|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Graham Stringer: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what recent estimate he has made of the annual requirement for biomass for burning in (a) power stations and (b) for renewable heat; and what proportion of that requirement (i) is currently imported and (ii) will be imported in each of the next five years. 
Mr. Kidney [holding answer 3 March 2010]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), Official Report, 23 February 2010, column 466W which gave estimates for the amount of biomass needed for new power stations. For existing heat and power installations, the Department's Digest of UK Energy Statistics shows that in 2008 3.23 million tonnes (oil equivalent) of biomass were used to generate electricity and 0.74 million tonnes (oil equivalent) of biomass were used to generate heat. Assuming an average energy value of 18 gigajoules per tonne of biomass, this gives a total of 7.5 million tonnes of biomass for electricity generation and 1.7 million tonnes of biomass for heat generation.
Full records are not currently available for the country of origin of biomass used in the UK. Robust biomass supply chains are only now becoming established across the UK and biomass fuels are increasingly traded as a global commodity. The share of imports will depend on numerous factors, including progress with developing indigenous supply chains for waste wood, virgin material and energy crops. Heat-only installations are more likely to use UK sourced feedstocks.
The European Commission's recently published recommendations for sustainability criteria for solid biomass include a recommendation to monitor the origin of feedstocks. DECC will make an announcement later this month, setting out what actions the Government can now take to introduce sustainability standards for biomass used for heat and electricity in the UK. We already require sustainability reporting under the renewables obligation. This requirement was introduced in April 2009 and the first reporting cycle is due later this year. The sustainability report will include data on the type and origin of biomass used for electricity generation.
Charles Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change with reference to paragraph 7.21, page 123, of the pre-Budget report, Cm 7747, when he plans to publish decarbonisation pathways to 2050. 
Martin Horwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what (a) suppliers and (b) brands of (i) paper and (ii) paper products his Department uses; and what his Department's policy is on the procurement of those materials. 
(b) The most common paper brand used is Evolve 100 per cent. recycled paper. Other brands sourced have predominantly been the suppliers' own brands. For other paper products the Department uses appropriate brands that are available from the preferred suppliers catalogues. It is not possible to identify all of these without incurring undue cost.
The Department's policy is to source paper that is 100 per cent. recycled wherever possible and that the usage of paper is kept to a minimum. All printers and photocopiers are set to double sided printing as the standard default and printing of e-mails is discouraged.
Charles Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many homes had received assistance under the Community Energy Saving Programme on the latest date for which figures are available. 
Joan Ruddock: The Community Energy Saving Programme (CESP) went live on 1 September 2009. There are currently six CESP schemes that have commenced-one in Walsall, one in Bristol and four in Birmingham. Together these schemes will deliver energy efficiency benefits to around 900 households.
Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what estimate his Department has made of the (a) quantity, (b) duration of storage and (c) toxicity of the hazardous material to be kept on the 11 nuclear power sites assessed in the consultation on the Draft National Policy Statements for Energy Infrastructure. 
Mr. Kidney: As part of the Draft Nuclear National Policy Statement (NPS) an appraisal of sustainability was carried out. The Main Appraisal of Sustainability Report(1) (Chapter 6) and Annex K(2) present the findings for the arrangements for managing radioactive and hazardous wastes arising from the Nuclear NPS.
The main hazardous material that is expected to be stored at new nuclear power stations will be spent fuel. It is the operator's responsibility to provide storage facilities for the waste produced. Storage facilities will have to satisfy the requirements of the independent safety, security and environmental regulators. The quantity of spent fuel produced by a single new nuclear power station depends on a number of factors, including the capacity of the plant, its operational lifetime and various other operational considerations.
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) has estimated that an AP-1000 reactor operating for 60 years would give rise to an estimated 2,560 spent fuel assemblies, equivalent to 640 disposal canisters. And that a UK EPR reactor operating for 60 years would give rise to an estimated 3,600 spent fuel assemblies, equivalent to 900 disposal canisters.
It is possible that interim storage facilities for spent fuel could be required for around 160 years (estimated 60 years station operating life, 100 years cooling period prior to disposal). However, the estimate of up to 100 years cooling is based on a set of conservative assumptions and there are a number of factors that may shorten the actual storage period that is likely to be required.
The actual cooling time required will depend in practice upon the level of burn-up achieved, designs of the disposal package, the disposal concept and design and its geological setting, which will all offer scope for optimisation and consequent shortening of the required storage time.
The activity and dose rate of spent fuel from new reactors are presented in the NDA's Disposability Assessment Reports for the AP-1000(4) and UK EPR(5) reactors. The NDA concluded in its assessments that the radionuclide characteristics of spent fuel from the AP-1000 and UK EPR reactors are consistent with those from Sizewell B Pressurised Water Reactor.
The volume of packaged ILW (both operational and decommissioning) produced by a UK EPR operating for 60 years is estimated to be in the range 2,097-3,65lm(3 )dependent upon the packaging system used. For an AP-1000 operating for 60 years, the volume of packaged ILW produced is estimated to be around 3,450m(3).
The Government expects that ILW will be safely and securely stored on site as it is for current UK nuclear power stations. The ILW will be disposed of when a geological disposal facility is available to accept this waste.
The NDA has assessed the activity and dose rate from ILW and reported that the principal radionuclides present in the wastes are similar to those present in the wastes arising from Sizewell B Pressurised Water Reactor.
Long-term storage on site of LLW and non-radioactive hazardous wastes is not expected to take place. Regulators discourage accumulation of waste at sites of origin if a disposal route is available. These wastes are expected to be disposed of promptly, after it has been generated, through a suitable disposal route.
