Examination of Witnesses (Questions 660-679)
RT HON
ALAN JOHNSON
MP, MR PAUL
MCINTYRE,
MR RICHARD
ABEL AND
MR HENRY
DERWENT
23 NOVEMBER 2005
Q660 Chairman: You have mentioned a couple
of times that you might think of putting in place some practical
measures to assist the nuclear people to make the investment if
they want to go that way. What sort of practical measures might
those be?
Mr Johnson: I genuinely do not
know. We are not that far into the review. The very suggestions
that have been made to your committee, as I understand it, about
what Government could do in terms of practical help, in terms
of changes to the legislation, et cetera, some of that will emerge
from our review.
Q661 Mr Challen: Professor Sir David
King told us a week ago that it would be more sensible for us
to consider an 80% carbon reduction target rather than 60% because
the science seems to be pointing in that direction. Does that
not mean that the task now for new technologies is even more urgent
and that we cannot afford to wait 10 or 15 years for something
else to emerge; we need to have something in the short term that
is really going to start filling the gap?
Mr Johnson: On the clean coal
technologies?
Q662 Mr Challen: On anything that can
deliver in three, four or five years, rather than waiting 10 or
15 years?
Mr Johnson: In terms of the technology
that is emerging now, carbon capture and storage is probably the
most exciting, not just for this country but also for China and
India where we are working to share the technology. We have the
project under way that will probably determine the capability
of this, which is BP Miller project out in the North Sea. You
cannot do these things quickly. There is not the ability to just
take clean coal technology, for instance, and apply it immediately.
You have to go through this stage of ensuring that you have some
rigorous analysis and you are developing the results that have
been envisaged. Yes, we need to work very quickly on wind energy,
wave power and micro generation (which we are doing and that should
make a contribution, though not huge). We have the Climate Change
Programme Review that will be published before the end of the
year to ensure we are on course with our 20% reduction. There
is a whole series of measures going on to use the new technology
that is available as quickly as possible. Yes, we are constantly
not just looking just to the long term; we are looking to the
short to medium term as well.
Q663 Mr Challen: The Westinghouse AP1000
reactor design has been touted as an off-the-shelf and economic
way forward for new nuclear but it is predicated on the idea that
maybe you could build 10 at the same time. Given our past experience,
do you think that would be a possible way forward, given that
nobody else has built one anywhere else in the word? Do you think
that we could perhaps do it in that way or would it have to be
phased? It would start with one, and then see if it works, and
then have another nine afterwards.
Mr Johnson: You are taking me
into a territory that I do not want to go! We have no decision
yet. If we decide to go down the nuclear route, obviously those
are questions we would have to consider.
Q664 Mr Challen: Finally, the British
Energy effective bankruptcy that we saw a few years ago meant
a bail out from the Government. What is there in place to prevent
that from happening again?
Mr Johnson: I think it is impossible
to put something in place that will say that in all circumstances
this kind of thing would never happen again. It is an awful shock
to the system. I think that would ensure that no-one ever wants
to go through that again.
Q665 Mr Challen: Does that mean that
one particular generating form has a gun to the Government's head
then and none of the others really do because none of the others
have the same technology which is so capital-intensive and so
expensive to run?
Mr McIntyre: May I add something
about British Energy? I think the purpose of the rescue and the
restructuring was precisely to put the company on a viable basis
in the longer term and, in return for that, the taxpayer has got
a claim on two-thirds of British Energy's future surplus cash.
That was the way in which the taxpayer's interest was protected.
Q666 David Howarth: Can I ask another
question about cost? I want to get back to the question of a sign
and practical measures. Just a detailed question on costs first:
nuclear is unique in one way, which is that it is the only form
of energy that requires some police force, its own security measures.
You mentioned the terrorist risk. Do you think that the cost of
those arrangements should be borne by the state or the taxpayer
or by the industry?
Mr Johnson: I think instinctively
it ought to be borne by the industry.
Q667 David Howarth: Professor King thought
that it should in effect be counted as already having been paid
for with existing arrangements and therefore new build should
not bear any of that cost. Is that your view too?
Mr Johnson: I think I would need
to take a considered view on that. Professor King is deeply interested
in this subject, but my instinctive view is that there should
not be taxpayers' money in any dimension here. If you look at
what is happening around the world and at the new technology now
that will mean that we are not replicating the first generation
of nuclear power stations, there is a much more advanced system
now, I think it is very difficult to think of an argument for
the taxpayer to make a contribution. If, during the course of
a review, you see that that is the only solution to some of those
problems, then it begs the question about whether that money from
the taxpayer spent in that way would be better spent in other
areas like renewables. It comes back to those three issues: cost,
safety and waste.
Q668 David Howarth: I am grateful for
that. Can we now go back to the possibility of practical measures
or a sign? It has been put to us that one of the problems with
nuclear as a security of supply question is that it takes so long
for nuclear to come on line that by 2015 there will be other answers
to the security of supply question. Part of that timing question
is the issue of licensing and planning. I was wondering whether
you had in mind any changes to the licensing regime or to the
planning issue.
Mr Johnson: As I understand it,
you could get moving with pre-licensing pretty quickly and save
about three years on the timescale if you were going down this
route. On planning, the natural reaction would be to build on
sites where there are already nuclear power stations, which does
not end the problem but I think it makes it much easier. These
are concerns. I think the time is around 17 years between a decision
and an actual plant being built.
