Q
137Mr.
Reed: I have a question for you each individually. Do you
advocate the burning of more fossil fuels before any new nuclear energy
is
used? Tom
Burke: Is it better for us to burn fossil fuels?
Provided that we can do that in a carbon-neutral way, absolutely. I
think that I said that extremely clearly; to protect the security and
prosperity of 60 million Britons, we have got to solve the coal
problem, irrespective of what we do, because of what others will almost
certainly do. Also, we are going to use coal, as has been demonstrated
by the Kingsnorth application. Therefore, we need to show that we will
walk our talk on climate change. We will need to move very rapidly to
the mobility for ourselves and for everybody else to use coal in a
carbon-neutral way. I think that that is technologically possible; I
also think that it will be very expensive. There are some technological
problems and other problems to solve, but they are all inside the
bounds of our technical and economic competence to solve. I think that
we should just get on with
that. I am not
advocating using more energy of any kind. As others have said—I
think most people would agree—improving energy efficiency is by
far and away the fastest and cheapest way to guarantee both energy and
climate security. So I was slightly trapped by the word that you were
using there, “advocating”. I do not want to
“advocate” more use of energy per se, but I want to
advocate that we solve the coal problem first.
I am also somewhat sceptical of
a rather interesting reversal, where we have an environmentalist
arguing for the prioritisation and the business world arguing for
“let’s do a bit of everything”. We usually get
accused of wanting to do everything and not being willing to
prioritise. I suspect that the idea that we can do a bit of everything
will lead us into a situation where we do not get very much of anything
done.
Benet
Northcote: You asked your question in a provocative
way. The answer, of course, is that we will be burning fossil fuels, as
Tom quite rightly says, and the question is this: what is the right way
to take us to the 80 per cent. emission cuts that we need by 2050? Our
point is that nuclear is not the right way and that there are better
ways to do that. So, you put your question in a particular way and I
think that that is not particularly constructive or realistic
within the framework of how you discuss energy policy going
forward.
Q
138Mr.
Reed: I do not think that there is any realism with that
confrontation about it; it is a yes or a
no. Benet
Northcote:
Yes.
Q
139Dr.
Iddon: You are supposed to stick up for sustainability;
green organisations stand up for sustainability. I put it to you that
by burning fossil fuels, particularly coal and oil, we are destroying
future chemical sources for future generations. So how can you advocate
burning coal and
oil? Tom
Burke: I do not think that we were. That was why we
objected to, and had some difficulty with, the term
“advocating”. We were not advocating burning oil. I am
completely in favour of ensuring as long an availability of fossil
fuels to future generations as is possible.
[Interruption.] If you will forgive me, my
point is that I do not think that nuclear can help you to get off that
hook, and I laid out some of the reasons why I think that. That is all.
It is not a question of saying, “I want people to use up all the
fossil fuels
instead”.
The
Chairman: I need to keep order here, because I get the
sense that everyone wants to get stuck into our witnesses. I think that
Mr. Reed wants to finish off his
point.
Q
140Mr.
Reed: Your answer, Benet—yes or
no? Benet
Northcote: I disagree with the premise of the
question.
Robin
Webster: I am not giving you a yes or no either. I do
not think that it is an either/or proposition.
Russell
Marsh: I do not agree with the proposition, but if I
was pushed, I would have to agree with Tom that I would rather see CCS
than nuclear. So I would advocate CCS more than
nuclear.
Q
141Mr.
Reed: On the crowding-out theory, the renewables versus
nuclear dichotomy, which of course should not be a dichotomy—it
is counterintuitive—the figures for France, Spain, Italy and
Finland, all of them nuclear countries, would suggest that this theory
is nonsense. France has 12 per cent. renewables; Spain 14 per cent.;
Italy approximately 15 per cent., and Finland 25 per cent. How do you
respond? Benet
Northcote: There are large amounts of hydro in all
those countries.
Q
142Mr.
Reed: Is hydro not a renewable?
