Civil Nuclear Road Map
Debate between Alan Whitehead and Mark Tami(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) on securing this timely debate via the Backbench Business process. That is extraordinarily efficient, since the road map was published only on 26 January. To get a parliamentary debate in less than a month of that publication is good going indeed, so congratulations go to him.
I need to say at the outset, for the elimination of any doubt, that the Opposition consider that nuclear will play a significant role in our low-carbon economy for the future, and we therefore support its development over the future period. However, the very substantial questions that have been raised this afternoon are about what that development will consist of, how it will be organised, and what sites may or may not be available for its development, as well as a number of related issues.
It is good that we now have a nuclear road map, but I think it is fair to draw attention, as other hon. Members have done—the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), and the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe—to a number of the issues in the overall headline in the nuclear road map, which is that there should be a 24 GW target for nuclear development out to 2050.
By the way, contrary to the suggestion that the previous Labour Government did nothing on nuclear, in 2009 there was a nuclear national policy statement that set out the sites that should be made available for new nuclear and started the process of discussing those sites with developers. The problem is that since then, yes, there was a revised EN-6 national policy statement, but not a single electron of nuclear power has appeared between 2009 and the present. We are talking about a target for the future in the context of serious delays as far as nuclear is concerned.
Yes, we must talk about that target and what the energy mix will consist of for the future, but we must also talk about whether those things will materialise in the way envisaged, and about how we can overcome the substantial delays that seem to be baked in to the process of nuclear development. It is not clear whether that target will largely be filled by gigawatt-sized plants or by small modular reactors and advanced modular reactors. It is not clear what consideration should or will be given to the mix of nuclear, as it will sit in what will be a very different power mix from hitherto. What planning will be undertaken to ensure that such a mix will be optimal, given the need to have power systems that can act compatibly with other forms of power?
The road map commits to at least one gigawatt power station in addition to those under way at the moment, but as we have heard this afternoon, substantial delays in existing large nuclear plants are the order of the day. Hinkley is now 10 years delayed, Sizewell C does not yet have financial closure, and it does not look as though there will be any power from that until the early 2030s. The good news is that Sizewell B is likely to have a 20-year extension on its life. It is currently due to close in 2035, so that will be effectively the equivalent of a new large power station generating in the late 2030s onwards.
So far the Government have put £2.5 billion into Sizewell C and not one stone has yet been laid on another. I imagine there would be a need in principle for similar sums to be laid before future gigawatt nuclear power plants, if that is what the Government envisage for their 24-gigawatt strategy in the main. It is not indicated on the road map whether the Government are able or prepared to do that. Indeed, the money that has already been put into Sizewell was not planned.
On the other hand, while we are having a competition to determine what support, if any, should be given to the winner of the competition for SMR developments, an agreement in principle has been reached to build four SMRs on Teesside at no cost to the public purse, by the American company Westinghouse Electric Company, and Community Nuclear Power. It at least appears—competition or no competition—that there may be circumstances in which, at no cost to the public purse, nuclear power in the shape of SMRs can come forward. That is another reason why the competition needs to go ahead as quickly as possible, to get what we are doing in the UK as up to speed as possible with what people are doing elsewhere in the world.
What the agreement that has been reached in Teesside currently lacks is a clear route forward about sites. That is a proper subject for another delayed action, which, as mentioned in the road map, is the updating of strategic planning statements concerning nuclear. The last such statement, a revised EN-6, was published and adopted in 2011, and it identified, as the 2009 document had done, a number of specific sites for gigawatt power stations. However, it runs only until 2025. Indeed, a number of those sites were initially earmarked for nuclear plants, but the consortia advancing them withdrew.
We are now in a different age. The priority now is surely to identify sites, or at least to put in place clear conditions under which SMRs in particular might go ahead. I see from the road map that an intention for the development of an updated EN-7 appears to be that it will establish clear criteria for such sites. That is of course delayed, as with so many things related to nuclear planning and action. It is not with us at the moment, but it should be. I hope the Minister will give us a firm indication of when it will be published and adopted by this House.
