Examination of Witnesses (Questions 202-217)
Lord Dixon-Smith
12 MAY 2008
Q202 Chairman:
Lord Dixon-Smith, thank you very much indeed for
coming. I think you know the purpose of our inquiry. We are hoping
to conclude taking evidence before the start of the summer recess.
Whether we can produce a report before the recess or immediately
we come back remains to be seen, but the object is to try and
offer some comment and advice to both our ministers and the Council
before they consider our obligation some time, we believe, in
November. I understand you want to try and help us with an opening
statement and then we have a number of questions. Over to you.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lord
Chairman, I am grateful to you for both sending me your terms
of reference, the questions which you are examining and, indeed,
a list of potential questions. I am not quite sure whether I am
heading for the dentist's chair, the executioner's axe, or indeed,
riding my first point-to-point! I never thought I would find myself
sitting in front of a Committee doing this. I want to look at
this problem from what I call the other end of the telescope,
the 2050 end. It is actually rather important. I find very little
that I can read about what the economy is supposed to be doing
and what it is supposed to look like in 2050. We pass all sorts
of legislation, the Climate Change Bill, through this House. There
was a great deal of interest there in the 2050 target of a 60%
reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, because, of course, the
UN and others were already postulating that is not a sufficient
carbon dioxide reduction and that 80% is what the figure should
be. We need to think about that quite carefully because there
are quite strong implications, and although prophecy, as I have
heard said, is an avoidable sin there are discernible points which
can be made. It is much easier to consider 80% than it is 60%
because when you do that it narrows your options, so I am going
to take 80% as the target. In any event, I think anybody who listened
to the debate on the Climate Change Bill would come to the conclusion
that 80% is where we are going as a country and in my view that
actually has to be the global target, so it has major international
implications for the developing world. We have an obligation,
on the other hand, since we set off the Industrial Revolution,
to show them how to overcome the consequences, so we have a very
heavy responsibility. Let us think about it then from the 2050
perspective. First of all, can I say that it is absolutely fundamental
that we have to keep the economy going forwards over the period
from now until then otherwise we probably cannot afford the necessary
change. That is the first essential that we have to think about.
If we do that, possibly one of the things we think about too very
seriously is what this means in the context of energy use. There
are lots of people who seem to think that energy efficiency and
economy will actually solve this problem for us. If you look at
the energy used per unit of economic output over the last 30 years,
the Science and Technology Committee did in their 2006 report
a very interesting graph, and it shows the rise in GDP and the
reduction in energy used per unit of output, but what the graph
in the middle shows also, which is the critical graph that we
need to think about, is that energy demand is remaining pretty
well flat through the period, and that is likely to continue as
far as I can see. If we are going to continue to grow the economy,
energy demand will continue on a relatively flat plane. I do not
think there is a great deal we can do, in fact, to change that,
so that we have to think about other things, because energy demand
will continue at a high level if the economy is growing. The second
thing that we need to think about it is are there fossil fuel
uses which we cannot dispense with, and I suggest an obvious one
from the mining industry is smelting. It does not get a lot of
public consideration but it is a chemical reaction rather than
a heat provider, and with the growing demographic problem globally
and increasing economic strength in Third World countries there
will be an increasing demand for resources and smelting will take
a lot of fossil fuel one way or another. I would suggest also
aviation is an essential. It is an essential because, although
one can argue about the validity of tourist flights to the South
of France, the fact is that tourism is a very important factor
for many Third World countries, and a major growing point for
their economies. If it is not that then the French beans that
you get from Kenya is an obvious example and out of season flowers
and all these other things, which Third World countries can provide
which we cannot and actually they do it quite energy efficiently.
If we were doing it ourselves we would be using enormous amounts
of energy. I suggest aviation will need to continue. Shipping
is slightly more difficult, I suppose there is a scale of shipping
at which one might consider nuclear power, but otherwise I think
shipping is the third use. Those transport uses and smelting,
I suggest, by 2050 will probably occupy most of the 20% of available
carbon dioxide emissions. I cannot prove that and anybody who
set about doing that would be a very rash man indeed, but I think
that is likely. I am afraid I work on the assumption that we have
to change everything else. I simply observe, en passant, that
the all-electric household is of itself already zero emissions,
it may not be energy efficient but it is zero emissions, the emissions
may be emitted by the power generators but the house itself does
not make emissions at least for that reason. Then we come back
to the other point that we need to keep in the back of our minds,
and that is that all the non-carbon dioxide emitting forms of
energy finish up as a form of electricity effectively. Can we
see a universal economy running entirely powered by electricity?
The short answer is yes because the fuel carrier if you want one
could easily become either electricity, which of course is the
obvious one, but the one you need for transport becomes hydrogen
or possibly batteries, batteries may work well in cars, but I
think the weight penalty would probably be too heavy for road
transport. Hydrogen could also be the energy reservoir in places
where you cannot use pumped hydro. The scope is there. Is there
a sufficient source of energy, yes. Lord Flowers, who is probably
not known to most of you but was a very distinguished scientific
member of the Science and Technology Committee in the happy days
when I served on it with him, said once, "You know, Bill,
mankind only has one source of energy, and that is nuclear and
he has a choice, he can have his nuclear power station here or
he can have it 98 million miles away, and I know where I would
rather have it.", and he had worked in the nuclear industry,
and knew it very well. So if you stop and think about those statements,
they are an absolute statement of the position, all our energy,
all our fossil fuels simply stored solar energy altered by geology
and time. Is there solar power, yes, we have got energy running
out of our ears and all we have to do is learn how to use it.
The only other thing I want to say by way of introduction is all
the technologies exist, all right they will improve, they will
develop, they will change and, as I say, we do not know what the
pattern will be in 2050, but if we need to go for it, it is possible.
That is where I am coming from.
Q203 Chairman: Thank you very much.
That is very helpful because it sets in context, over a slightly
longer timescale than we have been looking at, what the challenge
is in terms of a reduction in carbon emissions. I would like to
start and then I am going to hand over to Lord Rowe-Beddoe. My
question is in the slightly shorter timescale which the European
Union has proposed for the Council of Ministers to consider later
this year, that is to say 2020, only 12 years from now. Do you
believe in the context of what you have been saying that it is
at all credible that the United Kingdom can achieve 15% of our
energy output from renewable sources, and we are defining renewable
sources very specifically as wind, specifically wind turbines,
solar, specifically solar panels, and as far as water is concerned,
we are interested in the barrages? We are going to take evidence
from EDF on La Rance, we are interested in the barrage across
the Severn and perhaps other sources of hydro.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Yes, I think it can
be done. The question is whether we can get over that wretched
thing, which we all suffer from, institutional inertia. If we
take one step back and discuss the question of estuarial barrages,
I do believe that they have a role to play. The question mark
is over tidal stream technology which can also produce a great
deal of power, and I am not sure which will come first. The lead-in
times for the Severn Estuary, as I understand it, is a minimum
of 10 years, we have got 12. Will it be having a major effect
by 2020? Maybe, but given our institutional procedures even with
the Planning Bill, frankly, I have my doubts. Personally, I would
team the Severn Barrage with the Humber and the Thames. There
was an interesting article in the Sunday Times, that the
Dubai people who have been producing the palms there think they
can produce a couple of islands across the Thames Estuary and
bridge it and provide London at the same time with an additional
amount of flood protection. If you produced barrages instead of
bridges, you could then produce a great deal of electricity there,
you would do the same on the Humber and, of course, that way you
would overcome the tidal wave, because they are just about six
hours apart on the tidal charts. Then you come up to the institutional
inertia thing. The same applies to wind. Personally, I think the
wind industry has got the wrong approach. They are what I would
call power station hypnotised and think you have to pump this
power out into the 220,000 volt grid. One generator can perfectly
well be set up to put power straight in to the 11,000 volt local
main. If you went and asked most small communities in rural areas
whether they would like to have 30% of their electricity generated
by wind, most of them I think would say yes. They might object
if anybody suggested putting down five, some of the bigger towns
might need five but then they have got a greater periphery and
you still might be able to do it, you would have problems with
London. I think we need to think about dispersed wind as a way
of overcoming the enormous objections that wind farms seem to
arouse, for which I think the main motivation is jealousy, to
be quite honest. That deals with the wind thing. Tidal stream
I have mentioned, I am told, and I can only go by what I am told,
that the Pentland Firth has enough tidal power racing through
it all the time to produce the whole of Scotland's electricity
demand continuously. I cannot answer that, but that is what I
have been told. It has certainly an enormous power. We can pick
up the tidal stream all the way round the coast, it will be low
level generation, but, on the other hand, if you have enough of
it, it will work. It is like the number of wind turbines you put
up, if you put up enough eventually you have got enough power.
The question is whether we are prepared to put the manufacturing
industry into place, and, indeed, overcome the regulatory problems.
One of the reasons we are doing so badly in this country, I am
told, and the reason manufacturers are trying these systems abroad,
is that it takes them only two years to get to go abroad, it takes
five years to get to go here. That is dreadful. That is probably
the biggest obstacle we face. Is that sufficient?
Chairman: Yes. It is very helpful.
Q204 Lord Rowe-Beddoe: I was going
to lead you into estuarial power, but you have gone ahead of me.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am sorry.
Q205 Lord Rowe-Beddoe: Not at all.
In the way that you have talked about it, it is most interesting.
You used the word "inertia", and I suppose that is an
aphorism for leadership. One of the things that came out in the
debate we had in the Chamber was that the Severn Barrage has been
talked about and planned and debated since about 1890. If we listen
to your scenario, we have not the luxury to afford further delays,
not just on that but on this whole question. Therefore, what confidence
do you have that the Planning Bill will achieve what it is supposed
to achieve, and greatly reduce the time that is required in order
to get all forms of renewable sources of energy on their way?
Lord Dixon-Smith: Of course, this applies
to the whole generating industry, does it not, particularly the
nuclear question. I will just try and answer your question in
the context of the Planning Bill. It is stuck in the Commons,
as I understand it, at the present time, because the ministers
have said, quite rightly, that there must be some sort of political
oversight on the question of what should or should not be a national
infrastructure project. The difficulty the Government are having,
as I understand it, is that in introducing that political control
they do not wish to impose any greater delay. That is not proving
to be quite straightforward, as you might imagine. The Government
are trying very hard, and I do not doubt that the Bill will arrive
here soon. If it works, and it does reduce the planning time,
it will be enormously helpful. I say "if" with some
caution, because we met the CBI a little while ago and it was
quite clear that they thought this was the answer. The question
of political control had not hit them by then. But, also, the
other thing that had not hit them was that this does not exempt
any planning application which goes before them from all the existing
planning regulations, all it does is streamline the procedure
by which it will be heard. Their applications will have to be
compliant—heaven help us—with existing planning legislation.
One of the merits of the previous system was that a planning application
actually could evolve from the initial application to the time
it was approved and that facility will no longer exist. The application
will have to be in perfect form when it goes to the planning commission
and that will be what they consider and that of itself will probably
make the process of developing a planning application more complex
and more difficult to handle, in my view. I was foolish enough
to start my life on the county's planning committee, it took me
five years to realise that all planners were mad. I am sorry,
I am being minuted but I do not mind. Let me put it this way,
all the wonderful things that we have in this country, which we
fight to preserve in society today, came about almost exclusively
long before the planners even thought about them. I am a great
believer if people have a bit of freedom they will actually do
things rather better than we as politicians like to think they
will. I have gone way outside the brief.
