---

Energy: Draft National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation (EN-6)

I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. We will obviously need to look, if it ever comes about, at the small print. The second issue is how decisions are taken on the mix of technologies to fill this 60-gigawatt gap. I have serious concerns here. On page 271, the national policy statement on nuclear power, which we are debating, states: ""The modelling also suggests of the 60GW, about 35GW would8 need to be renewables"." The Minister used the phrase "we estimate that". This is nothing whatever to do with modelling but arises from the decision taken by the former Prime Minister, in the face of strong advice from officials to the contrary, to sign up to the EU’s targets for renewables. That is what is driving this. However, the rational, efficient way to decide on the share of different technologies is to line up all the options, whether classified as renewables or not, and then to create a merit order, taking those that score best first. The ranking could be a score card of cost per tonne of CO2 avoided, its contribution to strategic security of supply, and issues such as constancy versus intermittency. Is that what we are likely to get from the prior carve-out of 35 gigawatts from renewables? Far from it. My rough calculations indicate a serious problem. In January, the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Crown Estate announced proposals for licensing what was described as 32 or 33 gigawatts of stored capacity of offshore wind. A cost figure of £75 billion was issued for this, but with wind the output is likely to be about 30 per cent of potential. In short, we would be paying £75 billion to secure 10 gigawatts of output, and intermittent output at that—that is, £7.5 billion per gigawatts. To achieve the same 10 gigawatts through nuclear power, you have to build something with about 11 gigawatts of capacity. My research indicates that a modern reactor of 1.6 gigawatts might cost £5 billion, which means that we would need about six or seven reactors, which might cost about £35 billion, compared with £75 billion—that is, about half the cost of offshore wind. That is on average. The divergence is even greater if one compares the cost of peak output, since wind cannot be relied on to produce when demand is highest, whereas with nuclear power, barring accidents and emergencies, by and large the maintenance is scheduled in the summer months, meaning that it can produce more than the average in the winter months. I am also trying to establish whether there is an inverse correlation. Are wind speeds lower in colder weather? The data for the past three months, when analysed, may tell a very interesting story. A logical approach—not one pandering to green politics—would start with the most cost-effective technologies, of which nuclear power would be one, and then expand to the point where other technologies overtake them. Experience from France indicates that the optimum share of the 60 gigawatts would not be 25 out of 60 but probably 60 or 70 per cent of it. But it gets worse. My evidence for this is a remarkable article by George Monbiot in the Guardian on 2 March. Saint George is the patron saint of the green movement, and I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, probably has a Saint George icon on his wall at home. If not, then I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, will. George Monbiot writes about the recently announced feed-in tariffs to encourage dispersed generation by micro wind and solar PV, technologies that he describes as "comically inefficient". Micro wind would earn 34 pence per kilowatt hour and solar panels 41 pence. That electricity is then sold to you and me at about 11 pence. He estimates—I do not know quite where he gets the figures from—that the scheme could cost £8.6 billion and by 2030 might save 20 million tonnes of CO2, at a cost of £430 per tonne of CO2 saved. He then quotes a McKinsey table of cost comparisons in which, for £3 invested in geothermal energy, you would save 1 tonne of CO2, while for £8 nuclear energy you would save 1 tonne and for insulating commercial buildings you do not pay £8 but save £60. The argument concludes: ""So who is opposing this lunacy? Good question. The Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have lined up to denounce the government for not being generous enough"." The real scandal here brings me to my third point, which is a constitutional one. It is clear that the promotion of renewables, particularly those of microgeneration, will cost many billions of pounds, most of which will be paid by adding a surcharge to household and company bills. Much of the burden will fall on families of modest means, and the benefit will go to the better off. There is not much scope for installing wind turbines and solar panels on the tower blocks in which many of our poorest families live. A big house with a big roof and big grounds—dare I say it, even an estate—would of course be ideal. Worse still, not a penny of this money will feature in any Chancellor’s budget, and none of it will be recorded in the Government’s financial accounts. None of the subsidies will be voted on by Parliament in estimates and none of the receipts will be voted on in a Finance Bill. It will all be done by netting off electricity bills. That offends every canon in the role of Parliament in approving tax and spending. My conclusion is that we must urgently press on with the renaissance of the nuclear sector. Therefore, I support this national policy statement, but, as I have indicated, I would go even further. A major report is needed on the way in which renewables, no matter how inefficient or costly, are given first dibs. We should give notice to the EU that we wish to renegotiate the renewables framework and replace it with a low-carbon framework. Finally, we need a new mechanism of transparency and accountability for the many billions of pounds that we have spent on encouraging renewables.