Great British Energy Bill

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton. We have to admire his doggedness in bringing up the question of slave labour in China. As we are totally dependent on so many different exports from China to this country, it is something that we have to bear in mind all the time. I wish him the best with his endeavours, although I do not hold out an awful lot of hope, as the problem is that China produces everything so much cheaper than anywhere else.

I support my noble friend Lord Petitgas in his amendment. He has outlined the real problem of investing billions—let us face it, it is billions—of pounds of taxpayers’ money in energy projects. The problem is that the only ones that will become available for the taxpayer, and for the Minister to make his decisions upon, will be projects rejected by the private sector.

The fact is that the people who invest in renewable energy are not the people who particularly believe in renewable energy; they believe in making money. The whole technique when putting up a wind farm or a wind turbine is that you test the amount of wind, look at the feed-in tariff from the consumer, do your cash-flow adjustments from there, borrow the money and put up the turbine.

My Amendment 85A is to do with the whole question of emissions, about which I am very worried. My amendment says that there should be an annual report,

“which must include information on carbon emissions resulting from each of”

Great British Energy’s

“investments in renewable energy technology”.

We have reached the point where we have to look much more closely at the whole question of renewable energy. People think that, if you put up a wind turbine and the wind blows, that is all free, and that you do not create any carbon emissions in putting up a wind turbine. I am afraid that is not true: you do. You create a tremendous carbon footprint when you create the steel. I gather we cannot make it in this country any more, so we have to import it, and there is an increase in carbon emissions when bringing it in. At the end of the day, a serious carbon imprint is involved in putting up a wind turbine. The great advantage of a wind turbine is that, once you have got it up, from thereon in the chances of creating a carbon imprint are rather less.

The same applies to solar panels. As we have discussed, solar panels are highly likely to be manufactured in China, and they have to be transported here. The Chinese are creating massive carbon emissions with their industry, which we basically exported to them. When we talk about carbon emissions, we are talking about global emissions; we are not talking about individual emissions here.

My real problem is with growing crops and trees which then get burned. Because these are a renewable resource, this is then taken as a renewable source of energy. I have a slight problem with that. Take the very extreme example of oilseed rape, which is grown in this country. When you come to think of it, you create a carbon imprint when the tractor tills the field and sows the crop. I am not an expert in the growing of oilseed rape, but I suspect it needs spraying and fertilising and so forth. All of this adds to the carbon impact. The seeds that come off oilseed rape are then compressed to produce a form of vegetable oil, which is then refined. All of this has a carbon footprint. Eventually, it is burned. I gather that it is proposed to be used for aircraft as a substitute for aviation fuel. When you burn aviation fuel, you are creating a carbon imprint.

This does not affect national Governments quite so much because the whole business of the carbon imprint of aviation is not counted against the targets for a particular country. The problem of CO₂, as we know, is a global problem. If we want to clean up the planet generally, we cannot ignore aviation.

Many of us also have quite serious worries about Drax power station. For a long time, it was importing the offcuts of North America’s timber industry to burn at the power station. There is obviously a serious carbon imprint involved in cutting down trees, stripping the unwanted bits off them and loading that on to ships, which bring it over the Atlantic to this country. Have we really taken into account the CO₂ emissions this whole process at Drax power station creates? It is rumoured that Drax has moved on to saying that it can take all this bark and stuff and turn it into aviation fuel. That will have the same problems as using oilseed rape. There is a massive carbon imprint all the way through.

We are trying to talk about reducing the carbon imprint, and it strikes me that with some forms of renewables we are increasing the carbon imprint unnecessarily. Surely what we should be doing is looking at hydrogen and seeing if we can get that down to a more manageable cost. That could be used in its compressed form in aircraft, heavy vehicles and so forth. The great advantage of hydrogen is that, when it is burned, it produces no carbon. I worry that, although we think we are doing something to help the planet, we are not. If we take that extreme example and go on looking for aviation fuel from oilseed rape in perpetuity, then, in the name of some renewable crop, we will be having very large carbon emissions right the way through the process, in perpetuity.

