|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 259-iii House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SCOTTISH AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
MEETING SCOTLAND'S FUTURE ENERGY NEEDS
Tuesday 22 February 2005 PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK Evidence heard in Public Questions 105 - 152
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
Oral Evidence Taken before the Scottish Affairs Committee on Tuesday 22 February 2005 Members present Mrs Irene Adams, in the Chair Mr Alistair Carmichael Mr David Hamilton Mr John Lyons Mr John MacDougall John Robertson Mr Michael Weir ________________ Memorandum submitted by Professor James Lovelock
Examination of Witness
Witness: Professor James Lovelock, examined. Q105 Chairman: Good afternoon, Professor Lovelock. May I welcome you to this public evidence session of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee at Westminster. At present we are conducting an inquiry into "Meeting Scotland's Future Energy Needs", as you know. You have kindly provided us with a written statement. Before we start our detailed questioning, is there anything you wish to say to augment that statement or to add to your written remarks? Professor Lovelock: Thank you for inviting me. I do not have anything to add to the written statement I sent. Q106 John Robertson: Professor, you have been a leading environmentalist for 30 years and yet in your statement you say that you would recommend that "every effort be made to start nuclear new build and coal burning power stations that sequester the emitted carbon dioxide". What has made you come to this view? Professor Lovelock: It is a view I have held for the last 25 years, at least. It is on record in a book I wrote in 1985. Q107 John Robertson: Do you not find this a contradiction from being an environmentalist to supporting coal in particular and nuclear? Professor Lovelock: No, I do not. I am a scientist primarily. There is nothing wrong with getting energy from coal, as long as you do not let the carbon dioxide get into the air. There are sensible and economic ways of removing carbon dioxide from the furnace gas at the power station. The biggest problem is sequestering it, knowing where to put it, but there are all sorts of suggestions. I do think that it would be wrong for Scotland, which has considerable resources of coal left, not to use that power source. Q108 Mr Weir: You say in your submission that, not only have the dangers of nuclear energy been much exaggerated but so have the problems of nuclear waste. Given that nuclear waste is a real issue surrounding nuclear power, what, in our view, is the most effective way of managing nuclear waste? Professor Lovelock: I think we should follow the example of the Finns who have suggested - in fact they are doing it - burying it deep in the granite. There is lot of granite in Finland and there is lots of it in Scotland. The natural radioactivity of the granite is quite high. The Finns reckon that it will not be many hundred years before the waste has fallen to the same level as the granite. Q109 Mr Weir: Do you accept there will be considerable public opposition to anywhere a nuclear waste depository was proposed? Professor Lovelock: I would wholly agree with you that the perception of the dangers of nuclear are so widespread that any suggestion like that or that I make will be resisted. Yes, I agree. Q110 Mr Weir: Do you accept the industry view, which seems to be that any nuclear waste has to be very carefully put in lead lining, mixed with cement, and stored away for very many years? Professor Lovelock: No. I think that is almost a nonsense that has grown up over the years. This problem of disposing of nuclear waste has almost become an industry of its own. It is a tiny amount of the total that is being produced in this country, not only in Scotland but in Great Britain. It is something that would fill a small detached house and that is over 40 years. It is not a major problem. But the amount of carbon dioxide that is produced, now there is a real waste. A year's amount would make a mountain of solid carbon dioxide two miles high and 12 miles around its circumference. That is a gigantic problem to dispose of it, but that is never mentioned. We only hear about this tiny, small quantity of nuclear waste. Q111 Mr Weir: You mentioned that the nuclear waste would fill a small house. When we visited Dounreay we saw a great deal going into crushing; low level, intermediate level waste being put into steel drums with cement and laying it out. When we visited the United States we heard about the problem of trying to get a project going at Yucca Mountain. Are you talking about high level waste? Professor Lovelock: I was talking about high level waste. I do not consider the low level waste any problem at all. It is radiation at levels similar to those in Cornwall, for example, and near Aberdeen in Scotland, too. Q112 Mr Weir: You would not accept the industry view that it has to be dealt with in that way? Professor Lovelock: The industry has no choice. I think the law says that radiation above certain levels must be treated in a certain way and that is it. Q113 Mr Carmichael: Looking at the first part of Michael Weir's question, and you have dealt with the question of nuclear waste, he spoke also about the dangers of nuclear energy being exaggerated. I think he pulled that from your comments. What is your assessment of these dangers? We all think of the worst nuclear incident in our living memory, Chernobyl. What is your assessment of something like that? Professor Lovelock: The United Nations sent a World Health Organization team to Chernobyl in 2001 or 2002. The information is all on their website. They found, after exhaustive investigations involving a large number of doctors, a total of 45 deaths that had occurred at Chernobyl. Yet repeatedly the BBC and most of the newspapers talk of numbers in anything up from 30,000 to one million, and this is just nonsense. It is true that the radiation distributed over a large area may shorten the lives of people to some extent, but we might be talking of shortening of lives by perhaps 16 hours or a couple of days. I think this is almost insignificant on a lifespan. The figures have been manipulated by the anti-nuclear people to make the worst possible case. That was understandable in the Cold War. We were all frightened of nuclear events. CND and other organisations did a good job in frightening