Examination of Witnesses (Questions 620-625)
21 NOVEMBER 2005
JONATHON PORRITT
CBE AND MRS
SARA EPPEL
Q620 Mr Ellwood: Then it does beg the
question as to why The Times led with the article today?
Mr Porritt: I am sorry to say,
I have not read that yet, so I do not know.
Q621 Mr Ellwood: In your own study that
you are doing on nuclear energy, which you broke down, are you
actually looking at nuclear energy as a whole or are you considering
the different types of reactors you were critical about, the British
reactors, but, for example, the Canadian systems versus the South
African?
Mr Porritt: We are looking at
all the new technologies coming forward.
Q622 Mr Ellwood: Comparing one versus
another?
Mr Porritt: Up to a point.
Q623 David Howarth: I will ask just one
supplementary to that and then one question of my own. Is the
work that you going to do going to be comparative across technologies
and are you going to include any discussion of carbon capture
and carbon sequestration?
Mr Porritt: Not as such. We are
very alert to the growing interest in carbon capture and sequestration.
I feel actually it is a very important area of debate, perhaps
an excess of enthusiasm in the minds of some people as there is
an excess of enthusiasm for nuclear. Clearly, clean coal technologies,
if I can put it like that, have to be set alongside nuclear and
other supply options as part of the energy mix that we are going
to need for the future. It is just we hate the way this debate
is phrased: it is not just nuclear versus renewables. We want
to do a trade-off here, it is nuclear versus renewables versus
cleaner forms of fossil fuels, because those three things have
to be considered together.
Q624 David Howarth: To ask you about
the present position on nuclear waste, you mentioned that, I think
it was, as the first of your items of the new work, what is the
existing position of the Commission on nuclear waste?
Mr Porritt: The existing position
is remarkably similar to the position of the Government as we
understand it, which is that it would be unacceptable to bring
forward ambitious new plans for a new generation of nuclear power
stations until the problems associated with the disposal of nuclear
waste had been resolved. That is the very strong position taken
by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. As we understand
it, various ministers have also indicated, at different points
in the past, that they would be extremely reluctant to impose
further legacy costs on future generations without some "solution"
to those problems being available to people.
Q625 David Howarth: That is a technical
solution and not just a financial solution of people being required
to save money over a period of time?
Mr Porritt: Indeed, it has to
be both.
Colin Challen: Thank you both very much
for being very generous with your time. It has been very useful.
Thank you.
| 
