| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
We all need to remind ourselves that if we and mankind in general fail to curb our appetite for using fossil fuels and producing carbon dioxide and the other sophisticated carbon compounds that we pour out, the whole environment will be ruined anyway. There will be no Severn estuary as we know it anymore because, if sea temperatures and sea levels rise, the fauna and flora will change inextricably. We are in a situation where action must be taken.
I was going to refer to the noble Lord, Lord Stern, but as he is not here yet—he will join us next week—I will say Sir Nicholas Stern. Sir Nicholas said that not taking action was not an option. We have to do things. Of course, the first thing we have to do is get our energy without producing carbon dioxide. One or two of us in this Chamber spent a full day earlier in the week discussing the Climate Change Bill, so we are already thoroughly immersed in this subject. But it is necessary to remind ourselves of the scale of the problem that we are looking at.
The Government have pledged so far to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent from the 1990 position by 2050. That is probably 65 per cent or 70 per cent from where we stand today. One of the real pressures during the debate on the Climate Change Bill was whether in fact we did not already have sufficient information to suggest that there ought to be an 80 per cent reduction. If you start to envisage that economy, just over 40 years hence, there are one or two industries where carbon dioxide emissions will have to continue. I am thinking specifically of the smelting industries. There is no alternative there, because smelting is a chemical reaction and you cannot use electricity for heating in order to reduce ores to base metal. Some industries will have to emit carbon dioxide.
What we are really talking about is a world in which all the energy that we use for everything other than those basic industries comes from renewable green sources or nuclear power. It is a much greater change than the 2020 figure that we float easily. Of course, it is much closer, but the 2020 figure needs to more than double by 2050. It needs to quadruple, so we have a really huge problem. That is the first thing, and I mention that in this debate to get into our minds the context in which we are standing.
13 Dec 2007 : Column 396
We do not yet know what will be the best options. Many people are saying that we must be open and have full time to study to come to sensible conclusions. I agree with that, but we also need to recognise the immense pressure that we are under. Inevitably, mistakes will be made and we should not worry about that too much. If we are going to make progress, we have to take the chance that some of the things we do may be wrong.
So then we come back to the specific issue that we are debating: the Severn barrage. I am slightly interested in the comparison that has been made between building a barrage in the Severn estuary and the possibility of building 150 lagoons up and down the estuary, as if 150 lagoons up and down the estuary would not irremediably alter the estuary. They might not alter it in the same way as a single barrage would, but they unquestionably would alter the estuary.
We have not heard whether they would produce as much electricity or more; nor have we heard what the cost might be. My noble friend Lord Liverpool suggested that one lagoon might cost £100 million. If that is so, I merely point out that the 150 lagoons in the estuary will then cost the same as the barrage. Whether we get the same amount of electricity out of it or not we do not yet know. I am into the business of producing equal and opposite arguments, which is not a piece of ground that I particularly want to stand on. However, I should enter yet another thought about estuarial barrages into the debate: I remind the House that the Environment Agency is discussing the possibility of a barrage across the Thames to protect London, if both the east coast continues to sink, which it undoubtedly will, and the sea level continues to rise, which it seems to be doing.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way for a microsecond? Can I correct him that the Environment Agency is not considering a barrage across the Thames?
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am open to correction, but I have to say that I went down on a boat and I am fairly sure that it was with the Environment Agency, which was taking me to discuss that possibility. It may be that the tentacles of the organisation are not necessarily discussing everything that is going on with the head, but that is not at all unusual in a vast and widely spread operation. These discussions are going on and if we consider the east coast-west coast and the problem of tidal generation and time, and we then put a barrage across the Thames, we do a lot if we use the barrage for a power generation to smooth out the peaks and troughs in generating capacity.
