---

Renewable Energy (S&T Report)

My Lords, like other noble Lords I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool for the excellent way in which they spoke to their respective Motions. The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, discussed the report produced by the Select Committee. The right reverend Prelate in the main discussed energy efficiency but also mentioned renewable energy. It clearly makes sense to debate both Motions together. Their concurrent interest in energy subjects is symptomatic of the concerns of many Members of your Lordships’ House. Those concerns have been expressed in many previous debates and Questions. Indeed, many experts are speaking in today’s debate. This is not a party political matter. Concerns have   been expressed by noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber. Indeed, the two Motions that we are discussing were initiated respectively by a Cross-Bencher and a Member of the Bishops’ Benches. I am sorry to say that the Government’s responses to previous debates seemed to be rather optimistic. I hope that we shall consider that the Minister’s reply to the debate today will indicate that the Government will deal with these matters. That is not a political point as noble Lords from all sides of the House have mentioned it. The excellent report of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, is worthwhile in that it highlights the problems and the effectiveness, or otherwise, of the solutions that the Government support. The committee rightly discusses wind power which plays a major part in the Government’s plans for renewables. However, as the committee points out, apart from the environmental problems on land and the differing ones for offshore installations, the major   problem is the fact that wind blows only intermittently. My noble friends Lord Jenkin and Lady Platt emphasised that point. As the report says, that means that there will have to be a conventional generating capacity as a standby for those times when the wind does not blow, which will be expensive. Alternatively, there could be an agreement with some users to accept a possibly interrupted service, which would permit them to pay a lower tariff. The Energy White Paper, Our energy future—creating a low carbon economy, set the scene for the Energy Act 2004, the report that we are discussing and the problems to which the right reverend Prelate referred. There is no doubt that the aim of the policy was to ensure security of supply together with low carbon emissions. Not having low carbon emissions results in the real problem of climate change, which the right reverend Prelate discussed. The debate ever since has concerned how we can achieve those two objectives. The report was not able to consider the nuclear option. I was very interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, said on the subject. It is clear from the report that although many kinds of renewable energy are being considered, the Government are placing most of their hopes on wind power for the replacement of nuclear power. However, what is not generally appreciated is that the intermittency factor means that wind power can never be a consistent and basic source of electrical supply. I suggest that all it can do is to enable replacement of more conventional fuels at favourable times; in other words, when the wind blows you may be able to close down a gas-fired station for a few hours. Biomass is another renewable that receives the attention of the committee under the attention-getting headline ““Chicken litter vs chicken feathers””. The committee points out that the generating plant must be situated close to the source of the fuel, otherwise the CO2 emitted by the lorries transporting it around the   country would absorb a significant proportion of the savings that the process is supposed to make. While producing crops that can be burned for fuel may produce welcome income for farmers, the local communities are unlikely to welcome the erection of a power plant in the rural area. The committee came to the conclusion that the Government’s projections for biomass as a contribution to our energy needs are perhaps over-optimistic. The Government response claims that between 5 per cent and 6 per cent of UK energy demand in 2020 could be generated from that source. Unfortunately, the response simply does not answer the committee’s question—how realistic are the projections? I define the questions more specifically. Who will plant the crops? Who will build the plants? Where, and at what cost? The Government admit:"““Development of energy crops for energy generation is a difficult issue””." Those of us who are used to Whitehall-speak know what that really means. Unfortunately the long grass, into which this concept is clearly being kicked, is not itself capable of being burned for fuel. On a personal note, I recall that my late father, who   was a furniture manufacturer, had a problem disposing of large quantities of sawdust. He solved it by burning it in specially adapted boilers, saving both on his fuel bills and on the cost of having the waste hauled away. Unfortunately, it took a long time to recover the cost of the plant. However, with some help   from the Treasury—which experience tells me is      unlikely to be forthcoming—other businesses producing flammable waste could be encouraged to do the same. As the committee comments, climate and latitude limit the use of solar power as a significant contributor to our power needs. On another renewable source the committee says:"““We do not believe that it is feasible for wave or tidal generation to contribute significantly to meeting the Government’s 2010 target. However there is no technological barrier to tidal barrages making a significant contribution by 2020””." The Government’s response admits to,"““High generation costs . . .  that have little or no prospects of reduction””." The Government also admit to the,"““Significant impact on the local and regional environments””." Time does not allow me to comment in much more detail on the committee’s report, but it points out with unerring accuracy the practical problems of renewable energy technology, and we broadly concur with its conclusions. I turn to the equally cogent contribution by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. As much as methods of generating electricity are essential to our economy and the well-being of the population, it is axiomatic in business that the first thing to do to make a profit is to stop losing or wasting money. Many noble   Lords have spoken about the loss of power in conventional matters. The same principle applies to meeting simultaneously our energy needs and our Kyoto commitments. Energy efficiency can be encouraged by the Government not just by warm words but with practical help: for example, a reduction of VAT—so far as EU regulations allow a sovereign nation to do so—on materials and work used for conservation of energy or for energy-efficient plant. Also, a landlord’s energy saving allowance would enable private landlords’ relief on capital expenditure for installing loft and cavity wall insulation in rented accommodation. A major cause of CO2 emissions, as has been mentioned frequently this evening, is our beloved motorcar—despite the development of ever-more efficient vehicles that are counterbalanced by the fume-belching 4x4s. That is a particular form of nimbyism; there should be fewer cars on the road so that I can drive mine more easily. Increasing air traffic is an equal, if not even greater, cause of CO2 emissions and damage to the ozone layer. Something must be done about the number and frequency of cheap flights to all destinations; except for those to where I want to   travel. That is the problem. The noble Lord, Lord   Whitty, talked about better behaviour. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, mentioned how he goes around the country speaking on the issue. All that is good, but people are not listening at the moment. Although solar power has been largely dismissed as a factor in the renewables programme, as we have heard, it can make a small contribution to saving electricity. In Israel, many houses have solar batteries on their roofs. At least they heat the water. In New York, there is a landmark building that runs its lifts—its elevators—largely off the panels on its roof. It has been pointed out to me that this is a timed debate. I am well aware that if I do not sit down at the appropriate time, the Minister will not have time to make his contribution. I shall leave my final three pages because I could not get through them short of gobbling them up, which would mean that people would not be able to hear them. I think that most noble Lords would rather hear the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury.