Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle and Baroness Worthington

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 46 in my name. As the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell of Coatdyke, clearly set out, this group of amendments is trying to implement something that the Government themselves have established: the UK Low Carbon Hydrogen Standard: Guidance on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting and Sustainability Criteria, which I believe dates originally to April and was updated in July. I find myself in the unusual position of saying that I want to enforce something that the Government have established. Experts in this area tell me that the conditions set out in these standards are: the greenhouse gas emissions intensity of hydrogen for it to be considered low carbon; the emissions being considered up to the point of production; and, very importantly, the risk mitigation plan for fugitive hydrogen emissions. There is perhaps not much public awareness of the risk of that, but we need to share and understand it. The criteria are set out there.

I am not particularly attached to the way this is done in my amendment; I was simply trying to put Amendment 46 down to say that, for the subsidies to be available, it must meet the Government’s own standard. That seems the simplest way, but I am very happy to be convinced that there are various other ways; other amendments are going in the same direction. I am happy should we still need to get to this on Report to talk to people about what the best way of doing it is, but surely the Government want to enforce their own standards.

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 47 in my name. I find myself in the unusual position of being more environmentally ambitious than the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, in that the standard that my amendment would introduce on hydrogen would be more stringent and would ensure that we are investing in this form of clean energy only if it is truly clean.

It is a not well understood fact that hydrogen actually has a global warming potential which is not insignificant. When released into the atmosphere, it has the effect of inhibiting the breakdown of methane, which we all know is a powerful greenhouse gas. The latest papers to come out that the Government have produced themselves indicate that, over a 100-year timescale, hydrogen has a global warming potential of 11 times that of CO₂. That is over 100 years, but we are probably concerned about the next 20 years, in which case that rises to it having 33 times as powerful a greenhouse gas effect as CO₂.

When it comes to hydrogen, I know it is often touted as the great white hope and the great solution—in fact, we have had adverts plastered all over Westminster telling us that hydrogen is the answer. However, it has to be considered carefully in context. It is very difficult to produce and to transport, and it is very dangerous to have around the house. In fact, studies have shown that it is potentially between three to four times more likely that someone will be injured from a hydrogen explosion in the home compared to natural gas. Already, natural gas has an unhappily high number of accidents and injuries from its use in the home.

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle and Baroness Worthington

Committee stage
Monday 5th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of Amendment 14 and reiterate the question of why there may be inconsistent definitions of storage in the Bill.

In my time exploring carbon capture and storage over the years, I have become somewhat cynical about its ability to scale. The sheer cost of it and the presence of alternatives that may be cheaper and more secure mean that its role will be relatively limited. I am sure that it will play a role, but only if we enable it to be pursued in its widest possible senses. It is absolutely the case that you can store large volumes of carbon dioxide underground; we have aquifers and other underground storage facilities that could be used for this, including in the North Sea and on land, and we should explore those where they make sense. However, there are other mechanisms through which you can enable the use of other stored forms of carbon. Novel techniques are coming to market now involving plasma torches, which, applied to natural gas streams, deliver pure streams of hydrogen plus black carbon. That black carbon can then be used as a manufacturing commodity. Therefore, it would be foolish of us not to include that as a potential option. Similarly, CO₂ is used as a binding agent in the production of building materials. In fact, currently the CO₂ has to be bought at an extortionate rate, so using pure waste streams of CO₂ for the production of building materials will again be a permanent form of storage and it should be supported in the Bill. I fully support this amendment.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I want briefly to reinforce the comments that have already been made. I wish to speak particularly in favour of Amendment 9, on the duty to assist in delivering net zero, and to Amendments 14, 15, 16 and 19; as has been argued clearly, having a consistent definition of storage throughout the Bill makes total sense.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, I am very sceptical about the claims made about carbon capture and storage. Often, we see it used as a “get out of jail free” card: “We’ve got all the numbers and they don’t add up. We’ll just throw in a figure for carbon capture and storage to allow us to continue as we are”. That is clearly unviable. None the less, it makes a lot of sense to grab carbon emissions wherever they occur and use them in a constructive way.

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Debate between Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle and Baroness Worthington

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th March 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Well, on many issues, such as the climate emergency, the nature crisis, concern about air pollution and whether we should have a living wage, we have won all those arguments over time, and I fully expect that we will make the same progress here.

The noble Viscount said, “Don’t worry, the costs won’t be borne immediately.” I point to your Lordships’ House having recently passed the Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill—an acknowledgment that we have already laid huge costs on future generations in terms of the destruction of the earth. What we are talking about here is like buying a property and then saying that the ground rent in future will be decided by a random number generator. We do not know what the costs will be, but those costs of trying to dispose of this material exist.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, “Oh, we have the technological solutions”, and the noble Lord, Lord Deben, hinted at the issue when he asked, “Why would future generations dig this up?” We should think about what we have done to the pyramids and a great many ancient sites: here is this mysterious thing from the past and there might be treasures in there. One of the great challenges of trying to decide about deep geological disposal is the question of whether you should mark it or hide it. If you mark it then how do you convey, many centuries into the future, that this is a dangerous place? That is not a question that anyone has ever found an answer to because there is no answer to it.

