Wind Power (Hansard, 15 June 2004)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)
My Lords, the Tilting at Windmills report questions whether wind energy justifies its role in the Government's strategy. While the Government agree with a few of its points, the report makes many inaccurate statements; for example, that renewables are the Government's key policy for reaching their target for carbon reduction and that further investment in UK energy is ruled out; and the exaggerated claim that wholesale electricity prices will rise by 40 to 60 per cent over the next five years as a result of reductions in carbon emissions. It is not the Government who are tilting at windmills but the author of the report.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that response. Among other things with which he may agree in Professor Simpson's report, does he agree with his conclusion, which states: Because of the cost of providing additional stand-by generating capacity, it is unlikely that wind power will ever account for more than 20% of electricity generation through the National Grid. That being the case, its development can make no substantial contribution to a reduction in carbon emissions from power generation"?

§ Lord Sainsbury of Turville
My Lords, I thought that that was one of the more useless statements. A little 618 mathematics applied to that will tell us that if it provides 20 per cent of the generating capacity it will deal with 20 per cent of the generating capacity problem. That is a reasonable amount and worth doing.

§ Lord Crickhowell
My Lords, bearing in mind the high cost of this subsidised form of energy and the environmental desecration to many of the most beautiful parts of the British Isles, will the Minister respond positively to the recommendation of the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, given to Sub-Committee D on 10 March that more money should be found for research and that tidal and wave energy power could be a more significant renewable source of energy than wind power because wind power is intermittent and the moon rather reliable?

§ Lord Sainsbury of Turville
My Lords, the situation is not, as the author of this report implies, that we are choosing wind power. Wind power has been chosen by the industry because it thinks that it is the cheapest method of achieving the renewables obligation. That is why it has chosen wind. So, it is not in the Government's gift.
As regards the comments of the Chief Scientific Adviser, that is a question of timescale. What he says may be true in the long term and it may be right that more money should be spent on research. That matter will be considered as part of the spending review, but as of now it is clear from the industry's response that the most economic way to do this is through wind power.

§ Viscount Tenby
My Lords, has the Minister read the report, as I am sure he must have done, that Denmark, which for long has been at the forefront of wind farm technology, has decided that the game is no longer worth the candle—perhaps a slightly unfortunate metaphor in the circumstances? Have her Majesty's Government any plans to enter into discussion with our friends in Denmark to see how we might benefit from their experience before too much of our beautiful landscape becomes visually impaired? I declare an interest as a Welshman.

§ Lord Sainsbury of Turville
My Lords, I do not know whether I can quote exact figures, but I think that the figure in Demark is in the order of 20 to 30 per cent of power from wind. That is a very substantial density for that small country. That is why Denmark is now saying that it will change direction and not significantly increase wind farming. I doubt whether that has much implication for the UK, where at this stage wind farms account for 2 or 3 per cent at the most.

§ Lord Tomlinson
My Lords, has my noble friend had the opportunity to read The State of the Nation 2004 report produced by the Institution of Civil Engineers and what it says about the energy situation? It points out very clearly that with the reduction in electricity generated by coal and nuclear power, by the year 2010 619 the mix will be such that we have precious little time to make up the energy gap from renewables. Is he happy with that state of affairs, or is he going to rubbish that report in the same way as he rubbished the one referred to by my noble friend Lord Williams?

§ Lord Sainsbury of Turville
My Lords, I did not rubbish the report, I merely pointed out—

Noble Lords
Oh!

§ Lord Sainsbury of Turville
My Lords, as the author of the report suggested that the Government's policy was not as ideal as he would like it to be, I simply pointed out that he had made a few mistakes in his report. As far as concerns the report of the Institution of Civil Engineers, one has to compare its figures with those set out in the energy White Paper. Noble Lords will see that they are considerably out of line with what we think is the most likely projection.

§ Baroness Miller of Hendon
My Lords, I shall deal with one or two items from the report. Does the Minister agree that nuclear power causes no greenhouse gases, but that at the same time, as a base-load generator, it contributes well to the security of supply? Does he further agree and accept that even considering decommissioning costs, a matter which is in the report the noble Lord just mentioned, nuclear power costs less overall than wind power and is very much more secure because it does not depend on the weather and the amount of wind at any one particular time?

§ Lord Sainsbury of Turville
My Lords, of course nuclear does not produce any greenhouse gases, but it has other environmental impacts. I find it strange that in the report there is a whole page which deals with the problems of birds flying into wind turbines while the environmental impact of nuclear power is dealt with in one line. We have to be serious about this: there are serious environmental issues associated with nuclear waste. We have to be able to deal with those before we go any further.
Nuclear costs were a matter of great debate. It is not at all clear what the cost will be for the next generation of nuclear power stations, not least because at this stage few have been built.

§ Lord Ezra
My Lords—

§ Lord Howie of Troon
My Lords—

§ The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
My Lords, I think we should hear from the Liberal Democrat Benches.

§ Lord Ezra
My Lords, although I gather that the Government disagree with most of what is contained in the report, what are their views on the contention that between now and 2010 emissions could increase, due 620 largely to increased usage of energy in the transport, domestic and power station sectors? Do they have any additional policies to deal with that situation?

§ Lord Sainsbury of Turville
My Lords, obviously, one reason we disagree with the report is that it assumes that there is no government policy regarding energy efficiency. As the noble Lord knows, because he has asked questions about it, there is a considerable policy programme on improving energy efficiency. I am afraid I do not have the figures on how that relates to the increased emissions that will result from increasing economic activity, but I shall write to the noble Lord and let him have what figures we have.

§ Lord Monro of Langholm
My Lords—

§ Lord Howie of Troon
My Lords—

§ Baroness Amos
My Lords, I think we should move to the next Question.