Lord Rowe-Beddoe: Very helpful.
Q206 Lord James of Blackheath: I
would like to ask you a question in three parts, if I may. First,
given the dependence upon collective sourcing within Europe and
the dependence of Europe on countries other than European countries
for sourcing a lot of this, what do you feel about the reliability
of continued supply from those non-European sources?
Lord Dixon-Smith: I think one of the
good things about the increasingly globalised economy is that
it is becoming increasingly interdependent and the people who
might supply energy, particularly solar power, will find that
the income it generates is something they cannot do without. Mr
Putin, who is in a slightly different class because he is not
in the solar business, played a very heavy-handed game with his
energy suppliers, in my view, and he does not realise how vulnerable
he is.
Q207 Lord James of Blackheath: This is
not a part of the question which had been prepared and agreed
with colleagues but I would like to ask you this anyway. Am I
getting totally paranoid or would you share any of my concern
that the dependence upon sourcing of energy from Russia having
to flow through France has effectively created the first plank
of the 19th century balance of power which caused Bismarck
such dismay and could it possibly occur again and unsettle the
whole of the European structure?
Lord Dixon-Smith: I think that is too
pessimistic.
Q208 Lord James of Blackheath: Pray
God it is.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Indeed, I entirely
accept that remark, but I think it is too pessimistic.
Q209 Lord James of Blackheath: It
will need managing, I think.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Everything needs managing
nowadays. We like to think it will not work if we do not manage
it.
Q210 Lord James of Blackheath: We
went on Friday to Scroby Sands wind farm and, of course, we all
think we are absolute experts in wind farms now but certain things
came out of that day trip which are very much in our minds at
the moment. One of them was the fact that there is a major problem
in the intermittency of the supply that they can maintain, which
in turn knocks on to the fact that they cannot at moments of overproduction,
compared with the mean average they need to maintain, achieve
any storage. Is this simply a matter of investment or is it a
technical problem, which is insurmountable, in terms of storing
to be able to even out the supply?
Lord Dixon-Smith: From what I have read,
and I am not an expert, I think it is a technical problem, not
an insurmountable one. The technical aspect of the problem is
the economic cost of providing some form of storage, as indeed
is the whole question of the introduction of, if you like, these
new energy sources. I have an acquaintance who has his own wind
turbine. He is very pleased with it, it does very well, it generates
a great deal of his electricity, it generates him a bit of income
with the electricity he supplies to the grid and so on and so
forth. He also gets certificates for it which gives him income,
but he is on a 60 year payback period at the present time. The
same argument applies, we could apply it to carbon sequestration,
will it work or will it not, I have heard all sorts of costs.
With some of the figures I have heard carbon sequestration is
not a solution, it is too expensive, and so it goes on. I am sorry,
you have to look at the individual case.
Q211 Lord James of Blackheath: Looking
at that particular issue, one wonders whether it knocks on into
the third area of the question I have for you, which is the steps
which ought to be taken now by the European Union generally and
the UK in particular in order to ensure security of supply into
the future. I am not sure whether you said it is the lack of easily
accessible technology or because we cannot fund the achievement
of that technology at this moment to overcome that particular
problem we just thought of, because looking at the wind farm on
Friday, I think we were all very impressed at the unanimous view
of the management that there is a huge supply chain problem. When
I go back to my early days in the North Sea in the early 1980s,
when that was just beginning to be an emerging area of salvation
for us, it was noticeable that the Scots did one thing very differently,
and I see no parallel with it today. The Scots independently,
whether out of patriotism or just an appetite for investment,
invested hugely in the peripheral activities such as the necessary
boats for construction and for servicing the oil rigs in the North
Sea. I do not see any comparable structure of investment today.
