Greener Road Transport Fuels

Ian Swales Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) on securing it and giving it an imaginative title, which allows us to range over the subject with abandon.

There is an important distinction between greener transport fuels and making transport greener, and I think that my hon. Friend made several points about the latter issue. There is no doubt that vehicle manufacturers and many others, such as fuel manufacturers, have contributed to an enormous reduction in the amount of fuel used for road transport. The car that I drive gets more than 60 miles to the gallon, which would have been unthinkable when I was tinkering with cars in my early 20s. We have heard about the possibility of switching fuels, but although liquefied petroleum gas may reduce fuel use, it is, as its name suggests, a fossil fuel.

I want to talk about fuels that I think of as greener than fossil fuels. There are three basic sources: liquids, gases and electricity. The important thing is to think about where they come from, and many contributions today have been about that. As my hon. Friend said, there are many sources of electricity, and some could well be more polluting than putting petrol in the car. For example, electricity may be generated in a coal-fired power station, then go down a line with the associated line losses, and into a car that is plugged in, but that is an incredibly inefficient way to fuel a vehicle.

An important point about electric cars is where the electricity comes from. Just last week a car went all the way across Australia entirely on solar power. Unfortunately, we do not have the weather here to see that as a long-term solution, but at least it proved that it is technically possible. The journey was 2,000 miles in six days, so that was pretty good mileage. Electricity is clearly an option for greener fuel.

There are gas possibilities, of which hydrogen is the most obvious. The subject is bedevilled by different views of science, statements from NGOs and so on. In an intervention, hydrogen was linked to crops, but the biggest source of hydrogen in my constituency is the ethylene cracker. Plastics are made by extracting hydrogen from gases, essentially, and there is a hydrogen surplus in Teesside, which comes entirely from the petrochemical industry—not from crops at all.

There are many sources of hydrogen, and the most likely one in future is surplus electricity from renewable electricity generation. It is technically fairly simple to use surplus electricity from wind turbines, for example, to generate hydrogen, which could become fuel for vehicles. There are many technical possibilities for hydrogen generation, without necessarily using crops. Hydrogen is an incredibly powerful fuel.

It is an amazing fact that splitting a water molecule into hydrogen and oxygen gives the fuel that sent rockets to the moon. It is necessary only to recombine them, and that can send rockets into space; it is the perfect fuel because it produces water again as a by-product. Hydrogen must be on the long list of future fuels for that reason, if no other.

There are many liquid biofuels, some more controversial than others. One is used cooking oil, which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) is keen on. That is clearly a good environmental use for oil that would otherwise be thrown away. However, the amount of what is called used cooking oil throughout Europe is many times the amount actually used for cooking.

Imports of palm and other oils, which the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) mentioned, are driven partly by the market for so-called used cooking oil. A great deal of policing of the source of the material is needed, because there are loopholes and many traders who run rings round the industry. Equally, however, many small-scale collection facilities produce fuel, and they have a role in the future.

I want to talk now about crop-based biofuels. I must declare an interest, because Europe’s largest bioethanol plant is in my constituency. I challenge the idea that we can have either food or fuel. We are still paying farmers in this country not to grow things—including 6 million tonnes of sugar beet, which is potentially a fuel for a bioethanol plant. The idea that the issue is all about land does not always stand up to examination. There are many political, economic and agricultural reasons why there are food shortages in the world, and, when overall world land use is considered, land is quite far down the list. Perhaps that is controversial.

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the current EU set-aside requirement is zero. When land is set aside it is usually, currently, because of some environmental arrangement that the farmer has entered into. The amount of set-aside in the UK is dramatically less than it was 10 years ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Swales]

I thank the Minister for that response. I recognise his special expertise in this area.

I want to talk about the sustainability of the bioethanol made in my constituency. It is made from animal-feed wheat, not human-grade wheat, and at the other end we get three products: bioethanol; carbon dioxide, which is captured for use in the food and drink industry in a separate plant; and crucially, high-grade animal feed. All the protein in the wheat ends up in high-grade animal feed, which is highly prized in the agricultural industry, to the point that there are times when those at the plant tell me that it is an animal feed plant with a bioethanol by-product, rather than a bioethanol plant with an animal feed by-product.

The high-protein animal feed replaces imports mostly from South America, mostly based on soya and mostly grown on former rainforest land. Far from being unsustainable, that high-grade animal feed, a by-product of the bioethanol business, is in effect replacing the use of rainforests in South America. A cradle-to-grave view of the sustainability of all greener fuels needs to be taken, because there are an awful lot of misconceptions about how some of the businesses work.

[Mr Goodwill]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the by-product from those plants is suitable only as ruminant feed. Much of the grain in South America is produced to fuel the chicken and pork industries, which seems to be the big demand in the developing world.

[Ian Swales]

I recognise that the Minister has a special expertise, but I know that there is demand in the marketplace for the feeds, which form only part of the overall mix. Having enjoyed the product of a ruminant in my cup of tea earlier this afternoon, I know that they have a place in the final food chain.

[David Mowat]

I am not totally certain that I understood the thrust of what was said about rainforests. Was the point being made that it is good to convert rainforest into soya for use in transport?

