Energy Bill [HL]

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 19th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a former Secretary of State for Energy, former Minister of State for International Energy Security, ex-president of the Energy Industries Association and of the British Institute of Energy Economics, chair of the Windsor Energy Group, and an adviser to interested energy companies.

The stated aims of the Bill are to increase the resilience and reliability of our UK energy system, deliver commitments to climate change and reform the system in various ways. Since the first two of these three aims depend heavily on outside and international trends and conditions and on close co-operation with international partners, I was looking in the Bill for any powers, laws or strategies in the international arena, but they are quite hard to find. That makes it somewhat limited and, frankly, a little disappointing.

We are now in the midst of the worst energy crisis for half a century, with inflation being driven by stratospheric increases in all fossil fuels to dangerous levels in already fertile inflationary soil here in the UK—not the other way round, as the Governor of the Bank of England seems to think. Further disruption of Russian energy supplies to the European oil and gas markets, whether initiated by Russia or European states, will accelerate this inflation, invite recession, impose impossible further hardships on half the families in our nation, and force business shutdowns in large quantities. There is now talk of energy rationing this coming winter and possible supply interruptions, with the worst, we are told, yet likely to come.

This is not security; it is insecurity on a grand and cruel scale, begotten of dismal lack of preparedness and a stream of policy errors going back decades—not just in energy decisions but in economic and monetary responses. It is against this background that the Bill before us must be judged.

Before I come to what the Bill purports to achieve, let there be no doubt that well before the Ukraine invasion, the global energy system, of which we are and will remain an inextricable part, was under severe stress. Ukraine now pushes us into a new world energy order. We were, and are, engaged in a mission of global decarbonisation to prevent climate disasters, which requires, but frankly has completely lacked, the most careful synchronisation of evolving fuel supplies, needs and demands, and as great a transformation as in the Industrial Revolution of the end of the 18th century—in fact much greater, given that since then there has been a sevenfold increase in population in the world and in this country. That is what the Bill aims to assist now.

We have to ensure that creative policy-making in the present crisis can help rather than hinder tomorrow’s transition. One of the most depressing features of the current debate is the utter inability of many of those with the loudest voices to distinguish between the absolute necessity now of immediate relief measures and the long-term climate priorities. What does the Bill do to unravel this muddle and tangle? In the short term, I am afraid, very little. It is all very well to give powers to the system operator and planning office and to renew the energy cap, which the Bill does, but how does that avoid repeating the appalling policy mess which bankrupted numerous small gas suppliers at a cost of £3.2 billion? We talk about billions; that is £3,200 million, which all then had to be dumped on already overwhelmed consumers.

To start with the immediate—the here and now—we have to understand that the very frightening inflation is an energy-driven phenomenon. Being told in a resigned way, “Oh well, it’s external, it comes from the gods”—or, to quote a former Prime Minister whom I rather admired, Jim Callaghan, that we have been “blown off course”—and that there is not much to be done, except some cushioning of the impact, is never adequate in many people’s eyes and it is frankly not much comfort.

What has happened to our famed diplomacy and influence in managing and containing international crises of this kind? Rather, we are sitting here at home, struggling as we can, introducing this Bill but in fact not tackling the real international roots of the crisis. Was it not striking and chilling—I suspect it was to many watchers—that when last Friday’s panel of candidates was asked what more could be done to fend off the forecast of a “horrific” autumn that we have been promised, they all just sat there and were silent? They had nothing to add.

In fact, of course there is a great deal more we can do, but it is not much helped, I fear, by the Bill. It is meant to be about energy security, which starts now but projects into the future. If the name of the game is security of supply—not 10 years hence but now—and at affordable prices, a lot more can indeed be done. That is just what President Biden was trying to do over the weekend in Riyadh; obviously he found it a little awkward, but he was there aiming to meet essential needs and demand with more oil production. Far from staying silent, we should wish him good luck.

