| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The notice
process has caused extreme concern in my constituency. An application
was made some years ago by Celtic Offshore Wind for the development of
a wind farm at a location that was described as being on the Rhyl
flats. The Rhyl flats is an area that is identified on Admiralty
charts. As one might imagine, it is off the coast at the town of Rhyl.
[Interruption.] Yes, the right hon. Gentleman for
Cardiff, South and Penarth may laugh, but the point of the story is
that consent was granted, and when local residents carried out further
investigations it turned out that the wind farm was not cited on the
Rhyl flats at all but on another area of sea called the Constable bank,
which is about 10 miles to the west off the town of Rhos-on-Sea. One
wonders why the developers applied the description of Rhyl flats to the
wind farm when it was not on the Rhyl flats but on a totally different
maritime feature. Those of a less
charitable disposition might suggest that they did that because they
anticipated far less opposition from the townspeople of Rhyl than from
the extremely articulate people of
Rhos-on-Sea.
The Government should take steps to ensure that the planning and consent process is as transparent as possible, that a clear indication is given in statutory notices of the proposed location of wind farms and that pain is not caused to people such as those in Rhos-on-Sea in my constituency, who woke up one morning to be told that a wind farm was to be placed there and not, as they thought, on the area of seabed known as the Rhyl flats. One can imagine their concern. I invite the Minister to address that matter. I have raised it with him previously, but it is important to raise it again.
To summarise, I support the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and believe that communities should be empowered and should have a voice. I believe that they should have a wind farm if they want one, but the Government have a positive duty to ensure that their voices are heard and not ignored when large-scale industrial wind farms are to be imposed on communities.
10.5 am
Mr. Elliot Morley (Scunthorpe) (Lab): It is a great pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael). We have been co-operating on a range of issues for 19 years in this House, both in and out of Government. He has always been a great campaigner for the co-operative movement, and he made a powerful and articulate case for how co-operative principles can be used to empower communities and give them real involvement in sustainable development, recognising the three key strands of social, economic and environmental development.
This is an urgent issue. We hear of opposition to wind farms and, as discussed in the contribution of the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones), the need for more support for tidal energy. Indeed, there ought to be more support for all forms of renewables. That was made clear in the very good statement that we heard yesterday on the energy review in which my hon. Friend the Minister was involved.
However, the fact remains that wind is one of this country’s most important resources. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth stated, we have the best wind resources in the whole of Europe, and it would not make any sense not to utilise and benefit from them. That means that it is inevitable that there will be many applications for wind farms and wind turbines.
We must harness that resource. Of course, it needs to be done appropriately, and we must take into account the legitimate concerns of communities, but the hon. Member for Clwyd, West was wrong when said that wind farms are inefficient. This debate is not particularly about advocating the benefits or otherwise of wind farms but about co-operative ownership and how we take issues forward.
The
Sustainable Development Commission produced an excellent report on
renewables. It exploded some of the myths and made it clear that wind
generation is, in
fact, one of the cheapest and most efficient forms of energy in this
country. The hon. Gentleman said that wind farms are about 35 per cent.
efficient. The fact is that a coal-burning station is only 30 per cent.
efficient—there is a lack of efficiency in these
things—and wind comes out very well when one takes into account
that it is part of the national grid, as my hon. Friend the Member for
Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) rightly pointed
out.
Mr. Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that nuclear power stations are approximately 95 per cent. efficient?
Mr. Morley: No, I would not concede that. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to review the record of output of nuclear power stations, which is nothing like 90 per cent. They spend a lot of time down for maintenance, repair and sometimes because of breakdown. It is not the case that they achieve 90 per cent. efficiency—the figure does not exist. I strongly recommend that the hon. Gentleman read the SDC report, as it evaluates all forms of energy and considers efficiency ratings and such issues.
Onshore and offshore wind energy can make a substantial contribution to this country’s energy needs. In fact, the proposed London Array in itself—just one offshore wind farm—will account for about 1 per cent. of the electricity supply in this country and will meet the whole of London’s needs. Such significant investments can make a significant contribution.
The hon. Gentleman also missed what was said in the energy review and the comments yesterday, in that the Government have already said that they are willing to review the concept of banding for renewables obligation certificates. I very much welcome that, and there might well be an argument for a higher rate for offshore wind, as opposed to onshore wind, because it is more expensive to develop offshore. There might well also be an argument for a higher rate for tidal energy, which, like wind and other forms of energy, is on the threshold of commercialisation. I very much welcome the Government’s announcement in that regard, because that is absolutely the right way forward.
There has been a lot of debate recently about political consensus, and that is particularly true of climate change, which is the overriding environmental threat that we face this century. There is a real urgency about the need to combat climate change, because the latest science that we have available—much of it has come from UK scientific institutions—suggests that the effects of climate change are worse, and are being seen faster, than was originally envisaged. Several eminent scientists argue that we are in danger of reaching a tipping point and that if the concentration of greenhouse gases goes beyond a certain level, the problem may take a century to rectify. The longer that process goes on, the higher the concentrations will be and the more difficult and expensive it will be to rectify the problem. The consensus is that it will take about a decade to make a real difference to global warming and climate change globally. I certainly accept that and very much worry about it.
There are also planning issues,
as my right hon. Friend mentioned. As all Members of
Parliament and elected councillors know, planning issues and
arguments are complex. The nimby syndrome is well understood, but we
have moved on from it and towards the banana syndrome, with people
saying that we should build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything.
That has become an established principle, which applies whether we are
talking about a bus stop or a nuclear power station. That is a problem,
and we cannot ignore people’s concerns, but there is an argument
for looking at the planning system and making it more streamlined,
responsive and relevant to today’s needs. I welcome the
Government’s announcement that they will do that. It is not only
that there is an issue about nuclear power stations, which are a
completely separate matter; it is that the planning system and the
planning process need examining.
I am not saying that people do not occasionally have valid reasons for objecting to wind farms, for example. Indeed, several high-profile applications have been turned down at the planning stage, because the case that local people have made has been accepted. I do not know the details of the case in Wales, although I do know that the Welsh Assembly Committee, to which the hon. Member for Clwyd, West referred, is an all-party committee. It is part of the democratic process, and I assume that, on balance, it thought that the arguments, including the inspector’s input, showed that there was still a case for the wind farm in question. That is the nature of democracy and the planning system. To be blunt, many people object to any sort of change because they worry about the impact that it might have on the price of their houses—that is the big motivator for many of the objections. However, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors found that although wind farms might have a short-term impact, they have no impact in the longer term, and people should understand that.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong about public opinion. When people are asked whether they support wind farms, the polling evidence shows that there is about 70 to 80 per cent. approval for them, so support is actually quite high. That brings me back to the idea of political consensus. Whenever there is an application, it is very depressing to see pressure being put on Members of Parliament of all parties, who feel an obligation to campaign on behalf of local residents, although that is, of course, part of the democratic process. During the general election, however, I noticed that the Conservative candidate in a neighbouring constituency, where there are quite a number of applications, spent nearly his whole time campaigning against wind farms—not that it did him much good. That suggests that although people close to the sites of proposed wind farms might be concerned, people overall have a much more mature and balanced outlook on the role of wind in our energy mix.
I strongly support the thrust
of the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South
and Penarth because giving people a stake in wind farms will empower
and involve them, and it is part of allowing them to make a practical
contribution to combating climate change. I welcome the work that
Energy4All has done on the issue. As my right hon. Friend said, I
opened the wind turbine on the roof of the Co-operative Insurance
Society building in Manchester, and I should like to see many more
tower blocks and office blocks using microgeneration, which
lends itself well to such developments and is not at all
obtrusive—indeed, it looks quite good. Even factories in
industrial areas have undertaken such developments, and Nissan, for
example, has a wind farm on its factory site in Sunderland. I am keen
to see more of that, and Corus has been talking about undertaking such
a development at its site on Teesside. Urban and industrial
environments are good places for on-site wind turbines that contribute
to the factory’s electricity demands.
The issue on which I want to concentrate, however, is how the Government can assist the development of co-operative wind farms. I strongly endorse my right hon. Friend’s comment that it is not a question of asking for more subsidies or additional funding for developments. People need information about how they can become involved in developments. they need empowering so that they can get involved and they need the technical support and finance. The idea of a revolving fund is a good one, which the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry well recognise, and there is a strong argument for having such a fund.
