---

Nuclear Industry

Yes, absolutely. My lonely role here today is to represent those who are still far from convinced that the case for civil nuclear power has been made. As I see it, the main argument in favour of nuclear power is that, although it is not a magic bullet—as the Minister often says—it is needed as part of the mix, for three reasons. First, as many hon. Members have mentioned, there will be a generating gap. How will the lights be kept on? Secondly, it is needed for carbon reduction purposes. Thirdly, it is needed for security of supply. I do not think that any of those reasons hold up to analysis. Not even the Government believe the generating gap theory. The question is whether the market will cope and introduce new supply to fill the 25 GW reduction that might occur as nuclear plants close and some coal plants must close or choose to refit. In response to the Environmental Audit Committee’s report, ““Keeping the Lights On?, the Government said that their own modelling"““indicates that in most scenarios, the risk of having unserved electricity demand is unlikely to become substantively higher than today until around 2015. Even then, the amounts of ""‘shortfall’ between demand and supply are likely to be small and could therefore potentially be resolved by some companies voluntarily shifting their electricity consumption from peak to off-peak times in response to price signals.?" In other words, the risk of the lights going off, to which some hon. Members have referred, is grossly exaggerated. There is no real risk of it—even the Government recognise that—and no need to panic. The market will plug the gap without any change in policy. Moreover, the risk itself, although small, decreases the more existing nuclear stations’ lives are extended and the more existing coal stations undertake the regulatory requirements to which they are subject. There is also the question of timing. Even with reforms of licensing and planning, it is unlikely that nuclear new build can make a contribution to carbon emission reduction for at least 10 years—it would make only a small contribution even after that period. The Government’s response to the Environmental Audit Committee’s report states:"““Government agrees that even with facilitating measures, new nuclear build is likely to make only a small contribution to carbon emission reductions and security of supply by 2020?." That then raises the question, why go for nuclear at all? Reducing carbon emissions over the next 10 or 15 years is crucial, and the Government say that nuclear new build will play absolutely no part in it. After 2020, we will see new technologies coming on line, not only renewables such as tidal, wave and solar power technologies, but those such as carbon capture and storage, to which the Chairman of the Committee referred. It is significant that the date given in the EU proposals on energy policy for all new coal power stations to be employing carbon capture and storage is 2020. In reality, that is about the time when any new nuclear will be going on line. The question is why we need new nuclear power at all if other carbon-saving technologies will be available at the time that that nuclear power is due to start.