| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby) (Con): It is a great pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee, the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), who speaks with real authority. I hope that he does not regard any of my remarks as scaremongering, because that is not my intention.
A bright young researcher of mine—he has recently come down from Oxford—with whom I discussed global warming, agrees that climate change is taking place, but he questions whether it is man-made. In anecdotal terms, when the weather in February is warmer than that in May, it is obvious that something is happening to our climate. I was therefore pleased to be able to show my researcher a report published last week in The Times. It is an important report, given that there are still people in America, for example—perhaps even in the Bush Administration—who question whether man has any role in climate change. The report states:
"This lack of tropospheric warming has long puzzled scientists, as it is predicted by all the major models of climate change. It has also been seized on by a small but vocal minority of scientists, who have used it to raise doubts about whether global temperatures are rising at all. The enigma, however, has been explained"
by a report by the university of Washington in Seattle.
I am not an expert on tropospheric warming, but it is now entirely clear that we must address man's actions. To that extent, I believe that climate change has been caused by our actions, and I applaud the Government's stated intention to tackle that issue in the Energy Bill, but I question whether the Bill and the White Paper will achieve their intention to reduce emissions, while at the same time securing our supply.
10 May 2004 : Column 72
I do not wish to scaremonger, but anyone who saw the recent television programme "If . . . The Lights Go Out"—it was set, I think, in the 2020s—must be concerned, especially given that the topical trigger for the lights going out in Britain was a Chechen terrorist attack on a gas pipeline in Russia. Of course, yesterday the Chechen President was assassinated.
The Government's concentration on renewables is laudable. I was keen on renewables long before I entered Parliament. I have a solar photovoltaic roof, which was supported by the Minister's Department, at great cost. I also have an anemometer on a farm behind my house—as Members will know, an anemometer measures wind speed—and I hope to be able to generate wind energy. There could be planning problems and I might lose a few constituency votes, but never mind—I believe in putting my money where my mouth is.
The photovoltaic roof is very expensive, even with a Department of Trade and Industry grant, and I have so far found the electricity generated fairly disappointing, although it is being monitored. The wind energy generated is excellent, but of course, wind is intermittent and such energy cannot be the whole answer. Tidal and wave power—maritime energy—may have their part to play, but not yet. Hydrogen cracked from renewable sources and stored in fuel cells also has its part to play. The technological developments are very exciting, but they are for the future, not now.
Most observers do not believe that the Government will achieve their target of 10 per cent. generating capacity from renewables by 2010. On the other hand, combined heat and power is a proven technology. The Government had two targets for that as well, the first of which was 5 GW generating capacity by 2000. We have yet to meet that target. The second target was 10 GW generating capacity by 2010, which to some extent is why our noble Friends in the House of Lords introduced clause 120.
According to a briefing from the Combined Heat and Power Association, CHP can play a major role in achieving the Government's carbon reduction targets because it improves competitiveness by reducing energy costs. It is a highly efficient means of energy production that converts 70 to 90 per cent. of fuel into energy. Yet the Government are not on track to meet their election manifesto pledge. CHP output has remained stagnant in the past three years. The hon. Member for Ochil mentioned the independent study by ILEX, which I commend to the Government. It could help them to meet their carbon reduction targets by incentivising the CHP industry.
Mr. Blizzard: The hon. Gentleman has professed his support for wind generation, but is he aware of the briefing provided to Members by the British Wind Energy Association? It states that clause 120
"would disrupt the working of the renewables obligation . . . mean a lower demand for renewables obligation certificates and . . . a lower price, which would affect the income of renewable generators."
"the Association does not believe this is the right time to be making . . . changes to the RO . . . before the review",
because doing so will simply bring uncertainty and unpredictability into the equation.
10 May 2004 : Column 73
Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I should point out that I do not accept everything that every briefing says. Apparently, 60 per cent. of UK renewables developers are in favour of clause 120, so there are two views in the renewables market. Before moving on from discussing the CHPA, I should point out that I am a vice-president of it, although sadly unpaid. So CHP is part of the answer, but it is not the whole answer. By forcing down prices, the new electricity trading arrangements—NETA—which was Government policy until recently, have scuppered CHP investment in the past two years. That is not what we call joined-up government.
I turn to the energy mix, the excellent points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) and what is a major hole in Government policy. Renewables will not make up the 21 per cent. or so of our generating capacity that is currently produced by nuclear energy. By 2020, nuclear will supply only 7 per cent. or less of our capacity. As has been pointed out, no carbon emissions will be prevented by substituting renewable energy for nuclear; there is a hole, and it must be filled.
I believe that, should this Government win the next general election—God forbid!—they intend to announce a new generation of nuclear power stations, because that is the only way in which the hole can be filled. I find that distasteful, and any voters who might be influenced by such considerations would be surprised at that announcement. Such a policy might influence a campaign by Greenpeace, for example, in the run-up to the general election. Such actions are typical of this Government. I hope that the Minister will come clean and say how he intends to fill that hole. His predecessor, the right hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), made clear his belief that further investment in nuclear is required. I look forward to an answer to that point in the winding-up speech.
In terms of energy policy over the past five or six years, the views of the former Minister with responsibility for energy are interesting. In an interview for The Sunday Times of 17 August last year, the right hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, said:
"Throughout my time as energy minister I was highly skeptical of the priority given by the regulator to driving down the generator price of electricity.
Apart from anything else, by driving producers out of the market it became inevitable the price would rise later so any political gain is short term.
Government has to some extent abdicated its power in this area by creating an independent regulator."
I have a high regard for the right hon. Gentleman, and those points need to be mentioned. The closed-down generating capacity—the closed-down future supply—has largely been caused by Government policy, so they should take responsibility.
Will the Government's policy as constituted in the Energy Bill work? In an article in The Times of 18 August last year, Sir Alec Broers, the president of the Royal Academy of Engineering, warned that renewable energy will not stop global warming or blackouts. He said that the Government's plan to generate 20 per cent. of electricity from renewable sources by 2020 is unrealistic, and that investment in nuclear power is critical if shortages are to be avoided. So he obviously does not think that the policy will work.
10 May 2004 : Column 74
I finish by referring to a paper published last week by PricewaterhouseCoopers—"Supply Essentials: Utility Survey"—which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury. It is a global survey, but the observations apply to the UK as well. It states:
"Last year security of supply barely rated as a concern among European and US companies . . . it is now top of the industry's agenda.
Renewable energy will not generate sufficient power to make up the shortfall as more nuclear plants are retired . . .
The current reliance on coal will increasingly be replaced with gas, and longer term this raises issues of security of fuels sources . . .
There is a need for swift action from utilities and regulatory authorities alike to prevent further grid supply collapses".
These questions need answers, and I look forward to the Minister's answers to them in his winding-up speech.
6.30 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |