---

Draft National Policy Statement for Fossil Fuel Electricity Generating Infrastructure (EN-2)

I am, in my turn, happy to be corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Perhaps I may conclude on the question of deep saline aquifers. I have a document prepared by BP which we were given at Sunbury, together with a piece of rock. The document is entitled, Could this piece of rock hold an answer to climate change? It states at one point that, ""since deep saline formations contain most of the global geologic storage capacity for CO2, they are likely to become the most widely used type of geologic storage site in the long-term"." How long is "at present"? When will we be able to look at the long term? This brings me to CCR—carbon capture readiness. It is clear that if you are to be carbon capture ready it is not sufficient to be able to demonstrate that you can add the sequestration plant—the separation plant—you must also have the transport, the pipelines and a place to store the carbon. The impression has been given that somehow you can put up a coal-burning or gas-burning plant and have somewhere on it a plate that you can unbolt and then just bolt on a carbon capture plant. It is not like that at all. Indeed, EN-1 makes it perfectly clear that there needs to be the "technical feasibility of transporting" and suitable storage. It is important that those who are contemplating this—and, perhaps more importantly, the public, who being given an impression about this—should realise that it involves more than just a CO2 separation plant. How realistic is it in those circumstances to talk of a plant being CCR? How will the IPC be able to make a judgment when someone is applying to put up a coal-burning power station and is claiming that it is CCR? Does he have to demonstrate that he can put in all the pipelines and that he knows where all the carbon is to be stored? That is saying that it is virtually CCS. Indeed, there was more than a suggestion at the Sunbury briefing that CCR is an unreal concept. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that. I turn to EN-3 on renewables. I start by referring to something with which I think noble Lords will be very familiar—wind power is intermittent. However, until I saw a brief from the Chemical Industries Association, I did not realise just what the impact of that had been this winter. The document states: ""Data from January/February 2010 confirms the UK’s over-reliance on gas and coal and the ineffectiveness of wind. On 7th January, one of the days when a Gas Balancing Alert was issued wind supplied only 0.1% of total grid delivery, (just 5% of wind’s potential contribution) this fell to 0.0% on 17th February"." The document continues: ""We managed in winter 2010 because there was a 15% reduction in demand for energy from industry due to the recession"." We have all said that. We have all known that you get these prolonged periods over much of the country with no wind at all. It is interesting to recognise how the grid has begun to change its attitude to this. There was a time—probably less than a year ago—when the grid spokesmen were perfectly cheerfully saying that they could cope with as much wind as the industry could produce. Of course, at present in this country it is a very low level. However, the reports produced in north Germany, in Schleswig-Holstein and Nordrhein-Westphalia—they are now three or four years old—reveal that the Germans discovered that if wind gets above about 17 or 18 per cent of the supply to the grid, the grid becomes unstable and unmanageable. That is because wind can increase and decrease in very short order. I remember questioning the relevant person about that. It is interesting to note that in the past few months the National Grid spokesmen have begun to lay much more emphasis on the need for back-up generation. That, of course, adds very substantially to the cost of wind power because it may stand unused for long periods, yet the investment has to be made. The Government hold out the prospect of huge new investment in offshore wind. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell said that he had doubts about the practicality and economics of that. However, the Prime Minister has boasted that there will be £75 billion of investment in offshore wind. I cannot find anybody in the industry who regards that as remotely practical. Indeed, it is simply not going to happen. If it did happen, what would be the impact on the electricity customer? I attended a briefing last month given by Ofgem. I realise that that is not necessarily the Minister’s favourite body, but it is producing the figures. It shows that the cost to the customer now—