To return to my original point, the great beauty of co-operative wind farms is that they address the core of sustainability. There is the social strand of sustainability, because people are brought together and empowered. There is community involvement and there has been great enthusiasm for such schemes where they have been implemented. There is also the economic strand, because people gain some economic benefit from such developments in their own communities. Of course, there has always been a benefit to landowners. Wind farms have always been quite a good deal for landowners and have been very popular with them, but it is nice that communities should be involved, too, and I am strongly in favour of that. Of course, there is also the environmental strand, because wind farms are zero-emission forms of renewable energy. We must have more of those forms of energy because we must reduce emissions in our own country.
We must demonstrate that, as the fourth richest country in the world and an advanced industrial economy, we can move to a low-carbon economy without damaging our economic growth, our gross domestic product or our communities. Indeed, I think that we are demonstrating that. We have always been a leader in many aspects of technology and science, and there is no reason why we cannot be a leader in renewable energy and catch up with countries such as Germany, Denmark, Spain and even the United States, which has invested significantly in renewables. We have an advantage because of our wind resources and our science and technology, and because many communities are well organised and have strong community leadership. All we need is a little extra help from the Government on how to tap into the benefits and take forward this form of co-operative development. That will bring about the benefits that my right hon. Friend so powerfully outlined—the benefits to our communities and our economy in terms of the overall issue of combating climate change.
10.18 am
Dr.
Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): I should like
briefly to add one dimension to the excellent debate that we have had
about the merits of
community wind farms and community energy in general. The
Government’s energy review, which came out yesterday, and the
provisional results of the energy review conducted by the Opposition
both mention the future merits of distributive generation at
considerable
length.
Distributed generation is not just about introducing into our energy mix a substantial element of generation within homes, in addition to generation from big power sources. Certainly, the discussion about distributed generation has been concentrated on wind turbines on houses. I was delighted to hear about the progress of the wind turbine on the house of my hon. Friend the Minister, tiles permitting. Discussion has tended to concentrate on the fact that distributed generation is based on the idea that wind turbines on houses, combined heat and power boilers in houses, solar thermal equipment and solar photovoltaics on roofs can override the energy requirement in a house and produce distributed energy for use in the home—and perhaps export some energy from the home to the grid, if it is not immediately used.
A substantial element, as I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree, is the contribution that will be possible in the future from generating programmes that are neither large energy nor domestically-based sources, but community-sized energy plants. The great advantage of community-sized energy plants, both in relation to wind farms and other forms of generation, is that, as my right hon. Friend says, they are owned, promoted and progressed by local communities, and those communities, ideally, receive the benefit not only of ownership of the community energy plant but of its output. Where possible, those community energy plants can be based on what might be called a private wire system, whereby on a community basis the output of the plant overrides national grid input and provides the community with power at local level. The advantage of that, as has been mentioned in the debate, relates to the losses that occur with big power. I see that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) has the very informative Department of Trade and Industry multicoloured chart before him, which sets out exactly the losses that occur in conventional power stations between fuel in and power out. I believe that the figure is something like 63 or 64 per cent. in conventional power stations, and that a further 6 to 7 per cent. is lost in transmission from those power stations to the home.
A very large percentage of the fuel going in to what might be called traditional big power is lost even before it has reached the transmission cables; there is certainly also a loss in the transmission cables. That is not so for community energy. The power is produced locally. In the case of wind farms, 100 per cent. of the fuel in is converted to power out. Other forms of local generation are not quite as efficient, but local combined heat and power generation can be 70 to 80 per cent. effective with respect to those inputs and outputs. The distribution losses are also avoided.
I have an
interest to declare, because I am an unpaid director of a community
energy company in Southampton, Solent Sustainable Energy Ltd., which
will be providing combined heat and power. It will
serve more than 3,000 homes, as far as heating is concerned, and will
provide electricity output, based on a community power station. There
are different forms of community energy plant, including wind farms,
power stations and other forms of community energy management. It is
interesting to see that where such principles have been applied on a
widespread basis, through the use of plants of the type I have
mentioned in public and buildings and elsewhere, in the borough of
Woking, a reduction of about 77 per cent. in carbon dioxide emissions
has been achieved.
Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con): Simply out of curiosity, I wonder whether the combined heat and power project that the hon. Gentleman is involved in is powered by gas. What does he estimate to be the improvements in efficiency and lower carbon emissions?