(1) DECC. "Appraisal of Sustainability of the draft Nuclear National Policy Statement: Main Report." November 2009:
(2) DECC. "Appraisal of Sustainability: Radioactive and Hazardous Waste. November 2009."
(3) Burn-up is a measure of the amount of energy extracted for a given mass of uranium. Units are GWd/tU (gigawatt days per tonne uranium).
(4) NDA. "Geological Disposal Generic Design Assessment: Summary of Disposability Assessment for Wastes and Spent Fuel arising from Operation of the Westinghouse AP1000." October 2009.
(5) NDA. "Geological Disposal Generic Design Assessment: Summary of Disposability Assessment for Wastes and Spent Fuel arising from Operation of the UK EPR." October 2009.
Martin Horwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how much his Department spent promoting the development and deployment of (a) low carbon and (b) energy efficiency technology in 2008-09; how much such funding has been allocated to those technologies in each of the next three years; what assessment he has made of the contribution to the environmental technology economy made by projects in each area funded by his Department; and what mechanisms are in place to monitor the level of that contribution. 
Joan Ruddock: The principal funding mechanism for demonstrating low carbon and energy efficiency technologies in 2008-09 was the Environmental Transformation Fund (ETF). In 2008-09 it spent £92 million. Spending figures for 2009-10 will be finalised after the end of the financial year. Final allocations for 2010-11 have not been agreed. In addition to the ETF, in Budget 2009, we announced up to £90 million for FEED studies in support of the first CCS demonstration competition, and a further £45 million for microgeneration. Budget 2009 also announced £155 million for low carbon technologies in 2009-10 and 2010-11. A number of other DECC-funded schemes, such as funding for interest-free energy efficiency loans for small and medium enterprises, also support deployment and demonstration of low carbon technologies.
No formal assessment has been made of the contribution to the environmental technology economy consequent on this funding. Economic impact was one of the considerations for allocation of the low carbon investment funding announced in 2009. It is our intention to evaluate programmes operated under the ETF and other technology support.
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many Warm Front assessors have been contracted to the Warm Front scheme; how many assessments each assessor carried out on average in the latest period for which figures are available; and how many assessors his Department expects to remain under contract from 1 May 2010. 
185,103 surveys were completed between April 2009 and January 2010. The number of assessors contracted to the scheme has fluctuated over this period; it is not therefore possible to provide an accurate figure for the number of assessments each assessor has carried out over the period.
Eaga, the Warm Front scheme manager, is currently considering scheme activity for 2010-11. As part of this, eaga will consider the anticipated level of assessments to be carried out, which in turn will determine the number of assessors required for the year.
Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what consideration is given to the average length of lorry journey in transporting wood from the processing plant to the international port in assessing the carbon footprint of biomass imports. 
However, the Environment Agency are developing a tool to enable power generators to determine the carbon emissions associated with their use of biomass. This tool will allow users to model Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions according to feedstock type, agriculture practices and transport mode.
The European Commission's recently published report for sustainability criteria for solid biomass includes a recommendation to monitor the origin of feedstocks. DECC will make a statement later this month, setting out what actions the Government can now take to introduce sustainability standards for biomass used for heat and electricity in the UK. We already require sustainability reporting under the Renewables Obligation. This requirement was introduced in April 2009 and the first reporting cycle is due later this year. The sustainability report will include the available data on the type and country of origin of the biomass used for electricity generation.
Sir Gerald Kaufman: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change when he plans to reply to the letter of 7 January 2010 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton on Ms K Morrison. 
Mr. Paul Goodman: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills what estimate he has made of the number of places available for the study of palaeography at universities. 
Mr. Philip Hammond: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills how many employees in (a) his Department and (b) each of its agencies are in transition prior to being managed out; how long on average the transition window between notification and exit has been in (i) his Department and its predecessors and (ii) each of its agencies in each of the last five years; what estimate he has made of the salary costs of staff in transition in each such year; and what proportion of employees in transition were classed as being so for more than six months in each year. 
Mr. McFadden: The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) was created in June 2009 from the former Department for Innovation for Universities and Skills (DIUS) and former Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR). DIUS was created in 2007 from the former DTI and the Department for Education and Skills.
Between July 2004 and the end of 2006, the Department of Trade and Industry had 488 people in transition; the average transition for these people was approximately three months; no estimate was made of the salary costs of these staff during this period and approximately 17 per cent. of employees in transition were classed as being surplus for more than six months.
During 2007, DI/BERR had 491 people in transition; the average transition was seven weeks; no estimate was made of the salary costs of these staff during this period and approximately 5 per cent. of those in transition were classed as being surplus for more than six months. DIUS had nobody who was classed as surplus.
During 2009 the Department (DIUS and BERR and then BIS) had 11 people in transition; the average transition was 10 weeks; no estimate was made of the salary costs of these staff during this period and approximately 35 per cent. of those in transition were classed as being surplus for more than six months.
I have approached the chief executives of the Insolvency Service, Companies House, the National Measurement Office and the Intellectual Property Office and they will respond to the hon. Member directly.
The Minister of State, for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) has asked me to reply to your question regarding how many employees in (a) his Department and (b) each of its agencies are in transition prior to being managed out; how long on average the transition window between notification and exit has been in (i) his Department and its predecessors and (ii) each of its agencies in each of the last five years; what estimate he has made of the salary costs of staff in transition in each such year; and what proportion of employees in transition were classed as being so for more than six months in each year.
The Insolvency Service has not had any staff in transition within the last five years prior to being managed out, therefore no estimation of salary costs was necessary.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|