| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab): Unlike the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), I warmly welcomed the energy White Paper in 2003. For the first time, the Government acknowledged something that many of us had held true for a long time: we cannot separate energy generation and use from the environmental consequences.
The White Paper offered, in a global context, the way ahead for the UK for a generation. It showed an exciting prospect—facing the challenge of achieving a low-carbon economy—and pointed to important firsts, such as the first straw-fired power station in Cambridgeshire, the first commercially operational wave power station on the isle of Islay and the rapid development of wind turbines. None of the annual reports that were promised and have been issued since then—the last one was in July 2005—has indicated any need for a major change of direction. So what has happened?
Members and Ministers have cited climate change, but the White Paper stated that our first challenge was environmental and that climate change is real. It
12 Jan 2006 : Column 522
accepted the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution for cuts of 60 per cent. in CO 2 by 2050. Today, the Secretary of State cited the more rapid decline in North sea gas and net importation, but that, too, was anticipated in the White Paper. It noted that the second challenge would be the decline in indigenous energy supplies and that we would be a net importer of gas in 2006. My right hon. Friend spoke about the decommissioning of our nuclear reactors. That is a fact. The White Paper said that probably only one nuclear plant would be open by 2025.
The importation of gas was recognised; the White Paper said that we would need additional supplies of both piped and liquefied gas from a range of sources, and noted that diversity of gas supply would be important. All the key issues were flagged up. The goals set to cut emissions, retain reliability of energy supply, promote competition and ensure that every house was adequately heated were all thought to be achievable without new nuclear build.
Nuclear is neither clean nor carbon-free. It produces highly toxic waste, which other Members have mentioned. It offers no solution to the problem of climate change. In a life cycle analysis, from the mining of uranium through to the decommissioning of the plant, nuclear power is in no sense carbon-free and in the worst-case analysis is just as dirty as a gas-fired station.
We need to examine more carefully the nuclear contribution to our energy needs. The debate has really been about electricity generation. Primary energy sources, however, show us that gas is 40 per cent., oil just over 30 per cent., coal 16 per cent., but nuclear is only 7 per cent. Transport uses 35 per cent. of our energy supply. Our domestic use is 30 per cent. Industry uses just 21 per cent. So nuclear power may be a significant source of electricity production, but not many of us heat our homes with electricity or drive cars powered by that source. The very sectors that have accounted for the greatest increase in demand—our home heating and the use of our cars—and created the worst pollution are not being served by the nuclear industry.
I suggest that the costs, the risks, the development time and the production of radioactive waste associated with new nuclear build are all far out of proportion to the potential emissions savings. Furthermore, the argument that new nuclear build is essential to meeting our CO 2 targets is an extremely dangerous one in the international context. The UK accounts for just 2 per cent. of global CO 2 emissions. We all know that the greatest future contribution to and threat from CO 2 emissions comes from China, India and Brazil and such developing economies.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Joan Ruddock: I am sorry, I cannot.
If we cannot cope with solving our CO 2 emissions without new nuclear build, what does that say for countries such as China? One new dirty coal power station is being built in China every week. Are we to suggest that China goes wholly nuclear to deal with its energy needs and its CO 2 emissions? That is absolute nonsense. How long would uranium last if China did so?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) in particular has said, the answer clearly lies in the clean coal technologies and, as
12 Jan 2006 : Column 523
many Labour Members have said, in developing renewables. That is the way that we help the emerging economies and the least-developed countries of the world. If we are serious about our global leadership—I believe that we are—that is what we must do. I thought that that was what we were doing.
The second report on the White Paper was absolutely packed with positive achievements. The framework treaty with Norway will ensure that up to 20 per cent. of UK future gas demand comes from that country. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) spoke about unreliable countries and cited Algeria as one of them, but Algeria has provided energy to Europe for 40 years without significant interruption. We have increased the renewables obligation to more than 15 per cent. by 2050. We have doubled the energy efficiency commitments, by making a £2 billion investment. We have exceeded the Warm Front scheme targets. We are developing carbon abatement technologies. We have taken action and have plans for a range of renewables. We have new buildings regulations. We have an energy efficiency fund. We could do all those things better and we could do more of them.
