Q
160Dr.
Whitehead: With respect, the criticism that nuclear may
not be there by 2020 applies equally to CCS, as has been pointed out.
Most of the big figures have to be achieved before
then. Tom
Burke: I agree that there are real issues about
CCS.
Q
161Dr.
Whitehead: Even if you are really enthusiastic about
it? Tom
Burke: I agree with that too. All I am saying is that
because of what will go on in the rest of the world, if we do not have
a solution for CCS—if we do not have it available and deployable
very rapidly—we cannot guarantee the security and prosperity of
our 60 million Britons or of everyone else. If we want the rest of the
world, particularly China and India, to move in that direction, we had
better show that we are serious. Right now we are not showing that. We
are showing that we think this is an option among other options to be
considered. My underlying argument is that it is imperative. I do not
want to make this choice, but I consider what the science says we have
to do, and we have to solve that problem. In that sense, nuclear
is a distraction. That is what I meant about it being a
distraction. It diverts our attention away from a problem that we have
no choice about.
People have argued that we
could do other things—we could do more renewables and lots of
other things—but that is not the argument I was
making. In an ideal world, you would end up with a big
improvement in energy efficiency, a lot of renewables and a lot of gas
and coal for your electricity supply, which would be much bigger than
it is now, not least because you would have to go for something that
would take you through hybrids towards a hydrogen mobility with some
biofuels in there, but I think that there are real constraints with
them. You have probably heard some of the discussions about that; they
can make a contribution, but they cannot be a substitute for
oil.
Q
162Dr.
Palmer: I have always been involved in four
main issues in politics: world development, child
poverty, environmental issues and animal welfare, so I like working
with NGOs on all those issues. However, it has always struck me when
working with environmental NGOs that there is never anything that we do
that they are in favour of. That is not true in the other areas. What
worries me about some of the presentations is that they are
silver-bullet solutions. Mr. Burke says that it is essential
that we solve the CCS problem at all costs because nothing else will
work, and Greenpeace emphasised the role of decentralised energy and
said that if we do not have that we are not really addressing the
problem; it is a distraction. The effect is that every time something
like the Severn barrage and the network of offshore wind farms comes
up, there is always a major lobby attacking it, as they do with any
change, and when we look to see whether the green lobby supports it,
somehow it is not there. As politicians, we have to go for more than
one option, because we have to consider what happens if we say that CCS
is the answer, but find out further down the line that relying on CCS
and the coal extraction that we can do in Britain is so expensive that
we are imposing enormous fuel cost increases on our constituents. That
would be a huge problem for us in every other
way. I
am asking the panel in rather general terms whether they do not feel
that they are being too absolutist in rejecting things like the Severn
barrage and not getting behind a range of alternatives, which could
include the ones that they are
espousing. Robin
Webster: I would like to respond to this one.
Actually, I think the fact that you reeled off a series of solutions
that we were all proposing shows that there are not silver-bullet
solutions. That is quite difficult for us, because when campaigning it
is difficult to say, “This is the one solution. You are going to
win this.” Actually, this is about a package solution: it is
about energy efficiency, decentralisation and
renewables. I have
worked in other areas with environmental NGOs, but I have worked in no
other area where there is such an agreement within the major NGOs about
what we want to see. If you are still seeing us as the no
people, that means that we are not getting that across enough. Really,
we are in almost unanimous agreement as to what we do not regard as the
solution: we do not see nuclear as the solution and we do not see the
Severn barrage as a solution. What we do see as the solution is energy
efficiency, decentralisation, heat capture and renewables expansion. We
are all saying that. We all believe it. We all know what we say yes to
and we all know what we are saying no
to. Benet
Northcote: I was going to say the same as
you. Tom
Burke: My point about carbon sequestration and
storage is about what you have to do if you want to achieve the goal of
a stable climate while delivering energy security for growth, which
another Committee member referred to. I think you have got to do that
to meet the development needs. Then, because of the political
dynamics—not because we could not work out theoretical
solutions—you are going to have to solve the coal problem. I
think it is going to be expensive. I think we have to face up to that
being expensive. I suspect we will find that, as things go
on—partly in respect of what Benet mentioned about
trajectories—the renewables piece is going to become
somewhat easier. I have only said about 40-odd per
cent. Last year, the
addition to the world’s nuclear capacity was about 2 GW.
