---

Renewable Energy (S&T Report)

My Lords, I sympathise with my noble friend Lord Oxburgh and other noble Lords in deploring the delay in discussing his committee’s admirable and practical report. A further six months elapsed before the Government’s rather complacent response was produced. I do not know whether it is a record that there had to be another response last Monday. I propose to comment briefly on two aspects of the wind energy issue. That is a rather narrow front, but, as far as I can see, it is the only show in town for the Government, at least for the next 10 years. My first point arises from the issue of reliability of supply and the interesting lessons the committee learnt from its visit to Denmark and from the subsequent studies by Mr Sharman—who is referred to by the committee—on the Nordic-German interconnection system. To me, they were a real eye-opener. I fear that I must restrict myself to one aspect of them only, and I shall touch on the interesting points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, in connection with intermittency and reliability. Much is made of the problem of back-up. However, I am sure that the more interesting issue is not the probability of no wind or too much wind, but the situation that arises when the wind turbines have to be curtailed because of lack of demand. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to this. The real difficulty of balancing the system under any of these circumstances when the wind capacity is greater than 10 per cent of the total system capacity is well known. It was referred to in the report and by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. Perhaps less appreciated is the effect on load factors. The committee quotes a 21 per cent load factor for Denmark and the same source, Mr Hugh Sharman, has arrived at a figure of 16 per cent for Germany in 2003. As I understand it, that is for the interconnected system of Denmark, Germany, Sweden and Norway, which is quite a big system. Nevertheless, the committee thought that 30 per cent would be a fair assumption for the UK. They may be right, but there are all sorts of factors involved. However, 30 per cent is surely a pretty low load factor by any standard for any capital-intensive plant, and it is difficult to think of plant that is much more capital-intensive than a modern wind turbine. But that is not the real point. Surely, the sole rationale for this expensive electricity is CO2 avoidance? Therefore, as load factors fall to 30 per cent or below the CO2 saving falls pari passu and the CO2 rationale goes out of the window, as it is reduced. Furthermore, the profitability of the wind farms will also be diminished and there will be a much higher degree of uncertainty. That may well affect future contractors, and I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, had to say about it in the medium-term future. Presumably that risk factor will be all the greater for offshore because of the greater investment required. And note that these risks do not arise from there being no wind or too much wind, but from the conflicting interplay between demand and supply, minute by minute, which results in curtailment. There are huge diurnal variations in demand that simply have to be balanced—coped with. When you have a lot of wind capacity on the system, the number of occasions when the wind energy output has to be curtailed obviously increases; at some point they will increase dramatically. I turn to my second topic, the landscape and planning issues. Here I find myself very much in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Haworth. I was pleased to note that in paragraph 8.15 the committee agreed with the evidence submitted by the CPRE that,"““policy on renewables development should . . .  sit within a wider framework of land-use policy at all levels of strategic planning””." I am sure the committee is right when at paragraph 8.19 it states:"““We do not believe that urging developers to engage in””—" to quote PPS22—"““‘active consultation and discussion’ will in itself secure public support””." I do not think that the committee realises the real horror and the fierce objection of local communities to these huge industrial monsters on their doorstep. The new generation of these behemoths will be bigger than St Paul’s and will almost reach the same height as the top of the spire of Salisbury Cathedral. As we all know, that can be seen for miles in all directions. It is not just a matter of local objections. Many of these new or proposed wind farms are in fine, open, upland landscapes. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Haworth, referred vividly to this in regard to the Highlands. The new generation turbines simply dwarf these landscapes. Little consideration has been given to the environmental effect of the massive road works that are nowadays necessary or—again, as the noble Lord, Lord Haworth, said—the grid systems which have to connect them. Anyone who has been, for example, to the Cefn Croes wind farm in north Wales will know exactly what I mean on that point about the road works. This is not just Nimbyism on the part of local communities. The danger to the enjoyment of these wild landscapes concerns everyone. It is a national concern. Nor is it just a technical question of designated landscapes, that is to say, national parks, AONBs, SSSIs and so on. It is a matter of concern that the admirable concept of buffer zones in the old PPG22 has been emasculated by the new version in PPS22. The goalposts have been moved with a vengeance. That is all justified in the name of sustainable development. Yet protecting fine landscape is just as much within the Government’s own definition of sustainable development in PPS1 as is producing clean energy. There are, moreover, wider and more direct consequences—the effect on tourism and the local economies. Many wind farm sites lie on the edges of national parks. Other fine landscapes are involved. Tourism is increasingly becoming the most important economic activity. The sight of these massive structures can hardly be said to enhance the appeal of   the attraction for open-air activity of all sorts—the   walkers, the climbers, the boaters or even just the ordinary motorist—in these areas. If you lose the tourists you lose a lot of local GDP. That is against a background of declining agricultural prosperity. These upland areas are weak economies and we should not put them further at risk. If we are not careful we will put at risk the livelihoods of the people who live in these fragile rural economies. And we will do so to achieve a distinctly modest abatement of CO2 emissions, achieved only at a considerable cost to electricity customers. Can we not be a little more holistic and a little more joined up?