised water reactors.

The SMRs employ a nuclear technology that is set to be replaced by fourth-generation technologies endowed with passive safety. A molten-salt reactor provides an example: in the unlikely event of a rupture of the containment vessel, the molten salt and the nuclear reagents would escape into wider containment, after which the nuclear reaction would cease and the salt would crystallise at 300 degrees Centigrade. Such reactors are fit to be employed close to industrial processes that require abundant heat and electricity. An unfortunate fact, to which I must testify, is that we are failing to support the development of such reactors. We are leaving it to others to develop the technologies that are vital for achieving our net zero ambitions.