Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

348488

registered interest
date	04/06/2015
answering body	Department for Energy and Climate Change
answering dept id	63
answering dept short name	Energy and Climate Change
answering dept sort name	Energy and Climate Change
hansard heading	Nuclear Power
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether there are any reasons why marine nuclear propulsion engines such as the A1B could not be used on land to generate nuclear power if connected in series; and if so, what those reasons are.
tabling member printed	Lord Blencathra
uin	HL260
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/06/2015 answer text <p>There are a number of factors that are considered to make marine nuclear propulsion reactors unattractive for landside electricity generation, when compared to a conventional reactor that has been designed specifically for this purpose. All of these are likely to add to the levelised cost of electricity generation from a propulsion reactor used for electricity generation purposes for the national grid, compared to a dedicated land-based reactor. These include the following:</p><p>1) Propulsion reactors are designed for more rapid power cycling than is currently demanded from landside reactors.</p><p>2) The power density of a propulsion reactor is much higher than one would need for a landside power reactor.</p><p>3) The serviceable lifetime for a propulsion reactor is shorter than for a power reactor.</p><p>4) Propulsion reactors are smaller than most reactor designs, varying between a few tens of MW to about 150 MW, resulting in relatively little capacity per unit.</p><p>5) Propulsion reactors’ design would result in the regulatory compliance costs of their landside use for electricity generation being greater than those for a dedicated landside reactor.</p><p>The first two issues add to capital costs of design and construction, the second two to operational costs and the final to regulatory costs.</p> answering member printed Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth grouped question UIN HL261 question first answered 09/06/2015 11:12:44 answering member 4282 label Biography information for Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
tabling member	497 label Biography information for Lord Blencathra

348489

registered interest
date	04/06/2015
answering body	Department for Energy and Climate Change
answering dept id	63
answering dept short name	Energy and Climate Change
answering dept sort name	Energy and Climate Change
hansard heading	Nuclear Power
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the case for using PWR3 nuclear reactors, mounted on floating barges, as a potential power source for electricity generation in the United Kingdom.
tabling member printed	Lord Blencathra
uin	HL261
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/06/2015 answer text <p>There are a number of factors that are considered to make marine nuclear propulsion reactors unattractive for landside electricity generation, when compared to a conventional reactor that has been designed specifically for this purpose. All of these are likely to add to the levelised cost of electricity generation from a propulsion reactor used for electricity generation purposes for the national grid, compared to a dedicated land-based reactor. These include the following:</p><p>1) Propulsion reactors are designed for more rapid power cycling than is currently demanded from landside reactors.</p><p>2) The power density of a propulsion reactor is much higher than one would need for a landside power reactor.</p><p>3) The serviceable lifetime for a propulsion reactor is shorter than for a power reactor.</p><p>4) Propulsion reactors are smaller than most reactor designs, varying between a few tens of MW to about 150 MW, resulting in relatively little capacity per unit.</p><p>5) Propulsion reactors’ design would result in the regulatory compliance costs of their landside use for electricity generation being greater than those for a dedicated landside reactor.</p><p>The first two issues add to capital costs of design and construction, the second two to operational costs and the final to regulatory costs.</p> answering member printed Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth grouped question UIN HL260 question first answered 09/06/2015 11:12:44 answering member 4282 label Biography information for Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
tabling member	497 label Biography information for Lord Blencathra

348335

registered interest
date	03/06/2015
answering body	Department for Energy and Climate Change
answering dept id	63
answering dept short name	Energy and Climate Change
answering dept sort name	Energy and Climate Change
hansard heading	Renewable Energy
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what steps she has taken to revoke payments made to unlawful developments under Renewable Obligation certificates or feed-in tariffs.
tabling member constituency	Chippenham
tabling member printed	Michelle Donelan
uin	1033
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/06/2015 answer text <p>Ofgem administers the Renewables Obligation (RO) and Feed-in Tariff (FITs) schemes in accordance with the requirements of the relevant scheme legislation - the Renewables Obligation Order 2009 (as amended) and the Feed-in Tariff Order 2012 (as amended).</p><p>Article 41 of the Renewables Obligation Order 2009 sets out the circumstances in which renewable obligation certificates may or must be revoked by Ofgem. These are explained in Ofgem’s ‘Renewables Obligation: Guidance for Generators’[1].</p><p>Articles 17 and 35 of the Feed in Tariff Order 2012 provide for Ofgem to reduce, withhold or recoup FIT payments and further details are set out in ‘Ofgem’s Feed in Tariff: Guidance for Renewable Installations' [2]<strong>.</strong></p><p><em><strong>[1]</strong></em><em> See paragraphs 5.37 – 5.40 of Ofgem’s ‘Renewables Obligation: Guidance for Generators (June 2014 ) at <a href="https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/ofgem-publications/87997/renewablesobligation-guidanceforgenerators1june2014.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/ofgem-publications/87997/renewablesobligation-guidanceforgenerators1june2014.pdf</a></em></p><p><em><em><strong>[2] </strong></em></em><em>See paragraphs 4.53 to 4.57 of Ofgem’s Feed in Tariff: Guidance for Renewable Installations (June 2014) at <a href="https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/ofgem-publications/88268/fitgeneratorguidanceversion7june20141.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/ofgem-publications/88268/fitgeneratorguidanceversion7june20141.pdf</a>.</em></p><p> </p> answering member constituency South Northamptonshire answering member printed Andrea Leadsom question first answered 09/06/2015 14:44:38 answering member 4117 label Biography information for Andrea Leadsom
tabling member	4530 label Biography information for Michelle Donelan