---

Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2010

My Lords, I have listened to the debate so far and there is very little left for me to say. Nevertheless, I am going to say it. I am one of those people who are rather sceptical of the contribution that CO2 makes, and will make in future, to so-called global warming. Still, one has to look at the position of the Government, how they are going to meet their obligations and what effect that will have on industry, on consumers and, particularly, on the electricity supply industry. We have heard about some of those effects today. I am also opposed to the dedicated growing of crops for energy generation. I have spoken, as have others, to Drax power station about the co-firing of its coal-fired station with biomass. Drax has assured me, and I believe it, that the biomass that it is using is from waste agricultural products, from forests that need clearing to enable them to regenerate and from sources that do not use good agricultural land for producing food. I have been quite impressed by what Drax says, and I understand its concern that the Government are giving it no particular priority—indeed, that they are shifting their priority to wind generation in order to meet their targets. As we have heard, Drax is currently constructing the largest co-firing facility in the world, with a capacity of 500 megawatts, and producing 12.5 per cent of its output from biomass will make enormous savings in CO2 emissions of 2.5 million tonnes. That is the equivalent of 600 wind turbines, saving the equivalent of the CO2 emitted by 700,000 cars. This is making a huge contribution to the Government’s obligations to Europe, and indeed to the rest of the world. I do not want to repeat much more of what has already been said, but we have not yet dealt with the question of security of supply. Between now and 2015—and beyond—that will be one of the most difficult problems with which to deal. The great benefit of Drax, and perhaps other power stations later, is that it will be a base-load station and will produce electricity at maximum demand when needed and when the wind is not blowing. That really must be tackled, and it must be understood by the Government and by consumers—who, as we have heard, will have to pay an enormous premium on their fuel costs to finance 20,000 megawatts of wind power—that that power will not guarantee that we meet our demands in the winter, particularly at peak periods, or even make a large contribution to meeting them. I urge the Government to look at this problem very seriously indeed, because they really are on the wrong track. It is essential that we provide power that will meet maximum demand. The maximum demand met during the recent cold snap was a record 58,000 megawatts, or just over, but this is likely to increase. Despite all the perhaps local savings in electricity, the very fact of population increase and more electricity use in what I hope will be additional manufacturing industry will increase the demand for electricity. An Answer to a Question that I asked recently about wind power showed that, for most of the period since 15 January, the wind power system has provided less than 50 per cent of its capacity and frequently less than 30 per cent. Indeed, on three days of the winter freeze, it provided 10 per cent or less of demand. Its lowest output was 5 per cent, on 7 January. That is a warning to the Government that they need to look again at their policy on supplies if they are to meet maximum demand, particularly if we are going to have much colder winters than we have had for the past 10 years. They will fail in their duty to do so unless they re-examine their policy and reconsider the desirability of ensuring that co-fired electricity generation can take place, because it is economic.