Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

The clause effectively says that we do not want anything to do with the Nuclear Installations Act, and the safeguards, arrangements and regulations that have been in place for a long time with regard to licensing, the progress of nuclear site safety, the disposal of radioactive waste, and various other things. That is a mistake that will come back to bite the Government if the clause stands part. It is simply not true that fusion reactors are like warehouses; they are substantial radioactivity producers in their own right. They produce radioactivity in different ways than fission, and in smaller amounts.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

This summer, along with colleagues on the Science and Technology Committee, I had the opportunity to visit the Torus at Oxford—a particularly impressive site—and to hear from not only academic scientists but private businesses, and they were calling for this measure. Having seen as a little girl, and worked in, the nuclear fission industry in Sellafield, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that these are two completely separate processes. The stripping of electrons to produce a plasma—while nuclear, in that it is engaging with nuclear atoms in the centre—is not the same as splitting large amounts of, say, uranium and creating by-products that could be injurious to human health and require an enormous amount of regulation, such as alpha and beta radiation. Does he agree that it is possible that in seeking to be mega safe, we risk choking off an energy source that could be the answer for all our futures, and one in which Britain is genuinely recognised as a global leader?

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Member is right that the processes are quite different—I was about to put forward a few reflections on that—but they are not completely unconnected. As she mentioned, fusion is essentially about containing a very high-temperature process of the fusion of molecules into other molecules—

[Katherine Fletcher]

Plasma, yes.

[Dr Whitehead]

Into a plasma within a contained vessel. The processes of producing that plasma for the purposes of electricity generation are indeed very different from producing steam, effectively, for electricity generation through the decay of radioactive isotopes within a controlled reactor. However, what happens when that plasma is produced is that a very large amount of neutrons are released, which bombard the sides of the vessels within which the whole process is contained so that, over a period of time, the atomic structure of those vessels starts to change and there is considerable radioactivity contained within the vessels, which, when the site is decommissioned, would have to be taken down and probably stored in a repository in the long term because of its enduring radioactivity. The hon. Member is also right to say that the life of the radioactivity that is produced in the plasma process is a question of, among other things, tritium.

[Katherine Fletcher]

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that an individual neutron is a body that can further emit a radioactive source? That cannot be true. Radioactivity, by its nature, is the smaller bits that come as a co-product. While I accept that there is a need to make sure that any industry is responsible and can look after itself, it is about making sure that the industry is being properly regulated, but perhaps not regulated as a fission nuclear site. I am sure he will agree that although the containment vessel is important in the process, it is actually about the generation of the electromagnetic fields that contain the plasma, which is the subject of much research at the moment and would prevent the problem he is describing—of neutron leaking into both the concrete and steel containers. Will he clarify that point? A neutron, in itself, can only decay into quarks. That is what the clever guys at CERN do when they smash things together at speed.

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Member is of course right to say that neutrons, in their own right, cannot produce radioactivity, but that is not what I was saying. What I was saying is that the process by which neutrons are released to bombard the vessel in which the process is contained indirectly produces radioactivity through changes in the structure of that outer casing. Perhaps I can inform the Committee briefly by setting out the description in a recent note from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which says:

“To produce usable heat, the neutron streams carrying 80 percent of the energy from deuterium-tritium fusion must be decelerated and cooled by the reactor structure, its surrounding lithium-containing blanket, and the coolant. The neutron radiation damage in the solid vessel wall is expected to be worse than in fission reactors because of the higher neutron energies. Fusion neutrons knock atoms out of their usual lattice positions, causing swelling and fracturing of the structure. Also, neutron-induced reactions generate large amounts of interstitial helium and hydrogen, forming gas pockets that lead to additional swelling, embrittlement, and fatigue. These phenomena put the integrity of the reaction vessel in peril.”

I think the hon. Member will be clear from that that it is not the neutrons that are the issue; it is the radiation.

[Katherine Fletcher]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[The Chair]

Order.

[Katherine Fletcher]

I will be very brief, I promise.

[The Chair]

Both your previous interventions have been quite long. Perhaps you might consider making a full contribution when Dr Whitehead has come to the end of his remarks.

[Katherine Fletcher]

I will take your advice, Ms Nokes.

[The Chair]

Thank you.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call Katherine Fletcher.

[Katherine Fletcher]

Thank you, Ms Nokes, and I apologise for not prosecuting my arguments procedurally in the correct way earlier. I want to respond to what the hon. Member for Southampton, Test has said. I completely accept that he has tabled his new clause in the spirit of public safety, but I do think that this is an area that could be better understood by the public. I gently suggest to him that there might be a slight misapprehension in some of the material that he just quoted from.

What the hon. Gentleman was describing was neutrons degrading a physical structure, as a by-product of the plasma. There is an analogy here: it is almost like it getting shot at or water going through a concrete structure and then causing rust and degrading the steel within it. That is not necessarily the creation of a nuclear radioactive source; that is something being peppered with neutrons. And that is why it is not a commercially viable facility at the moment—because there are still things to be worked out, not least how we ensure that we do not build a very expensive thing that, by its own nature, then degrades over time and use. But that is not the same as creating a radioactive source.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned deuterium and tritium, which are different types of naturally occurring hydrogen elements. Tritium sounds, to my ear, almost like something that the Terminator would be using to do something particularly exciting. In fact, it is only a hydrogen that occurs in nature and that has a single proton and two neutrons within the nucleus, so it is a bit bigger and heavier than is typical. What that means is that it is a little more unstable. The natural half-life of tritium is 12 years, whereas the nuclear regulations that the hon. Gentleman seeks to apply or partially apply in this instance are designed to deal with things that have half-lives of thousands of years. Someone will tell me that I have this wrong, but with uranium-238 we are talking about very different orders of magnitude—

[Olivia Blake]

I am a biomedical scientist by background, so I come to this with a medical perspective. The issue with tritium is that it produces beta waves, which are a more damaging form of radiation to human tissues—only in a minor way, as it has a score of 1 compared with 20 for alpha waves, but there is an underlying risk. Exposure of the workforce to that level continuously could put DNA stability at risk, because it is an ionising form of radiation. If there is a problem—containment is always a big challenge that gets raised by scientists—hopefully we will overcome it, but it is right to have the protections, particularly for the workforce. That is why I welcome new clause 51.

[Katherine Fletcher]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Of course beta radiation is produced when a nucleus is separated, when the neutrons in tritium move away. For me, it is a question of proportionality and risk. At the moment, there is no viable commercial solution, so there is not a workforce but a research community, which is publicly and privately funded. On that becoming a workforce solution, I agree with her that ensuring that people are safe at work is vital but, should this come about, the Health and Safety Executive will not leave it unmonitored. However, new clause 51 is not about workplace safety; it is about putting something that is fundamentally not nuclear fission, as opposed to nuclear fusion, into a set of regulations designed to deal with such things.

I wondered about the criteria, given that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam mentioned radioactivity occurring in the fusion environment. What percentage of Cornwall, with its radon gas, might be caught up in the thresholds? I will be interested to pursue on Report what we are actually talking about. As a scientist, the hon. Lady knows that 100 is very different from 1, even though 1 poses some risk.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for tabling the new clause, but given the opportunity for clean, net zero energy—which really could be the panacea for the world, as tree-huggers like me would say—in the UK we should look to tread lightly, but carefully, with any regulation of an industry that has such a level of potential and to which the UK has contributed so much already. He mentioned torus structures, but those are only one of a series of different potential generational tools—torus might be the research tool, not the commercial tool, so his concerns could disappear with a completely different production facility, perhaps based on electromagnetic rather than physical containment.

With regret, because I understand the genuine and heartfelt nature of the hon. Gentleman’s new clause, I think it is important that we do not stifle a nascent industry with regulation. I will therefore support the Government’s position.

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank my hon. Friend and Opposition Members for a fascinating discussion of the clause and new clause 51, and of how we proceed with regulation of this nascent industry—a technology in which we are leading the world, as has been said multiple times. Such comments have also been made in various legislatures around the world, including the US Senate, in which a wish was recently expressed to match the progress being made in the United Kingdom and to have a framework such as the one in which we have allowed fusion technology to be developed.

The Government’s plans are about working up from the frameworks that apply to existing fusion sites, rather than working down from them. We believe that the new clause could stifle the development of the technology that we have been exploring in depth this morning. It is vital to stress that we are not—definitely not—trying to make fusion energy facilities avoid licensing requirements. Nor are we seeking to water down any regulations. For a fusion energy facility to be developed and operated in a lawful way, it must go through permitting and consenting processes governed by the relevant regulators. In England, those are the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive. This is consistent with how other facilities with radioactive materials such as cyclotrons and large-scale industrial irradiators are regulated for at the moment.

The regulatory process that we have right now requires fusion energy facilities to go through various approval stages as well as ongoing compliance and engagement. The requirements associated with those regulatory obligations are proportionate to the hazard associated with the fusion energy facility. I should also say the legislative consent motion procedure has been invoked. We have already consulted the Scottish Government on the procedure and they raised no concerns; obviously, there are separate regulations and bodies responsible for the issue in Scotland.

We do not believe that fusion energy facilities should require nuclear site licences. That is what we are discussing this morning. They should not go through the process requiring nuclear site licences because, following consultation, we believe that that would be disproportionate to the hazards associated with fusion. Such hazards, as various hon. Members have explained in greater detail than I would ever be able to, are significantly lower than with nuclear fission, and the regulatory frameworks required for fission would therefore be too burdensome for the technology.

The Government agreed with the majority of the consultation respondents that the existing regulatory processes of consenting and permitting would be proportionate and appropriate for fusion energy facilities. That was all set out in a full consultation that preceded the introduction of the Bill. We see no need to consult again on the same issue at this time. I hope I have been able to set the minds of the hon. Member for Southampton Test and others at rest following their justifiable, reasonable and well thought through questions on this matter. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

Indeed. The hon. Member makes an important point about where we connect and the facilities for connection, which I will consider briefly in a moment. This is also a substantial problem with DNOs, as we know from published data on local junction boxes and various other things. How long a local or a regional connection will take is determined by whether the system is red, yellow or green in terms of its local connections within the DNO network. We are seeing similar waiting times for smaller connections and the sort of large offshore connections that the hon. Member mentioned. Obviously, that is difficult in helping to ensure that onshore electricity is delivered as well as offshore electricity. That is one reason why the distinction between the high-level grid and the lower-level grid in the circumstances of our renewable, low-carbon future is not as great as has hitherto been the case.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun rightly draws attention to the fact that some Scottish-based offshore schemes are now being asked, on a point-to-point basis, to connect south of the border, because the facilities for delivering from those connections, were they to be north of the border, are not as good as they should be. Interestingly, the Government are presently considering a bizarre series of arrangements called marginal cost pricing, which will deter certain people from taking particular views about where they should connect because there will be a price differential in connecting. As I am sure the hon. Member will agree, the solution is not to start messing about with theoretical market considerations about who might connect where, but to build the stuff so that people can connect to it properly, where they are and where they want to be, with a certainty that there will be a connection in a short period of time and that what they have connected to gets to where we want it to be. Those are all reasons why the ISOP will be so important.

Through these amendments we want in no way to undermine, but rather to enhance, the substance of the ISOP. Our amendments, which are on page 5 of the amendment paper, seek to do several things regarding the structure and operation of the ISOP. First, we think that the ISOP should have oversight not just of the cabling itself, but of the cabling efficiency and loss reduction in cabling as it goes around the country. That is a potentially important issue for the future. I am sure that hon. Members know how much electricity is lost just by the transmission function.

[Katherine Fletcher]

I believe it is about 6% in standard main lines, which presents a huge opportunity for us to be more efficient with the energy we generate and transmit.

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. I think the figure is around 6%—sometimes a bit higher—but part of the issue with that loss is not just the general inefficiency of the system; under certain circumstances, we are using cables for transmission that are much less efficient than they should be.

I visited—this shows the exciting things that I do as shadow Energy Minister—a test site of a highly efficient cable system. I will not mention the company’s name, but as far as I know it is pursuing a much more efficient cable system with a number of DNOs. When I got to the site, there was not very much to see because the cable had been buried underground; I was pointed to a field. There was, however, in the corner of the field, a hut in which calculations on how the cable was performing, and how it would perform in conjunction with other forms of cable, were being undertaken. I was able to see for myself an increase in the efficiency of the cable of about 15%, just by having that cable design as opposed to others.

It seems to me quite important that the cabling introduced to our new system be as efficient as possible. It needs to be clear to the companies that will put the closed cables in that that is what will be expected of them. That is why we would like an additional function to be added to the ISOP’s concerns: oversight of efficiency and loss reduction in cabling.

We have tabled other amendments, which concern the relationship with the DNOs. It is important that we do not make an artificial distinction in terms of what we are doing with the ISOP in the high-level system and others. I am afraid that the Bill, whether intentionally or not, appears to create that divide. The DNOs can get on with their activities, and the high-level grid will have a different system of governance and management. That is why amendment 96 would add

“and of distribution systems in conjunction with licenced distribution system operators”

to the end of line 3, in clause 119. Amendment 97 would add the same words. That would create a much better system of co-operation and collaboration between the DNOs and the new system operator.

I appreciate that we will not vote on new clause 37 today. It is important for the independent system operator really to be independent, and not a creature of either the energy companies or the Government, so that it has its own ability to look at the system, to produce recommendations and arrangements, and to oversee the development of the system as its own master within that.

We therefore suggest in new clause 37 that an independent advisory board be set up to ensure the independence of the ISOP. There are other ways of doing this, but we are suggesting one particular way of ensuring that the ISOP operates in the genuinely independent way that we all want it to in pursuit of the future of grids and connections.

I hope that the Minister and the Committee understand that our amendments and new clauses all seek to help with the ISOP. I hope that the Minister will respond positively by saying that there are different ways of achieving what we want to achieve with the ISOP’s powers, or that, although he might not be able to accept the amendments today, he is actively minded to have a good think about them. By the way, I am grateful for the note that the Minister wrote to me last night about the fact that the Government have done just that with one particular amendment to the Bill. That sort of process could easily be followed in such circumstances in future.