Whatever we do, oil and gas are going to be with us for decades. The International Energy Agency says that they will provide 28% of world energy in 2045. The focus on what are called “core fuels” in the Bill, on which there is a whole part, reminds us of this basic fact. Eventually, of course, the energy gap will largely be filled not by the wind blowing—which it does for 60% of the time in the winter, and 25% in the summer—but by stored green hydrogen and ammonia, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has just spoken. The powers, incentives and regulations—although, please, not too many—in the Bill will one day help us to get there. We are not there yet, but this is good; it is the right way to go, and we should back it in every way we can.

In the meantime, there is a crisis at the forecourt spreading through transport costs and affecting the price of everything. How do we stop that happening again? How do we convince ourselves that we are providing the security of the future unless we can answer that question?

First, the Gulf-state members of OPEC, whom we often describe as our friends, could be induced by the right approach to pump at least another half a million barrels a day right now. Although they have at last moved a little way towards that, they could quite easily do a lot more with their remaining spare capacity, although some of them deny that it exists. Also, the gas producers could ship more gas.

Secondly, Iran could put another million barrels a day into the market, if only the US Congress would let up and move to the nuclear agreement we once had. Perhaps we should point that out to our American allies.

Thirdly, we must encourage a crash programme of refinery-capacity building and resetting, which I do not see all that much of in the Bill. This is often said to be holding up supplies of petrol and diesel products and pushing up oil prices. Powers to rebuild the gas storage that we once had and should never have been allowed to run down—I do not know why it was—are also one of the immediate needs, and the present Bill helps there a bit.

Fourthly, of course, as many others have said in many debates, we need a constant increase in user efficiency and home insulation and a decline in oil intensity—that is, using less oil per unit of output.

Our UK net-zero goal, which is very much in evidence in the Bill, is admirable but everyone knows that it is not nearly enough. It has to be asked whether we, the British, with all our skills, are making the best contribution in the right way to rescuing the situation. Is the prioritising of a rather modest 1% reduction in global emissions, which is what we would achieve if we got to net zero, anything like adequate? Of course it is not. We proclaim climate leadership, but this has to be through a vast uplift in carbon capture and recovery from the atmosphere to prevent the world boiling. This requires us to raise our sights from narrow insularity to accelerated international action everywhere we can, working with like-minded friendly nations.

Greenhouse gases will not stop at the white cliffs of Dover just because we have done quite well with our net zero so far. Somehow we must be at the forefront in off-setting the millions of tonnes of carbon which the thousands of coal-fired stations across Asia and Africa are continuing to puff into the atmosphere, with more stations being added and old ones renewed.

The twin challenges of security now and tomorrow and freedom from appalling and crushing volatility and inflation, and at the same time finding an honest and effective way forward on climate change—the path we are not now on—are right before us, staring us in the face, and they are inextricable; they cannot be separated. I agree that many proposals in this Bill are needed and overdue, from opening the way back to a realistic nuclear replacement programme, to encouraging heat networks—I think that is a grandchild of what we used to call combined heat and power, like on the famous Pimlico estate—and to halting the huge scams associated with carbon offsetting arrangements. Anything that speeds up heat pump installations and makes them cheaper is very welcome: at 600,000 houses a year, which is the proposed aim, it will take four decades to retrofit 24 million homes, and goodness knows how many hundreds of billions of pounds.

All this amounts to only a tiny fraction of what is needed. For example, the whole nuclear replacement programme is on very shaky foundations. The current proposal is to build eight more large-scale replicas of Hinkley, or similar. The one now being constructed by the French and Chinese at Hinkley is already 10 years behind time, well above budget and facing component problems to boot. I know about these sorts of initiatives and the inevitable decades-long delays which ensue, having myself launched, in the other place in 1979, a programme of eight new pressurised water reactors, of which only one ever got built, and that took 15 years. A secure nuclear future has got to rely on much smaller 300MW to 400MW reactors which can be built quickly and which are privately financeable, a prospect now made easier by the sensible EU decision to register nuclear and gas investment as ESG approved; that is, labelled as green energy sources. Does the Bill open up that pathway, or take account of the international dimension? The Bill has also given a helping hand to fusion, which is good, but of course that is still years ahead and is again a completely international project.

Finally, unless we embark on new initiatives in almost every area of our current energy and climate policies, I see insecurity and failure ahead on all three counts: failure of reliability and security; more failure of affordability than now, and we could not go much further than now; and failing to combat the much hotter, much colder and much wetter climate violence ahead. Instead, we should now be learning the lessons and building and adapting better, far better, for ourselves, for our children’s children and for the whole planet. That is what I would like to see a really focused energy security Bill do. This one, frankly, is only a start.

Energy Bill [HL]

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 5th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4, as well as Amendment 5, on which my noble friend Lord Moylan made an extremely interesting speech, as were the speeches just made by the noble Lords, Lord Ravensdale and Lord West. I declare my interest in energy matters as an adviser to Mitsubishi Corporation—one of the world’s largest producers of heat pumps, as well as of all connectors and the switching stations associated with them, both here and overseas—and the Kuwait Investment Office, with which the linkage, through its oil and gas production, is obvious.

I am afraid this sounds suspiciously like a Second Reading debate rather than a Committee debate. That is perhaps inevitable, given that we are in the midst of a first-class energy crisis—the biggest certainly in my active lifetime. Naturally, your Lordships are taking any opportunity—as we are entitled to do—to relate remarks on this enormous Bill to the very difficult dilemmas that the nation now faces, with no obvious way out, a cacophony of new views about what should be done, an absence of views about the international dimension, which I will mention in a moment, and a general bewilderment that, somehow or other, we will have to borrow a great deal more money to prevent real suffering, collapse and bankruptcy across a large part of the enterprise and small business sector, and so on.

I am not going to support Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4 because they do not add much to the purposes, or indeed deficiencies, of the Bill. If they did, I would say let us support them, but that is not what they do.

I want to comment in passing on my noble friend Lord Moylan’s remarks on pump storage. He mentioned the Dinorwig installation in north Wales. I had the honour and pleasure of authorising not the original installation itself but the expansion in the early 1980s. One interesting fact for your Lordships is that it was capable then of delivering within 12 minutes 2 gigawatts into the system. The remarkable fact is that it never needs to work at all to be an enormous addition to our generating system and an enormous saving. Why? It is because the fact of what it can do enables the rest of the power system and all the power stations to operate at slightly higher capacities, with lower safety margins, than they otherwise would—in the knowledge that this extra is always there. So we have the extraordinary situation of a vast installation that never need actually operate to make substantial savings. That is one of the anomalies of the national energy system that we have to familiarise ourselves with.

As for the amendments—to a Bill that, frankly, does not leave me totally happy anyway—first, I am unhappy about the lack of any address in the amendments, let alone in the Bill, to the international dimension; at most, they very slightly address it. I admit there is a section on interconnectors, and that is very important. In fact, the interconnector element in our future diversity of supply is going to increase substantially; I think the Bill mentions 18 gigawatts of interconnectors. I understand that Morocco is thinking of adding an enormous 3 gigawatts of clean energy—solar energy using linked cabling from Morocco all the way to the UK—and there will be many similar sources. They all raise very complicated issues since they have to be managed under direct current, because you cannot put alternative current underwater; they have to have amazingly extensive energy transformations from direct current back to the AC that we can use inside our system.

The truth is that the resilience and security of our system is going to depend not less but more on the international environment, international supply and the sorts of issues that have been raised by the horrors of Ukraine and Russia’s determination to distort to the maximum the entire energy system of western Europe—and that includes us physically. All these issues need addressing in intense detail, but I do not see that detail mobilised in the Bill.

Secondly, the amendments talk, as does the Bill, about our climate commitments. Obviously our climate commitment in law, in the Climate Change Act, is to achieve net zero by 2050, but what actually are our climate commitments? I would like to hear from the Minister what new thinking is going on in this respect. Surely the aim of our endeavours in our climate commitments is to limit global emissions and greenhouse gases. The question that we have to ask ourselves, again and again, as we struggle towards net zero, is not only whether we can afford it—and many people say it is going to cost a lot of money—but whether, when we have got there, it will have any effective impact on curbing the growth of global emissions, getting to the Paris targets and halting greenhouse gases. There seems to be an assumption that the greenhouse gases will stop at the white cliffs of Dover if we can achieve net zero. It does not work like that. I am afraid the world is integrated, in the sense that greenhouse gases are increasing very rapidly, and our efforts and contribution need to be rethought again and again in order to make a serious impact on that.

