Examination of witnesses (Questions 60
- 79)
WEDNESDAY 5 JULY 2000
PROFESSOR SIR
TOM BLUNDELL,
DR SUSAN
OWENS and PROFESSOR
BRIAN HOSKINS
60. We have not succeeded in convincing people
really, have we? The sad thing to me is that for the whole of
my political life has had exactly this argument. Why have we not
succeeded in convincing people. We have not even succeeded in
convincing some people that the problem exists, let alone what
the solutions are.
(Professor Sir Tom Blundell) The awareness of carbon
dioxide and global warming really originated in the time of Margaret
Thatcher in terms of the public mind in this country and that
was 12 or 13 years ago. When many of those technologies were discussed
earlier on, there was not this driver for them. It is not quite
such a depressing picture as you say.
Mr Benn
61. On onshore wind power, you say, and I just
wanted to question you on what you meant by this, "... difficulties
have arisen largely because the planning system was not used in
a proactive and strategic way to frame appropriate questions and
explore possible solutions". Can you just explain to us what
that means?
(Dr Owens) We were told in evidence that the problem
is that onshore wind is effectively stalled at present because
of the difficulties it has been experiencing in getting consents
for wind turbines. It was suggested to us in evidence that that
was due to a failure of the planning system. We thought however
that it was more likely to be due to a failure to use the planning
system effectively. There has been a particular difficulty with
onshore wind because of the way the NFFO arrangements have operated
so that NFFO contracts were awarded in advance of any consideration
of the environmental impacts of particular developments. Not surprisingly
therefore, when those developments were submitted for planning
consent some of them proved to be extremely controversial. We
are pleased to see that the Government is proposing to do regional
renewable energy assessments involving many stakeholders with
the object of identifying those areas where it may be possible
to develop renewable energy resources whilst minimising the sorts
of impacts which have made the development of onshore wind energy
difficult. Some of the most vulnerable landscapes are in the areas
of the highest wind speeds which have therefore been the most
profitable places to put the wind turbines. We need to look at
more considerations than that.
62. Would you not agree that the best solution,
though clearly more costly at the moment, is to put it offshore
where you are unlikely to have the same difficulties on esthetic
grounds?
(Dr Owens) Yes. We have certainly looked at the possibility
of offshore wind in the report and we see that as one of the areas
where there may be significant developments. I should add that
also is not totally problem free. In some of our scenarios large
offshore wind farms would be visible from much of the UK's coastline
and there are some groups who are very protective about wide open
views from our coastline. Also the energy has to be brought ashore
and it has to be taken to its point of use. So it is not problem
free, but it probably has less impact that onshore wind and we
do see that as a potential.
(Professor Hoskins) I should like to add that the
UK is in a particularly good situation for all these things. We
may not be that well blessed with solar, but it is not as bad
as some people think. Certainly in terms of wind, waves, tidal
stream, we are in the right place to be a leader on all these.
We have it lapping around us and it is there to tap. Certainly
there are difficulties and we have recognised those difficulties.
There is certainly something there which we need to exploit.
63. Given that huge potential, is there one
thing you would want the Government to do to help the development
of the technology and its application?
(Professor Sir Tom Blundell) One thing? We should
like the Government to increase research and development in this
area by a factor of four which would still leave it less than
it was ten years ago.
Mr Stevenson
64. You point out in your proposals that more
resources should be provided for local authorities to improve
alternative transport modes in their areas. Given the undoubted
political difficulties of changing attitudes, particularly when
it comes to private motorcars, do you think the Government's concentration
on putting the onus on local authorities through local transport
plans is more likely to achieve these objectives in the medium
and long term or less?
(Dr Owens) We argue in our report that the local authorities,
many of whom welcome their new powers, will need financial help
and strong encouragement from central government if they are to
have the courage to implement some of the measures that the Transport
Bill will give them the powers to do. We recognise the difficulties.
65. I am sure you will be aware that there are
those critics of the Government who say this is Government opting
out. In other words, they will give local authorities the power,
but if they do not use it then it is not the Government's fault
it is theirs. Do you consider that to be a realistic criticism
in any way, shape or form?
(Dr Owens) Local authorities do rely for a large part
of their transport expenditure on central government. So one assumes
that their transport policies, which are now developed over a
five-year period, will have to have some kind of approval if the
necessary resources are to be made available.
66. Would you care to clarify what you mean
by "strong encouragement"?
