Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-173)
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION
23 MAY 2006
Q160 Mr Clapham: They are low at
the present time, as you say, 35%, but some of the new boilers
would get it up towards 50%.
Sir Jonathon Porritt: You are
still not using heat.
Q161 Mr Clapham: Given the enormous
problem that we face in China and India, the transfer of that
technology would certainly be one that would help us reduce the
carbon bubble around the world quicker.
Sir Jonathon Porritt: I am not
taking you on about this. I think there are very strong and important
arguments to be raised about the potential use of coal in a more
sustainable energy mix. They do pose massive technical and infrastructure
issues which the industry is going to have to deal with to make
that claim in a big, bold way.
Q162 Mr Clapham: Coming back to my
script, and looking at nuclear versus renewables, is it really
for you an either/or question? Has it got to be one or the other,
or do you feel that one could have an economy which is much more
diverse with nuclear coal, et cetera, and still have the stimulus
to invest in new renewable energy?
Sir Jonathon Porritt: Again, I
think I have to be fair to the diversity of views on the Commission
here. Some commissioners felt that it would be possible to have
a both/and approach to this, renewables efficiency, CHP, and a
nuclear programme coming forward simultaneously. The majority
of commissioners felt that it was an either/or situation, not
a both/and opportunity. The reason why they felt that was because
we have studied with great interest the lack of attention that
this Government has paid to securing a sustainable energy future
for the UK over the last four years. We, amongst others, have
commented very critically about the failure to follow through
on the 2003 Energy White Paper. We are not persuaded that this
is a Government which will have sufficient political skills, leadership
skills, to keep the focus absolutely tightly on the Energy White
Paper mix, as I prefer them described, and a new nuclear component.
If I may end with one point which often gets left off here. Whatever
the set of technologies we bring forward, for both the supply
and demand end of it, a sustainable energy future depends upon
far higher levels of engagement by ordinary citizens, by the people
who, at the end of the day, use that energy for the services they
require in their lives. We are very concerned about any scenario
for the future which continues to leave people the passive recipients
of energy that comes cruising down the wires, they do not have
to give a second thought to where it comes from and they just
get on and continue with their lives without any real interest
in those whole issues. A sustainable energy future is one in which
the individual citizen is going to be fully engaged in understanding
the way in which that energy was generated, the way in which it
is being used and the responsibilities that we have as individuals
to minimise any environmental impact accruing from those two things.
For that reason alone we felt nuclear would detract from that
systematic engagement challenge of the general population.
Q163 Mr Clapham: You see a decentralised
system as being critical to engage the community?
Sir Jonathon Porritt: It is absolutely
critical.
Q164 Chairman: What you want to do
is turn off the nuclear option, have the threat of the lights
going out, and then force people to focus on energy efficiency
and microgeneration?
Sir Jonathon Porritt: I think
that would be a very regrettable way of achieving higher levels
of awareness, if you do not mind me saying. Indeed, since you
are quizzing me a little bit on this one, we have said that in
terms of our existing nuclear reactors it makes no sense to decommission
them any earlier than they need to be decommissioned. If we can
extend their life in a way that is both financially viable and
absolutely safe from the perspective of the nuclear regulatory
bodies, then it would be very bizarre to decommission prematurely
rather than allow the full lifetime of that reactor to be worked
through. We are not for precipitive un-thought out closure of
the nuclear programme because we have some inherent belief that
nuclear is wicked, we are for a rational approach to our existing
nuclear programme and a rational decision-making process about
whether or not we need a new nuclear programme.
Q165 Chairman: Do you fear that the
Government would relax if it took a nuclear option?
Sir Jonathon Porritt: We do.
Q166 Chairman: The issue of proliferation
is a matter of great importance and one we should address. Given
that there are widespread nuclear programmes elsewhere in the
world, particularly in the US, India and Finland are beginning,
is it something we should worry about? Is it a marginal issue
or is it something we should be focused on as a Committee?
Sir Jonathon Porritt: Again, we
put ourselves in a difficult position here by restricting our
comments primarily to the UK scene. That allowed us to say that
the operating record of the nuclear industry in the UK is a good
one in reality, and people need to accept that. There is no reason
why it would not continue to be a good one with a new nuclear
programme. However, you could not make the same optimistic assumptions
about the operating record of nuclear power in some other countries.
