here - United Kingdom Parliament

917 National Policy Statements 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy Statements 918
EN-1 states that under some of our pathways some
revisions have taken the scenario beyond 2025 towards
the 2050 targets. It states:
“Under some of our 2050 pathways, energy would need to be
virtually emission-free”.
Tessa Munt: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the
Infrastructure Planning Commission successor body
appears to be carbon-blind in its decision making under
the arrangements? The IPC successor body should give
significant weight to any project’s carbon emissions and
ensure that cumulative emissions from the various projects
do not jeopardise the UK’s carbon targets and their
budgets. The national policy statement should provide
an additional safeguard to that process.
Dr Whitehead: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. In
response to the Energy and Climate Change Committee
report examining the previous national policy statements
the Government have accepted they need to undertake
some sort of spatial planning arrangement which will
look at the cumulative impacts between various
arrangements as they progress. She is also absolutely
right that in this NPS that question of decarbonisation
of supply needs to be part of the process, not anterior
to it. The current level of emissions of our energy
supply means that if we are to get to that position, gas
at about 450 grams per kWh unabated probably will
have no part to play in the energy economy by 2030—when
abated, it comes in at about 100 grams per kWh.
What are we planning? What are we looking for in
these overarching documents? According to EN-1, we
are planning to require a capacity of about 113 GW of
installed power sources by 2025, which is a substantial
increase on 2010 levels because of the penetration of
wind, in particular. According to the scenario of that
capacity projection, wind needs greater capacity to balance
its variability. So the 113 GW, which is an increase on
the about 80 GW of installed capacity that we have at
the moment, will need to be installed by that point.
However, 22 GW are expected to go offline, including
most nuclear plants and a number of power plants,
under the large plant directive and the industrial emissions
directive. So 59 GW of new power will need to be built
between now and 2025, one way or another.
If we reach the renewables targets for wind, and we
probably will, given the amount of wind power already
in planning, we will have about 33 GW of wind power
on the grid. That means that we will need 26 GW of
new build non-renewables or non-wind. Of whatever
type, they will, for the reasons I have outlined, need to
be low-carbon or lowish-carbon. Some 8 GW are under
construction and almost all that construction relates to
gas. That leaves a balance of 18 GW. Some 9 GW is not
under construction but has planning permission. The
Government dismiss that as uncertain, but 5 GW of
that relates to gas; plans for a further 7 GW are under
consideration, most of which also relates to gas. So it
appears that most of the current gap is set to be
made up by gas. As the Select Committee has been
told by the Committee on Climate Change, more gas is
in the pipeline in terms of planning, permissions or
build than we need for that future decarbonisation
strategy to work.
The NPS says that
“it would be for industry to determine the exact mix of the
remaining 26 GW of required new electricity capacity, acting
within the strategic framework set by the Government”.
If industry decides as it appears to be deciding, it will
choose gas. If it is to be gas and that gas is unabated or
only partially abated, the decarbonisation of our electricity
supply will not happen.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con) rose—
Dr Whitehead: I am sorry but I have to make progress
because I will not get injury time for the second intervention
I take.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): You will,
Alan.
Dr Whitehead: Okay, then I will take the intervention.
David Mowat: Thank you for your help on that
matter, Mr Deputy Speaker. I agree with the hon.
Gentleman’s point about decarbonisation, but it prompts
the question: how much cost penalty would he advocate
as reasonable in order for us to go down the route of a
totally carbon-free mix in the way he is suggesting?
Each household in the country already pays about
£50 for the renewables obligation. The implication of
his remarks is that the sum should be very much higher.
I wonder whether he has thought about that.
Dr Whitehead: Indeed I have. I think we will find out
considerably more about that in the material that will
come out on energy market reform, particularly the
details on what a carbon floor price will look like and
what capacity payments will look like to keep the energy
balance more decarbonised in future. Yes, that will add
costs to the system and there need to be circumstances
in which those can be abated for the public, but that is a
particular issue for the energy market reform material
to address.
When the Minister was asked in the recent Energy
and Climate Change Committee sitting about the gap
that I have mentioned he said that it is possible that
16 GW of the 18 GW gap could be new nuclear. That
represents 10 new nuclear power stations by 2025, and
although that would solve the gap problem it has the
unfortunate downside of being inherently implausible.
The Minister may want to rectify what he said in the
light of that implausibility at a future date.
The Committee on Climate Change’s estimate for the
nuclear roll-out, produced in 2009, said that there would
be a maximum of three nuclear power stations online
by 2020, even based on optimistic build and planning
time scenarios. Indeed, as we have seen, the timing of
the justification process has already slipped.
That leaves a gap that is not filled by nuclear. It is
clear at the moment that there is an apparent contradiction
in our national planning statements. We want to decarbonise
our supply, but for 2025 we are pushing towards having
a majority of gas as opposed to a small amount of
peripheral gas at peaking periods, which is what our
future energy supply should be based on.
That is compounded by NPS EN-5, which attempts
to collate permissions for plant and line. It will therefore
replicate the question of providing grid capacity for
plants as they stand and not provide new grid capacity