We have to look at the whole question of renewable energy and what form it takes. We need an audit which tells us how much carbon imprint is being made by producing fuel in this way, whichever fuel it is, so that we can make a more objective judgment about whether this is helping the climate and helping to meet CO₂ and net-zero targets, or doing the precise opposite.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to Amendment 60, and also to Amendment 74, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Amendment 60 relates to the Government’s projection of 650,000 jobs. This is to be achieved over five years, when we achieve net zero. It is a very ambitious target. I hope it can be achieved, but there are questions related to where those jobs will come from, whether we have the skills and whether jobs will be lost in the process as well.

I make no secret of the fact that I live in the north-east of Scotland and I represented the constituency of Gordon for 32 years. I have monitored the oil and gas industry from its very early days in the North Sea right through to the present, and the massive contribution it has made to the UK economy throughout that time—not just in terms of money but in terms of technology, the balance of payments and skills. I accept that the Government have said that we will continue to operate our North Sea oil and gas fields and that we will continue to have oil and gas in the mix, to and through net zero.

My basic concern on jobs is that we do not expand jobs in renewables at the expense of the naturally declining jobs in oil and gas: that we do not accelerate that process, especially as we do not quite know how fast we can achieve this creation of jobs. We do know right now that we have at least 200,000 people employed directly in the oil and gas industry, and many more in the supply chain, which, of course, is also part of the supply chain for the renewables sector. Not all of the skills are directly transferable, but many of them are. Provided that the transition is orderly, just and sensible, it will be possible for the decline in the oil and gas industry to be orderly while we expand the renewables sector and hopefully deliver the jobs that the Government are looking for.

I was surprised that, when I suggested that we were going to have oil and gas in the mix to and through net zero—which all projections from all sources say we will—there were people who thought we should just shut down our oil and gas now. There are people who say that. When I asked, “Why would you do that?”, I was told, “Well, you can set an example to the world. Yes, we will need oil and gas, but plenty of other people produce it, so we will just import it”. So we close down our own industry and then import it from other people—further away, with a higher carbon footprint and less efficient—so undermining UK technology and expertise. So my plea is: let us have the jobs, but not at the expense of existing jobs. Let us have an orderly transition that maximises them both.

I was at an awards ceremony for the industry in Aberdeen last month, and what impressed me was the wonderful array of bright, young people engaged in the sector who were very committed to the transition to net zero. But they were equally aware that oil and gas were part of the transition and that many of the supply-chain companies were now investing in technology relevant to the industry, including subsea connections, cabling and electronics. A lot of the things that have been developed in the North Sea are transferable to oil and gas, and that is a welcome factor; but let us not accelerate the loss of jobs while we build the new ones up. That is the simple point that I wish to make.

Turning to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, I am in the same situation as him, so I declare an interest. I live in a village in Aberdeenshire where we do not have gas. In the dying days of the nationalised British Gas, I was involved in a fairly high-profile argument with the then chair of British Gas, Sir Denis Rooke, making the point that he and his company, in the run-up to privatisation, were not interested in extending the gas network. I had some success: I sort of shamed him into it and managed to get some substantial extensions in the dying days of British Gas in my own constituency. I was also right that, once British Gas was privatised, there was no more extension of the gas network beyond what already existed. Those were the days when everybody wanted gas, and gas was the option.

For many parts of the country, however, gas is not an option and the main alternative is oil. The House of Commons produced an interesting report at the end of last year, which I had a look at. I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that it says that the number of households off the gas grid is 4.5 million—a higher figure than his. I do not know which is right, but it is quite a lot.

It then did an analysis of the proportion of households that use oil for central heating. In England and Wales, it was 3.5% in total; in Scotland, it was 5.1%; and, in Northern Ireland, it was 49.5%. I suggest that that is an issue. The other point—and, again, I thank the House of Commons Library for this—is that it gave a constituency analysis. The overall figure does not quite focus on some of the communities that are much more dependent—ones that I know well—so I picked out three constituencies to give the House an example. The highest was Caithness and Sutherland, where 31% of households have oil central heating. The second-highest was my former constituency of Gordon and Buchan, at 26%, while the neighbouring constituency of West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine was 22%.

