Wind Turbines (Hansard, 17 January 1992)

§ Viscount Hanworth
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they decided to discontinue funding for an experimental wind turbine out to sea.

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, I believe that the question refers to a proposal by the former Central Electricity Generating Board to build a wind turbine in the North Sea, off the coast of Norfolk, which the board subsequently decided not to proceed with. Following the Central Electricity Generating Board's decision the Department of Energy commissioned a feasibility study, which is due to be completed by the end of this year, to identify the costs of an off-shore experimental machine.

§ Viscount Hanworth
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very full Answer. Does he agree that we may be limited on the number of wind turbines that we can put on land and therefore the possibility of putting them out to sea—for example, in the Wash— must and should be investigated? While the costs 475 appear to be much greater, does he consider that they could be reduced if we had a programme of development?

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, the noble Viscount is quite right to say that there are limits to on-shore generation. If 1 per cent. of our electricity needs were to be generated from wind, we should need turbines occupying some 300 square kilometres of land. Our present estimates—they are only estimates—suggest that to put generators off-shore would about double the cost. In view of that, we are first making a priority of studying on-shore generation.

§ Lord Donoughue
My Lords, is the Minister aware —I am sure he is—that in 1990 the Watt Committee Report on energy renewables warned that it was not possible to support large-scale renewable energy projects from private funding alone? I hope that the House will be tolerant if I quote its recommendation for: a measure of public sector funding in all such major projects and continuing support for R&D across all the renewable energy technologies". The report concluded that: With a sustained programme of research and development the working party predicts a technical abundance of renewable energy resources which could more than satisfy our needs". In the light of that, is it not unfortunate that we are apparently withdrawing from serious endeavours in the offshore wind area, given what has been said about the social limitations there are bound to be with regard to onshore wind turbines?

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for quoting that. I broadly agree with the Watt Committee's suggestions. The renewables budget in 1991–92, as I have quoted before in this House, is £24.3 million, which is an increase of 20 per cent. There is no area of renewables that we neglect altogether. Like every programme, we have to make our priorities.
The Government have given a major boost to renewables through the non-fossil fuel obligations. The First and Second Renewables Order under the Electricity Act 1989 resulted in a total installed capacity of about 642 megawatts being contracted.

§ The Earl of Lauderdale
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the phrase quoted from the Watt Report "more than satisfy our needs" discredits rather than credits the credibility of the report? It is an exaggerated phrase. No source of energy can be said to more than satisfy our needs.

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, qualified the expression by saying "a technical capacity" which is the correct way to describe it. It would be possible to envisage that all generation could come from offshore—the subject of this Question—but it is unlikely, being intermittent, that it would ever satisfy our needs in reality.

§ The Earl of Lauderdale
My Lords, is that irrespective of cost?

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, indeed.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, does the noble Lord recall in evidence to your Lordships' Select Committee on renewable energies, which reported a year or two ago, that the CEGB stated that technically it would be possible to provide 100 per cent. of the country's electricity needs through offshore wind turbines but that clearly the economics are wrong at present? Is it not a fact that sooner or later the economics will come right? It may take 10, 20, 30 or 40 years, but would it not be totally wrong not to investigate the matter fully? If we can achieve such provision it will avoid all the difficulties of North Sea oil running out and the environmental problems associated with some wind farms on land.

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, I cannot quarrel with anything that the noble Lord said. We are currently undertaking a thorough study. The point of giving priority to onshore development is that there are still technical matters to be dealt with in regard to turbine technology—for instance, vertical as opposed to horizontal technicalities. However, there is encouraging evidence that we shall be generating more from renewables and a real expectation of one day being able to generate 20 per cent. of our generating needs from renewable sources.

§ The Earl of Lauderdale
My Lords, following the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, does the noble Lord agree that we should therefore also spend a lot of money on fusion research over the next 50 years, which is the most expensive but the most hopeful research?

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, into this argument must come the question of diversity. If we are to feel secure in our energy needs we must conduct that research within our means on many different fronts.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, the noble Lord boasts about spending £24.3 million a year on research and development of renewables. How does that compare with the figure that is being spent on research and development on the nuclear industry? Is it not essential that we move more towards the use of renewables in view of the environmental disasters forecast with the continuing use of carbon fuels?

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, as I have said previously to the noble Lord, there is no reason why research and development expenditure on renewables should have a proportional relationship to the expenditure on nuclear research. I have spoken already about the need for diversity. We shall continue to commit research to both areas.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, will the noble Lord answer my question? If he is boasting about spending £24.3 million a year on research and development of renewables, what are the Government spending on research and development in the nuclear industry?

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, the subject of nuclear research is not on the Order Paper. Nor have I done any boasting.

§ Viscount Mersey
My Lords, what my noble friend said about offshore generation being more expensive than land generation is true. However, is that not offset by the fact that it is windier at sea than on land and that therefore sea wind generators would be able to generate electricity for a higher proportion of the time?

§ Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, my noble friend makes a perfectly correct point. The potential offshore is almost limitless.