I particularly welcome the energy review, by which we can find out how to do better with the renewables obligations. Opposition Members may be surprised that France generates more electricity from renewables than we do, as do Germany and Spain. There is so much that we could do. We could raise our building standards to the highest that operate elsewhere in Europe. The borough council in my constituency uses only green energy. Why does not every local authority use only green energy? A state-of-the-art, low-energy school has been built in my constituency. Why is every school not built to that standard?
I tell Ministers that we must not lose our nerve. Nuclear energy production is now an old technology and, like all old technologies, it leads to environmental degradation. It is not the answer. We can do more on renewables. We can do much more on energy efficiency, which is responsible, and we can reduce demand without reducing our lifestyles. The energy review needs to be predicated on the basis that this country and the globe need environmentally sustainable development, which needs to be at the heart of the review.
5.19 pm
Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South) (Con): Much as I was looking forward to the prospect of giving lengthy advice to my constituent—the Minister for Energy—in the interests of brevity I will keep my contribution short. I am not alone in finding the Russian Government's decision to cut off gas supplies to Ukraine chilling, and the implications are quite substantial. In truth, being dependent for our energy supplies on a country that is prepared to cut off those supplies will emasculate our foreign policy. In certain circumstances, our foreign policy could be affected by dependency on imported energy from risky nations.
That leads me to a conclusion with which the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) will strongly disagree—that we must greatly increase our dependence on nuclear power. To me, the question is
12 Jan 2006 : Column 524
not nuclear versus coal but nuclear versus gas from risky sources. I am a strong believer in nuclear power. The French derive 75 per cent. of their energy from nuclear and 15 per cent. from hydroelectric, so 90 per cent. of their energy comes from their own sources. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies): at least 50 per cent. of our energy should come from nuclear sources.
Mr. Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con): One of the points that Labour Members have refused to hear by refusing to accept any interventions is that we have already lost the global leadership debate. They want to stop nuclear power, but India has already committed to getting 25 per cent. of its energy from nuclear sources.
Richard Ottaway: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that strong point. Both India and China are to use a mix of nuclear and coal generation. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford wants to see clean coal technology; I do too, but not to the total exclusion of nuclear power.
My next point is on the lack of an investment structure in this country. Several investment projects are on hold because their promoters cannot envisage proper payback for the investment needed. Building a new generating station requires a 30-year payback period. At present we have the volatility of a spot market, which we have seen fall to a very low level in the past couple of years. No senior executive will commit to a 30-year payback unless he can foresee a steady cash flow that will pay for the station. The previous Minister for Energy promised to look into encouraging long-term investment in generating capacity. I hope that the present Minister will take up the issue.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) made a very good point about co-firing. Co-firing is the burning of biomass in a coal-fired power station—10 per cent. biomass to 90 per cent. coal—and the biomass qualifies for the renewables obligation. The practice has been successful, and I believe that the Department of Trade and Industry is sponsoring research into how to achieve a biomass burn of more than 10 per cent. Burning 10 per cent. biomass means 10 per cent. less CO 2 emissions going up the chimney, so it is a good thing. However, in 2002 it was decided that the 25 per cent. cap on the contribution to renewables would be reduced to 10 per cent. in April this year. At the time that did not look like a stupid decision because gas and electricity prices and economics were very different, but the situation has changed. It now seems fairly bizarre to have decided to reduce the amount of biomass that can be burned in co-firing at a time when all the indicators suggest that we should be increasing the amount.
I wish the Minister for Energy well in his review. I believe that the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) have merit. The truth is that we have a risky road ahead of us. The Minister has difficult decisions to make.
5.24 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |