---

Renewable Energy (S&T Report)

My Lords, in my maiden speech to your Lordships’ House in February in the debate on climate change, I expressed the hope that the Government would soon address themselves to restarting the nuclear programme. Some noble Lords found that a bit controversial for a maiden speech, but I had wanted to place that call in the wider context of dealing with the most serious issue facing the planet—namely, global warming. I also said that I would have liked an opportunity to say something about wind power in that context, but the shortage of time meant that I would have to leave it until another occasion. I think that this is that occasion. Since February, I have been coming up the learning curve. Then, I had been under the misapprehension that the development of renewables would mean their substitution for fossil fuels and other sources of greenhouse gases and that renewables would play a significant role in helping the UK to meet its international obligations under the Kyoto protocols and help us to lead others by example. I believe that most people think something broadly similar. I have to admit that it has only slowly dawned on me—chiefly in preparing for this debate—that that is not quite so. From a careful look at what is happening, it emerges that any increase in the percentage of electricity generated by renewables will largely be used to replace nuclear power. It will make no difference at all to the sources of climate change, unless one is content to say that it would be even worse if we did not promote those developments. But the situation should be getting better, not simply failing to get worse. The Science and Technology Committee’s report notes that the mix of energy sources for electricity will have changed dramatically by 2020 and provides a description of where present policies will lead us. It would appear from paragraph 9.6 of the report that in 2020 we will have a mix of roughly 60 per cent gas, 15   per cent renewables, 15 per cent coal, with the remainder made up of small contributions from nuclear, oil, pumped hydro and electricity imports. The report points out in the very next paragraph, with massive understatement:"““Meeting the Government’s environmental objectives will be made much harder by the retirement over the next two decades of around 20 per cent of our present generating capacity that is carbon free—namely nuclear””." Currently more than 20 per cent of our electricity is generated by nuclear power and considerably less than 5   per cent from renewables, with a growing emphasis on wind, and with the scope for growth in the immediate future almost entirely dependent on wind. The rest of our electricity production—from gas, coal and oil—is contributing big time to global warming. If we wind up, after an ambitious programme of developing renewables over the next 15 years, with more of our electricity generation contributing to global warming, not less, that will be quite perverse. I also think that the public, who are being sold renewables on the basis that they are green, may consider themselves to have been led up the garden path. I remain in favour of renewables in principle. Who could not be? Their development is to be supported because they are sustainable and conserve rather than deplete the Earth’s resources. But I am not in favour of the role in terms of energy mix which they presently seem designed to play. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Whitty that renewables and nuclear together should replace the burning of fossil fuels. In Scotland, there are visible signs of growing opposition to upgrades of the national transmission system, besides the A9 at Drumochter Pass, for example, and further north still at the Dirrie More, the mountain pass taken by the road to Ullapool. ““Highlands before Pylons”” is the catchy name for the latter protest movement, and this is perhaps a good example on which to focus. If a massive wind farm is built on the Western Isles, the undersea cable must come ashore somewhere. This is perhaps the weak link in the plan. Huge pylons will be needed to carry the wires to the nearest point of connection with the National Grid. This electricity generation can bring great benefits to the Western Isles through a community fund which can be used to regenerate and diversify the local economy and have all manner of benefits. But to get the power to where it is needed could—will, on present plans—defile an area of outstanding beauty. When I retired last year as Secretary of the Parliamentary Labour Party, the MPs had a whip round and collected a substantial sum of money. They bought me a wonderful leaving present, now one of my treasured possessions. It is a big oil painting by one of Scotland’s finest artists, James Hawkins, who has his studio at Rhue, just beyond Ullapool. He paints magnificent sceneries. Perhaps his best-known work is the very fine piece depicting the Great Glen; it hangs in Inverness Airport, welcoming visitors to the highlands. My painting is of Sgurr Mor Fannaich from Leckmelm. Leckmelm, on Loch Broom, is well known for its mature woodland garden and is a tourist attraction in its own right. When I look at my painting, every evening when I am in London, I ask myself if that lovely scene would be enhanced by a series of 50 metre high pylons and their wires marching across the landscape—bringing us renewable electricity, yes, but at a terrible price. Those who know the highlands will know that one of the most famous viewpoints in Scotland, where every tourist bus that ever visits Wester Ross makes an almost inevitable stop, is just up the glen. It is a superb view—straight down Loch Broom, from just above the also much visited Corrieshalloch Gorge. And this is the way the pylons are coming, to ruin the view. The report addresses this issue in Chapter 8, using a different example, namely the price to be put upon the loss of landscapes from transmission lines through the Vale of York. Referring to the questions involved, it says:"““Given that the most widely used argument in favour of renewable energy is environmental, they will have to be answered at national level if public concerns are to be addressed””." The next paragraph, paragraph 8.17, is printed in bold. I shall quote it in full:"““‘Planning’ should not be seen as an obstacle. Planning and co-ordination at every level are in fact the preconditions for the effective development of renewable energy. Planning of this sort means a ‘whole systems analysis’. The unresolved tensions within the Government’s policies on renewable energy fall far short of this ideal””." In the Government’s response, we learn that the DTI has created a dedicated 2010 target team, which,"““has responsibility for delivering the 2010 target and overcoming the major barriers to reaching the target””." These barriers are listed as,"““grid; planning issues; communications; finance and investment as well as looking after business development activities. Each barrier has a project team leader and project plan which details the barriers, and their sub-sets, and activity underway to remove the barriers””." This is certainly a very focused approach. I am in favour of the Government having a policy, and having mechanisms to drive it, but the above approach sounds ominously like a stance which is intended to overcome any opposition, however legitimate. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that officials will be encouraged to find ways of having a   meaningful dialogue in their quest to overcome obstacles. There might be room for compromise or for alternatives to be considered when it comes to issues such as the routing of transmission lines through sensitive areas. For the Government’s policy on renewables in general and on wind in particular to succeed, they will need public support for both the ends and the means.