An area where we have had delays and prevarication in the past is nuclear fuels. I am pleased to see in the road map a firm commitment to support the development of new forms of nuclear fuel and support for the production of existing fuel, such as high-assay low-enriched uranium, which at present is available only from Russian sources. Securing those fuel developments for Springfields nuclear fuels and establishing the funding that will make it work is an important piece of work under way early in the path of the road map, and I see the Minister has already laid a revised designation for Springfields in respect of enabling new uranium conversion facilities to be developed. All of that is a good piece of work by the Minister, and he should be applauded for it.
On the subject of delays, one of the most egregious is the absence of any progress on the identification and establishment of a nuclear repository. In the words of the road map:
“A process is well underway to identify a suitable site in which to develop a GDF”—
a geological disposal facility—
“that has suitable geology and the support of a local community.”
Those words vary little in content from the original White Paper in 2008 that stated that such a process was to get under way.
Mark Tami
I have been to Finland and seen its waste repository. It is not rocket science—it is not that difficult. We have put this off for years and years. The argument always used against the industry is, “There is no answer to the waste.” Well, there is an answer, and it is straight- forward. We just need to make that decision.
Dr Whitehead
My right hon. Friend has more or less written the rest of my speech for me. He is right that it is not rocket science; it is nuclear science. And it is pretty straightforward, essentially.
By the way, the White Paper under the previous Labour Government said in 2008 that the process should get under way rapidly, with community consent, and that a geological disposal facility should follow shortly after. Nothing has happened since then, but it is vital, as we contemplate the kind of programme that we are envisaging for nuclear and the decommissioning of all but one of our current nuclear fleet, that a storage facility gets under way. We need rather more in the road map than the sparse words right now, or we at least need a renewed specific pathway for a disposal facility to be published. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether he is positively inclined towards that idea and whether he appreciates the urgency of making progress on a secure geological disposal facility.
Energy Bill [Lords]
Debate between Alan Whitehead and Mark Tami
Dr Whitehead
I thank the Minister for that clarification.
When we are talking about energy efficiency in homes, we need to understand just how big the task ahead of us is. The SAP—standard assessment procedure—rating of UK homes went up considerably under the last Labour Government. To be precise, the average SAP rating, which measures the energy efficiency of homes, went up by 11 points between 1996 and 2010—from an average of 42 up to 53. Over the last five years, the SAP rate increase went up one a half times as fast as in the previous five years and the five years before that. That shows how measures such as Warm Front and CERT—carbon emissions reduction target—which are going to disappear when the green deal comes in, were having some success in ensuring that homes were more energy-efficient.
In order to get anywhere near the sort of targets that hon. Members have suggested that the Government should consider introducing in an amendment to align energy efficiency with climate change targets—which I hope will happen in Committee—we need to move the SAP ratings much further up over the next few years, perhaps to 70 or more on average at band C by the end of the decade. That means making progress getting on for twice as fast as we have over the last few years. That is the sort of ambition that the Bill needs to encompass. My concern—hon. Members have already mentioned a number of concerns—is that it remains unclear whether that ambition can be achieved under the current mechanism, despite the claims for the efficacy of the green deal.
Mark Tami
Other Members have mentioned the problem of poorer homes, and private landlords are a particular problem, because they have no vested interest in doing anything about them. I am sure we have all had people coming to our surgeries with horrific stories about windows that do not fit, damp all over the place and so forth—yet the landlord often does not care at all.
Dr Whitehead
Indeed. I welcome what I understand to be a change of heart by the Government about the extent to which compulsion can be used to get landlords to improve their properties. Sanctions on landlords with F and G-rated properties have been mentioned; we could argue about when those sanctions might be introduced, but compulsion to prevent landlords from letting properties below certain minimum energy standards is right. The standards are well below the sort of average rating that we have talked about this afternoon, but they are nevertheless minimum standards. If that is indeed a change of heart reflected in this part of the Bill, I welcome it.
