Examination of Witnesses (Questions 220
- 239)
WEDNESDAY 13 JANUARY 2010 (afternoon)
MR SIMON
BULLOCK, MR
BEN AYLIFFE,
MS JEAN
MCSORLEY,
MR KEITH
ALLOTT AND
PROFESSOR ANDREW
BLOWERS
Q220 Mr Anderson:
I have read the documentation and the figures and I understand
where you are coming from, but why do you think the draft energy
NPS fails to justify the need for new conventional generating
capacity?
Mr Bullock: I am going to just
look at the Government's argument here. The Government is arguing
that there is a need and it says there is a significant need for
all types of electricity generation. It bases that one some figures
in the NPS. This is in our written evidence, but I will try and
explain our thinking on it. The Government says that by 2020 we
will need 43 gigawatts of new generating capacity. That takes
into account the planned closures as well, the coal fired stations
closing in the middle of this decade. The Government says that
of that 43, 26 of it will be renewables and 17 will be non-renewables.
It also says that 20 gigawatts of this 43 is underway, already
consented to, being built or already built, and there is a parliamentary
question answered by the Government last week which said that
of that 20, 14 gigawatts is non-renewable already. So of the 17
gigawatts that the Government is saying it needs from non-renewable
sources, the Government is also saying that 14 of that has already
been built. On top of that there is a large number of applications
in the existing planning system which are not counted in those
figures but which will get dealt with before the IPC makes its
decisions and in those applications outstanding there is at least
7 gigawatts of new gas in there. So assuming that they will go
through—and it is pretty likely they will get through—that
will mean that 21 gigawatts of non-renewable capacity to 2020
is already predicted to be being built and the Government itself
is saying, "We only need 17 gigawatts of new non-renewable
capacity." I am sorry to throw lots of figures at you, but
to our mind our analysis of that is that the Government has set
out a case for a significant need for all types but its own figures
show that it is already meeting that need for non-renewable types.
So we feel that the Government has not made a case for a significant
need for all types and that case needs robust scrutiny by yourselves
and other people to come to some conclusion about whether or not
that is genuinely viable, because it seems that it is such an
important central plank of their analysis that we need all types
but their figures do not back that up.
Mr Allott: I agree with that and
I think in the assessment of types the different narratives get
thrown together, about the need for lots of new base load capacity
or the need for lots of new capacity to generate peak load in
the sense that we need to have lots and lots of gigawatts of everything
without then differentiation in the NPS to even guide that as
to what type of capacity even on the Government's figures we should
be looking for. The assessment is by other people. A good report
was done by Pöyry last year, pre-recession, and before several
new gas stations being consented—that was conducted by Greenpeace,
WWF and RSPB—showed that actually the renewable energy targets
and energy efficiency targets would actually keep the lights on
until the mid 2020s. Other reports by the National Grid and Pöyry
also confirmed that. Likewise, the concerns about the variability
of wind where there are several studies showing that it is much
more manageable than many people like to say. Therefore, the need
for any new occasional stand-by capacity is also much less than
is currently claimed, but these figures are often lumped together
to create a very scary sounding "big new gigawatts"
and without any definition of what that means. We do not think
that is very helpful, the way that has been put in the NPS, in
terms of the thinking and the framing because it does read as
though the IPC could read this and say that any gigawatt that
comes along is fine, and that is not actually what we need to
see for a new energy system.
Q221 Mr Anderson:
Is one of the concerns from the Government that the renewable
industry may not deliver the difference in the figures you went
through, and if they can deliver it would only be at considerably
higher cost than what the alternatives would be?
Mr Bullock: It could be, but the
NPS is saying, the Government is saying, "This is what we
anticipate. This is what we are planning to do," and I would
imagine that the Government's response to concerns—and there
are concerns—that it would not necessarily happen is that
we must strengthen policy.
Mr Allott: I would remind people
that it is also a legally binding target that we signed up to
only just over a year ago, so I would hope that we do really try
and meet it.
Q222 Mr Anderson:
What is legally binding?
Mr Allott: The renewables target.
Mr Bullock: Just one other thing
to quickly mention about the figures as well is that I gave figures
for 2020 and people will rightly make the argument about, "Hang
on, we need a lot more capacity beyond 2020, new stock by say
2025 and 2030. Again, it is in our written evidence but the same
analysis of the Government's figures holds for 2025 as well.
Q223 Mr Anderson:
Is there not a concern, because we are facing at the moment a
potential shortage in security of supply? In effect it is a belt
and braces job. Why not build what might end up being extra capacity
but just to make sure that it is there, which could include, as
the Government says, all types, whether it was more nuclear, whether
it was proven, say CCS coal power stations?