people, but unfortunately the fear has hung over and is now a real problem in dealing with our energy needs. Q114 Mr Carmichael: Your evidence to the Committee is that there are only 45 deaths attributable to Chernobyl? Professor Lovelock: Quoting the United Nations statistics, yes. Q115 Mr Carmichael: Are you familiar with the Chernobyl project by the Swiss agency for development and co-operation? Professor Lovelock: No, I am not Q116 Mr Carmichael: If I told you that their figures, which were based on government agencies in the three former Soviet republics themselves, estimated that something in the region of 25,000 of the 800,000 people had so far died as a result of their exposure to radiation, you would discount their figures? Professor Lovelock: I do not know the quality of their evidence. I have a great respect for WHO, a very great respect. In fact, I spent part of my life in the Medical Research Council and worked closely with them, but I do not know about the others. Q117 Mr Carmichael: You would stick to the assertion that the total number of deaths attributable to Chernobyl is 45? Professor Lovelock: Yes, so far. Q118 Mr MacDougall: From what you are saying, I presume the message you are giving is that your own particular view is that there should be further investigation into the re‑prioritisation of our heating energy needs. The observation so far is that we could exclude very easily the dramatic from the reality, what is perceived as opposed to what really happens on the ground. You have highlighted your thoughts on Chernobyl, which we talked about, and other ways in which industries have lost lives and caused damage to the environment. There is diversity in industry. I have witnessed that in my own area of Central Fife where we produce gas from coal. That is probably ahead of its time. Is your main point therefore, Professor, that there should be a closer, more detailed and wider examination of the re‑prioritisation of how we meet our energy needs? Professor Lovelock: Indeed it is. I think that the DTI Energy White Paper was badly unbalanced. Principally it was unbalanced by making our nations utterly dependent for 80 per cent of energy on imported gas. In a world that is likely to be changing fast as a result of climate change, it would be madness to rely on so insecure a source of supply, but, much more than that, gas is probably the most dangerous greenhouse fuel of the whole lot. It is 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide and it is a greenhouse gas. You only need a leak of 2 per cent for it to be just the same as burning coal; a 4 per cent leak makes it something like three times more dangerous than burning coal for a period of 60 years. I am told that the leak rate from the North Sea is 6 per cent from the gas wells and the Russian leak rates range between 5 and 15 per cent. It is an exceedingly dangerous fuel to use and there may be a world ban on the use of gas, which would leave us in a terrible mess. Q119 John Robertson: Professor, I have been fortunate in that I have been to Finland and I have seen what they have done with the waste there. They won the argument not just politically but with the people of Finland about what they should do with the waste. How do you think our Government could allay the fears of the public here in relation to nuclear waste? Professor Lovelock: I think it would be quite a difficult job but advertising in any form succeeds; we buy the products. If you tell people long enough the same message, they begin to believe in it, I am afraid. It is a terribly undemocratic thing to say but it seems to be a fact. We have been hearing the other message from bodies like the green lobbies that seem to have had an awful lot of money to spend to say their piece for a long time. 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 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 great thing 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 North 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 ten 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 know about 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 to things 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 dome on some parts of the world. The Norwegians are not using coal but oil but it makes no different 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 per cent 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 rub 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 a 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 per cent 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. Q140 Mr Lyons: On the question of hydro, we have been served well in Scotland by decisions taken in the 1930s and 1940s in terms of hydro. Is there scope, in terms of modernisation and improving the efficiency of the hydro stations, that we could enact just now? Professor Lovelock: I am told, although I am not an expert on this, that hydro is used not to the limit but that you cannot expect a lot more of it. It is a mature technology that has developed. Probably there will be relatively uneconomic hydro schemes that could be brought into use, but I do not think you should expect a lot more from it. Q141 John Robertson: Do you believe that the only way renewable sources of energy could be economically viable would be if they were subsidised by the Government? Professor Lovelock: That appears to be the case. Going back again to the Royal Society of Engineers, they put the cost of renewables as far as wind is concerned at 7 point something pence per kilowatt hour for offshore; 5 point something for onshore; and I think 2 to 2.5 for gas and nuclear. Subsidies would be needed. Q142 John Robertson: Do you think we still need a balanced energy policy rather than putting all our eggs in one basket? Professor Lovelock: I do. I think one always needs a balanced energy policy because you can never tell what is going to happen, particularly in a period when climate change is happening rapidly. That not only affects climate but it affects world politics, and all sorts of things. Q143 Mr Lyons: Professor, you will be aware of the Scottish Executive's decision to look by 2020 for 40 per cent of Scotland's energy to be produced from renewables. Do you think that is feasible or realistic? Professor Lovelock: I would need to be persuaded it was feasible or realistic, but again I do not know the nature of the schemes they are proposing that will give 40 per cent of Scotland's energy from renewables. If I did, I might be able to give a better answer. Q144 Mr Lyons: Do you think it seems quite a task to get to that level by 2020? Professor Lovelock: If it can be done, it would be wonderful in some ways. It would be an example to the world. As I say, we do not have time at this juncture for visionary schemes. We have to cut our cloth to the conditions of the world and the world looks a very dangerous one. We had better use the energy sources we need. Maybe they will give us time to change over because any sort of energy source, like a nuclear power station, does not last for ever. They need replacing after a time, and then comes the time one should look at or be prepared to use alternatives. Q145 Mr Lyons: What you are saying is very interesting. You are almost following word for word the statements we heard in the USA. People there were saying you need an audit of your resources and then use that as a basis for building towards your target. Would that be your approach? Professor Lovelock: Indeed it would, yes. Q146 Chairman: Most people would accept that a mix of nuclear, fossil and renewable sources of energy is needed to maintain electricity supplies for the future. What, in your opinion, would be the optimum percentage mix? Professor Lovelock: Whew, that is a difficult one! I would have thought that one should get at least 30 or 40 per cent from nuclear and possibly a similar balance from coal, given sequestering, and renewables fill up the gaps. Q147 Mr Hamilton: If no nuclear power stations were built, and this is speculation, and you were dependent on fossil fuels and renewables, do you think that is feasible? Professor Lovelock: Long term it is not feasible because the coal does not last for ever. If you are putting more demands on it, it will go sooner. I do not know what the life expectancies of the coal fields in Scotland are. Again, thinking of the troubled world, the importation of coal and other fuels from outside may be much more difficult than it is now. Q148 Mr Hamilton: You are aware that the coal burn is basically about the same as it has been for the last four or five years. All that has happened is that we have had a declining coal industry. The importation of coal has been at an increasing rate over that period of time. Do you believe, as many people have reported here, that the security of energy is of the utmost importance to the United Kingdom? Professor Lovelock: I do indeed. I think it is of vital importance. I feel that because the climate is changing so fast, the climate scientists involved with it are amazed at the change in attitude over a single year. Because of this, we are entering a different world and we have got to stop thinking in terms of global solutions, or even European solutions, and almost be forced to think nationally on these problems and we have got to secure our home base or we will not be any good outside it. Q149 Mr Hamilton: Professor, earlier you answered a question on supplies quite negatively. I was surprised by that and thrown by it because you are the first person who has ever answered the question on biomass in a negative way. In the evidence we have taken up to now most people have indicated that biomass is a way forward, a way of actually utilising all the facilities we have. Your indication was it is a dangerous road to go down. Perhaps you could submit a paper to explain that position? What you say is different from what we have heard up to now. I would be interested to see how you come to that conclusion. Professor Lovelock: I come to that conclusion through what has been my life's work for the last 40 years, understanding the earth, and at long last that is beginning to be recognised in the general scientific community. We now do realise that the biology in the oceans and on the land play a vital part in sustaining the climate and the composition of the atmosphere that we enjoy. In other words, they are looking after the world for us and we cannot go on taking that for either farmland to feed people or for fuel without there being consequences. Q150 John Robertson: Professor, in your statement you said, "There is no energy source immediately available to us other than coal, gas or nuclear". Apart from renewable sources, are there any other alternative sources of energy that are being pursued at this moment in time? Professor Lovelock: Yes, indeed, and I had the pleasure of visiting the ITER fusion project at Culham only a couple of weeks ago. I was very surprised to see what amazing progress they have made there. I think they have actually got to the point of making 16 megawatts of power in that small-scale, prototype fusion reactor. They are fairly confident that the next stage, the large ones, will be effective power producers on a scale, but we cannot think of that - and they would be the last to say so - in under 20 or 30 years. Q151 Chairman: There have been reports that China and South Africa are pursuing what I think is called a pebble-bed technology in building new nuclear power stations. What are your views on this type of technology? Professor Lovelock: I think it is absolutely ideally suited to countries like South Africa and China. These are small, modular nuclear power stations, which are about as failsafe as it is conceivable for even a pessimistic engineer to consider and they do not produce large volumes of waste of any kind. They would be ideally suited for supplying power to regions. At the moment, countries like South Africa have big central power stations and they need to send cables over enormous distances. Not only are they expensive to build but they lose energy as they go. They could dot the country around with a large number of these small units, which really are small by our standards. I would have thought that in some of the more remote areas of Scotland power from one of those could be quite handy, but I do not know enough about it. Q152 Chairman: Professor Lovelock, that concludes our questions. May I thank you for your attendance here this afternoon. Before I declare the session closed, do you have anything you wish to say in conclusion, perhaps on matters not covered already during the questioning? Professor Lovelock: The only really thing I would like to do is to thank you for your most thoughtful and helpful questions. You have made me think a bit more, and that is always worth spending an afternoon doing. Chairman: Thank you for your attendance today. It will be extremely helpful to us when we come to making our report. |