Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-139)
PROFESSOR JAMES
LOVELOCK
22 FEBRUARY 2005
Q120 John Robertson: Do
you think we should open this up to the industry itself for them
to sell their own industry to people?
Professor Lovelock: This is a
funny thing. The nuclear industry is a relatively small industry.
I am not at all sure that it is even as big as the green lobbies.
This is not surprising when you think about it because the quantity
of uranium you need to power the power stations in the British
Isles is less than one-millionth of the quantity of coal, oil
or gas. There is not a very big throughput in that industry, so
there is not an awful lot of money in it.
Q121 John Robertson: Do
you think what we are getting really is the connection between
nuclear weapons and nuclear power?
Professor Lovelock: I think so,
and this is very understandable. All of us were fearful during
the Cold War that the superpowers would go really mad, and that
would have been a terrible thing, and it was right to be fearful,
but we should not let it spoil our future energy needs.
Q122 Mr Weir: Following
on from that question, one of the other problems perhaps with
nuclear power is the worry that it could lead to nuclear proliferation.
We have seen how the Americans have reacted to the Iranian nuclear
power plant. How would you deal with that? It is all very well
to say we would have nuclear power stations in the UK but how
do you then prevent other countries building them, possibly with
the weapons element involved in that?
Professor Lovelock: I do not know
how we deal with other countries, but I do know about the UK.
I am glad you asked that question because most of the waste problems
in the UK come not so much from the production of power but from
the production of plutonium for weapons. Modern nuclear power
stations—and I emphasise "power"—the ones
that would be the new build, are specifically designed not to
be plutonium producing and to produce only about one-tenth as
much waste as the old series. Like all engineering, it improves
with time. It has had a good record to date. Apart from Chernobyl,
it is the safest energy-producing system there is. It improves.
Q123 Mr Weir: Do you accept
that perhaps in the Iranian example there is already a worry about
what they might be doing with the nuclear power programme? Do
you accept there is a legitimate concern that some of these programmes
might be used for weapons production, especially, as I understand
it, the use of fast breeder reactors which might produce plutonium
that could be used in weapons?
Professor Lovelock: In satisfying
the United Kingdom's energy needs, there is no need whatsoever
to have any nuclear power plants that produce plutonium. The straightforward
new generation plants do not do that. Whatever the Government
does to enable nuclear new build, surely could be built into the
regulations having regard to them being of that type and not weapons-producing.
Q124 Mr Lyons: Professor,
do you consider it is now time for the Government to make a decision
about how to deal with nuclear waste?
Professor Lovelock: Oh indeed
I do. We have very little time left before the climate enters
an irreversible phase of warming. Beyond that point, there is
nothing we can do that will stop it; it takes off of its own accord.
According to all my climatologist colleagues, we are very close
to that point indeed.
Q125 Mr Lyons: Do you
think indecision makes people more worried and concerned about
the situation?
Professor Lovelock: It is possible.
Q126 Mr Lyons: Turning
to the question of new build in terms of nuclear power stations,
when do you think we need to start with new build in order to
avoid a consequence of the lights going out?
Professor Lovelock: It is all
a matter of the will. I am told that the South Koreans can build
a nuclear power station in two years. The French claim they can
do it in 56 months, and that is their schedule for the new stations
they are building I think somewhere in Brittany. There is no reason,
as far as I can see, why we could not do the same, given the will.
Q127 Mr Carmichael: Professor,
do you have a view on who should be responsible for financing
the construction of new build for nuclear?
Professor Lovelock: No, that is
not my province at all. I do not know. All I do know is that the
Royal Society of Engineers, which is a very respectable professional
body in this country, has costed nuclear now as the cheapest form
of energy, cheaper even than gas price-wise.
Q128 Mr Carmichael: I
ask because you will be familiar with the terms of the Policy
Innovation Unit report on our energy needs. They concluded, if
I recall, that we require to build 10 nuclear power stations if
it were to be economic. That was using figures that had been given
to them by the nuclear industry themselves. As far as I am aware,
there is nobody in the nuclear industry at the moment proposing
or offering to build. Presumably that would be a cost that would
fall on to the state. Are you aware of any other means by which
it could be done?
Professor Lovelock: I would have
thought, once the hesitation to go into a nuclear programme dropped
and the Government shone a bright light on it and gave it its
favour, that industry would then be prepared to join in and help
fund it. I am not an economist. You are asking me to comment outside
my province.
Q129 Mr Lyons: Going back
to the question of new build, whatever the number might be, is
there a scientific preference about where the sites should be?
Professor Lovelock: I do not think
it is a matter of science but two factors come in here immediately.
One is that wherever possible they should be on the same sites
as the existing plant because most of the local objections have
already been answered and, much more importantly, the power lines
are all joined up and all ready to go. The other factor is that
one should watch a little bit the sea level, which is going to
be rising throughout the century. Obviously, those nuclear power
stations that are very close to sea level or likely to be flooded
should be the ones to be abandoned and not the ones that are high
up.