If we then put a barrage across the second big estuary up the east coast, which is the Humber estuary, we would have virtually continuous flow tidal generation capacity across the country. We would then be in the realms of 10 per cent of United Kingdom electricity use. Of course there are all these other systems: there is tidal stream, wave and so on and all of them will undoubtedly have a part to play, as will wind and solar power. I particularly wanted to speak this afternoon because it is easy to look at a
13 Dec 2007 : Column 397
4.13 pm
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, on achieving the debate. I come to the issue as a civil engineer. I briefly worked on the project in the 1970s and 1980s. I have nothing like the eminence in civil engineering of my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon. I am sorry that he is not contributing to the debate. I agree with noble Lords that there is a need for diversification of supply in the use of renewables. I do not think that that is under debate. Last week the debate seemed to be covering the North Sea and other places with windmills and today it is the turn of the Severn. We have to be careful that our concerns for the fish or the birds do not cause the lights to go out. The Government have some challenges ahead. They would not let the lights go out and maybe the third way is energy saving, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said. We should be harnessing what people perceive as free electricity from the tides.
I agree with many noble Lords on tidal stream technology. Siting generators on the seabed and letting the tide go backwards and forwards would seem simple. Unless you are a submarine, they do not get in the way. I hope that the Government will take tidal stream a bit more seriously and I expect that my noble friend will tell us about that when he winds up.
I am bemused by the different claims we have heard today and elsewhere about the benefits of lagoons and barrages, because they are variations of the same technology—they allow the water in and out, and power is generated by the difference in head between one side of the generator and the other. Whether that is done on both the flood and the ebb, or just on the ebb, is debatable; I do not know, but it seems simply that the benefits relate to the volume of water times the head as the maximum generating capacity, and the costs are the capital costs and some maintenance. The costs are to do with the volume of materials, rocks and any other works needed. I shall return to that. Large volumes of water are involved, but I do not believe that the technology is impossible—it is used in major dam constructions around the world. That technology applies equally to something as big as the Severn barrage and smaller lagoons. It is good that engineering companies are debating whether the best method is concrete, rock or whatever.
However, I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, on the question of a new Thames barrier—whether it is being promoted by the Environment Agency or someone else. I am sure that that is not the case, because the noble Baroness, Lady Young, would have told us. The Thames Barrier is closed only when a high tide is forecast, because ships have to go through it and there is not much constraint to the tide. I
13 Dec 2007 : Column 398
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, and the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, talked about the timing of tides. I remember when I was working on that, someone discovered that because there was three hours’ difference between the tides of Morecambe Bay and the Severn, if both had barrages working to the same capacity there would be an almost continuous supply of electricity. If the timing is not right—well, it is down to King Canute, is it not? There is not much else we can do about it.
More serious is the effect on ports, which one or two noble Lords mentioned. Bristol, Cardiff, Newport and Sharpness are clearly worried by the construction of a barrage that would prevent access to the deep sea. It is worth reflecting on the port industry in the UK. I suspect that some noble Lords will know that congestion in the ports in the south-east of England is so great that the shipping lines have put a fairly hefty premium on any container that is delivered there. So the ports on the west coast of England and further north up the east coast are experiencing some revival. They expect that to continue. The forecasts for traffic in ports are quite frightening. I was in Amsterdam last week where I listened to the head of the port of Rotterdam saying that traffic through Rotterdam was expected to grow by 10 per cent every year for the foreseeable future. Provision is being made to build more ports and extend the capacity to cope with that. Okay, Rotterdam has a big hinterland, but I do not think that the economics will change very much. Whether the big ships come to the UK or we have feeders will not make a lot of difference.
So I suspect that the ports in the west of England have quite a future, especially considering that, when you look at the geography, the south Wales ports and Bristol are actually very close to the Midlands—almost closer than the ports of south-east England. I know that there is a longer steaming time around the coast, but any barrage would have to take seriously into account the needs of those ports and provide for locks. The port of Amsterdam is the fourth biggest in that part of the continent between Hamburg and France. It is fed by a canal with locks. They are just building a few more locks and I believe there will be four to take the biggest ships that they believe they can handle. It might be possible if we planned it in advance, but I would worry whether adding an extra lock or two when the demand increased through a barrage would lead to arguments about who would pay, when it would be done and the effect it would have on the port, which would be pretty stifling. Compare this to what they are doing in Amsterdam, where it is a case of, “We have got to do this, we have got to find the money, it will be done and the Government will pay”. That does not happen here. We have got to be very careful about the effect on ports and ensure that they are provided with locks that allow them to remain competitive.
13 Dec 2007 : Column 399
I am slightly attracted by the idea of lagoons. If they can be constructed in a place that does not cut off ports and does not affect the environment so much, that seems to be quite an advantage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, talked about John Hutton’s statement that he wanted a Severn barrage. I have this feeling that Ministers love big projects. We have Trident, aircraft carriers, all these windmills in the North Sea, nuclear power stations—some of which are going ahead and some of which are not—and the Channel Tunnel. I was involved in the Channel Tunnel and yes, it got built, but the estimates of cost overruns and the risks and so on between the public and private sector lead me to conclude that Governments are not very good at big projects. I am not sure that the private sector is any better. It rather depends on who is taking the risks when things go wrong.
The construction industry will, of course, welcome a barrage or lagoons but, if they run out of money, or if it goes wrong, who is going to pick up the tab? I rather favour the Friends of the Earth view in Wales, which is that a big lagoon is much more cost-effective in capital costs and the price of electricity and it would have the added advantage of keeping the ports open. That is a really important matter; I worry about what would happen and whether the ports would be able to survive and prosper with a big barrage across the Severn.
4.22 pm
Lord Cotter: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for calling this very timely debate. It has provoked much discussion and teased out many points that needed to be teased out, among which was the need for prompt action. His initiative has enabled a good discussion.
We have had a good debate, which has thrown up many issues. For environmental reasons, an alternative renewable source of energy needs much consideration, but we must also ensure that we have real security of supply for these islands. There is certainly still a need for consideration of many issues. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, rightly said, there are many challenges to come. Some of these can be examined only by precise, detailed modelling which, importantly, needs to be done by independent people with no particular axe to grind. There is support for this from many others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who called for a level playing field and for investigations to start as soon as soon as possible. So, indeed, did the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Rowe-Beddoe. Time must not be lost.
We cannot ignore the potential financial costs of building a barrage. Special measures will have to be taken for environmental reasons and to meet any concerns there may be over flooding. Further, the cost per unit of energy will have to be a factor. The Government’s duty is to secure our energy, so they therefore have a responsibility to ensure that any future project is adequately supported and funded. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, rightly emphasised the need for security of supply.
From this debate, it is clear that there needs to be a full investigation of the technical aspects, including in
13 Dec 2007 : Column 400
On the economic aspects, although the work would create jobs, there are concerns about whether the Port of Bristol, for example, would be able to operate properly with delays through locks and some ships being diverted elsewhere, with a consequent loss of business. However, were a roadway to be constructed from the industrial part of south Wales, there could be economic benefits, and that would bring pressure for development. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, talked about costs and I would hope that, as time went on, the project would not turn into another Olympic Games in terms of their escalation.
The subject of flood defences also has two sides to it. This is one area that many supporters of the barrage instance as being a plus, but others say that, due to erosion and other reasons, it is far from certain that flood defences would be improved. It would be interesting to consider that in more detail.
Many points were raised about the environmental considerations. The local impact on birds, fish and wildlife is, rightly, important. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, who has expertise in this area, rightly pointed out that it is almost impossible to find habitats elsewhere—a matter that perhaps I had not considered sufficiently. My noble friend Lady Miller supported that point.
Equally, we have to find a way of dealing with climate change. As my noble friend Lord Roberts said in relation to a different point, we have to look urgently at the international view on this and not just at our own local or national needs. The local impact may be a problem but, in the round, we need to provide long-term habitats and something has to be done somewhere. Therefore, although there is a concern about wildlife, there is also a big question of how we address climate change, which affects wildlife everywhere.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, made a specific and welcome contribution on the subject of fish and fisheries—an issue on which he clearly has great knowledge. Answers are obviously needed on that and I hope that they will be provided.