[Ian Swales]

No, absolutely not. My point was that the high-grade, high-protein animal feed, which the by-product feed replaces, is typically grown in South America, so the by-product feed reduces the demand for soya-based proteins, mostly from South America. There is a green chain. The situation is not as simple as people say.

The Government have had a policy for putting biofuels into both diesel and petrol for years. Starting with diesel, they set the targets and people invested large amounts in chemical plant, but all the early investors went bust because the Government kept moving the goal posts—surprise, surprise, the same has happened with bioethanol. The £300 million that people invested in the plant in my constituency has largely gone and the plant recently changed hands for a lower price. Why? Because the Government have not delivered on the renewable transport fuel obligations they said they would when the investment case was originally made.

The hon. Member for Southport mentioned an important point: we need certainty for green technologies. If we are asking people to invest large amounts of capital, we cannot keep changing our minds. Changing one’s mind leads to an industry heavily dependent on imports of green products. Unless we give investors certainty about the goal posts and the environment into which they invest, they will not invest anymore. Most of the early investors in such technologies have done badly and that is mostly due to Government policy.

For the same reasons, we need to ensure at EU level that targets for the proportions of biofuel in diesel and petrol are separate. If we allow an overall target and let oil companies play games over how much biofuel they put into each one on any given day, the people who have invested heavily in capital plant will have years of feast and years of famine, as the oil companies play their games, and will eventually exit the market. Again, traders will be left to pick up the pieces.

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech and I have learnt a lot from it. Is not the fundamental point of what he is saying that in asking the Government to pick one technology over another, we are asking them to pick winners? History shows us that the Government are much better at picking losers than winners.

Rather than the Government’s picking winners and choosing where to put subsidies, would it not be better for them to switch some of the subsidies currently going into the energy industry—there is a huge debate about that at the moment—into research, so that we can move on to the next generation of renewable technologies, which the market will support?

[Ian Swales]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I have told many potential investors in the industry that we cannot expect the Government to make winners. As at a roulette table, they will put their chips on lots of different numbers, but having made policy on, for example, the proportion of petrol that should come from bio-sources, they cannot change it when people are putting in hundreds of millions of pounds. By the way, those biofuels do not get a subsidy; all they need is a market that is understood and left to prosper. I agree with his point, but at some stage we must not so much pick winners, as set the environment for particular sectors of the market to thrive.

[John Pugh]

One place the Government cannot avoid interacting with the market in one way or another is the taxation regime, and they do so to an enormous extent. A lot of the price of petrol is tax. They cannot opt out.

[Ian Swales]

That is a good point. The Government have a key role, because they are never out of the market, due to the environment they set and the rules they put in place. They are players, whether they like it or not.

We need to look constantly at the science behind the issues and not simply listen to the last non-governmental organisation we spoke to. Sustainability needs to be looked at from cradle to grave, and there is a lot of devil in that detail, such as the materials used to make a car battery for an electric car. We need to police systems, because once we put rules in place, there are usually lots of people working on the best way to get round them and maximise their take. We need to ensure that we are not naive about the systems we put in place. We need big thinking.

One of my concerns is that we need five Ministers to respond to the debate: one from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills; one from the Department of Energy and Climate Change; one from the Treasury; one from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; and one from the Department for Transport, who I am sure—no pressure—will speak for all the others. The issues typically cross those five Departments, a fact that I know the Government recognise. They have put a high-level team in place, but we need not just high-level thinking, but high-level action to ensure we get a consistent view, over, for example, the value of waste and where it is best used.

Finally, I congratulate the Minister on his new role. I am sure that, having listened to the debate, he is wondering whether he did the right thing in accepting the job. I hope he will give us the clarity we all seek.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Swales]

Does the Minister feel that his colleagues in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, who are worried about the lights going out this winter, are factoring into their work on future power generation the electrical demand that he is talking about?

[Mr Goodwill]

Yes, I am sure they are. I am concerned that one means of addressing the range anxiety problem is to have fast-charge cars. Electric cars work well when they are charged overnight with renewable energy or nuclear energy, but once we start fast-charging cars at filling stations, we will have a major problem not only with generation capacity but with the grid’s ability to carry that amount of electricity.

However, not all modes of transport can be easily electrified. Aviation and heavy goods vehicles are likely to continue to require liquid fuels for decades to come. It is therefore essential that we develop the technologies to produce low-carbon liquid fuels.

Biofuels are renewable transport fuels created from organic matter and offer one way of creating low-carbon fuels. However, biofuels—and bioenergy more generally— also present complex challenges. Last year, the Government published a strategy for bioenergy, which recognised its important role in allowing the UK to meet its climate change objectives. It concluded that by using bioenergy, we could cut the costs of decarbonising the UK by £44 billion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

The issue of displacement—the ILUC situation—is one that we are well aware of. It tends to be more of a problem with biodiesel than with bioethanol, but it is an issue that we need to address through negotiations and agreements at the European level.

