Proceeding contribution from Lord Flowers (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 16 February 2006. It occurred during Parliamentary proceeding on Energy Policy: Nuclear Power.
Energy Policy: Nuclear Power
My Lords, I greatly enjoyed the two maiden speeches that we have had today and I hope, and expect, to hear from the two noble Lords frequently and soon. I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for giving us this opportunity to speak about the merits of nuclear power and our urgent need of it in the circumstances of the 21st century. I want to contribute to this timely debate by saying a few words about the radioactive waste inevitably generated by the nuclear process, which has to be isolated from man and the environment for thousands of years. It is a subject on which I last spoke in your Lordships’ House just over a year ago in the debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Oxburgh on the management of nuclear waste. On that occasion, I argued that in today’s circumstances the regrettable absence of a long-term nuclear waste strategy in this country should not in itself, contrary to current policy, prevent the Government and the nuclear industry revealing, and getting approved and agreed, their plans for the next phase of development of nuclear power. In this country, the high-level waste is increasingly being stored in vitrified form, safe for many decades to come—a third of it is already vitrified. Other wastes are likewise being treated appropriately. The issue of how and where their eventual disposal is to take place—presumably in deep geological formations, which, as has already been said, has been demonstrated abroad, especially in Finland—is consequently now more a political than a technological matter. We can give ourselves a little time finally to settle precisely how and where in this country we shall dispose of nuclear waste, knowing that it has already been shown to be technologically feasible elsewhere. We have the geologists and the engineers; we can do it too. That is not to say, however, that we can now all heave a gigantic sigh of relief, thinking that the waste management problem has gone away. It has not. It is very much with us still. The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management is trying to make progress with it and I hope that it succeeds. For there is no doubt in my mind that the people of this country will not approve the future development of nuclear power, desirable as it may be for other reasons, until they come to believe that a strategy for the safe, long-term disposal of nuclear wastes is at least within reach. They will expect that a definitive strategy can be announced and agreed by government, Parliament and the nuclear industry, certainly before the first new stations are commissioned and are therefore producing their own waste. Approval in principle of the preferred method and site, or sites, of waste disposal must not be left until some indefinite future date. Ideally, it should be announced no later than the announcement of a new nuclear build. That is still possible—just. But between the announcement of a new build and the commissioning of the first new reactor, there will be a period of about 10 years. During that time, the waste strategy must be agreed and promulgated, and the sooner the better. This obviously implies a degree of public trust in the Government’s competence and integrity, and a great deal of hard work. There are, as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, has reminded us, some people who will always say ““Nuclear power? Over my dead body!””—oblivious, perhaps, of the fact that we burn nuclear-generated electricity every day of the week; some produced here and some imported from France, where over three-quarters of their electricity is nuclear. But I believe that most people in this country are more sensible, and will sensibly accept a compromise of timing such as I have proposed, given all the weighty reasons—global warming, vulnerable gas supplies, severe practical limitations on renewable generation and soaring energy prices—that now exist for a new phase of development of nuclear power. There is a safe window of opportunity in which to decide on disposal. I am trying to help the Government in this contentious matter. I shall be very interested in the Minister’s response.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 678 c1320-1
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Decommissioning Carbon dioxide Energy Electricity generation Energy supply EU internal trade Imports Natural gas Radioactive waste Nuclear power Nuclear fuel reprocessing Nuclear power stations Pollution control Staff Prices Security Waste management THORP Sellafield Nuclear Installations Inspectorate Energy Policy Progress Review
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 19:58:58 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_302279
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_302279
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_302279