Climate change is a big problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, there is a tremendous need for possibly even stronger action to be taken, as the present proposals may not be adequate. If we are to meet the concerns about the environment, it is clear that very serious thought needs to be given to a number of ideas, and chief among them could well be lagoons.
Lagoons have been mentioned by many contributors this afternoon. Lagoons would perhaps help in terms of not destroying habitats, many of which have existed for 15,000 years, and it should be remembered that 65,000 birds flock to the estuary. The tenor that I picked up from the debate is that a lot of time has been lost in addressing this issue and that there has been a loss of government focus on the matter. The noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, spoke in great detail about lagoons. His contribution certainly made me think that it is a very serious subject, and clearly people have
13 Dec 2007 : Column 401
The real thing that has come out of this debate is that where there is a positive there is also a negative, and that is the great difficulty. If it was just a question of erecting a barrage that would contribute 5 per cent to electricity, it would be wonderful, but there are issues around that because building a barrage would involve environmental considerations about the construction and the disruption. I hope that this debate has put urgency into this issue, and I thank my noble friend Lord Livsey for obtaining it. We need to ensure that the project is investigated and that if there is to be a project, whether lagoons or barrages, it will be securely financed and supported. I think that all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate have found it extremely interesting. The expertise has been excellent, and we all look forward to the Minister’s reply.
4.31 pm
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, for securing this important debate. He set the scene very well and listed many of the questions to which we need answers.
He said that we know that the cost of the barrage will be about £15 billion, but that estimate came from the figure in the studies undertaken in the 1980s uprated by the appropriate indices. It does not include the cost of compensation measures, which may be considerable, if they are possible. The good news is that Ministers have stopped being so negative about a Severn barrage. I was asking questions about it back in January 2004. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, spoke about the Government’s prevarication on tidal power, and she is right.
Today’s debate is about the barrage, but it is vital that we look at tidal stream technology as well as tidal range, including the barrage and lagoons. The SDC report looked at tidal stream technology, which clearly has potential, but is nowhere near ready for a pilot, let alone a full-scale device in the Pentland Firth. It is fortunate that none of these technologies is mutually exclusive, but the only one ready to roll from a technological viewpoint is the barrage. There has been much talk about tidal lagoons—I received a briefing on them some time ago—but since the technology is relatively simple, I find it hard to understand why there has been no progress and none has been built, not even small-scale ones. There may be a pump-priming problem; perhaps the renewables obligation needs to be tweaked to give further incentives. Can the Minister say why progress has been so slow? Is he convinced that the costing of lagoons is hopelessly optimistic?
The principal benefit of the barrage is the production of nearly 5 per cent of the UK electricity requirement with zero carbon output—its carbon output is lower than nuclear power. The SDC report indicates that the carbon pay-back period for the Severn barrage is less than 12 months. There are additional benefits of the barrage, but I do not think that they should be the
13 Dec 2007 : Column 402
I have no doubt that the barrage will change habitats, but global warming is doing so right now, as my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith explained. The SDC report covers ecology issues in some detail. It indicates that the birds and habitats directives need not be a showstopper, and the report is strongly against any derogation from the relevant directives.
It is vital that the government study should look at this issue comprehensively and in great detail before a project consent is sought. We need to know what species will be affected, how they will be affected and whether the changes will be positive or negative, bearing in mind the observation in the STC report that an increase in the quantity of a few species is no substitute for variety or biodiversity.
Once the adverse effects are understood, we need to ask whether they can be mitigated and, if not, compensated for. The noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Miller, suggested that compensation was impossible—it cannot be done—and my noble friend Lord Patten said that habitat can never be replicated. They may well be right; there will be some adverse effects on species that cannot be mitigated or compensated for. At that point, we should consider the uniqueness of the species and balance that with the overriding public interest. It would be quite unwise to discard this opportunity for a Severn barrage without having studied it very carefully.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |