---

Renewable Energy (S&T Report)

My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, for his very capable chairmanship of our committee, and for introducing the debate on the report. I thank the right reverend Prelate for his Motion. None of us is in any doubt about the reasons for cutting back on emissions due to energy use. I for one read the recent interview with the noble Lord, Lord   Oxburgh, in the Guardian newspaper with great interest. It is depressing to note his conclusion that even if we achieve the Government’s targets for the reduction of CO2 emissions by 2020, our good efforts are likely to be swamped by the emissions of energy hungry developing nations, particularly India and China, as other speakers have said. We published our report this time last year. The initial government response was weak and the revised government response is welcome. I had the privilege of being a member of EU Sub-Committee B when it reported on renewable energy in 1999. On both occasions that we visited Denmark it was interesting to note the change in the attitude of the Danish Government to wind energy. The previous Minister had been a very powerful character in its promulgation but that is not the case with the current government. The remit of our committee was to look at the practicalities of the Government’s programme for renewable energy. There was almost universal disbelief on the part of those we spoke to in our ability to achieve the ambitious targets that the Government had set. The only mature technology capable of meeting those targets is obviously wind power. However, the visit to Woking showed what could be achieved by large-scale use of photovoltaic and other means by a committed public body. It was also interesting to note that at one point there was a major power failure in Woking and Tesco had to shut down for a considerable period at very considerable cost. However, the Woking borough offices and its customers continued to operate quite happily. As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, energy efficiency, its use and conservation must not be ignored. A recent Written Answer by the Minister to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, emphasises the discrepancy between the thermal energy inputs and electrical energy outputs of our power stations. This indicates a thermal efficiency of about 38.7 per cent and a corresponding wastage in excess of 60 per cent. CHP systems, where practical, can raise the thermal efficiency to more than 70 per cent. Our take-up of CHP in this country is pathetic compared with our European counterparts, and the Government should do much more to encourage CHP schemes in our major urban areas where they are practical. Regarding our report and the revised government response, I am glad to see that they welcome many of our proposals, and that they have moved to tackle some of the obstacles to the achievement of their targets. The planning regime, the need to enthuse the local populace—perhaps by beneficial pricing due to the lack of transmission costs—and the need to satisfy MoD safety concerns, are critical. I am glad to note in the Government response that the MoD has become less dogmatic in its opposition to wind farm schemes. Large-scale offshore wind farms, such as the committee saw at Horns Rev in Denmark, are an obvious solution, and it is good to note that similar developments are now coming on-line in the UK. It is also welcome to note that the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon system is being more actively considered. R&D funding is vital for the less mature technologies, and I welcome the £500 million to be spent between 2002 and 2008, as the right reverend Prelate mentioned. Will the Minister elaborate on how, and on what technologies, that money might be spent? I am particularly interested in marine systems for power generation, but as an engineer I am highly sceptical of the long-term viability of reciprocating wave generators in a harsh marine environment. However, I welcome the other initiatives in the marine sphere and the ongoing research into them. I still have concerns with system stability and the position of the   distributed network operators with substantial distribution generation at the local level. There must be technical limits, at about 20 per cent penetration of wind power, due to the type of generators used. There is also the requirement to maintain security of supply on occasions in both winter and summer when there is no wind. That has been touched on by other noble Lords. That implies that for security of supply we must have other reliable base load generation currently filled by our existing coal, gas and oil-fired power stations and the 22 per cent input from the existing nuclear power stations. The progressive closure of all our coal-fired power stations and the closure of all nuclear generation by 2023, except for Sizewell B, will   leave us almost totally dependent on oil and gas imports from Russia, the Ukraine, and other states that may not be as politically stable as we are. Not only that, but for Russian gas we shall be at the end of the pipeline, and anyone else on the other end can turn it off and we will get none. Furthermore, we shall be competing in an increasingly competitive marketplace for diminishing supplies at an increasing price, which must in turn substantially raise our generation costs. For the UK to abandon nuclear electricity generation in that scenario is madness. Renewables can supply only a minor portion of our requirement, and nuclear is the obvious candidate for base load generation. New designs such as the BNFL Westinghouse AP1000 reactor are now ready for exploitation, but I understand that there is a serious risk of the intellectual property rights for that design being lost to the UK and sold to the US, thus losing the benefits of our accumulated design expertise. Will the Minister comment on that? A balanced energy policy with a diversity of reliable energy sources is essential for the future of our country. Due attention must be paid to energy conservation and efficiency, not only in its domestic and industrial use but also in transport, an area in which we have done much too little.