Marine Renewables: Government Support

Debate between Alan Brown and Wera Hobhouse

Wednesday 7th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Alan Brown]

I need to move on. However, if there are any blockages, I am happy to support streamlining. I know that Marine Scotland has massively increased its resource to try to speed things up in terms of its assessment and processing. However, if more needs to be done to streamline things, I support that. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as I have said, the section 36 regulations are reserved to Westminster. However, I am happy to support any streamlining of the process to ensure we get deployment.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) on her contribution. She rightly highlighted that these technologies encourage redevelopment and regeneration. Energy Island is a fantastic development that will move from fossil fuels to renewable energy. I support the call for an innovation report for CfDs and the call for the ability to group multiple technologies together, because that would facilitate the development of green hydrogen as well.

As always, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a fantastic contribution to the debate. He talked particularly about the developments for Strangford lough in his constituency. I liked what he said about helping to support the working poor in a drive for wages.

I completely agree with the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) that when it comes to nuclear, there is a lack of competition to bring costs down. I support her call for community energy. That has happened in Orkney through hydrogen development and the roll-out of electric vehicles; party of that community energy comes from marine energy.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alan Brown]

Sorry, I need to go on.

It might have taken slightly longer to get to this point and there are good reasons for that, but Scotland leads the world in wave and tidal stream technology. The deployment of tidal stream to date has come about because of a combination of the tenacity and drive of the developers; Government support, particularly that of the devolved Administrations; and the presence and work of EMEC.

Of course, a big reason for our optimism about the future is the £20 million ring-fenced pot that was allocated in AR4. That sent a clear message to investors and allowed certainty for the market. The message is clear: continue this £20 million ring-fencing in AR5 and, as a minimum, do the same for AR6. However, what would really help industry is a long-term view of what funding could be available. Hopefully the Minister will confirm that AR5, which is due to be announced later this month, will contain some ring-fencing.

We know what happened with offshore wind, where pipelines of projects brought prices down dramatically and much quicker than was originally intended. That was a real success story and one that the UK Government are proud of. As we look to the future, there are some things that can be replicated with tidal stream. That can be as big a success, but one that is based on UK supply chains and that will lead to our exporting the technology and patents.

The UK has 11.5 GW of potential, which equates to 11% of the UK’s current electricity demand. It goes without saying that the flows of tides are entirely predictable, so if there is a belief in the need for so-called baseload, tidal stream can clearly be part of that.

Of course, it is the reliability and predictability of this green energy that is so important. As we have heard, it is also cost-efficient, particularly if given the right Government backing. The 40 MW allocation in AR4 will be delivered at £178 per MWh, which is already 15% below the administrative strike price and represents a 40% reduction in the levelised cost of energy since 2016. As we have heard, it could go as low as £78 per MWh by 2035 and below £50 per MWh by 2050. However, such cost reductions are possible only with continued Government backing.

As we have heard, those prices compare very favourably to the strike rate for Hinkley Point C, which is £92.50 per MWh, and, as I have said, that is a 35-year concession as opposed to a 15-year concession. If we work that 35-year concession backwards, tidal stream is already as cheap as nuclear, or cheaper, albeit not at the same scale, so I admit we are perhaps not comparing apples with applies in terms of output. Nevertheless, in that comparison, tidal stream is already cheaper than nuclear. Tidal stream does not have the backing of Sizewell C, which has just been allocated £700 million of taxpayers’ money just to get to the final investment stage. Again, what we are calling for is continued Government backing that will see tidal stream developed quicker and in a way that is much more beneficial to bill payers.

Given that time is running on, I will sum up by reiterating what the key asks are for industry. We must maintain the tidal stream energy ringfence in future renewable options, which is worth at least £20 million in AR 5. We want the Government to set a 1 GW target for 2035 to send, again, that strong signal to investors. Small modular reactors at Sizewell C will not be able to achieve that target in that timeframe. We want to expedite the route to market for UK projects. That goes to the point other Members have touched on about the consenting process, which needs to be sped up.