(Dr Owens) The Government itself could be taking measures.
We are awaiting announcements on investment in public transport.
If local authorities see that central government is taking the
measures which have been proposed in the Integrated Transport
White Paper, so that everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet,
then they may feel similarly encouraged to do so. I might add
that some local authorities have been rather in the frontline
of thinking about what can be done in the transport sector. They
were ahead of the Government and the White Paper followed rather
than led.
67. My second question is to seek some amplification
from you. I am pretty sure earlier on Professor Blundell referred
to Norwegian oil companies who are either implementing or looking
to implement removing carbon dioxide from their product. Do I
paraphrase you correctly here?
(Professor Sir Tom Blundell) Yes. They are required
legally to do so.
68. They are required legally to do that.
(Professor Sir Tom Blundell) They have to reduce it
to a certain level of carbon dioxide. I forget the level.
69. That answers my question really. I was going
to ask how that came about. Would you just care to confirm that
that is a legal obligation?
(Professor Sir Tom Blundell) I would need to get clarification
on that. I believe that there is a limit to which they have to
decrease the carbon dioxide, certainly in certain gas fields the
carbon dioxide levels with the gas are quite high. So they have
been required to implement new technologies to remove it at source
and this is what they have been doing. I think it is the best
example of the fact that it can be done. It is not a technology
in the future, it is being done now. It is being put in these
submarine saline aquifers.
70. Presumably that is all North Sea oil, because
that is where they produce it from.
(Professor Sir Tom Blundell) Yes. I am informed authoritatively
that it is part of the Kyoto obligation to have certain levels
of carbon dioxide.
71. If we take an oil company like NorskHydro
as an example, 51 per cent owned by the Norwegian Government,
you can confirm that it is a law, a legal obligation passed by
the Government, that Norwegian oil producers must comply with
these carbon dioxide levels in their product.
(Professor Sir Tom Blundell) Yes. I am informed that
it should be Norwegian gas producers and that it is to meet their
Kyoto target.
72. For my benefit, is it oil producers or is
it gas producers? Sometimes they can be both.
(Professor Sir Tom Blundell) It is carbon dioxide
in the gas.
73. In the gas fields, not the oil. The technology
exists to do this and presumably if the technology exists it could
be taken further to reduce the carbon dioxide content in that
product if that were decided.
(Professor Sir Tom Blundell) Yes.
74. Any reason we could not do that in the UK?
(Professor Sir Tom Blundell) There are two aspects
at the moment. One is to be absolutely sure about safety, to be
absolutely clear that the levels of carbon dioxide we would want
to put in the submarine aquifers were not going to reach the surface
in ways which could cause damage. We need to do a bit more research
in that area. Of course it would also increase the cost of fuel
or production of electricity if you were using gas and we do have
some figures and they are in our report. It is about 1p per unit
as I remember. The major problem is that it would increase costs
now, but if you included the externalities, then of course the
cost would be reduced.
Chairman
75. What are the prospects for reductions in
domestic energy use?
(Professor Sir Tom Blundell) They are mainly in terms
of improving the efficiency of our housing stock. The opportunities
to improve the SAP ratings are very great. As you know, it is
a scale which looks as though it is a percentage but we can do
even better than 100. There should be great improvements in the
new housing we build and there are considerable improvements we
could make in the houses we have now. People would be more aware
if there was information about it in the seller's pack. We could
also make considerable advances through further labelling of appliances
used in the house in terms of energy efficiency.
76. So labelling, insulation, energy pack at
the point of sale. What else?
(Professor Sir Tom Blundell) Combined heat and power.
We say quite a lot in the report about the need to move to a situation
where we would have local small combined heat and power units.
What you would do is develop heat and electricity and, as I said,
if you are wasting half the energy—
Chairman: I do not want to go back over things
we have already elucidated.
Dr Ladyman
77. I am confused and I do not want you to be
misleading the Committee. The stuff which comes out of the ground
that you want because you want to burn it is methane.
(Professor Sir Tom Blundell) Yes.
78. Are you saying that out of the ground also
comes some CO2 which they capture and put back?
(Professor Sir Tom Blundell) Yes.
79. Or are you trying to suggest to the Committee
that when you burn methane somehow the Norwegians are able to
capture the CO2.
(Professor Sir Tom Blundell) No, I am saying that
with the methane comes carbon dioxide and in order to reduce their
emissions they have to remove it.
| 