Q130 Mr Hamilton: Professor,
I am not a scientist but I was in the coal industry for 20 years,
and that was 20 years ago. Even in my time when I was in the coal
industry, we were talking in terms of green coal. Indeed, there
was a science department in the National Coal Board which was
extremely good and innovative. Many of its inventions were copied
throughout the world. I have looked at your submission. How realistic
is it that the idea of green coal should be considered by Government
at the present time?
Professor Lovelock: I think it
is quite realistic. In fact, it is being done in some parts of
the world. The Norwegians are not using coal but oil, but it makes
no difference really to the sequestration problem. They are burying
the CO2 in an old gas well under their part of the North Sea.
In a sense, the prototype work is already underway and being done.
There does not seem to be any bad news coming from these attempts,
so I see no reason why it should not be done.
Q131 Mr Hamilton: Would
you therefore say, with the experiments taking place in the use
of biomass—coal, wood and so on, and I think there are experiments
being done at Cockcenzie power station—that this is the
time to be looking at reinvesting in the coal industry? There
is now the possibility of expanding in that area. We know full
well there are no pits left in Scotland but eight million tonnes
of coal are produced in Scotland at the present time.
Professor Lovelock: For Scotland's
needs, as I said earlier, it would be unwise to abandon coal.
I think that is important, but I do not think you should ever
think of using biomass fuels as a way of getting energy. This
is a very dangerous notion indeed because it denies the fact that
the world needs the natural ecosystems to regulate itself and
keep the climate in a steady state. When you think of it, the
appetite of a car for example for fuel is something like ten times
that of a person. We are having enough trouble finding enough
farmland to feed people. Just imagine what would be needed to
feed cars and other energy sources in the world. Biomass fuel
is all right for getting rid of agricultural waste, but the moment
you go beyond that and starts planting crops to produce fuel,
you are in a very dangerous area indeed.
Q132 Mr Carmichael: You
warn in your submission that the UK "needs a secure energy
base that does not depend on imports from what may soon become
a troubled and unstable world". Is that not exactly what
is being proposed and in a very few years' time the UK will be
importing gas from, for example, Russia and Ukraine?
Professor Lovelock: According
to the DTI paper, the North Sea and Norwegian supplies of gas
are quite limited and will run out. By 2020, when nuclear is practically
closed down, we will be importing something like 80% of our energy
needs probably from Russia. There will be some coming in by tanker,
liquid methane from various parts of the world, but again, those
are not really very secure sources of energy.
Q133 Mr Carmichael: Why
then do you think the DTI signed a concordat with Norway in 2002
to construct a pipeline to import gas into the UK from Norway?
Professor Lovelock: That is because
the Norwegian fields will keep going perhaps until the 2020s and
it is worth having, just as we are using the North Sea at the
moment, right up until it dries up.
Q134 Mr Carmichael: You
would regard Norway presumably as being a fairly secure, stable
base from which to import?
Professor Lovelock: Yes, but not
long-term.
Q135 Mr Carmichael: What
about their stocks to the north of Norway?
Professor Lovelock: They might
be.
Q136 Mr Carmichael: Do
you know anything about that?
Professor Lovelock: I do not,
no.
Q137 Mr Weir: You mention
in your submission that "renewable energy is a courageous
idea but so far is unable to supply more than a token supply of
energy". I would like you to expand on that and tell us how
much energy you consider it is feasible and realistic to expect
from renewable resources within the next 20 years?
Professor Lovelock: The nub is
the time we have. Shall we say we were now in 1900 and talking
about this; renewables would be a very sensible option in many
parts, not necessarily in this country but in many parts of the
world. I would like to see, for example, on the great plains of
America where they grow nothing but grain and soya beans and crops
like that -there is no countryside, it is just one-mile square
fields with barbed wire—as a wonderful site for enormous
wind farms all over, but our small country is not like that. These
wind farms are a little bit intrusive and unpopular, so it is
not the chosen source of energy. I have been told that the renewable
energy that will be available from the Severn Barrage would be
equivalent to four large power stations. The City has stated that
they would be prepared to fund such a scheme; it would cost £13
billion. I do not know why it has not been followed up; it seems
a much easier and more effective renewable option than many.
Q138 Mr Weir: Do you consider
that some forms of renewable energy are more technologically viable
than others? What type of energy do you believe would be most
appropriate for Scotland from renewable sources?
Professor Lovelock: You have hydropower
already, do you not, as far as you can get it? That is a first
grade form of renewable energy. I do not know how suitable are
the estuaries on the west coast for tidal power schemes like the
Bristol Channel, but I do feel they should be explored. The main
renewable energy you are going for is wind turbines and my objection
to those is, one, that they are obtrusive and, two, that they
are so inefficient. I think the German equivalent of the Audit
Commission announced recently that they were getting 16% efficiency
from German wind turbines, of which they have a huge number, I
think 17,000. This seems pretty poor to me.
Q139 Mr Weir: Are you
aware of the experiments in wave and tidal technology that are
going on in Scotland? Do you think that is a way that a significant
amount of energy could be produced for the future?
Professor Lovelock: I wish I could
answer that with a positive "yes". All I can say is:
explore it as much as you can. After all, this is a challenge
for Scottish engineers, surely, who are supposed to be the best
in the world. I would have thought that if it can be done, it
should be, yes.
| 