Therefore, from our perspective, the risks associated with a proliferation
of nuclear technology around the world is an extremely important
issue. We did not feel we were the right organisation to look
into that.
Q167 Chairman: Thank you. I understand
that. What we are trying to do is bring all the issues together.
We have a full checklist, and your document has gone a remarkable
way in that direction and I am really very appreciative of it.
An issue that worries me is global warming, the raising of seawater
temperatures. We heard reports last summer that France had to
turn off some of its nuclear reactors because it could not cool
them and the water was too hot. Is that an issue we should be
worried about?
Sir Jonathon Porritt: I do not
know. I do not think we looked at the specific issue about whether
average water temperatures would rise so high that they could
no longer carry out the basic water-cooling function. We did not
look at it. I am sorry, Chairman, we have failed you on that score.
Q168 Mr Wright: In November last
year, you told our colleagues on the Environmental Audit Committee,
"that it would be a catastrophe and extremely foolish"
for the Government to take a position on nuclear prior to the
actual results of the Energy Review. What are your views on the
Prime Minister's recent pronouncements about the importance of
nuclear power?
Sir Jonathon Porritt: The Prime
Minister stayed just the right side of the line as regards the
position that the Government may be in. He did not say that the
Government has made a decision yet, he very carefully fell short
of doing that, and I am extremely glad that he did. I think many
people would be outraged and so cynical about a government process
if they felt that this was all just a sham. It is hugely important
for this country that this is not a sham. The way in which this
Energy Review is presented to the people of the UK and the way
in which the Government processes it to make a decision are critically
important parts of this whole very complicated and very controversial
area of public policy. In our opinion, to play fast and loose
with that would be genuinely scandalous. We are just, as it were,
hanging on by our fingernails hoping that this is still a very
genuine process. We will not be able to answer that question finally
until we see the way the evidence is presented in the Energy Review.
The issue about scrupulous balance in any recommendation brought
forward is that that balance emerges from the evidence, not from
a set of preconceptions or approaches.
Q169 Mr Wright: At the present time
you are quite happy with the due process being put through as
it should be?
Sir Jonathon Porritt: Quite happy
is a difficult phrase for me to associate myself with completely
because it might be misconstrued. We remain persuaded that the
Government is taking this process seriously and the Prime Minister's
mind is still sufficiently open to ensure that it is a genuine
process.
Q170 Chairman: Do you know what role
the Deputy Prime Minister is playing in the Energy Review now?
It is not clear to me, but maybe he is playing a role.
Sir Jonathon Porritt: It is not
clear to me either, Chairman.
Q171 Chairman: Do you share my concern
that the Government is quite thinly spread? We have an Energy
Minister, Malcolm Wicks, who I have very high regard for, who
I saw was debating Sunday trading during the Westminster Hall
debate earlier. It used to be a whole Department of Energy, but
now we have a part-time Energy Minister with just a change of
Secretary of State and that is it. It is a bit worrying, is it
not?
Sir Jonathon Porritt: I think
it would be fair to say that the resource which the DTI made available
to carry out this review has been substantial. We have not seen
any lack of official resource in terms of the analytical capabilities
and all the rest of it. I do not think we would express concern
that this is being done in a shoddy and improper way. I guess
there will always be one Energy Minister who ultimately will be
the fall guy for bringing forward the recommendations, first to
the Secretary of State and then through to the Prime Minister.
Certainly in the meetings we have had with Malcolm Wicks—I
have to be honest about this—we have found very serious
engagement, a considerable interest in the complexity of the issues,
and an open-mindedness which has persuaded us that there is still
a lot of thinking going on in the Department. We have not yet
had a chance to meet the new Secretary of State.
Q172 Chairman: That is a very constructive
note on which to end the session. Is there anything else you wish
to say, Sir Jonathon?
Sir Jonathon Porritt: No, thank
you.
Q173 Chairman: Thank you very much.
If anything strikes you after that you want to let us know about,
please drop us a note.
Sir Jonathon Porritt: I think
we made a note of three things we are going to send you, so I
will certainly make sure we do that.
Chairman: We look forward to the Microgeneration
Report. Thank you.
| 