Tom
Burke: In the past, that is right; they have
sustained that. However, we are not talking about the past. We are
talking about what will happen in the future. The point that I did not
make before about crowding out is this; what is the view that investors
take? If the view that investors take is that the Government will
support a nuclear programme to the point where they might even change
their mind about whether to subsidise it—and Mr. de
Rivas and others made it quite clear that they think it extremely
unlikely that there will be nuclear build unless there is some sort of
revenue support— and if investors think that that is where it is
going to go, of course they will think that there is less room for
them, so they will be less willing to take the risk. That is perfectly
normal. That is my
sense of what the crowding-out argument is about—what view will
investors take of the political probabilities? As we have seen over the
last few months, in a somewhat disturbing way, investors do not always
get it right; they, too, make mistakes. What all the energy industry is
looking for—it is true of the electricity utilities and of the
renewables investors; it is true of pretty well everybody—is a
sense of the clear political direction and what the Government are
really going to drive for. This debate is about whether nuclear is the
right priority.
Q
143Anne
Main: I have different questions, and I shall put them to
different people. From Greenpeace, I would like further expansion of
your concerns about the lack of provision for marine technology in the
Bill.
I want to ask Friends of the Earth about their social justice policy
engagement with people, and whether you are concerned about the lack of
reference to smart metering in the Bill, which may help to reduce
energy consumption and help with fuel poverty, which affects many
vulnerable communities.
I throw the
next question open to anyone. I would like a brief answer, as my
colleagues want to speak. You may have heard Dr. Roxburgh say earlier
that spent nuclear fuel may be a valuable national resource in future.
Please discuss. Do you agree or
not? Benet
Northcote: On marine renewables, the answer is that
we have the best wind and tidal resources in the whole of Europe, yet
we have the lowest renewable energy of pretty much anyone in Europe. We
have been hugely supportive of the need to exploit marine and tidal
resources, and very little has been done to date on that. That is why
we need to have mechanisms that incentivise the R and D, and growth in
these areas. The figures quoted earlier were essentially due to hydro
power, which was giving a lot of countries a boost in their
renewables.
Q
144Anne
Main: Do you feel that that is a missed trick in the
Bill? Benet
Northcote: Absolutely, in this country. I think it is
something that we need to exploit far more in all ways. I do not think
it is as simple as reaching for the big ticket items and saying,
“Here’s the Severn barrage” as an answer, and that
does it. It is about looking at how to exploit the whole of tidal and
marine
resources. Robin
Webster: I had hoped just to say yes. Generally, when
something gets thrown at us as environmentalists, given the kind of
work that we do, it is that we advocate technologies that might raise
fuel prices, and that would have an impact on those that find it more
difficult to afford them. That is something that has to be considered
in the development of the Bill. For example, we advocate the use of a
feed-in tariff for renewable energy development, something that has
been incredibly successful in other European countries, as it is a way
in which renewable energy can be developed on a community level and on
an individual level very successfully.
However, in developing such a
mechanism, you have think what kind of impact it will have on
electricity prices and what impact it will have on the fuel poor. I
think that that is such a key point that mechanisms could be introduced
to find ways in which the fuel poor have get-out clauses on rises in
electricity prices. Feed-in tariffs, for example, can be brought in for
technologies on a more social housing level, so there are ways in which
the Bill should consider the impact on the fuel poor, and that is
something that needs to be considered very carefully.
Russell
Marsh: Perhaps I can pick on the point about smart
metering. As Robin said, the short answer is yes. It is clear that the
debate about smart metering has been around for years. It is not
necessarily a technology problem; it is more how to get the technology
out there. It is clear that the current framework is not going to
deliver a roll-out of smart meters to every house in the country. We
need to see the Government taking a lead and mandating it to happen,
and the Energy Bill is an opportunity to start laying down a timetable
to get smart meters out as widely as we can and as quickly as we
can.
Tom
Burke: To answer your last question about future
assets, there are several hundred tonnes of separated plutonium and
uranium sitting around at Sellafield at the moment. They are a bit of a
problem for the people running the site. They are said to have some
sort of notional asset value, but they are actually a liability. I do
not see anything—not even the construction of more nuclear
reactors—altering the situation. It is a theoretical
possibility, but it remains pretty speculative as an asset and I would
be hard pressed to put a value on
it.