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, people are talking a lot about carbon dioxide, and I hugely support carbon capture and utilisation. We have large plants manufacturing carbon dioxide deliberately. For instance, it is used for manufacturing fertiliser and in fire extinguishers—noble Lords may well have some in their house, and there are certainly some around Parliament. The food industry uses a whole lot of it, partly for carbonated drinks and also for refrigeration and some of the manufacturing processes. It is used for freezing and for transporting organs and such things in dry ice, which your Lordships have probably all heard of. It is used in greenhouses for bringing on the ripening of various things, and in the manufacture of a lot of chemicals. It has many industrial uses, and it is used in curing concrete. It is used for lots of things, so capturing it and using it would be very sensible, and we might manufacture slightly less of it.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, but also to comment on the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that we need to get it right quickly or we cannot go there, but I hope we can go there. I was very encouraged that the Secretary of State said he might now prioritise the Acorn Project, the cluster in Scotland. That will be very welcome news for a very beleaguered Scottish industry that feels, frankly, that the Government are against it, and this would at least be a positive in the other direction.

On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the comments of the noble Lord. Lord Teverson, the point has been made that the number of people is quite significant, but, if you look at the total across the UK, it is a relatively small percentage. The reality, however, is that, in some parts of the country, a very large percentage of people are genuinely concerned about what the future will hold. The point about Northern Ireland is the most powerful one. I thank the Minister very much for the meeting that he had with us, but what was discussed then was that the Irish Government seem to be on the verge of going down exactly the route that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is recommending. That would clearly be an all-Ireland solution for the north of Ireland, but it would be rather odd if the UK could not find a way of running something similar at the same time.

I have just one other comment. The Minister gave me the impression that the priority for the Government was to get as many heat pumps installed as possible. I completely support that, but the reality, as has already been said, is that quite a lot of the houses are not actually suitable for heat pumps. I do not think there is a conflict here, but the point I would like to make to the Minister is: by all means promote heat pumps as much as you can, but recognise that some parts of the country need a solution fairly urgently, and heat pumps may not be the answer. So the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has much to commend it and I hope the Government can give a positive response to it.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly, first to offer Green support for the two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I have just one point to add to our discussion of biomass. The Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the issue of using land that might be used for food production to produce biomass for energy. There is also a point about waste biomass. We talk about it as waste, but one thing we desperately need to do is store more carbon in our soil, and that is an alternative use of things that are being described as waste.

It may not surprise your Lordships’ House that I will speak against both the carbon capture and storage and the nuclear amendments in this group. I will be very brief, but I want to add a couple of factual points and respond to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, about why anyone would be against CCS. I point to SaskPower’s Boundary Dam 3 in Canada, which, after nine years and $1 billion, now has a capture rate for carbon dioxide of 57%, although it was built with the promise of 90% capture. That is what has happened in a number of projects around the world which have simply failed to match up to delivery.

I compliment the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, for acknowledging the report from the Public Accounts Committee. This is a group with no particular horse in this race that has looked objectively at the Government’s plans and expressed great concern about the risk. One thing that the Public Accounts Committee rightly points out is that scientific evidence recently is showing that producing liquid fossil gas, which is planned to be used to run several CCUS projects, actually leads to the release of more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere than had been thought and so is less “green” than has been claimed. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, said, “Well, we don’t want to increase consumer bills”. The Public Accounts Committee notes that three-quarters of the almost £22 billion is envisaged to come from levies on consumers. That is where the funding is expected to come from.

Just very briefly on the nuclear points, I note that we are now up to £130 billion for clearing up old nuclear, Hinkley Point C is running behind time and well over budget and there is great concern about the £40 billion Sizewell C plans. I am sure that noble Lords will want to come back by citing small modular reactors as a response to this. I will just note that the Government on 6 February put out a press release headed “Government rips up rules to fire-up nuclear power”—rather Trumpian sounding, I think. Noble Lords might want to consider: do you actually want a small modular reactor on your doorstep or in your back yard?