Dr. Whitehead: The proposal is that the plant will be renewable oil-fired, using either rapeseed oil or sustainable palm oil—bio-oil—and will therefore be effectively carbon neutral. That underlines the point that I want to make, which is that some community energy plants, whether they use wind, biomass or biofuel, have two advantages. First, they are effectively carbon neutral, and, secondly, they offset all the losses that are well documented from the way in which big power transmits the fuel that it uses into the homes that it powers.
There is a substantial future for community-level energy plants. I take note of the proposals in the energy review about the renewables obligation. I hope that the banding arrangements suggested in the review will take into account the banding that would be advantageous to the development of such community energy plants. In the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006 there is a substantial element of additional encouragement for the development of community energy plants, and the future therefore seems bright for community ownership and development of such plants. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) that that should, of course, be done on the basis of proper consultation and planning arrangements, and that certain forms of energy are not always appropriate in all circumstances or in all locations. However, the fundamental point is right: given that caveat, community energy can play a substantial role in the energy mix and, indeed, in making the energy future as close to carbon neutral as we can.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman may I give Members some guidance? It is an important debate and I should like the Minister to have adequate time to reply at length and in detail to the points raised on both sides of the Chamber. Her Majesty’s Opposition spokesman has told me that he does not intend to take the full time allocated to him, and I hope that the Liberal Democrat spokesman will similarly use his discretion so that we can have a full response.
10.28 am
Martin
Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): I shall endeavour to use fewer
than my 10 minutes, Sir Nicholas, but I have important questions for
the Minister. I congratulate
the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael), not
only on securing the debate but on his eloquent and passionate advocacy
of wind power and on the community and co-operative principle of
involvement in wind-powered generation in particular. I also
congratulate his hon. Friends on their equally eloquent and passionate
speeches. I particularly pay tribute to the hon. Member for Scunthorpe
(Mr. Morley) for the formidable example that he sets to the new
Minister, by his record and his commitment to renewable
energy.
One of the most important points made by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth was that wind energy is not always equivalent to large-scale wind farms, and that household microgeneration and small-scale community generation are enormously important. He paid tribute in particular to community and co-operatively owned initiatives. I join him in celebrating them; the potential of the co-operative principle is generally neglected in our society, but its application is valuable in wind energy, and also in biofuels and solar power. I know of examples of a community-based approach delivering small-scale energy generation, which, as has been mentioned, is enormously more efficient than energy generation based in large-scale power stations.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) is, I think, in something of a minority in his approach, which seemed not so much nimbyist as showing a psychological aversion to wind power. The Tyndall centre recently quoted a poll as showing strong public support for wind power running at 81 per cent. Of the remaining 19 per cent., 14 per cent. still slightly support wind power. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman falls into the “strongly against” category, which is 1 per cent. of the population, so he is in a small minority.
I also disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the aesthetics of wind turbines. Last year I was the guest of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) in his constituency, where we admired the beautiful offshore wind turbines. Going to the lengths of criticising wind turbines on—to use the hon. Gentleman’s phrase—open seascape is taking nimbyism to the extreme.
Mr. David Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that there are no seascapes in this country that ought to be protected?
Alun Michael: Of course not.
Martin Horwood: The right hon. Gentleman took the words right out of my mouth. However, where appropriate wind turbines can be an attractive addition to the landscape. I would happily see more of them in Gloucestershire and am happy to go on the record as saying that. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West said that tidal power was less intrusive. It is true that all renewable energy must be approached sensitively, but I suspect that a tidal barrage across the Severn estuary might be a lot more intrusive than wind turbines in the local area.
There are issues
with wind power. On a large scale, community consent is overwhelmingly
the most important issue. The onus is on companies that are developing
wind power and large-scale wind farms not to attempt to ride roughshod
over local feelings, but to
consult and involve local people wherever possible. As the right hon.
Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, however, we now have an
opportunity to move beyond consultation and into involvement, and to
see a policy shift that supports and empowers community ownership and
involvement in smaller-scale generation. I would be interested to hear
the Minister’s comments on that. The hon. Member for
Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) mentioned the good example
of Woking district council, where a partly community-owned company has
been instrumental in achieving a radical shift in the reduction of
CO2 emissions.
There are concerns about small-scale generation too. I note that even the Energy Saving Trust has sounded a few alarm bells, particularly about the performance and reliability of some of the products that are being rushed to market. Kirk Archibald of the trust is quoted in The Observer on 25 June as saying:
“'There’s a lack of independent, verifiable evidence to support the performance claims of turbines attached to buildings...There’s been a lot of hype and a lot of interest”.
The right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has rightly contributed to that a little bit, but we could face a situation in which wind turbines are rolled out but do not work. One consultant is quoted in the same article as saying:
“'We found the performance of them is on average between 10 and 25 per cent. of what the manufacturers are claiming.”
That is a cause for concern, because we want microgeneration but we want it to be as efficient as the manufacturers claim. We want the same regulation that applies to solar panels to be as tough on wind turbine manufacturers, so that they do not exploit people’s good intentions.
More worrying is a warning about the lateral thrust of turbines, which, as I am sure hon. Members know, threatens any large chimney. Indeed, it is said that a Victorian chimney stack in a high wind would be more than sufficient to topple a turbine. The right hon. Gentleman might want to check that the lateral thrust on his wind turbine is not going to topple his Victorian chimney. If his neighbours are upset now, they will be even more upset if that happens.
There are obstacles to be tackled and overcome, but climate change is on a wholly different scale. It fundamentally threatens our way of life and our economy, and the welfare and well-being not only of ourselves but of people in many parts of the world. It is important that the Government continue their commitment to renewable energy.
I welcomed many of the things in the Government’s energy review yesterday, such as the increase in the renewable obligations certificates, although there are questions. I probably do not have time to discuss the matter fully now, bearing in mind your remarks, Sir Nicholas, but the British Wind Energy Association and others have expressed concern that in supporting other renewables through the renewable obligation we should not undermine support for onshore wind, simply because the others become more economic in the process.
Other areas of policy that can
support wind energy also need to be addressed, but as far as I can see
they have not been addressed in the energy review. One is the code for
sustainable buildings, which currently does not
support microgeneration explicitly and which is not even compulsory in
the energy efficiency measures that it supports. I would like the code
to become compulsory for new buildings and for an element of compulsion
to be included in microgeneration, so that perhaps all new buildings
could contribute to
it.
Last October, the Government’s chief scientist called for support to be given for hydrogen fuel cell technology, which is one way in which wind power might contribute to the energy of the country without the problems of intermittence to which the hon. Member for Clwyd, West referred. The Government’s chief scientist was quoted as saying that Government bodies, industry, academia and other interests must work much closer together to push the technology into the mass market. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s comments on the progress that is being made with that.
There is the issue of grants for microgeneration. In parliamentary answers to me, the Minister said that the “Clear skies” programme ran for more than three years and had a budget of £13.25 million for household microgeneration. Unfortunately, however, the household element of the new low-carbon buildings fund—which covers more than households—amounts to only £6.5 million over three years. That sounds like a halving of the budget for grants for household microgeneration, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification on that.
There is also the issue of nuclear power. As the hon. Member for Southampton, Test implied—but perhaps did not spell out—the mere idea of supporting the large-scale new development of nuclear power runs counter to the idea of a decentralised and more efficient energy generation system. More localised and distributed generation will be more efficient, but the Government’s policy towards nuclear might undermine support for community generation.
There are many positives to be taken, however. I absolutely applaud the remarks that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth made about community and co-operatively-owned wind generation. I hope that the Minister will take those remarks on board, but there are other policy questions to be asked as well.
10.38 am
Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con): All of us offer our thanks to the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) for initiating this debate, in which I hope there can be a lot of cross-party agreement about what we are trying to achieve for our country and for our planet.
Renewable energy technology is
vital to the low-carbon energy future that we must achieve. Onshore
wind is currently the most economically viable renewable in the UK
market and provides more than 2 per cent. of our national
electricity demand—the most of any single renewable
technology—yet many other technologies and carbon-neutral
approaches are being neglected in comparison. Wave technology has shown
great potential, growth in photovoltaic cells is faster than ever
before, geothermal boreholes have the potential to decrease household
energy consumption
by up to 60 per cent. and we all know the list of other options, such as
biomass, tidal and offshore
wind.
Yesterday the Government launched their energy review. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on having behind him a worthy and hard-working civil service team, without which I imagine that his efforts would perhaps have been as desperate as ours—I have had to manage with one person and the office cat. We all need to reflect on the stalwart qualities of the British Governmental apparatus in doing all that hard work.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |