Energy Supply and Climate Change

Robert Key (Salisbury, Conservative)
My constituents in Salisbury and the towns and villages of south Wiltshire derive almost all their energy from the national grid. Virtually no electricity is generated in south Wiltshire. I say virtually because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), we had micro-hydrogeneration 100 years ago in Salisbury in the town mill. That scheme was replicated in a number of locations up and down the Avon valley and the Woodford valley. Some enterprising people are considering it again, but it can never be of more than marginal significance as a means of energy production. Some people have tried wind energy—wind turbines—on their houses. Some farmers have looked into the possibility of wind turbines on the top of the downs. Fortunately for the sake of the landscape, the Ministry of Defence has intervened to point out that all the low-flying areas are not compatible with wind energy.

We must ensure that we balance the needs of the fourth largest economy in the world with the global and national objectives and national interests of the United Kingdom. I was delighted when the Secretary of State, opening the debate, spoke of the compatibility of being pro-growth and pro-green. I was delighted that in his speech from the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) spoke ofthe common ground and the fact that energy was top of the agenda. I was less impressed by the contribution from the Liberal Democrats, notwithstanding the fact that they have a distinguished fellow of my college in Cambridge as their energy spokesman. That is an enormous improvement, if I may say so, in spite of his ingenious intellectual contortions in his energy policy—better than previous Liberal Democrat spokesmen, who have always ended up by saying, “We’ll rely on wind and renewables and sustainable energy, and if it doesn’t work we’ll import nuclear electricity from France.” There has been some progress.

On the question of energy supply, the Government have dithered over the past nine years. They have dithered on nuclear, by saying no, then maybe and now yes. To some extent, they have reneged on the dash for gas, which they now think is dodgy in terms of energy security. They have tripped up on planning. In the early years of this Labour Government, they introduced excellent planning legislation, but then they encountered difficulties with their proposals on infrastructure and power stations, which they abandoned. Now they are revisiting those proposals—what a waste of time—and they have failed to meet their targets. It is important, sensible and serious if the Government and the Opposition agree on these issues for the right reasons, but it is dangerous if they agree for the wrong reasons. I hope that the Opposition will not let the Government off the hook.

One trend running through today’s debate is the implication that the price of energy involves only the bill to consumers and industrialists. However, the price of energy is not only an economic cost, because security of supply has a strategic price and renewables have an environmental and distribution price in terms of countryside spoiled by wind turbines and transmission cables marching across the landscape. Wind turbines are by no means carbon neutral when one considers how they are built and how the electricity they generate is distributed. In the economic jargon, we must internalise the externalities.

The overriding issue, which we must all take as a given regardless of which kind of generation we are considering, is safety. If one examines risk and safety in energy supply, whether one starts with wood, coal, oil, gas, wind, renewables or nuclear, one is left with the conclusion that there is always risk and danger. When advanced countries such as Finland have taken decisions, largely for strategic reasons, on renewing and extending nuclear generation, they have taken as a given the baseline of safety. Safety must be dealt with, acknowledged and ensured, because one can move forward on the basis of such a consensus, which is how we should proceed in this country.

The Government are, of course, responsible for providing security of supply, meeting our environmental objectives, balancing a range of energy sources and maintaining efficiency of transmission. The national grid is based on the 19th-century plans that resulted in a 20th-century distribution system, which is no longer fit for purpose in many cases. We must recognise that point, which is why microgeneration is particularly significant.

In 1970, the average household had seven electrical appliances; today, the average household has 47—in other words, we are very greedy for energy in this country. As we go out on our pre-Christmas binge for white goods and electronic goods, including plasma screens, which use four times as much electricity as anything else, we should bear in mind that we must examine our own navels. We should also remember that a UK citizen uses six times as much energy as an African citizen. We should examine our energy greed, because we can make a difference globally. We must put that argument to those who say, “It does not matter whether I do something good, because it will not make any difference in global terms.” It will make a difference.

