Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when, and under what
circumstances, they will place orders for small modular nuclear
reactors.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy () (Con)
My Lords, the energy and security strategy sets out our intention
to take one nuclear project to final investment decision in this
Parliament and two projects to final investment decision in the
next, including SMRs. As with any government decision, this will
be subject to value for money, relevant approvals and
technological readiness and maturity.
(Lab)
I am not reassured by the Answer the Minister has given. To await
the completion of a generic design assessment of a proven
technology is to impose an unnecessary delay. There is an
international market awaiting small modular reactors. Unless the
Government provide full and immediate support for the SMR
of Rolls-Royce foreign
producers will capture the market and we may have to depend on
them for the reactors we will need to install in the UK. Does the
Minister regard that prospect, and the prospect of losing
overseas markets, with equanimity?
(Con)
We are providing immediate support to Rolls-Royce to develop
the SMR; we provided it with £210 million to do exactly that.
However, it is important that we go through all the relevant
design approvals to make sure that SMRs are safe and easy to
deploy. That is an important step to go through and which is
legislated for in this country, and we should make sure that we
follow it.
(CB)
My Lords, building a large nuclear reactor takes well over a
decade but, once built, it can power 7% of this country’s
electricity. However, I am reliably informed that these small
modular nuclear reactors can be put up within four to five years.
Why are the Government waiting? These reactors can power a city
the size of Sheffield. Why not do it now in order to have cleaner
energy and to be more energy self-reliant?
(Con)
The noble Lord might want to ask the people of Sheffield whether
they want an SMR beforehand. As a serious point, this is very
important; indeed, it is a matter of legislation that reactors
are proved to be safe. I agree that it is a shrunken design of
existing reactors; these are on a much smaller scale and designed
in a modular way. It is important that we go through all the
relevant approval processes. The design is not yet complete, and
they have not even been submitted yet for GDA.
(Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister remind the House of when Britain built
a civil nuclear reactor on time and within budget? I ask this not
to cast any doubt on the Minister’s commitment, but to say that
we know that there are numerous opponents of civil nuclear power
and every time we build a reactor we give them more and more
excuses over delays and cost overruns to attack the idea of civil
nuclear power. It is a terrible error for which both Governments
have been responsible; I am not just blaming the present
Government. We give them open goals to shoot at. Should the
Government not look at the whole process and come up with a new
scheme or ideas to ensure that this error is eliminated?
(Con)
We are always open to new ideas for how we can speed the process
up. We want to see both existing nuclear technology and the SMR
process brought forward as quickly as possible, but it is
important that we go through all the relevant design approval
phases to make sure the technology is safe. Many communities are
willing to accept SMRs, particularly those that already have
nuclear reactors in their area, so it is not the case that
everybody is opposed to them. Nevertheless, it is important that
we go through the proper processes.
(Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest both past and present in this
area. I welcome the support the Government have so far given to
SMR development in this country. Of course, it is going on in
many other countries as well. How does this play out in relation
to the plan at Sizewell C, where the idea is to build another
large-scale reactor as a replica—I repeat, replica—of Hinkley
Point C? Hinkley Point C has had its own problems; it is over
time, over budget and has component difficulties. Do we really
want to think in terms of a large-scale replica there or in other
sites, when the SMR option is coming on fast? We are at the edge
of new technology in nuclear power; should the Government not
think very carefully before deciding between SMRs and another
large-scale reactor with all its problems, as already
indicated?
(Con)
My noble friend makes an important point, and we will take into
account all these factors, including value for money, when we
make decisions in the next Parliament on whether to proceed in
these cases.
(PC)
My Lords, may I break the habit of a lifetime and welcome the
statement made by the Prime Minister in his speech in Newtown
last month, when he announced an SMR for Trawsfynydd? Can the
Minister confirm that the five-year timescale announced by Cwmni
Egino, which will be taking this forward, is within the framework
of what he has just described and that this project will go ahead
for 2027?
(Con)
I cannot confirm any individual projects, but I have said that we
are proceeding with making final investment decisions in the next
Parliament on two further nuclear reactors.
(CB)
My Lords, I work in the nuclear industry and one of the biggest
issues I am currently seeing is a lack of available skills to
undertake the work. We are doing our best to recruit, but we
simply cannot find the skilled engineers to meet the demand we
are seeing. Does the Minister agree that a sector-wide skills
strategy is needed to demonstrate how we will deliver the more
than 100,000 new jobs in the industry that will be needed by
2030?
(Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point. There are a lot of very
skilled engineering jobs. We have made some errors in the past on
our nuclear strategy, which resulted in a lot of very skilled
employees leaving the country and the industry effectively
closing down. We are resurrecting the industry now and it will be
a longer-term process to build up the skills base, but the noble
Lord is right.
(Lab)
My Lords, although we on these Benches welcome an increased
rollout of small modular nuclear reactors, given that they offer
savings in cost and construction time and more flexibility
related to energy demand, it will likely take until 2024 for the
first project to reach a final investment decision.
Furthermore, Rolls-Royce does not
expect to turn on its first SMR until 2029. This is a positive
long-term strategy but it does not address the short-term and
immediate need for action. Can the Minister inform us of what
solutions the energy security Bill offers to reduce our
dependency on oil, coal and gas in the short term?
(Con)
The noble Baroness makes an important point; these are long-term
decisions. Most energy policy decisions are longer term, as it
takes many years to bring on stream new energy infrastructure
projects in whatever field we are looking at. In the short term,
however, the answer to the noble Baroness’s question relies
principally on renewables: we are advancing the hydrogen strategy
and accelerating the rollout of offshore wind, which has proved
immensely successful. In this country, we have the second-largest
offshore wind capacity in the world and it is a world-beating
industry.
(LD)
Could the Minister confirm whether the Government consider
regulated asset base—RAB—funding appropriate for something as
experimental as these small reactors?
(Con)
We have not made a decision on the relevant business case
model—it could be either the RAB or the CfD model—but we will
consult on this shortly.
(Con)
My Lords, my noble friend knows as well as anyone that we have
suffered an energy crisis and continue to have one. Against that
background and the vacillation over the North Sea, which is not
my noble friend’s fault, does he not think that, given
Rolls-Royce’s history and what it did during the war—twice as
quickly as anyone forecast—it is a major company that can really
get a grip on this, if Her Majesty’s Government push the button
for it to do so?
(Con)
I agree with my noble friend’s point: Rolls-Royce is indeed
an excellent company, which is why we are funding it to do this
work.
(GP)
My Lords, I am so glad that the Minister mentioned safety because
a recent study from Stanford University says that, overall, small
modular designs are “inferior” to conventional reactors—
Noble Lords
Oh!
(GP)
It is not my work; it is from a university. The study says that
they are inferior with respect to radioactive waste generation,
management requirements and disposable options. The researchers
make the point that they should not be doing this research; the
vendors should. Will the Government make sure that such research
is done by vendors?
(Con)
Of course they are doing that research. A vital part of the work
and the financing model will be to make sure that all
decommissioning costs are taken into account, which is one of the
advantages of the SMR process: SMRs will, we hope, be easier and
cheaper to decommission. But this is all part of the design
process that we are going through, and it will be subject to the
proper regulatory approvals. I obviously do not agree with the
noble Baroness’s anti-nuclear stance, but it is nevertheless
important fully to take into account the safety approvals
process.