Achieving net zero by 2050 with clean power and electricity requires a multiplication by about seven or eight times of our existing clean power sector—that is, wind, solar and now of course nuclear, which is recognised by the European Union as part of the ESG group and therefore clean energy. That needs to be multiplied by six or seven times, including a vast increase in wind power and solar power, as well as in our nuclear power. That would mean several new nuclear power stations, but they are not being built and are not going to be. No one is planning on building them. We are building one now but it is in considerable difficulties. The ex-Prime Minister said in his outgoing speech that he wanted to build a lot more, but that would be 10 or 15 years away, and the chances of the system working and doing so efficiently, if it is a replication of Hinkley C, are very slight indeed.

All that is just to get to net zero. Beyond that, we must have legislation—and understanding in that legislation—to achieve a genuine contribution to climate change curbing. That is not going to be done. Adaptation is going to be needed on a massive scale to prevent really bad heat in summer, really cold winters and enormous flooding that will affect us as well as many others. That is the element that is not in the Bill, and the amendments would not add very much to it.

As to minimising costs, which the amendment mentions—it is also mentioned in the Bill itself and in the explanatory documents for it—how is this to be done? We will not minimise costs by trying to build, very rapidly, these enormously expensive new, large-scale nuclear stations. We will not minimise costs unless we remain totally integrated into the world energy supply system or unless we deal, day by day, on a sensitive basis, with our Norwegian suppliers of natural gas and electricity. If we take our mind off that for a moment, that gas will probably go elsewhere, as is happening now as Germany tries to fill up its strategic gas storage tanks, as are many other countries. All this is creating not stability, resilience or security but the opposite.

I therefore ask the Minister that when he turns down this amendment, as he no doubt will—he is quite right to do so, because it is unnecessary and adds nothing—he gives us a little assurance that in this new and changing situation, this long-term future which we have to build on and in which, by failing to build on that of 40 years ago, we have now plunged ourselves into this terrible crisis, these things are being addressed and will be taken account of. Perhaps as we go through the Bill clause by clause, we will hear something from him about how the new situation is to be addressed. I do not think this amendment does it; nor, frankly, does the Bill.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I must declare my interest as a member of the advisory board of Penultimate Power UK Ltd. By the Government’s own admission, the Bill introduces 26 separate measures, based roughly on three pillars, which aim to give the Bill a modicum of coherence. Many of the amendments in this group, however, seem also to be intended to serve as a kind of preamble to the Bill, which, as my noble friend Lord Moylan and others have said, would improve it.

Amendment 1, as eloquently spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, seeks to add a principal purpose to the Bill. Amendment 7, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, aims to do the same thing. However, these amendments would add not one principal purpose but three. Furthermore, I consider that principal purposes (a) and (b) in Amendment 1 are in conflict with each other, in the sense that while delivery of the country’s climate change commitments is obviously highly desirable, it conflicts with purpose (a) in that resilience and reliability are not served, at least in the short term, by abandoning natural gas as a source of energy with unnecessary haste. Actually, purpose (b) is also in conflict with purpose (c), because it is hard to argue that maintenance of the climate levy helps to minimise costs to consumers or protects them from unfair pricing.

I therefore urge my noble friend the Minister not to accept this amendment, or indeed Amendments 2, 3 and 4 in this group in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, and the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. I understand why they want to introduce a requirement for a strategy and policy statement in line with the Bill, but I regret that the Bill does not cover the whole of the country’s energy strategy or policy. Furthermore, these amendments give a higher priority to meeting climate change commitments than they do to developing reliable sources of energy, which protect the consumer against the risks of intermittency.