The European targets that the UK has agreed to are legally binding. Therefore, the UK needs to work within the European framework to produce a biofuel policy that reduces the environmental and social impacts of biofuels. As part of this process, it is imperative that ILUC is properly addressed at European level. Negotiations are ongoing in Europe, and we are pressing for an ambitious outcome to the ILUC situation. The 5% figure is certainly the figure that we are negotiating towards.

As we have heard in the debate, there are also concerns about the impact of biofuels on food prices. Food versus fuel is an issue that I take very seriously. The primary goal of agriculture should remain food production, and the production of biomass must not undermine food security or increase food prices. It is accepted that increased demand for biofuel has played a role, but Government analysis has shown that although increased global crop prices have resulted from biofuel production there has only been a modest rise in food prices.

I must point out at this stage that there is only 10p worth of wheat in a loaf of bread anyway, so there are many other factors that come—oh dear, I have mentioned that I am a farmer again. However, I recognise the seriousness of even a small impact on food prices, as well as the potential for biofuel support policies to increase crop price volatility. Nevertheless, I am confident that our position on the ILUC negotiations, if it is successful in limiting crop-based biofuels and incentivising those produced from wastes and residues, should reduce the direct competition for food feedstocks.

I will turn now to advanced fuels. Resolving the issue of ILUC remains the main barrier to setting out the clear pathway to achieving our 2020 targets, which I know industry and investors need. However, in the meantime we can set out some markers for the longer-term path to more sustainable biofuels. That is likely to be achieved through the use of non-land-using feedstocks, such as agricultural residues and municipal waste. However, use of these feedstocks requires advanced conversion processes that have not yet been commercialised. These processes are an exciting technology, which can turn unwanted waste products into valuable transport fuel. A number of countries have already established production facilities for these advanced biofuels, although there are none as yet in the UK. However, with the UK’s world-class research capabilities we have the potential to become a global player in this sector.

That is why earlier this year the Government announced a £25 million competition for an advanced biofuel demonstration contest, which aims to deliver up to three demonstration-scale advanced biofuel plants in the UK. Later this year, we will also be announcing a call for evidence on advanced fuels. We will invite industry’s views on what more the Government should be doing to develop these essential technologies, which will be needed long into the future to allow us to reduce the carbon footprint of road travel and, increasingly, other transport sectors.

However, not all non-land-using biofuels rely on advanced technologies. For example, biomethane made from waste demonstrates some of the highest carbon savings of any biofuel, and the technology for its production is well understood. Indeed, I visited a BMW car plant in the United States, which was powered by biofuel from a nearby waste dump.

[Ian Swales]

May I ask the Minister a question about a detail in his speech? He mentioned “other transport sectors”. It is already technically possible for biokerosene to fuel aircraft. Some aircraft have flown—including, I believe, a Virgin aircraft—powered purely by biokerosene. Will the Government do anything about aircraft fuels?

[Mr Goodwill]

I will not digress too far into the area of aircraft but we certainly need to ensure that the quality of aircraft fuels is consistent, and currently we do not put biofuel into aviation kerosene for safety reasons. However, more research could lead to some progress in that area.

Biomethane represents a particularly compelling opportunity for heavy goods vehicles, which have few other options for decarbonisation. Biomethane currently represents less than 1% of renewable transport fuel, so there is clear potential to expand its contribution to reducing emissions in the UK. However, biomethane cannot be used in transport without the vehicles that are able to use it, and there are currently fewer than 1,000 natural gas vehicles in the UK. The Government are supporting the early uptake of gas-fuelled vehicles through the low-carbon truck demonstration trial. This £11 million project to trial low-carbon trucks and supporting infrastructure will support almost 350 natural gas trucks.

I am aware of industry concerns about the adequacy of incentives for the use of biomethane in transport, particularly when compared with other Government support schemes for the use of biomethane in electricity and heat. These issues will be considered as part of our forthcoming call for evidence, and we will then be in a position to propose the changes that we think will be needed to the RTFO in order to strike the best balance of incentives. With luck, we will then be able to introduce those incentives alongside agreed European proposals to address ILUC.

I turn now to some of the points made in the debate. I again welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), to his role. In many ways, we are on the same page. The renewable energy directive targets are still in place for 2020; under those targets, 10% of transport energy will be renewable. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that those targets have not changed as a result of our recent negotiations.

The hon. Member for Southport raised the issue of liquefied natural gas, which is the same as methane or biogas. As a transport fuel, natural gas has lower carbon emissions than diesel; it produces about 15% lower emissions. Natural gas also diversifies our fuel supply, increasing energy security, and it can improve local air quality. In addition, natural gas benefits from a lower duty rate than diesel. I should point out that matters regarding duty rates should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Liquefied petroleum gas vehicles have some environmental benefits. On a lifecycle basis, LPG vehicles produce about 14% less carbon dioxide than petrol vehicles do. However, LPG is not as good as diesel. LPG cars deliver similar air quality emissions to petrol cars, and better air quality emissions than diesel, although the gap has narrowed with the introduction of Euro 5 and Euro 6 cars.

The hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) asked about the 5% food crop cap. I hope that I have reassured her that we are sticking with that, and we have certainly made it clear to the European Commission, the European Parliament and all other member states in the Council of the European Union that the UK supports the 5% cap.