However, the addition to the world’s photovoltaic capacity,
which is regarded as one of the less attractive options, was 2.6 GW.
The addition of wind to the global mix was about 15 GW. What I do not
like about nuclear is that I do not think that, in practice, for lots
of practical judgements, it will actually deliver. The nuclear industry
has, for 50 years of my lifetime, always been promising jam tomorrow
and, by and large, it has not delivered on that. It would be foolish to
make the same mistake when what is at stake now is not just our comfort
but the prosperity and security of everybody, including not just the 60
million Britons, but the other 6 billion people that we share the
planet
with.
The
Chairman: I call Dr. Brian
Iddon.
Q
163Dr.
Iddon: Thank you, Chairman. I thought I had missed my
chance. It is very
basic. We are considering the Energy Bill. Can you each, finally, tell
me one thing that you support in the Bill? If you do not support
anything, just say no.
Tom
Burke: I support what is in the Bill about CCS, but
it just does not go far
enough. Benet
Northcote: I am jovially tempted to say the measures
on gas storage. This Energy Bill should be delayed, because it is being
introduced with undue
haste. Robin
Webster: Benet just took it from me. I was also going
to say branding, which I agree with. The Bill should be delayed. It is
not delivering what it needs to
deliver.
Q
164Dr.
Iddon: And
finally. Russell
Marsh: The change to the renewables obligation and
the pieces on CCS. But they are not enough to get us to where we need
to get
to.
Dr.
Iddon: Some positivity. Thank you very
much.
The
Chairman: Did John Robertson want to ask a final
question?
Q
165John
Robertson: I will just ask the one. Who is going to pay
for all this? I have to tell you that my electorate cannot afford to
pay for what you want to do. That would apply to a
lot of constituencies. Somebody has to foot the bill. Should the
Government put a windfall tax on the energy companies and get money
from them to pay for
this? Tom
Burke: What the Government should not
do is give a windfall profit by giving
away—
Q
166John
Robertson: Hang on a second. Answer my question, not your
question. We have not got a lot of time, so please make it pretty
short. Russell
Marsh: You can use the money from the EU ETS auction
to fund
it. Tom
Burke: Exactly.
Q
167John
Robertson: Okay, one last question, just because I cannot
resist it. If I could give you a way of reducing the high-level waste
in this country by 90 per cent., would you take it?
Tom
Burke: Do you mean the volume or the
radioactivity?
Q
168John
Robertson: The volume by 90 per cent.
Tom
Burke: I do not think that the volume matters; it is
the radioactivity that matters. If you can reduce the
radioactivity—
Q
169John
Robertson: So, it does not matter.
Tom
Burke: The volume is
irrelevant.
Q
170John
Robertson: Just keep the high-level waste that we have
without doing anything with it?
Tom
Burke: The point was made earlier. The volume is a
completely irrelevant issue; what matters is the radioactivity. If you
can reduce the radioactivity by 90 per cent., you will be able to get
extremely rich.
Q
171John
Robertson: Part of your problem is that you do not want
any radioactivity. Therefore, my solution is to use what we already
have, reprocess it and
you will get 90 per cent. worth of fuel from the 100 per cent. that we
have, and we can have multiple solutions.
Benet
Northcote: But radioactivity is the
issue.
Q
172John
Robertson: But we have it anyway. The point is that we
have it already.
The
Chairman: Mr. Burke, a number of Committee
members have asked for some further details about your background, so I
wonder whether you would kindly send to the Clerk of the Committee some
more details about your qualifications, status and
background.
Tom
Burke: Yes. I just wanted the Committee to be clear
that, although I have a range of affiliations, I was not speaking on
any of their behalves. I shall certainly supply you with that, but it
is a rather long list, so I shall not do it
now.
The
Chairman: In America, today is known as Super Tuesday; in
this country, it is known as Shrove Tuesday. It has certainly been a
sizzling session, and I should like to thank our witnesses for well and
truly invigorating the Committee.
Further
consideration adjourned.—[Alison
Seabeck.] Adjourned
accordingly at six minutes past Seven o’clock till
Tuesday 19 February at half-past Ten
o’clock.
| 
