CCS, NUCLEAR ENERGY AND SECURITY
OF SUPPLY
156. One of the main purposes of the Energy Review
is to explore the possibility of new nuclear build.[259]
Dr Jon Gibbins argued that CCS had far more to offer than nuclear
in terms of reducing CO2 emissions:
"The problem of climate change is largely
a problem of carbon being emitted from burning fossil fuels. Carbon
capture and storage is the only option that directly addresses
that. We are not having climate change problems because we do
not have enough nuclear; we are having climate change problems
because we have too much carbon dioxide coming from fossil fuels".[260]
Others have backed CCS precisely because it offers
an alternative to nuclear energy and, as such, is perceived to
be the lesser of two evils. Friends of the Earth, for instance,
asserts that CCS is "a far preferable approach to the possible
alternative of nuclear power, which is also put forward by some
groups as a bridging technology".[261]
157. It is frequently asserted that nuclear energy
is key to securing and diversifying UK energy supply. We were
interested to hear analogous arguments put forward for CCS. Brian
Morris, for example, told us that CCS "gives you an opportunity
for diversity of supply" by enabling the use of coal, gas,
oil or biofuel mixtures sourced from a range of geographical and
political origins.[262]
Kenneth Fergusson, President of the Combustion Engineering Association,
has also argued that underground gasification of unmineable coal
seams in conjunction with CCS could provide the UK with substantial
amounts of low carbon energy from a domestic fuel source.[263]
However, substantial additional research and development is likely
to be needed to ensure that underground gasification is reliable
and commercially viable. Others pointed out that EOR could prolong
the life of the North Sea oil fields.[264]
Gardiner Hill from BP argued that CCS "has the potential
to extend the useful aspects of the North Sea" through creating
employment and opportunities for EOR, thus adding to the diversity
and enhancing security of energy supply for the UK.[265]
CCS can contribute to security of supply by enabling the UK
to utilise a range of fuels from diverse sources and suppliers,
without impairing progress towards CO2 emissions targets.
158. The Government's Chief Scientific Adviser has
repeatedly argued that the UK will need "every tool in the
bag" in order to meet its energy and climate change mitigation
objectives.[266] It
remains to be seen, however, whether the Government will be able
to provide a framework to persuade industry to invest in renewables,
nuclear and CCS. Professor Gordon MacKerron, Director of
Sussex University Energy Group and chair of the Committee for
Radioactive Waste Management, has raised the possibility that
a Government commitment to nuclear could deter gas and renewable
energy suppliers from investing which could, if not all the expected
nuclear plant was built (as has happened in the past), leave the
UK with an energy shortfall.[267]
According to Professor MacKerron, even if new nuclear build was
approved and commissioned, the first power from a new reactor
would not be produced before 2018 or, "more likely",
2020.[268] The Secretary
of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Margaret
Beckett, has also been reported as saying that any new nuclear
build would not be producing energy by 2020.[269]
By contrast, both BP and Progressive Energy have stated that they
are capable of building industrial scale demonstration plants
using CCS starting today, with the first electricity being produced
within four years.[270]
This would seem to support the argument that early build and demonstration
of CCS plant in the UK could lead to CO2 emissions
reductions more rapidly than investment in nuclear. Demonstration
of CCS could also deliver the additional benefit of providing
an entry point for reducing the far more substantial emissions
from China and India.
159. In informal discussions, one of the major UK
energy suppliers admitted that one of the most difficult questions
facing the company was whether CCS and nuclear could be pursued
in parallel, presumably due to the levels of investment and expertise
required for each. It is also worth noting that most of the costings
for both nuclear and gas- or coal-fired plant fitted with CCS
assume that the plant will be base-load generation plant.[271]
There is a finite demand for base-load plant on the grid (in the
order of 15-20 GW) so it would probably not be possible for both
types of plant to operate as such. This means that either CCS-fitted
plant or nuclear would need to bear the additional penalty of
running at lower levels of generation, which could impact on their
commercial viability. The Government must take these limitations
into account when considering the respective roles of nuclear
and CCS in the UK's future energy mix.
Timescales
160. The UK is faced with a significant opportunity
to take a lead in demonstrating CCS technology and, as discussed
in chapter four, the rewards on offer could be considerable in
both domestic and global terms. However, time is of the essence
if the UK wishes to capitalise on this opportunity. This reflects
the fact that:
- The greatest benefits would
be derived by the UK if it takes a lead in demonstrating CCS technology;
- Export opportunities depend on full scale demonstrations
of technology in the UK. These need to start now, to provide industry
with the confidence to make medium term decisions (e.g. industry
decisions are required by 2010 for plant to come on-line by 2015);
- Industry needs a long term price signal, as well
as an indication of the framework for strategic regulation and
ownership, before serious investment will occur;
- Decommissioning of the UK electricity generation
fleet is underway, and will reach 30% by 2020;
- Decommissioning of the North Sea oil and gas
fields is underway and the infrastructure is being removed;
- There is a need to prove that the amount of stored
CO2 can be verified and that there is no significant
risk of leakage, both of which will take time to do; and
- There is an increasing sense of urgency over
the need to meet emissions targets as a result of emerging scientific
evidence on climate change and ocean acidification.[272]
161. We were therefore disappointed to discover that
the Government considered CCS to be a technology primarily of
long term significance. Brian Morris, the DTI's Head of Carbon
Abatement Technologies said in oral evidence:
"I would even go as far as to say that one
would tend to think about this technology as being beyond 2020
and, as I think you will see in the Carbon Abatement Technology
strategy, we think of this technology as being something beyond
that time. It is not really a technology that could apply up to
2020."[273]
The Energy Minister, Malcolm Wicks, also repeatedly
referred to the fact that CCS was at a very early stage and, when
asked about timescales, was less than ambitious: "I would
very much hope that into the next decade we would have seen a
major demonstration project, the most likely one is the Miller
field BP project and after that I would hope there would be other
fundamental developments, but it is too early to be entirely confident
about that".[274]
We are disappointed by the Government's repeated assertion that
CCS technologies are at a very early stage and are concerned that
this is being used as an excuse for inaction. If the Government
were to demonstrate the ambition and determination that we believe
is merited, the UK could significantly progress the status of
CCS technology and perceptions of its viability. Brian Morris
rightly stated that "We have got to be doing the work today
to enable [CCS] technologies to be there by 2020".[275]
Regrettably, the Government's actions to date do not reflect
the urgency of the situation. We trust that this will be rectified
during the forthcoming Energy Review.
162. In oral evidence, the Minister told us: "One
thing I have learned, if I needed to learn it, is that in energy
policy, where we have got targets on emissions which go up to
2050 and where we need to make judgments now which will influence
energy policy and therefore climate change maybe for much of this
century [
] we need long-term certainty and industry need
long-term certainty".[276]
We are heartened to hear this and hope that the Minister will
now put his lesson into practice. One of the top priorities
for the Government must be to develop the long term and coherent
energy policy which has been sorely lacking to date. It is essential
that, following the Climate Change Programme Review, Energy Review
and Stern Review, the Government puts in place a stable incentive
framework that will enable industry to find the most cost effective
technological solutions to meet the UK's energy and climate change
objectives.
247 Malcolm Wicks MP, Grasping the nuclear nettle,
The Observer, 4 December 2005. Back
248
As above. Back
249
Q 352 Back
250
DTI, Our Energy Challenge: securing clean, affordable energy
for the long-term, Energy Review Consultation Document, January
2006. Back
251
Ev 94 Back
252
Ministers back carbon dumping, The Guardian, 15 June 2005. Back
253
Q 109 Back
254
Q 12 Back
255
Q 261 Back
256
Ev 146 Back
257
European Environment Agency, How much biomass can Europe use
without harming the environment?, EEA Briefing 02, 2005. Back
258
Q 69 Back
259
DTI, Our Energy Challenge: securing clean, affordable energy
for the long-term, Energy Review Consultation Document, January
2006. Back
260
Q 62 Back
261
Carbon capture supported-but more needed on emissions cuts,
Friends of the Earth press release, June 14 2005. Back
262
Q11 Back
263
Ev 174 Back
264
Ev 139 Back
265
Q 108 Back
266
E.g. Climate target 'a bit optimistic', BBC News, 20 November
2005. Back
267
Gordon MacKerron, Who puts up the cash, The Observer, 4
December 2005. Back
268
As above. Back
269
The Monday Interview: Margaret Beckett: "Somebody clearly
wants my job. But you wonder if these people are living in the
real world", The Independent, 28 November 2005. Back
270
Ev 148 Back
271
A base load power plant provides a steady flow of power regardless
of total power demand by the grid. Back
272
POSTnote 245. Back
273
Q 2 Back
274
Q 234 Back
275
Q 12 Back
276
Q 252 Back