8 ENERGY
65. Although the broader issue of energy falls within
the remits of the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (DEFRA) and DTI, OST has a role in supporting research
into alternative sources of energy. It also has a responsibility
to ensure that policy makers and the public are well informed
about the scientific basis for the debate about energy, particularly
in relation to climate change. In 2004 this debate moved further
up the political agenda when the Government's Chief Scientific
Adviser, Sir David King, and the Prime Minister made speeches
on climate change and energy that were widely reported in the
press.
66. DTI's PSA target 4 sets out Government's aim
to reduce CO2 emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by
2010.[93] In the Ninth
Annual Zuckerman Lecture, held at the Royal Society, Sir David
King stated that, if the UK did not achieve a nuclear power rebuild
by 2020, the amount of nuclear power on the grid would be reduced
from the current figure of 27% to approximately 20%. Under these
circumstances, even if the volume of energy produced from renewable
sources were increased from the current level of 3% to a level
of 20%, our dependence on fossil fuels would remain the same as
it is now.[94]
67. These statistics suggest an urgent need for the
UK to build up a nuclear capacity in order to meet the Government's
energy targets. The Government has not yet, however, made its
position on the future of nuclear energy clear. In his July appearance
before the Liaison Committee, the Prime Minister stated that "you
cannot remove [nuclear energy] from the agenda if you are serious
about climate change".[95]
Nonetheless, the Energy White Paper states that efforts should
be concentrated on energy efficiency and renewables rather than
on nuclear. When we asked the Secretary of State for Trade and
Industry to outline the timetable for policy formation on nuclear
power we were not given a timetable but were told instead that
the Government "recognizes that nuclear power is currently
an important source of carbon free electricity, but its economics
make it an unattractive generation option and there are important
issues for nuclear waste to be resolved".[96]
The high cost of nuclear power relative to renewables was disputed
in a report by the Royal Academy of Engineering, The Cost of
Generating Electricity.[97]
The Prime Minister implied that the lack of strategic direction
in the Government's policy on nuclear energy may be a result of
low public confidence in nuclear fuels.[98]
68. The Government should not avoid taking difficult
strategic decisions in order to avoid criticism. It should lead
the debate and make the public aware of the long-term energy situation
as well as the options for dealing with it.
The International Tokamak Experimental
Reactor
69. Nuclear fusion presents one of the cleanest and
most efficient possibilities for future nuclear energy generation.
The International Tokamak Experimental Reactor (ITER) would act
as a test of the feasibility of building a commercial nuclear
fusion plant and would potentially produce 500MW of power. It
is expected to cost 4.5 billion Euros (£3 billion), and would
take ten years to build. If the experiment went well, it is estimated
that power generation through nuclear fusion could take place
in the next 25-30 years. ITER is to be funded by the EU, Japan,
China, South Korea, Russia and the US.
70. Work on ITER cannot begin in earnest until a
location for the reactor has been decided. A recent gathering
at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna to discuss
the location of ITER ended in deadlock. The two sites under consideration
are Rokkasho-mura in Japan and Cadarache in France. At present
the US and South Korea support the Japanese bid whilst China and
Russia back Cadarache. In our Scrutiny Report 2003 we urged the
Government to press the French case and to "resist any suggestion
that the ITER project should somehow be split between France and
Japan".[99] In response,
the Government stated that it was "firmly behind hosting
ITER in Europe; it is doing all that it can to ensure the European
bid succeeds".[100]
When we asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about
the location of ITER, the message was not as clear. Although she
stated that "I do think having two ITERs would be counter-productive";
this followed a remark that "I think the best approach for
this wider ITER programme might well be to have facilities located
both in Japan and in Europe".[101]
We would welcome reassurance that the Government is still wholeheartedly
convinced of the need to press the case for ITER to be located
on a single site, preferably in Europe.
71. The debate about the location of ITER is stalling
progress on the project. We were pleased to note that the Science
Minister appears to be aware of the need to resolve the deadlock
as soon as possible, since the decision would have "huge
implications for the funding of fusion research in Europe".[102]
In December he told us that "I would hope that we could agree
fairly quickly to go ahead on a six-party basis, that means within
the next three or four months, and then have things sorted out
technically by the middle of next year".[103]
The location of ITER needs to be resolved as a matter of urgency
in order to avoid any further delays to the commencement of this
very important project. We hope that the Government will push
for a resolution to discussions by the end of March 2005, the
possible timescale identified by Lord Sainsbury.
93 HM Treasury, 2004 Spending Review: Public Service
Agreements 2005-2008, Cm 6238, July 2004, p 31 Back
94
A full text and summary of the speech is available on the OST
website: www.ost.gov.uk Back
95
House of Commons Liaison Committee, Session 2003-04, The Prime
Minister: Oral and written Evidence: Oral evidence taken on Tuesday
6 July 2004, HC 310-ii, Q 207 Back
96
Ev 51 Back
97
Royal Academy of Engineering, The Cost of Generating Electricity:
A Commentary (March 2004) Back
98
Liaison Committee, HC (2003-04) 310-ii, Q 202 Back
99
HC (2003-04) 316, p 20 Back
100
HC (2003-04) 588, p 5 Back
101
Qq 129, 128 Back
102
Q 47 ["Science Question Time"] Back
103
Q 269 ["Science Question Time"] Back
|