Mr Allott: I think the reality
is that a lot of technologies take a long time to build. Regardless
of what you think about nuclear, we do not think it is necessary
or needed, but you certainly would not be building it as part
of the response to a perceived near-term security of supply problem,
even the most optimistic assessments, as long as you get it commissioned—
Q224 Mr Anderson:
But you would know it would work in terms of generating electricity?
There is no argument about that, is there?
Mr Ayliffe: Well, you say that,
but the new designs have not passed all of the regulatory assessments
yet, and this is a technology they are suggesting we build here
that has never been built anywhere in the world. There is an assumption
that it will work, but that is not backed up by where it is through
the design assessment process or licensing.
Mr Allott: We have seen some very
good news just last week about offshore wind, going to 40 gigawatts
of offshore wind. We think that is a very good development that
needs to be built on and driven forward. The alternative is building
lots of coal and gas and then hoping that it will be shut down
if it is not necessary. I suspect that the investors in that might
have a different view. The industry is actually going for gas
probably more than I think any of us would like at the moment,
but to be honest if it is a choice between gas and coal we do
not like the use of gas and we think it is very wasteful to do
it in a way which does not maximise the heat recovery. On pure
lock in grounds—and this is not in any way to endorse new
gas, but a new gas station will last little more than half the
length of a coal station in terms of its design lifetime and the
emissions are half as high per year, so in terms of the lock-in
problem there is serious concern and there are concerns about
whether CCS should be required for gas. We believe it should and
that gas CSS should be taken seriously as the reality for planning,
but the real problem is the lock-in for coal. We do not think
it is necessary if we really go seriously for energy efficiency
and demand management, which are always the priorities and the
smartest thing to do for your economy, and then go for renewables
where the potential for new jobs and exports is greatest.
Q225 Chairman:
Is there not, though, a problem in terms of developing documents,
which will certainly lock policy in over a five year period, that
because things are changing so rapidly it is difficult, for example,
to adequately predict demand in, say, ten years' time, bearing
in mind what is happening in terms of the use of electric vehicles,
changes in energy efficiency, and that if you specified the mix
and you attempted to specify demand that actually you may get
it very wrong and you would have, in so doing, locked in a particular
path of energy policy which you might subsequently regret?
Mr Allott: I do not think the
NPS or anybody should be specifying a particular shining path
where if you fall off you are in trouble, but this is all about
having a narrative which has got some flexibility within it, but
not complete flexibility. We are meant to be trying to manage
constraints and at the moment the approach is almost, "Well,
anything goes," and that is possibly the worst of all worlds.
I think there is a middle way which manages to allow for some
flexibility, but looking ahead and planning and modelling future
demand is in some ways easier than modelling demand in the next
week or next month. This is where you have got immediate short-term
variability. If we were able to look at this and look at technological
plans and effective policies and measures, there are variables.
For instance, the take-up of electric vehicles, which we think
are very, very promising, but actually if you do this in a particular
way the overall impact on total demand is much less than you might
think because of the type of charging infrastructure and technology
you use when you charge from the grid means that you can actually
absorb some spare capacity and some spare power on the grid at
times of low demand elsewhere in the economy. So all of these
things can be managed and thought through. I agree, you need to
have some margins for error, clearly, in this and some flexibility,
but that does not mean that it should be a free for all.
Q226 Chairman:
Is it not a logical consequence of an analysis on need which indicates
that non-renewables that are already in the pipeline or have been
built are up or around what might be regarded as non-renewables
in the future energy mix that an NPS document should therefore
simply say, "No more renewables should be built"? Is
that what you appear to be saying?
Mr Bullock: I think what we are
saying is that the Government's argument for need seems to be
at variance with its figures, so we would like to see them set
out a more comprehensive argument about what the genuine need
is for non-renewables. It could well be that that is the case.
At the moment it is so bizarre to us that there is such a strong
assertion and strong need but that is not apparently backed up
by the figures that we have here. Is something awry here? What
is going on? So it is more that this is the consultation, scrutiny
period for the NPS. If that case is valid, then it requires a
lot greater depth than it has at the moment.
Q227 Chairman:
I think what I am asking you is what is the consequence of your
observation that this is rather bizarre, in your view?
Mr Bullock: The consequence is
that there is no more need beyond what is already consented and,
let us be frank, there is an awful lot that has been consented.
The National Grid is saying that 15 gigawatts of new gas is coming
on line between now and 2015. That is a lot. It is not to say
that we are stopping building stuff. This is stuff that is already
planned to come on stream in the next three or four years. I think
the Government's own figures are saying that you only need to
build renewables to meet its own need projections.
Q228 Sir Robert Smith:
I just ought to declare an interest as Vice-President of Energy
Action Scotland, the fuel poverty campaigning and energy conservation
charity. The Government, in preparing these figures, do you think
they have been pessimistic, optimistic, or have got it about right
on demand management and efficiency?
Mr Allott: I will have a bit of
a go on that. I think that they may have been realistic on the
assumption of carrying on business as usual policy measures, but
they have not looked at the alternatives that they could apply
if they took a much more ambitious approach on energy efficiency.
The Government has got some good policies on energy efficiency
but it has not really looked at the impact of taking a more aggressive
approach, not just on energy efficiency but on actual demand management—demand
reduction but also demand management at peak times and all the
creative options that could be brought into that, either technological
or behavioural or incentives to companies through different contract
arrangements. It has big consequences on what you then need to
deal with on those occasional times when there may be a big spike
on the system at a time of low renewables output. There are much
more creative ways of doing this than just thinking about the
supply side the whole time and that is one concern.
Chairman: Thank you. I would like to
move us now to the whole question of nuclear power, nuclear waste,
particularly in the nuclear document and also in the documents
in general. I do, however, anticipate that we will have a vote
very shortly on a particular debate this afternoon and I would
suggest at that point we will take a fifteen minute break, assuming
there is one vote, and return to discuss this issue, but we could
make a start.
Q229 John Robertson:
Chairman, after what I have heard from the Panel, I think I have
got a general question which needs to be answered before we go
into the nuclear debate, and that is basically that from what
I am hearing you do not like nuclear at any cost, you would find
an excuse not to have it under any circumstances whatsoever? I
noticed that from the first point when we were talking about NPSs
in general, the anti-nuclear bit came out right away and as we
developed the argument, so is there any point really in going
into all these questions about nuclear when you are actually going
to say "No" to everything? You can put up an excuse
for why you do not like it—and I have heard them all before—but
we are looking for something a bit more tenable about where things
are happening in reality because at the end of the day we have
to supply the needs of the country because five coal power stations
are going to close by 2015. There is a couple of nuclear power
stations that are going to close after that. We have to supply
that need and with the best will in the world renewables are not
reliable enough to meet our total needs. Now, if you do not like
nuclear, just tell us that you do not like nuclear and I will
save all the questions for after the vote and we can go on to
something else.
Mr Ayliffe: Well, thanks for that.
Obviously there are two sides to every story and of course I think
the danger for the Committee in overseeing the usefulness of certainly
the nuclear NPS is that there is a lot in there on the issues
of spent fuel management which we at Greenpeace have a certain
opinion on, nuclear. That is fine. Other people may agree or disagree
with that. There are certain things in the NPS around issues of
spent fuel management. We think it is unnecessary. We do not think
it will do what we need to do in terms of decarbonising our economy
and there are still intractable issues around nuclear waste. What
is in the NPS certainly with regard to nuclear waste is, I do
not think, good enough for the IPC to make considered opinions
on whether or not you could actually store, say, nuclear waste
safely. It seems that what the IPC is going to have to do, as
it is currently formatted, is to take promises from the Government
and the nuclear industry, which has a history of sort of dishonesty,
that they will manage to sort this stuff out and that is a big
risk to take.
Chairman: Indeed we do have a division
and could I therefore suspend this hearing for fifteen minutes,
assuming there is one vote, and look forward to as many Members
as possible returning after that.
The Committee suspended from 4.00 pm to
4.16 pm for a division in the House.
Q230 Chairman:
We will continue.
Mr Ayliffe: Greenpeace
certainly will not apologise for having a view on nuclear, but
I genuinely think that there are issues in the NPS as it stands
currently, certainly around dealing with spent fuel from possible
new reactors, which are so vague that I cannot really see how
an IPC would be expected to really be able to properly sign off
on, say, a reactor design.
Q231 John Robertson:
Can we maybe split the waste questions—I have not got them,
somebody else has got the waste ones, so could you just stick
to the NPSs for nuclear itself at the moment. I hear what you
are saying and we will agree to disagree on what is right and
what is wrong with regard to energy. While I accept what you have
been saying—and there is some really interesting stuff in
what you have given us and it will be very useful—at the
end of the day we are going to go down this road, all nuclear,
so we obviously want to make sure that everything is done correctly.
We want to make sure that all the "i"s are dotted and
the "t"s are crossed and the NPSs, from what I gather
from most people we have heard today, are deficient in certain
areas. Okay, we want to make them better and our report wants
to be on the lines of we want to help the Government make it better
and we see people like yourselves as being part of that process.
