Energy Bill

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan]

For the convenience of the Committee, would the noble Lord tell us for how much longer we will go on this evening? I was under the impression that we would finish at 7.30 pm, but we also had a target number of clauses to reach. The target is still some distance away and we are now well past 7.30 pm. Could we have some indication of what is happening?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, that is the estimated rising time and we agreed with the opposition Whip that we would continue with this last group because we are behind schedule in terms of the clause target. This is the last group that the Committee will consider today.

[Viscount Ridley]

My Lords, I support Amendments 18 and 19 from the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, but I will mainly address my remarks to Amendment 20. I declare my interests as detailed in the register, which include not just coal, but also wood, which I shall criticise. The purpose of Amendment 20 is simple and I hope helpful to the Minister. It is to check that we do not buy the wrong technologies. The only reason for investing in wind is to cut carbon emissions. After last week’s strike price announcement, it cannot be to cut electricity bills. If one were to assume that every megawatt hour from wind displaces one from coal, the cost of carbon reduction from wind will still be exceedingly high—well over £100 a tonne.

However, can we even make this assumption? There is now good evidence from other parts of the world that wind does not achieve anything close to the emissions cuts assumed by the Government. National Grid recently announced that wind power had saved 11 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions here over 18 months and little back-up fossil fuel was burned to compensate for the intermittency of wind. Even if this were true, it is just 1.5% of our emissions, but it is a most misleading calculation. It assumes that the only fossil fuel needed to back up wind was that needed to compensate for the discrepancy between forecast wind speed and actual wind speed. That is only half the story.

For a more realistic result we must take into account studies in Colorado, Texas, Illinois, Holland and Australia, all of which show far smaller CO₂ savings than expected. More recently, I understand that another study soon to be published, from Ireland, finds that the actual savings of CO₂ due to wind turbines are less than half of those assumed by the National Grid, DECC and others. The intermittency of wind results in more start-ups and shutdowns of gas plants, which uses fuel less efficiently and so produces more CO₂. This problem is bound to get worse in the future because, as wind capacity increases, it has to be backed up by plants that are less good at starting up and shutting down.

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 2, as amended, agreed.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, perhaps I may suggest that this is a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn.

Committee adjourned at 8.08 pm.