They were bemoaning the fact that they cannot build and extend
the wind farms because there are only two boats available for
the construction process, and they are in constant demand elsewhere
so there is a long queue. Is this not an initiative that Government
ought to be taking now, just as the Scottish investment community
did in the early 1970s, and start to build on a commercial basis
the necessary boats to create the infrastructure to build more
farms?
Lord Dixon-Smith: Have you not answered
your own question? I think you said the Scottish investment industry?
Q212 Lord James of Blackheath: Yes.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Well, is not the answer
then with the world of business and commerce?
Q213 Lord James of Blackheath: It
probably needs sponsoring by Government, and it needs fiscal benefits
to do it or something.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I will go with you
this far. At the moment there is an enormous lack of clarity about
the determination of this Government to go anywhere on the issue
at all and I think that is a very deep problem. You know what
I said about institutional inertia.
Q214 Lord James of Blackheath: Probably
the answer to my question is yes, and the Government should not
approach it from that direction.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I do not think the
Government should actually do it is the difference between us.
I think unless the Government make it clear that this is the sort
of thing that has got to be done it will not happen.
Q215 Lord James of Blackheath: I
can think of many worse things that the Government could waste
its money on than building another four ships at the present moment
for the construction of these wind farms.
Lord Dixon-Smith: So can we all! Let
me go back to what I said earlier. You are talking about servicing
these enormous wind farms out at sea but there is a problem with
the whole grid issue. If we could go to dispersed land turbines,
we would overcome most of that problem and, not only that, if
you were putting power into the low level grid you would not have
the enormous transmission losses that you do by shoving power
through the high level grid. We would actually have a much more
efficient system.
Chairman: That is a very interesting
point. If I can put a last question which is well inside your
personal field of experience and knowledge but where you have
already helped the Committee, and that is on planning and local
planning permissions in particular. If we look at what the Committee
has called micro-generation beyond wind turbine, the odd solar
panel et cetera, there are two questions the Committee need your
advice on. First of all, how can we improve the existing planning
system at the local authority level and, secondly, what changes
would you like to see or do you believe might be helpful in the
Planning Bill in terms of speeding up institutional inertia? I
will just ask Lord Bradshaw, just before you answer that, if he
has anything to ask.
Lord Bradshaw: That was exactly the question
I was going to ask.
Q216 Chairman: I see. Back to you.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I would amend the General
Development Order to permit houses to install photoelectrics or
wind or anything else without planning permission at all. I would
probably set it at something like 7½ KVA or even 10 would
not be unacceptable in my view. This would take care of almost
any normal household, and, of course, it would cause a great deal
of fury in many communities. I can imagine conservation areas
going corporately wild about the issue, but I think we have to
be prepared to accept that sort of change. If you then consider
the wider issue, part of the question is access to the grid. Completely
coincidentally, I am sponsoring a dinner here later in the summer
by a firm who are specialists in access to the grid. They are
developing a whole host of instruments to help ordinary people
over this particular hurdle. How far they will be successful,
I do not know, and it is not for me to advertise, but this work
is going on, and there will be others in the field. The other
thing, I think, that lies behind your question, and the reason
that Germany has been so successful, particularly with the field
of photoelectrics, is that they have for a long time had a sensible
lead-in price, and I think that also would encourage people. I
go back to what I said, in the end for individuals and everybody
else, this is a question of economics. People will do these things
not exclusively because they are convinced they are the correct
thing to do but also, particularly, if they had some hope of their
being reasonably economic or, let us put it this way, not too
un-economic. There are a lot of people in the countryside, in
my view, and in the towns too who would like to do more, but at
the moment the fiscal penalties are too great. That is not to
say that technical developments will not take care of some of
those, I have seen photoelectric manufacturers predicting economic
competitiveness in less than five years. That is going on. It
has not happened yet, but there is a lot to look forward to.
Q217 Chairman: Thank you very much.
Unfortunately, time has beaten us but thank you for your very
practical advice. We are grateful for your time.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Thank you very much.
You let me off lightly!
|
