Revised Draft National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation, volumes I and II (EN-6)

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that there will almost certainly be a need during the next 20 years or so for more nuclear sites than are currently envisaged by the Government. Although I know nothing whatever about the specifics of Dungeness, I have already made a very strong case, and I will look forward to what the Minister says in response.

Perhaps I may begin by surprising probably both sides of the Committee by offering an element of at least modest congratulation to the Government and the Conservative Party on the distance that they have travelled on this subject since I left the Conservative Party some four years ago. At that time, the Tory Party’s doctrine was that nuclear power was a last resort. That was just one of the myriad issues on which I disagreed with that party at the time—it was not the most critical but it was important. I am very pleased to see that, in this matter at least if not in others, the Tory Party has advanced in the right direction. I still do not think that it has got to the right point. I think that its acceptance of nuclear is grudging and in some cases is based on something of a misunderstanding. I note that the overarching document, EN-1, states at paragraph 3.5.7:

“The Government believes that new nuclear generation would complement renewables”.

That seems to be wrong on two grounds, the first political and the other technical. The political ground is that it does not emphasise sufficiently the enormous importance of nuclear. It implies that nuclear is just one of a whole series of possible sources of future power generation. It must be the major source of electricity generation in the future. Secondly, it is quite wrong to say that it “complements” renewables; it is baseload, and renewables are not. What complements renewables is the natural gas combined cycle generation capability which stands alongside renewables, so that when the wind is not blowing, which is about 70 per cent of the time in this country, it can immediately be switched on and replace that peak load. However, nuclear is not a reciprocal of renewables, as that sentence suggests. Therefore, I think that the Government have not quite grasped the enormous importance of nuclear even yet.

We have with us a very able Minister who knows his brief very well. He made a response to a debate on this subject that I attended the other day to the effect that nuclear was not getting any subsidy because it was a proven technology. That seemed a very arbitrary and irrelevant criterion. It may well be that we do not need to give a subsidy to nuclear because nuclear investment will happen without it. If so, I would be the last to suggest that taxpayers’ money should be added to it. However, the criterion should be whether it is necessary to give a subsidy to achieve a desired purpose for the future strategic interests of the country. Obviously, it is necessary to provide subsidies for tidal and wind power, which we are doing, and I support that. Obviously, it is necessary to provide subsidies for the whole area of carbon capture and storage, which is uncertain technologically. I am happy with that investment, with all its risks. Investments do involve risks, and I do not have to tell the Minister that, as he has an investment banking background. I am in favour of that too. However, the criterion should simply be whether it is necessary, not whether a technology is more or less proven. We all know that nuclear technology is subject the whole time to upgrading and improvements of various kinds. That attitude reflects again the feeling of a reluctant commitment to nuclear power which characterises the Government’s policy, although that is a great deal better than the policy that I described, which persisted some four years ago. I hope that the Government will continue to advance in their thinking in the right direction.

I have one or two specific questions that I shall take the opportunity to put to the Government with the chance to have the answers on the record, because I suspect that they will be of interest to others in this country apart from myself. The first one relates to the whole issue of timing, which seems to me absolutely urgent. We are behind time. Of course we should invest in nuclear, and the Blair Administration should have invested in nuclear. There is no doubt about that and I am perfectly happy to accept that point. We should have got into this business 10 years earlier, and we now find the Magnoxes being decommissioned and the EGRs, potentially, being decommissioned. We do not have time to replace that capacity quickly enough. At paragraph 3.5.9 of the EN-1 document, the Government say that they believe it is,

“realistic for new nuclear power stations to be operational in the UK from 2018, with deployment increasing as we move towards 2025”.

That is welcome as a statement of a target but it does not say enough. Can the Government fill out that particular sentence? How many new nuclear power stations do they expect to be operational by 2018? We very badly need to know. When will those power stations start to contribute electricity to the grid? Can we have a little more detail on that?

My second question relates to the further studies referred to in volume 1 of EN-6. I was able to get volume 2 only when I came into the Committee today. I tried yesterday in the Vote Office—if that is the right name for it—where you get papers, to get volume 2 and was told that it was not available. If I were still in the House of Commons, I would probably make a point of order on that. We do not make points of order here, so I cannot do so. I mention it in passing.

Page 4 of the EN-6 refers to a whole lot of studies that will be required. Paragraph 1.6.5 says:

“Further studies will need to be carried out, as part of the project HRA and environmental impact assessment”,

and then, in the following paragraph:

“Further studies will need to be carried out, as part of the project EIA process for individual development consent applications”.

In the fourth paragraph within paragraph 1.6.5, it says:

“These issues will need to be considered in project level HRAs and EIAs”.

The final sentence on the page is:

“The significance of these effects can only be determined through studies as part of the project level EIA and HRA”.

We have a welter of new environmental studies to be undertaken. Are these going to be prerequisites for the granting of planning consent at the beginning of construction of these nuclear power stations and, if so, is that 2018 target at risk, or are the Government confident that whatever happens with these studies, that 2018 deadline—which is far too late in terms of the national interest but we have to do the best we can—will not be at risk? We need to have a clear, unambiguous answer on that.

The third question for which I should be grateful for an answer relates to the whole issue of geological waste. Paragraph 2.11.3 on page 14 of EN-6 says:

“In reaching its view on the management and disposal of waste from new nuclear power stations the Government has in particular satisfied itself that … geological disposal of higher activity radioactive waste, including waste from new nuclear power stations, is technically achievable”.

It may be technically achievable, and that is good news. We know that it is technically achievable because the Americans are investing in a major deep nuclear waste project, and the Finns are investing in one as well, in both cases in granite, and taking into account all the obvious risks. But what are the concrete plans from the Government for making progress in that area? I think that earlier I heard the Minister say that the intention was to have this deep nuclear waste storage facility in place by 2130. Did I hear him say that or did I mishear him?

[Lord Liddle]

2040.

[Lord Broers]

Would it be possible for me to add a word here about this? There was to be a debate in the House on the report from the Science and Technology Committee this afternoon. Quite appropriately, that debate was abandoned, but I hope that the Minister will support an attempt to conduct that debate in future, because the report has some important recommendations about the role of CoRWM and its relationship with government. I hope that we have that debate, as it would help the noble Lord to understand where we were, at least, on this position of the long timescale for nuclear waste.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am grateful to the two noble Lords who have just intervened. In fact, I am glad that I raised the subject because it inspired those two contributions, and anyone reading the record of this debate will be much better informed as a result. Of course, I hope that we will have the debate to which my noble friend referred on the Floor of the House before too long. There are a whole lot of questions about this which have already been raised and need to be answered, and I look forward to anything that the Minister feels able to say on the subject now. However, I am sure I am not the only person in this country who feels that the idea that we have to wait until 2130 until we cope with the waste from the new power stations is very questionable. Certainly, it is something that needs to be challenged very carefully to ensure that there is really no better alternative.

My final question relates exactly to that issue. I read with astonishment paragraph 2.11.2 of this document, EN-6, which says:

“On the presumption of a once through fuel cycle (and therefore assuming no reprocessing of spent fuel)”.

I looked through this document as much as I could, although I have not had the opportunity to read volume 2, and I could not see any other reference to reprocessing. I simply cannot understand why reprocessing has been rejected in this apparently casual way by the Government. It seems to relate directly to the issue of fuel. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, knows much more about the engineering and technological aspects of this than I shall ever do. Clearly, if you have reprocessing, you greatly reduce the volume—he will no doubt tell me in what proportions—of the nuclear waste that arises from a given generation of energy. Quite apart from the enormous importance of economising on the world’s uranium supplies, reprocessing seems very positive in terms of dealing with and managing nuclear waste.

Why does the document not have a rationale for apparently abandoning the idea of reprocessing? Why have the Government given up on it? Why does reprocessing not appear to have any future here? That is an important point, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s response on it as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Marland]

I think that that was the Scottish side of the noble Baroness coming out there. Let us be gladdened in our hearts. Have the Government been reluctant? No, we have been at it for nine months and we have eight new nuclear sites, so let us rejoice in that. None of us is sitting here making party-political points about it. We are not saying “You haven’t done this” and “You haven’t done that”, and I am not accusing the Labour Party of anything. I have regularly complimented the Labour Party for changing public opinion so that we are able to be where we are now.

This document gives a very clear pathway to future investors that the Government want nuclear and there is an opportunity—come and get it. I was very interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, particularly as we are in the Moses Room, when he started talking about flood and drought almost in the same sentence. Of course, he comes at this issue with great expertise of transport, which will be fundamental to infrastructure planning of all these sites. Clearly, the secondary impact of low carbon is very important, and will be very much part of the regulatory justification process.

A number of noble Lords have raised the subject of flooding. We can do no more than assess the flood situation and we have made assessments to 2100, which, as everyone has told me so far today, is a very long way off. I am sure that with the prayers of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, we will be around to see it, although there is a fighting chance that in my case that I will not, if I keep having these stressful debates.

Of course, we were totally right to observe the socioeconomic aspects, which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who has converted to nuclear, has rightly identified. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, kindly warned me that he was going to talk to us about Dungeness. He is right that it could offer great opportunity for that part of the world; I have seen that site—it is an amazing place. But we have to remember about Dungeness that it is not quite as simple as consulting Natural England and hearing from the Environment Agency. We have used consultants in coming to this conclusion, but the reality is that this was designated a special area of conservation after the first power station was established by the European Commission. That means that it is more than just a simple process. But, as the noble Lord will know, we are still in consultation and we welcome until 24 January any further recommendations that Members in the other place make and that the noble Lord himself wishes to make—when he has been able to get through to the right number, which must be very frustrating indeed.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, talks about subsidy. I made it clear that there was no subsidy. The nuclear power industry has been an industry for a very long period of time and there is a lot of expertise throughout the world. One chairman of its representative bodies is in this Room. We do not generally as a Government need to subsidise mature businesses that have huge expertise and know exactly what they are doing. We have to allow them to have the planning framework, the waste disposal issues and all the technical regulation that government has to allow them the freedom to make it a profitable venture. This Government understand as well as anyone—and the noble Lord himself was in the world of finance—that no venture will go ahead unless it is financially viable.

I shall deal with aspects of reprocessing in a few minutes, but I shall first deal with the noble Lord’s point about whether 2018 will be operational. Let us not kid ourselves. It is a huge task to get something going by 2018. One reason why we are removing the IPC is so that the Secretary of State will have direct control of the decision-making and speed it up. As the general public would rightly expect, the Minister will determine whether that site is ready. We are working flat out to ensure that we can get something by 2018, but will there be a judicial review in the mean time? It is probably likely. What will be the reaction to the judicial review? We do not know—we do not have hour-glasses in front of us—but we are determined with every best endeavour to ensure that the first one goes by 2018.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am grateful to the Minister for his answers to my questions. The Government are clearly committed to trying to get the first nuclear power station on stream by 2018. To what timescale do they expect the subsequent power stations to come on stream?

[Lord Marland]

We would naturally hope them all to be going by 2025, because we have made a huge pathway commitment to it. However, I shall not stand here and say, “It is going to happen on this day at that time”, because we are going into something that has not happened for 20 years and there is a long process to go through.

My noble friend Lady Parminter asked about the security risk, which is fundamentally important. I am personally reviewing the security of our sites, particularly Sellafield. Are the civil nuclear police fit for purpose? Are they operating in a way that enables them to resist the modern threats of a rapidly changing world? The Office for Civil Nuclear Security has been set up to address that. It reports to me, to persuade me that security is tight. It is fundamentally important that we ensure that those sites are safe and secure, particularly the hazardous areas.

The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, rightly pointed to Cumbria becoming a centre of excellence for reprocessing. The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan, made the vital point that waste must be not a liability but an asset. As I have told him and the House previously, I have commissioned a cost-benefit analysis of a Mox plant. If we have the biggest plutonium stock in the world, we must turn that liability into an asset. I have had a second meeting on the subject. We have already had a write-round to Cabinet to ensure that we can perhaps go further on that plant. I hope that I will be able in the next few months to give him much stronger assurances as to its prospect. It is madness to have it sitting there if we can make it a non-cost exercise.

However, we must remember that we have failed at this once already. We have a Mox plant that was not fit for purpose, so we must get it right—it is very important, with new technologies, that we do that. This is of course a clear message to the people of Cumbria, because that is where the Mox plant would be located. I do not think that we have any problem as a Government in sending clear messages to the people of Cumbria about the importance of that site and of their role in it. The next generation of nuclear waste reprocessing has to carry us forward for years to come as we replace the current existing plant.