That is why I support Amendment 5 in the name of my noble friends Lord Moylan and Lord Frost, and the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead. This amendment recognises that the Government must have regard to the Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution, the Net Zero Strategy, the British Energy Security Strategy and all the other strategies; but that, crucially, they need to compensate for the huge reliance on wind and solar energy contained in those strategies by ensuring that we will have electric power to replace that generated by renewable sources, which are subject to intermittency.

As my noble friend Lord Moylan pointed out, it is necessary for the Government and the public to understand how much achieving the objectives of net zero by 2050 will actually cost. The Government have been, and continue to be, far too cautious in their policy towards nuclear power, but Amendment 5 will require the Government to support nuclear to a far greater extent than they have done so far, because nuclear is completely reliable and not subject to intermittency. One of the points in the 10-point plan covers the delivery of new and advanced nuclear power, while the subsequently published strategies increasingly recognise its greater importance.

Much has been made of the Prime Minister’s commitment in May that we will build one new nuclear power station every year, instead of one every decade. But he did not clarify whether he was talking about a new power station such as Hinkley Point C, with two large reactors each generating 1.6 gigawatts of electricity, or perhaps a bank of NuScale reactors, producing 77 megawatts, or of U-Battery reactors delivering 4 megawatts each. Could the Minister clarify how much new nuclear capacity the Government expect to commission every decade or year?

Energy Bill [HL]

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 49 and the introduction given by my noble friend. First, I apologise for not being around on Monday; being here was outwith my control. But I watched the debate, and my noble friend Lord Foulkes did a wonderful job. I first did a double act with him in the September of 1974, when we educated the Scottish public about devolution. Since that point, I have been lost in awe of him, not just for his knowledge but for his energy. I was recently at a significant birthday party, and the amount that that man can do is quite amazing. However, I am here today to address the carbon capture and storage issues.

I should declare an interest: I am the honorary president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, and I have been involved in the interest in carbon capture and storage since it was called “clean coal technology”—which gives my age away now as well.

As my noble friend Lord Foulkes pointed out, the Carbon Capture and Storage Association has been very helpful to us in drafting some of these amendments. One of the reasons why it is important to take it into account is that although an awful lot of us have been around carbon capture and storage for a long time, I do not think that most people realise the extent to which the Carbon Capture and Storage Association has changed. In the past year, there has been an exponential growth in membership, and it is coming from a lot of companies that are at the cutting edge of technology.

Our concern addressed in Amendment 49 is that Clause 63 is restrictive. We have been helped very much by the Minister’s department in looking at where we can go from this stage onwards, and it is unfortunate that the way this clause has been drafted means that the shortlisted projects that can be available during phase 2 are limited to industrial power generation and hydrogen. However, there are UK companies now developing engineered greenhouse gas removal technologies —GGRs—which are keen to connect to the CO₂ transport and storage network. At lot of these are small companies that are moving, and there is uncertainty. Many noble Lords in the Chamber today have been around carbon capture for quite some time but do not realise the extent to which new people are coming into the field. The carbon emissions committee made the point that carbon capture and storage is now a necessity, not an option.

We are waiting for the business model for these new companies to be developed; they want to join in the process in due course. It is that ability to see them join the process that is behind this amendment. It is not nit-picking; it is seeking to find a route that allows them to move forward. These technologies currently include bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, and direct air capture, which would be excluded from the process if we did not have an amendment such as this.

This will prepare the Bill for the future. It ensures that we are future-proofing and that we have the ability to move rapidly in a way that would allow the inclusive use of all technologies that can remove CO₂ from the atmosphere, not just those which capture from a commercial or industrial source. I commend Amendment 49, and make no apology for saying that we will come back at fairly regular intervals with amendments—probably small in size—which seek to take into account the new companies that are looking to enter into carbon capture and storage.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I am very pleased that the mover and seconder of this amendment have mentioned direct air capture, because sometimes there is confusion between carbon capture and storage and the actual absorption of carbon out of the atmosphere on an enormous scale. Frankly, this is where the big impact will be made in future.

I know that we have made efforts with carbon capture and storage on and off over the years. There is a theoretical idea that finding a way to cheaply cap every chimney of the 9,000 coal-fired stations across Asia and Africa and pipe away the carbon might solve some problems and make a small impact on the overall rising greenhouse gases. However, the most sizeable absorption of carbon that is already in the atmosphere is through direct air capture and climate recovery.

Schemes are already being developed with the input and encouragement of Imperial College and other sources—and in other countries—for developing direct air capture on an absolutely enormous scale. Of course, we cannot do this alone; this is part of an international rescue, if you like, in a way that really begins to give some hope that emissions can be offset so that we can start getting some leverage and control on the overall carbon in the atmosphere. Without this, we will undoubtedly miss all the Paris targets and everyone throughout the world will face very dramatic and increased climate violence, very cold winters and very hot summers.

So I hope that the Minister will indicate that this area is in the Government’s mind and that the development of huge carbon sinks can commence—for instance, in deserts across the world that have already been designated as uninhabited areas. Carbon can be sunk into gigantic lakes the size of Wales or Dubai, or four times the size of London. These vast new developments would offset the overacidity of the ocean. These things can be done. Carbon can be captured and used. CO₂ is a fantastic promoter and fertiliser of food on a colossal scale, and if we are moving into an era of world food shortage, covered areas fed by carbon from huge carbon sinks will really begin to make some impact on the scene.

The other development for carbon sinks is that we could just plant a lot of trees, but that is not very good. Trees are moderate absorbers of carbon although, of course, if they go up in flames they put all the carbon back into the atmosphere straightaway. The real development comes from mangrove groves, which are 16 times more absorbent of CO₂ than other trees. They can be promoted along with saltwater and freshwater lakes in areas where there is a lot of sun and where electricity is therefore virtually costless. Of course, this is at or near the equator. These are the schemes that will save us all and which our Government should be leading in developing by thinking about and backing the necessary legislation. Please, can we have a little more thought on this excellent amendment and the ideas behind it?

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

I wish to express my support for Amendments 39 and 49. I have been looking for a place to make my interjection, which ought to have been encapsulated in an amendment, but perhaps I should propose an amendment at Report. However, now is as good a time as any to air my suggestions.

Aviation contributes significantly to emissions of carbon dioxide. These emissions do not approach the level attributable to road transport but, nevertheless, they must be eliminated. It may be possible to replace short-haul aircraft with aircraft that depend on battery power, but long-haul aviation cannot be electrified. It will continue to depend on liquid fuels. It has been suggested that the fuel could be liquefied hydrogen, but this seems be impractical. Conventional hydrocarbon fuels have an energy density that greatly exceeds that of hydrogen, which is difficult to store in a liquid state and demands considerable storage space. Jet engines that burn hydrogen have not yet been developed.

It seems that hydrocarbon fuels must continue to be used in long-haul aviation. Eventually, this will be acceptable only if the carbon element of these fuels can be sequestered from the atmosphere and the hydrogen element of the fuels becomes green hydrogen. When such fuels are burned, their carbon element will be returned to the atmosphere. Moreover, the use of green hydrogen, as opposed to the so-called blue hydrogen derived from the steam reformation of methane, will mean that no emissions of carbon dioxide will come from this source. To manufacture aviation fuels derived from the direct air capture of carbon and from hydrogen generated by electrolysis will require a huge input of energy. Sufficient energy would be available only if we were able to depend on nuclear reactors to provide it. Such synthetic fuels will be costly to produce; unless they are subsidised, they will be unable to compete with petroleum-based fuels or fuels derived from biological feedstocks. However, biofuels have a high opportunity cost, since the production of their feedstock is liable to pre-empt the use of valuable agricultural land. They are therefore best avoided.

We need to support the development of carbon-neutral synthetic aviation fuels. I propose therefore that, in the first instance, they should be allowed to incorporate green hydrogen as well as carbon not derived from direct air capture but captured from fossil-fuel emissions. In time, both these allowances would be abolished.