---

Nuclear Industry

I am indeed aware of that technology. Once again, sadly, to the best of my recollection, the Committee received no evidence on that. Committees are driven by the evidence that they receive rather than what they may intuitively know or think. Such reactors are attractive in many ways, because, apart from anything else, it is easy to connect smaller power stations to the grid than the bigger stations with higher outputs that we are talking about in relation to these other technologies. Such reactors have considerable advantages and I would like to know more about that technology. On skills, the nuclear work force are ageing and many will be used to cope with decommissioning issues. However, it seems that more graduates are being drawn to the sector, so I think that we can be more optimistic. I mentioned uranium supplies. We would be entirely dependent on imported uranium; we will not have any domestic sources of fuel for economic and other reasons. The Committee was optimistic that the increased market price of uranium would lead to increased exploration and an adequate supply. On grid capacity, the UK has a centralised grid. It is the view of the Committee that, irrespective of what new technologies fill the generating gap, we need to renew the grid. That is also subject to the planning constraints that affect nuclear build. However, grid renewal is an important issue irrespective of whether we build new nuclear power stations. I have spoken for longer than I intended, for which I apologise. In conclusion, there are two questions that we did not ask in this report, but on which political judgment is needed before a decision is made to proceed with any new nuclear reactors. First, do we need to replace large-scale generating capacity with other large-scale generating capacity, or can energy efficiency and local energy close the gap? Secondly, if we do need to replace the coal and nuclear power stations that will be closing in the relatively near future, do we need nuclear energy to play a part in that replacement programme? My personal conclusions are based squarely on my understanding of declared Government policy—which I support—that no special favours or subsidies should be given to nuclear new build; it will be left entirely to the market. I agree with that approach, as do potential declared investors in new nuclear capacity. My view is simple, and here it is based upon another unanimous Committee report into local energy. The report concluded that we need new large-scale generating capacity. Energy efficiency and local energy cannot keep the lights on. I believe that diversity in energy supply is good. Clean coal, gas, renewables, nuclear, local energy and, crucially, energy efficiency, all have their part to play. However—rightly—all the Government intend to do is to create the conditions to make sure that the technologies can compete fairly and then leave the market to decide—within the targets set by the European Union for renewable energy, of course. Happily, most of the issues that will determine the viability of new nuclear build are issues that need to be addressed anyhow, and urgently, for the wider energy sector. They range from gas storage to grid renewal and wind farm developments. Two key matters that must be resolved are the planning regime and the price of carbon. Some issues, especially waste disposal and licensing, also need urgent decisions and are specific to the nuclear industry. However, waste disposal issues must be resolved to deal with the large historic legacy of nuclear waste in the constituency of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed). I have concluded that it is likely that some new nuclear capacity will be built if the Government choose the correct technology-neutral policy framework. However, there is still a big ““but?: how much capacity will be built? The Prime Minister has hinted that he wants to replace current nuclear capacity, but his Government have no means of delivering that objective. They can only facilitate it, sit back and see what happens. Given the substantial fall in wholesale gas prices and the increasing interest in carbon capture and storage, is the electricity generating industry showing the same interest in new nuclear build as it did a year ago, when gas prices were high and carbon capture looked further off? Is there any sign that City interest in financing such expensive, long payback projects is waning? In other words, will new stations actually be built, even if, in their second consultation, the Government finally conclude that replacing nuclear power stations is desirable? The cost of capital is the largest component of the cost of nuclear power, and the one thing that puts up the cost of capital is political uncertainty. Companies such as EDF are very interested in building new nuclear power stations in the UK, but the issues that we are debating will have to be settled—and fairly quickly—if that new build is to happen. As I said on the Floor of the House yesterday, the nuclear industry has an obsessively secret past. What we now need—to be fair, we are getting it—is the maximum possible openness. I am clear that, in such an open environment, the public can be shown that we have nothing to fear from new nuclear power, but I am far from clear that we will actually see substantial new nuclear build.