I am sure that the detailed provisions affecting landlords can be sorted out effectively in Committee—but first we have to find the landlords. It was not a good sign that when this Bill was being discussed, another Department helpfully removed the idea of having a landlords register as the responsibility of local government. Without that, it will be more difficult to find the landlords who should carry out these arrangements. I trust that the Minister will have a word with his counterpart in the Department for Communities and Local Government and perhaps think again about that particularly destructive act.
The problem of finance has been mentioned. It is essential to making the green deal work. It is not just a matter of suggesting that the market will sort the finances out one way or another and that competitive interest rates will be charged. We can be fairly clear about how finance for the green deal as it stands, without changes, will turn out, because that is how the market works in respect of the sort of return that can be expected at different interest rates. The rate may well be around 9%, or perhaps a bit less. If we look at what can be got under the golden rule with finance at 9%, we find that it turns out to be very little in terms of improvements for properties to which the green deal and the golden rule apply. Loft cavity wall insulation and draft-proofing are probably the only things that work out at that sort of level. With interest rates at 7%, we get draft-proofing, some glazing, some internal wall insulation. With interest rates at 5%, we may get loft cavity wall insulation, glazing and a condensing boiler. If the green deal comes in at 9%, hardly any of the properties that need that sort of level of serious work—glazing, condensing boilers, perhaps microgeneration—will be touched by the mechanism. We must have a better mechanism for making the green deal work.
The energy company obligation exists as a back-up for fuel poverty and hard-to-treat properties. Hon. Members might have noticed that with interest rates at about 5% or so, solid wall insulation, which is present in about 7 million homes up and down the country, will not be touched. The ECO programme might touch it and might have a substantial hand in dealing with those in fuel poverty. Perhaps they should have their green deal underwritten by the ECO so that they can join in the benefits that other people get.
If we are thinking about how the ECO might underwrite the green deal, it is important to understand whether the ECO will exist to any great extent as a financial mechanism. What greatly concerns me—I hope the Committee will be able to look at the problem in much greater detail—is that as matters stand, DECC has signed up to a Treasury-based cap on levy-based arrangements. Under the present financial arrangements—for the spending round up to 2015—DECC has signed up to a cap on renewable obligations, feed-in tariffs and warm homes discount. That cap is set at £11.8 billion over the whole period, but there is also an annual cap.
The Treasury says that any new initiatives that come in the form of a levy must be financed within that cap. If the Department wished to undertake an ECO programme and it proved to be a levy as defined by the Office for National Statistics, it would have to be found under the present cap. That means either that the Government will have to go slow on renewable obligations and reduce the amount of renewable energy, or that the ECO will prove to be so small as to make it impossible to produce the sort of mechanism that many people hoped for—one for adding value to the green deal, getting on with the hard-to-treat properties, dealing with people in fuel poverty and homes off the grid that need extra assistance to make the green deal work, and so forth.
Unless we get the mechanisms right and have the right finance in the system—and, I would suggest, among other things, unless the ECO works properly—the green deal will not work. I am the last person who would want to see the green deal fall. Because a great deal of work has to be done to make our country as energy-efficient as possible, the green deal has to work. The task of making it work properly is the task of the Committee. I hope the Government will be generous in taking on board those ideas, which will make the green deal work as well as it can to bring our energy efficiency targets as close to realisation as possible.
Energy Efficiency
Debate between Alan Whitehead and Mark Tami(14 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend raises the interesting point of the possible life expectancy of nuclear power plants. I recognise that there is something of a dilemma in respect of old and new nuclear power stations and predictions of extensions, and that there are issues such as core cracking and whether extensions can be safely undertaken. He makes a fair point, however, that some extensions might be undertaken to bridge the gap. The key point, however, is that one of the best ways to ensure our energy supplies are secure over the coming period and that the generation meets the demand is to ensure that there is less demand for energy, and that the energy we do use is used much more efficiently.
