---

Energy: Renewables (EUC Report)

My Lords, from these Benches I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, for an excellent and comprehensive report on an area of increasing importance. It will be, as the report says, very challenging for the UK, and even for Europe as a whole, to meet the targets, which are quite something. Over the past year we have heard rumours of rebellious civil servants and officials in government departments saying that these targets just cannot be met. Many of us, even though we wish them well, might almost say that that is the case. I shall come to one of those areas in a minute. At the moment the European Union derives something like 8.5 per cent of its energy production from renewable energy and is aiming for 20 per cent by 2020. In trying to think how far ahead 2020 is, I go back in time to 1996 and the last full year of office of the previous Conservative Government, which seems a long time ago. However, there is little time for investment over the relevant period, and certainly very little time for invention or innovation. The relevant renewables figure for the United Kingdom is about 2 per cent, with only Malta and Luxembourg having a lower figure. Therefore, we shall have to achieve about an eightfold increase over the next 12 years for us to meet the target we are discussing. Although that may seem possible in terms of electricity generation, when we consider that it also includes heat and transport fuel, the task looks staggering. I thank my noble friend Lord Bradshaw for mentioning the visual aspects of wind farms. I like to look at wind farms. I do not often drive up the M4, but I have noticed that there is a huge wind generator by that motorway at Reading, which I consider a good thing. Wind farms are a very controversial subject in Cornwall. However, if some of them were taken down, I believe that I would not be the only person to protest that some of our greatest landmarks were disappearing. When I was a Member of the European Parliament, some farmers wanted to show me how the landscape in a certain location would be despoiled by wind generators. Indeed, I accept that you should not put them in certain locations. The farmers invited me to visit a stunning vista in north Cornwall and asked me to consider what it would look like if wind generators were installed there. However, all I could see was the criss-cross of electricity pylons stretching for miles, which made me think that you do not notice what has been there for years, and that perhaps people feel threatened by change. However, this is a controversial area of which communities are naturally very wary. One of the most telling pieces of evidence occurs at page 38 of the report. It states: "““Cambridge Econometrics has estimated that on current policies the UK would achieve less than 5% of final energy from renewable sources by 2020””." I note with interest that the report continues: "““This is a view accepted by BERR””." That is a stunning statement; namely, that on current policies we will increase our energy generation from renewables from a figure of just under 2 per cent to 5 per cent. However, the challenge is to produce another 10 per cent beyond that. I consider that the renewables energy policy concerns principally three things. It involves reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and the European Union’s 20 per cent—possibly 30 per cent—reduction target by 2020. Importantly, not just for us but for Europe also, it concerns energy security. The report on Russia of the EU committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Roper shows that Europe is dependent on Russia for 40 per cent of its gas supplies. I think that seven of the 27 EU states are completely dependent on Russia for their gas supplies. Therefore, renewables are important in that regard, but also because renewable energy is sustainable and so we do not eat up the planet as our economies motor forward. One sad thing about the United Kingdom, as was shown in the report, is that we are near the bottom of the league table; as the classic head teacher’s report says, we have to do not just better but hugely better. That means that we have missed out in a number of areas which will make it very difficult for us to catch up in terms of capacity, producing the technology ourselves, expertise, and our experience in applying the technologies—in all of which many of our EU partners are well ahead. I was interested in what has been said on technology. It is clear that we cannot and should not depend, as we are, largely on wind power. It is important for reaching the 20 per cent target and the intermittency problems are not huge, but we need diversification beyond that. I was delighted that geothermal power was mentioned. In fact, the granite batholiths in the south-west are a larger potential resource than the Severn barrage. I am not aware at all of a problem with sulphur. In fact, much geothermal power is generated mainly in volcanic areas, where there may be some sulphur output naturally; but even in the UK and other parts of Europe there is potential. An experimental station in Soultz, Alsace, started operating earlier this year, but, unfortunately, the technology is unlikely to be on-stream until about 2020, along with a number of other technologies that we have talked around. The Government’s commendable move to including heat in the Energy Bill and lay down a framework for the equivalent of renewable obligations or freedom tariffs for heat One area that makes me more positive about the targets, is. Heat accounts for some 47 per cent of carbon emissions and a large proportion of our energy consumption in the UK and Europe. It is an area that we need to tackle; and there is a lot more scope for renewables—certainly in biogas, whose industry has a great potential to increase, and in biomass in terms of timber and timber-related heating. I cannot understand, given that we realise the urgency of this issue, why in any new house or building we do not insist on heat pump technology or something equivalent being installed, as to retro-fit any of these types of technology is incredibly expensive. I would be interested to hear the Government’s latest view on biofuels. The 10 per cent target has already been mentioned, but this is an important part of meeting Europe’s target for 20 per cent of renewables. Biofuels have gone from being a saviour to something that is seen as a threat to our ecology and the environment. Where do the Government now stand and what is their understanding of where Europe stands? There has been a fair degree of disagreement within the Commission about whether the targets should remain and how we ensure that energy resources are sustainable. I was not aware of the issue of guarantees of origin before I read the report. I understand my noble friend’s scepticism in terms of previous forestry badges. The EU ETS has certainly shown that certification in terms of emissions and generation can be strong. However, in the United Kingdom, renewables obligation certificates are effectively a guarantee of origin already, and I would like to understand whether the two systems conflict in terms of registering renewable output, or whether they come together quite well. However, because I still do not understand this and I do not believe that the Energy Bill, which is about to become law, really deals with it, my basic question to the Minister is: exactly how is Cambridge Econometrics wrong and how will policies in the future ensure that we bridge the gap between the predicted 5 per cent and the 15 per cent that I am sure everyone in this House wishes to achieve?