The
Chairman: I was going to call Mr. Albert Owen,
but Mr. Brian Binley will explode if he is not allowed to
speak on that
point.
Q
145Mr.
Binley: I was jumping up and down, but I want to have a
real feel for your long-term thinking. Let me quote Professor
Christopher Llewellyn-Smith, who is reckoned to be one of the
leading—perhaps the leading—atomic energy and atomic
power experts in this country. He told the Department of Business,
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform that if we had the investment, he
could get “a viable nuclear fusion station working in 35 to 45
years.” Tom
Burke: Yes, and people were making
exactly that promise about 30 or 40 years ago. Funnily enough, the
person who punctured that prospect was Mrs. Thatcher. She
asked a very important question about whether the research was based on
science or technology. The answer came back pretty
emphatically—
Mr.
Binley: Forgive me, he said it six months ago, so
we do not need to go back as far as Mrs.
Thatcher. Tom
Burke: His predecessors made that point 30 years
ago.
Q
146Mr.
Binley: Are you totally rejecting his authority and
credibility? Tom
Burke:
Yes.
Q
147Mr.
Binley: Do you see no evolution in those
terms? Tom
Burke:
No.
Mr.
Binley: That is a very closed
mind. Tom
Burke: It is not a closed mind. It is somebody who
has actually looked at the evidence. The European Parliament did an
exemplary study on that some 10 years
ago.
John
Robertson: We ask the questions and you answer
them.
Q
148Mr.
Binley: Thank you, John. I am most grateful to
you. Let
me now go on. I happen to agree with you on clean coal. However, you
are making a leap of faith on clean coal, which you reject with regard
to nuclear fusion. Explain that to us.
Tom
Burke: I would not use the phrase clean coal. What I
am saying about carbon capture and storage is that it is an imperative.
In other words, if we do not find a way to make that work, it is not
possible to
maintain a safe climate for the people of Britain and the rest of the
world. I am saying that we have no choice. That is what the science is
telling us. What I am saying about fusion is that it is an option that
might be worth considering at a lower rate. We are spending a lot more
on fusion than we are on CCS. I do not mind us looking at that option
and keeping going on it, but I do not think that it has anything
relevant to do with maintaining the future prosperity and security of
the people of this country.
Q
149Albert
Owen: I want to push you a little on your pragmatic
approach to nuclear, which you say is not based on dogma. You say that
it is a distraction, which is a very interesting analogy. Other
countries are looking to extend their current nuclear fleet. One such
country is Canada, which already has renewables, and hydro power in
particular. It does not feel that they are a distraction.
You also mentioned China. I
would not think that they are talking about
distraction. What they are talking about is getting a balanced energy
policy and achieving economic growth. We have not heard anything about
economic growth in your presentation. We have heard about sustained
growth and low carbon. Do not every Government in the world have that
responsibility? I know that we can talk about the academic reasons why
we need different things but, at the end of the day, Governments have
to make decisions and these Governments are making decisions. Canada,
which is extending its nuclear fleet, has a renewable
history. Friends of
the Earth talked about iconic measures such as the barrage in the
Severn. In Wales, the distraction is wind farms. Many people ask me why
barrages are talked about so much so, Friends of the Earth, do you
support the barrage in principle? Also, the two gentlemen who raised
the issue about the distraction initially were able to say,
“Isn’t economic growth important and isn’t a
balanced base load important in
that?” Tom
Burke: The issue of ensuring Britain’s energy
security is as important as securing its climate security. I do not
think that you can trade off between the two; you have to do both
together. My underlying point, which will take rather longer than we
have to explain it in detail—though I have done so to a Select
Committee not long ago—is that the contribution that nuclear can
make even to our energy security is very small. That is because our
primary energy security problems are oil, which nuclear cannot help
with, gas, of which there is only a tiny
proportion—
| 