Mark Tami
I agree with my hon. Friend that even if we start building nuclear power stations now, there will be a 10-year period before they really start to have an impact, but unless we take that decision now we will face an even greater gap in future, which we will have to fill by some other means. Just putting that decision off until tomorrow will make the matter worse in future.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend is tempting me into an entirely different debate, in which there are very interesting considerations relating not least to a new report on the renewable valuation around our coasts and on our land and how we might be able to use those renewables for our long-term, as well as our shorter-term, future energy supply. I suspect, however, that if I were to address that topic, you might suggest that I have strayed rather far from the issues we are debating today, on which I do want to concentrate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Energy efficiency is a crucial component of our future energy landscape. I am pleased that the energy efficiency ambitions that the new Government have set out continue those proposed, and acted upon, by the previous Government. I recognise that the new ministerial team has strong personal commitments to these issues, and therefore energy efficiency has a bright start in terms of ambition and of understanding that this area is crucial. After all, 40% of our energy is consumed in buildings and that represents 40% of our carbon emissions. About 80% of household energy goes on heating our homes and water, and that alone represents some 13% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, getting a serious grip on energy efficiency in our homes and commercial and industrial buildings offers potentially enormous, and relatively early, rewards in respect of our overall position on carbon emissions and energy consumption.
However, we as a country face this situation from a poor position historically. It is true that the previous Government made enormous strides in improving energy efficiency, particularly of public sector homes, and homes provided by registered social landlords. The Committee on Climate Change report that was published today conspicuously states that its indicators for activity on loft insulation, cavity wall insulation and energy efficiency in homes were met during the last year of the previous Labour Government. Considerable progress has been made, but our private sector homes remain energy-inefficient. The average standard assessment procedure rating in private sector homes is 49, which is a long way from level that we ought to aim for if we are to have a reasonable expectation that homes will be relatively energy-efficient and will have a low output of waste and energy emissions as far as the activities of the people who live in them are concerned.
We can all agree that this House has substantial energy-efficiency ambitions, that there is urgent action to be undertaken and that a number of programmes are in process and a number of ambitious new programmes, some of which we have heard about this afternoon, could get under way to address those issues. We need to examine whether the ambitions are being met, whether we have the ability to make those changes in practice and whether other things might be done to ensure that the ambitions are realised.
As a small indicator of the difference between ambitions and realisation I shall discuss the new part L of the building regulations, which were published recently. I had anticipated that it would contain new guidelines on the energy efficiency of circulation pumps in central heating. If, as was suggested during consultation by the previous Government, the regulations had mandated new and very energy-efficient circulation pumps, we could have saved as much as 2% of the electricity consumption in households—that could have been done by that measure alone. However, the new regulations state that it is perfectly okay to have circulation pumps that are A to G rated, not the A to C rated that had been anticipated. That shows an immediate difference between ambition and practice. I sincerely hope that the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), who has been inviting various other people to come to see him about various issues, will invite me in the very near future to a round-table meeting on circulation pumps and why they should be more energy-efficient. I am sure that he will find time in his busy diary to have a substantial round-table meeting on that pressing issue. I cite that issue as a small example to show that one needs to keep one’s eye closely on the difference between the reality of achievement and the ambition that one has when one puts forward new plans.
The plan that has been the centrepiece of this afternoon’s discussion is the green deal. I feel like someone who is being told that a great new concerto is coming out, that it is about to be performed and that when people turn up to the concert hall they will find that it is terrific, but who has not been told whether it is by Mozart or Salieri. I presume that when we get to the concert hall we will find out whether the green deal is as good as we are led to believe. On the surface, a green deal that takes away the idea of an up-front loan and places the onus on the long-term consequences of the bills of those household consumers, their descendants or the next people who come along to the house appears to represent a positive way forward. We must recognise that that has limitations. Just as the pay-as-you-save scheme implemented by the previous Government had its limitations, this green deal also has potential substantial limitations.