11
July
Mike
Hedges AM The Westminster Government seems to have an energy policy based upon
offshore wind and nuclear power. As prototypes are by their very nature more
expensive, and the future storage costs of nuclear are capped—we would never
have had a nuclear power station built if they weren't capped—it is not a level
playing field. Did the Westminster Government explain why the price for
nuclear—which, as we all know, is an over-60-year-old technology—was
acceptable, but the same price, which was the final offer of the same strike
price for the tidal lagoon as for Hinkley, was not acceptable? Have the
Westminster Government explained why one is acceptable and one isn't, when
one's a prototype and one's a 60-year-old technology with a capped final
cost?61
No, and I think that's a very important point that you raise. I've just
mentioned in my answer to Caroline Jones that we are looking at that summary
value-for-money assessment now. I think you're right; their policy does seem to
focus on just offshore and nuclear power. Of course, nuclear power, whilst
being low carbon, is certainly not renewable energy. I've had discussions with
Claire Perry, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, around this, and
about the need to encourage further onshore wind, and certainly solar power,
too. I've also written to Greg Clark following the decision around the
importance of making sure that we engage and support other renewable energy technologies.62
No comments:
Post a Comment