Most hon. Members who have spoken believe that we need nuclear and renewables. I will not repeat those discussions, except to say that I happen to believe that we should invest much more in tidal flow generation, which is one of the great unknowns. If we run down our nuclear from current levels and replace it with gas, it will cancel out all the economies that we can achieve by being more sensible about our use of electricity, heat and transport as private citizens.

What is the difference between consumers in France, England and Finland, when it comes to electricity generation? In France, people do not loathe nuclear electricity. Some 83 per cent. of French electricity is generated by nuclear power, and we know what happens in Finland. We must therefore differentiate base-led generation, embedded generation plans for CHP on a slighter larger industrial scale and the sort of microgeneration through which we can all make a major contribution.

It is really important that we grasp the nuclear issue. Having studied nuclear energy for many years, and having visited French, Finnish and British nuclear plants, I have come to the conclusion that we need another generation of fission capacity. Nuclear fusion is the future. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), I have seen what is going on at Culham and examined the international thermo-nuclear experimental reactor project, which could result in zero radioactive waste if we have a fusion revolution that allows us to develop a hydrogen-based fuel economy for our country and the industrialised world.

With regard to waste, it is imperative to distinguish the historical legacy of the defence nuclear industry and the first-time-round, experimental trialling of the early British civil nuclear programme from what might be produced in future. The two are as different as chalk and cheese. Over 50 years, a technological revolution has taken place. To use scare stories to imply that we must not move forward to a new generation of nuclear fission because of the problem that the Government are now tackling—for which I commend them—is to perpetrate a cruel deception on the people of this country. Of course we must decide on sites for deep geological burial and retrievability for at least 100 years. That technology is developing and improving, and is on trial in Finland now.

The question of who pays is crucial. Future nuclear industry should not have a tax subsidy. There is no reason why it should. More than 400 nuclear plants are in operation around the world, and others are being built all the time, not just in China and India but elsewhere. The United States has a well proven system of financing for the treatment of nuclear waste for every kilowatt generated. That system is being adopted in Finland. The decommissioning costs must be met from the generation of funds invested for the future, whether privately or by the state.

All of that is predicated on the continuing availability of the nuclear science, technology and engineering skills base in the United Kingdom. Science education is fundamental, and it is a major lack. I blame the Government for not giving sufficient attention to it over the past nine years. Only this weekend, I saw their television advertisements for science teachers, which are super. What a pity they did not run them nine years ago. What a pity that physics and chemistry departments have closed in our universities. How tragic it will be if we do not even have the skilled engineering manpower to dismantle existing nuclear power stations, let alone build a new generation.

Education, not just in our schools and universities, but public education about energy supply—whether nuclear, renewable or both—will cost money. Spending by the taxpayer or private energy companies must be transparent and accountable. Money will be spent, and in large quantities. I maintain, however, that if that spending is transparent and accountable, it is not bribery. It is often alleged that if British Nuclear Fuels or anyone else spends money on visitors’ centres, school packs or CD-ROMs, it is bribery. We must get away from that silly idea.

In energy supply debates, I look for consensus between the political parties. The people of this country deserve that. There is a difference, however, between saying that nuclear energy is back on the agenda with a vengeance, and saying that it is a last resort. I hope that I can persuade those on my Front Bench to be a little more positive than they have been able to be. It is interesting that, whereas the Conservative party has said unequivocally that it supports, and will almost certainly replace, our nuclear deterrent, it cannot be as positive about nuclear energy for civilian use. I think that we shall have to move from that position as the argument develops. I hope that we do it with good grace, saying “Yes, we have listened to the arguments.”

The constituents to whom I have talked, especially the younger ones, now take it for granted that we will need a new generation of nuclear facilities. Only two weeks ago, when I addressed nearly 400 sixth-form students in Salisbury, I was asked directly for my view on such a “next generation”. I gave my view, and I can only say that it received pretty universal acclaim and agreement.

We have a generational problem here as well. I think that our electors, particularly young electors, see the virtues of trusting in the science, technology and engineering skills that can secure the future energy supply of the United Kingdom.