Other contributors have also said that the UK needs to increase the pace and scale of its investment in its electricity grid. We should do an exercise where we ask, “What does 2050 look like in terms of where energy generation takes place?” From that, we can map out what grid upgrades there need to be, instead of continuing to incorporate constraints, in the way that short-term lookaheads for grid upgrades have done.

We ask that a renewables investment allowance be created. When we are trying to embrace a renewables revolution, it makes no sense to have an oil and gas investment allowance, which offsets the massive profits that oil and gas behemoths are making, but not to have an investment allowance that encourages them to invest in renewable energy, to divest and to pursue that long-term just transition to net zero.

There really is a fantastic opportunity for renewables as a whole in the UK and a fantastic opportunity for tidal stream technology to continue to be world leading, to be manufactured here and to be exported to the rest of the world. It just needs that continued support, and hopefully the Minister will tell us that that is what it will get.

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Debate between Alan Brown and Wera Hobhouse

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 10th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown]

My ideal recommendation would be not to invest in a new nuclear plant. That would be the first thing, but if we take the situation as it is and look at the position going forward, the Government first need to satisfy themselves on the design. Bear in mind that the EPR system is still not working anywhere in the world. The whole point of the amendment is to at least have yearly assessments and reports to Parliament that advise on reliability. As I say, that would allow parliamentarians to understand that, challenge the Government if need be, and help to put pressure on nuclear consortiums if they were not performing to plan. That, for me, is critical to actually getting what has been signed up for.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that increasingly, the view that we need a permanent base-load for energy supply is outdated thinking, and that most modern thinking around the idea of energy supply all day, every day is that we do not need the idea of base-loads anymore?

[Alan Brown]

I agree wholeheartedly with that. Actually, as far back as 2015, Steve Halliday, the then chief executive of National Grid, said that baseload was an “outdated” concept and a false argument, so I agree with that. This goes back to my point that nuclear is too inflexible because it is either on or off, and it is actually nuclear that leads to wind turbines being turned off so often. The bizarre thing is that nuclear has hidden costs because of the energy constraint payments that are made.

To return to the amendments, our amendment 10 relates to clause 32, as does Labour’s amendment 5. I would point out, as I stated in Committee, that I do not support the Labour amendment because I believe that compelling the Government to take over a plant confirmed to have been economically unviable would be throwing good money after bad, which is the polar opposite of the rationale behind our amendment 10. However, to be fair, I certainly support all the other Labour amendments, particularly those about foreign ownership, and I will be happy to support them if they are pushed to a vote.

Finally—people will be glad to know—I turn to new clause 1. This is another attempt at transparency in what could otherwise be the Secretary of State committing huge sums of money via the special administration route. Again, I do not think it too onerous for the Secretary of State to have to report to Parliament on the likely costs of a bail-out of an insolvent company.

In Committee, the Minister argued that it would hamper the process, but given that the SAR process is only being implemented for the first time through Bulb going bust, it is unclear to me why a report to Parliament would unduly delay the anyway complicated process of going through the courts. The Minister stated that the court process would provide enough transparency, but also that the reporting requirement might have commercial implications and affect the Secretary of State’s ability to bring the administration to an end. Both aspects of that cannot be true: there is enough transparency or there is not. It seems to me that reporting to Parliament should not hinder the transparency process, and it should not have commercial implications, so this new clause has been put forward to ensure clear reporting of information to Parliament.

In conclusion, I have made it clear from the outset that this Bill lacks transparency. Clauses 2 and 3 give way too much power to the Secretary of State to assess what he or she believes to be a value-for-money nuclear project and then commit bill payers to paying for it. While I am opposed to the Bill, I have not even proposed wrecking amendments because the amendments today are all designed to ensure that, first, parliamentarians and, secondly, bill payers know exactly what money is being committed and for what reasons.

If the Government have faith in their arguments that nuclear energy is required and that it represents true value for money, it seems to me that they should willingly accept these amendments and new clause 1. If the amendments get defeated in votes, we will know that it is all about continued backroom deals that they fear will not stand up to scrutiny if they were to report on the actual sums.