I would be interested in the Minister’s answer to this. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Oates, said there had not been much discussion of this issue, but when I raised the question of a geological disposal facility the Minister told me there were four places where this was being consulted on. I asked him to identify those places and he said he could not, so I would be interested to hear any updates on that. It rather contradicts the comments from the noble Lord in front of me, who said that three places had already decided. I spoke at Second Reading about my experience of being in Cumbria and seeing what resistance there was, even in a place that is broadly pro-nuclear power, to deep geological disposal.

You do not make a purchase, particularly with public money, without knowing what the costs will be. I have some sympathy with the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Vaux, about trying to make sure that the cost does not land on the public purse—except that the practical reality is that we have seen a great deal of socialisation of costs and privatisation of profits. The state will always be the organisation that has to pick up the costs because the clean-up and the storage have to happen and the state has to ensure the security of its people.

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise for not being present at Second Reading, and this is the first time I have spoken in Committee. I am speaking to Amendments 3, 44 and 45. Normally, when I speak on matters of climate change, there is not much distance between my position and those of the noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Teverson. However, on this issue, I totally oppose Amendment 3, which can be interpreted really only as a wrecking amendment designed to derail the Bill and the financing of this essential infrastructure, which we need to see built for the clean, affordable and secure sources of electricity that we will need in the future. Amendments 44 and 45 similarly seek to derail this effort and therefore should be opposed by the Government.

To pick up on some of the details, at heart, the difference between us is a sense of radiophobia. Noble Lords on the other side believe radiation to be a deadly, uncontrollable source of pollution that cannot be managed, which is just not true. We know how to manage this waste today and will know how to manage it tomorrow. If you know the source of radiation, and whether it is alpha, beta or gamma, and how it can be stopped by simple everyday materials—paper, metal and concrete—you can contain this waste. You can stand today in a disposal facility of high-level waste, in existing reactors above ground, and touch the sides of the casks containing that waste. It is that safe. In fact, the background radiation would be less than you would get if you were exposed to background radiation from visiting parts of Cornwall.

So please can noble Lords engage in this debate on the basis of science? Can you visit these facilities and engage in an understanding of how this currently operates and will operate in the future? If you drop this radiophobia, you will understand that this is essential in the fight against climate change—not only the existing reactors, but the new reactors and existing-design reactors. We need them all. We need to throw everything we can at this. We need to do it safely and securely, and that is what we have been and will be doing.

Please can we not accept this amendment, but have a dialogue and get to the root of noble Lords’ concerns? I am sure, as was pointed out by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, that once you understand the nature of radiation and that the higher the radiation, the quicker it decays, you will understand that this is a manageable problem, unlike the completely unmanaged problem of CO₂ emissions. CO₂ is emitted every second of every day in every country, and is accumulating in the atmosphere with no one taking responsibility. No one is paying for its collection and storage. You have to put this in context, understand the science and visit the current management practices in this country and others. Then you will understand that these amendments are not in good faith; they are designed simply to slow this down, and I therefore cannot support them.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps she would acknowledge that the circumstances in which waste is currently being managed are stable—I do not think she was here when I was speaking to the earlier group of amendments, about Ukraine—and we have orderly government and an orderly economic system. We have controls. The world cannot be guaranteed to stay in that place. In another case, waste could look very different.

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

Perhaps the noble Baroness would like to comment on the completely and utterly irresponsible spreading of misinformation around the Ukraine reactor. People are claiming that it would be 10 times worse than Chernobyl, which is utterly untrue. This is the largest reactor in Europe, yet it is so secure that it cannot be compared to Chernobyl in any way, shape or form, but all this misinformation is circling around it. We have seen that reactor being rendered to a safe point even under the conditions of war. What more proof do you need that this can be safely managed?

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

The noble Baroness directed that to me, so I will point out that, yes, the artillery shells did not hit the reactors, but they are designed to deal with aircraft strikes and earthquakes. They are not designed to deal with artillery shells.

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

Which do you think is more impactful—an artillery shell, or an airliner or F14 fighter flying into the side of the reactor? They are designed for this. They have regular safety protocols and procedure which they go through in considering what should happen in a conflict situation like this. You are really not speaking from a position of information to understand this, I am afraid. I should not use pronouns; I should have said that the noble Baroness should really study this more before making proclamations such as this. It derails this essential effort.