Mr McIntyre: I think there is
some uncertainty about that. To repeat what was said earlier,
this is just the kind of issue the review needs to look at.
Q669 David Howarth: What is the present
estimate of how long it takes to go from where we are to building
a nuclear plant?
Mr Johnson: Between 15 and 17
years or 17 years.
Q670 David Howarth: Can I put another
point to you that has come up quite strongly in the evidence that
has been given, which is the question of giving an example to
the world and the relationship between civil nuclear power and
the proliferation issues? Do you think it is dangerous, for example,
that Iran is in the process of trying to give itself a civil nuclear
capacity?
Mr Johnson: No; that is what they
are seeking to do. As I understand it, the UN supports that and
that is not a problem. It is the switch across to military use
that is the concern.
Q671 David Howarth: Is not the problem
that people see the only the reason for Iran to do that, to give
itself a civil capacity, is something do to with the military
spin, as it was of course in this country with the origins of
nuclear power?
Mr Johnson: You can separate the
two. The process that the UN undertook to help Iran to build a
civil nuclear capacity was very strict and subject to inspection.
There is no necessity that if you are going down that route then
it must be a switch-over to military nuclear.
Q672 David Howarth: So you have no problem
with the idea that if we were to go down the nuclear route, we
would have no standing to say to other countries that they should
not follow a similar plan?
Mr Johnson: On civil nuclear power
that is a matter for countries to decide for the same reasons
that we need to, in terms of security of supply, CO2 emissions,
et cetera. That is perfectly valid.
Q673 Ms Barlow: I hope you will accept
that there has been considerable concern within the nuclear industry
about the likely availability of uranium after 2015. I quote from
the conclusions of the World Nuclear Association's latest market
report in September: ". . . fuel supply is potentially short
beyond 2015, unless the lower demand scenario occurs. . . . future
uranium supply is now a big issue. Actually, the uranium market
has been concerned about it for some time and accordingly, the
price has been increasing for the last couple of years. . . .
One of our concerns is that uncertainties about fuel security
in the future may depress possible investors' confidence in the
nuclear power industry. This could potentially delay or cancel
the nuclear programmes, currently set." Would you not accept
that the truth of the matter is that the likely supply of uranium
will not be sufficient for a great global expansion in the future?
Mr Johnson: That is a matter to
be tackled within the Energy Review. I feel a bit like I am opposing
nuclear new build and defending a decision that has not been made.
That is absolutely a genuine issue of concern that we would need
to look at.
Q674 Ms Barlow: How far along have those
investigations gone in terms of the supply of uranium? Is that
issue being tackled now?
Mr Johnson: I am not aware of
initiatives that we are involved with on that.
Mr McIntyre: It is something that
we will need to look at in the review.
Q675 Chairman: I am amazed that you have
not looked at that already, given what the Prime Minister has
been saying about nuclear, the hints, nudges, nods and winks that
have been going on. I am astonished that you have not looked at
the supply of uranium issue yet.
Mr Johnson: I do not know whether
there have been nods and winks.
Q676 Chairman: We have been on the receiving
end.
Mr Johnson: There have been stories
in the newspapers. I am very clear about what the Prime Minister
wants from this review. He wants an objective review to see what
the mix is going to be across the whole range. He has not made
a decision on nuclear new build—I am absolutely confident
on that—and neither have I and neither has my Energy Minister.
If some newspaper correspondent thinks we have, they are wrong.
Q677 Ms Barlow: Continuing on along the
lines of research and likely research, if lower grade uranium
ore is used, there is evidence that nuclear is far from being
as carbon-free as one might have expected. Are you also going
to be undertaking research into the emissions associated with
nuclear energy, if a decision is made, before any decision is
made, and, if so, have those investigations started?
Mr Johnson: That will definitely
be a part of the Energy Review. Just like the White Paper, it
will be based on security of supply, affordability and carbon
emissions. Carbon emissions are central to his review. My understanding
is that nuclear is CO2 free. The point you make about uranium
and the CO2 emissions that come from building nuclear plants is
another factor that would need to be considered.
Chairman: If uranium supplies are short
and you have to use lower grade uranium, the science suggests
that CO2 emissions from nuclear energy go up quite significantly.
You have given us an incredibly convincing impression of a minister
who is genuinely open-minded. May I suggest that that is another
issue, when and if you come to review these matters, you include
in the mix.
Q678 Joan Walley: On that point, if,
as you say this is going to be part of the review, there must
be some work in progress that your department is doing in respect
of the supply and the link to carbon emissions relating to that
supply of uranium. It would be very helpful, for the purpose of
our inquiry, if you could let us have a copy of what work in progress
is taking place.
Mr Johnson: I will find out. We
have not published the terms of reference yet. We have not set
up the review. No-one is working on the review yet. I will see
whether any preliminary work has been going on here and let the
committee know.
Q679 Mark Pritchard: Secretary of State,
do you agree with the noble Lord Sainsbury in another place who
is allegedly reported in one of the broadsheets to have suggested
that new nuclear build is now the new green energy?
Mr Johnson: He said it is a renewable.
It shares characteristics with renewables, providing it is not
low-grade uranium in that it is CO2 free. The technical answer,
and I would never disagree with my honourable friend, is that
it is finite and therefore it cannot be renewable.
| 
