---

Renewable Energy (S&T Report)

My Lords, our committee was very disappointed with the Government’s first response to our report. Since then, we have received a much better response from the new Minister for energy. On a number of matters, we are in agreement in principle with the Government. The threat of climate change is a real one and we need to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, which leads to greater production of carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere and therefore the development of global warming. The UK has a responsibility in this field, as does the EU, but we are aware that the rest of the world, especially India and China, must also reduce their production of CO2. In reducing our production, we must be careful of our UK industry, with its emphasis on economy in this field, or we could see overall increases in global warming contributed by other countries which, for instance, are still using dirty coal. The associated debate introduced by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool is also taking place now, but I will, if he will forgive me, reserve my contribution until our report has been produced soon. Our overriding recommendation is for one Minister to be responsible for security of supply. The Government, in their Energy White Paper, put forward four aims which the House of Commons Select Committee criticised strongly. The Government accept that there is tension between these goals and have now made Malcolm Wicks responsible for energy issues, with a particular focus on sustainability. The responsibility for security of supply is still shared with Ofgem. The recent blackouts in New York, California and Italy illustrate the serious nature of these effects on industrialist societies. I hope that security of supply will rise on the Government’s agenda and that the Minister will have final responsibility for ensuring it. The day the lights go out in people’s homes, together with their domestic machinery, when industry is disastrously affected, hospitals put out of action and electrically operated trains stopped is too dreadful to contemplate. Someone has to carry the can. The committee welcomed the use of wind power as a renewable source, but at the same time recognised that there are several snags in its use. In the first place, it is intermittent, but, unlike tidal power which occurs regularly twice a day, wind power is both intermittent and unpredictable. In January, it would be possible to experience an anticyclone lasting several days when there would be very little wind power available anywhere in the UK at a critical cold time. The vital point, in conjunction with reliance on wind power, is to have efficient, firm and available standby power. Our North Sea fields of oil and gas are rapidly diminishing and in the foreseeable future we shall be a net importer of fossil fuels. Gas will have to be pumped thousands of miles across several countries, and could be subject to sabotage. Of course, it will also produce CO2. I am glad that the potential use of nuclear power is rising on the agenda. The Government have appointed CoRWM to report next summer on the safe storage of nuclear waste. That waste has to be dealt with in any case. It will not go away and needs an all-party agreement on its permanent, safe storage, probably deep underground, for several thousands of years. In the mean time, nuclear power does not produce CO2. We have a good record of safety in this country in our nuclear power stations. We must plan ahead for future use of nuclear power and continue to develop our professional skills in that area. We cannot afford to lose them. If we do not take action ourselves, we shall probably import nuclear power from France, where 70 per cent of the country’s power comes from that source. It certainly needs to be exempt from the climate change levy here. Wind farms, of course, are controversial, as they are likely to be placed in beautiful environments which people will not want ruined. They will need roadways, lorries and cranes for their construction, both onshore and offshore and that consumes energy. Most of the sites are in the north of our country, while the greater use of electricity is in the south, so the distribution system will need strengthening again across open countryside for the electricity to be delivered safely to its users, which will probably also be controversial locally. All this lends emphasis to the need for diversity, both technically and geographically, in renewables. I am glad that the Government are now taking much more interest in tidal power and will look again at the provision of a tidal lagoon at Swansea. If that were successful as a demonstration project, other lagoons could be constructed elsewhere. The provision of the £50 million Marine Renewables Deployment Fund will help. We recommend using coalmine methane rather than allowing it to leak into the upper atmosphere as a bad greenhouse gas. The Government have now exempted it from the climate change levy and in the future I hope it will be exempt from phase two of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. They are also considering the case for extending eligibility to energy from waste projects. Those polices will help to promote renewable diversity. We recommended the use of biomass, accepting that it is heavy and needs to be available nearer to the power stations where it is used, otherwise energy is used in its transport. The Government have responded more favourably to that idea. They say applications have increased as a result. They are also accepting the use of those fuels to create heat as well as electricity, which is another vital point which should encourage the use of community heat and power by local authorities in new developments. Solar power in Britain can be expensive, but there is no doubt that its application to navigational aids and installations such as parking meters, bus shelters and street lighting is valuable where there are allied savings in maintenance of fuel supply. We welcome research on energy storage, but as the Renewable Energy Foundation says it is never likely to be capable of storage on an industrial scale. Finally, we welcome the Clear Skies £10 million DTI-funded initiative to enable local authorities and schools and so on to benefit locally from energy saving projects—another of our recommendations. Schoolchildren coming home and turning lights off to save energy can set habits for present and future generations. Personal benefit is an excellent encouragement; the carrot is better than the stick. A lot of people in this country do not appreciate the vital need for economy in the use of power and the elimination of its waste. No one can relax his efforts. I underline that our emphasis in our report is on practicalities. That means action by the Government in all these fields, not just words.