So how do we make the NPSs better, fit for purpose, even if it
is something you do not like?
Ms McSorley: We do not accept
that nuclear will happen.
Q232 John Robertson:
We will agree to disagree on that one, okay?
Ms McSorley: Well, no, it is quite
important because one of the areas we had not raised earlier is
that there are the issues of waste, but there are issues still
about the potential for accidents from these plants, which is
specific not just to local siting issues but to national issues.
There are areas around the whole issue of terrorism and the sites.
Q233 John Robertson:
How many people have been killed in nuclear power stations in
the UK?
Ms McSorley: You mean as a result
of accidents? We do not know exactly—
Q234 John Robertson:
How many people have been killed as a result of accidents in the
UK?
Ms McSorley: We know that several
compensation cases have been paid off in the nuclear industry,
but the fact is that it is not so much—
Q235 John Robertson:
How does that relate to the coal industry or even the renewables
industry?
Ms McSorley: Or the uranium mining
industry. We can certainly supply figures on this, but the stark
fact is that there is no guarantee of no accident. They present
a terrorist risk, or terrorist targets rather.
Q236 John Robertson:
Well, so does this place, but we will just have to live with it.
Ms McSorley: On top of that and
a key factor to remember is that there is no guarantee that these
plants are going to be signed off on. There is an assumption being
made in the NPSs that is not discussed because it is not joined
up with other nuclear regulatory processes, but the generic design
assessment process, which is not legally binding, will get a tick
in June 2011 and beyond that licensing of a reactor which includes
everything to do with the reactor itself, spent fuel, conditioning,
all the parts of the site, will get a tick and that that will
happen in time to deliver and there will be no problems. Well,
we know from current experience in Finland that there have been
problems with new build over there. We know that there are major
outstanding issues from our own nuclear regulatory bodies about
signing off on new build, so on this assumption of, "Oh,
well, it will go ahead, so let's say it's going to go ahead and
let's just try and tweak the NPSs to try and make it look better
rather than challenge some of this fundamental assumptions,"
just for the record, we are challenging the fundamental assumption
and then we can go to the other questions.
Q237 John Robertson:
Okay. Well, the Finland thing, there was a concrete problem I
know about and these problems will be ironed out on that type
of reactor. The other reactor will be built in China before we
even get to the stage of building, so it could be that on all
these kinds of problems you are talking about there will be ticks
in all the boxes and there will be a working model for us to see
before there is one even started in this country. I understand
where you are coming from, but I just find your negativeness,
in a sense your hatred of nuclear, really does not help take the
discussion any further forward.
Ms McSorley: Just on the negative
aspect, I think one thing is that the NGOs are incredibly positive
about securing supply of power in this country and we have come,
with various governments over the years, to be very positive about
the ways forward on that. It is not being negative about nuclear
power, it is being realistic about it and this assumption—
Q238 John Robertson:
It is well beyond negative, it is a hatred. It is dislike at all
costs.
Ms McSorley: Well, obviously that
is a view which you have, but it is about being realistic about
whether all of these issues can be signed off on time, but most
importantly what issues the NPS do not look at, the regulatory
issues, and it is one of the questions in front of us. There is
the issue of justification, which has not yet been signed off
on as a regulatory process, which the Government has to decide
on. There are the NPSs, there is the generic design assessment
process, licensing, fixed unit price. Ben mentioned these earlier.
All of these have to be wound up and they all have to be signed
off on for these reactors to go ahead, but the problem is that
really some of them might be signed off on, allowing an application
to go ahead and construction to start, and then you might find
that other countries are not ticking off all the boxes, that you
do not have the operational experience that you want. I remember
some years ago speaking to the new installations inspectorate.
One of their large concerns was that these reactor designs would
come forward without there being any operational experience overseas
for specifically these reactor designs for them to look at, in
the same way that there is no repository for spent nuclear fuel
anywhere in the world for us to say, "There is operational
experience on this. We can point to this working and how it works."
So this is a realistic take on nuclear power that we are saying
that the NPS does not encompass fully. It is too directional.
It directs the IPC to not take certain issues on board. It does
not make the linkages with other regulatory issues and it has
to do that for this to be a realistic assessment.
Q239 John Robertson:
So are you saying there should not be a repository then because
there is not one somewhere else? Is that what you are saying?
Ms McSorley: No, what we are saying
is that there may not be one, but you have no occasional experience—
Mr Anderson: But there does not have
to be one. I will move on because we are not going to get anywhere
on this one, unless Simon or Keith, or even the Professor wants
to—
|
