Seòmar agus comataidhean

Coming back to Bob Doris’s questions about incineration, I understand that, at the moment, we are slightly under capacity with incineration and the predicted use of incineration, but that by the time we get to 2028, we will be over capacity. I am interested in your thoughts, given what you have said already, about Scandinavian imports and exports and the Government’s consultation on non-municipal biodegradable waste. What will happen to the incinerators that are above capacity in 2028?

I am interested in where we are now, since leaving the European Union. We have the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. There are a lot of potential measures that can be agreed United Kingdom-wide, but there is also potential for divergence through devolution. I am interested in your work on developing strands of the plan and how you are working within the landscape of the 2020 act. Are the common frameworks delivering certainty on product stewardship measures or any other measures that you might be working on? Later in the evidence session, we will come on to the deposit return scheme and what will drop on Friday. I am interested in how you are operating within that somewhat fraught landscape.

Okay, so the Government is leading on that. You do not have a role advising or leading on that workstream.

There is a plan for a plan?

Are we falling behind in some areas—in critical minerals, for example?

I need my time on this.

On H100, Brian Whittle and Maurice Golden pointed to what the real driving interest is behind that particular home heating project: it is quite clear that SGN manages a gas grid and wants to continue to put fossil fuel into that gas grid. It wants to blend hydrogen in, but 80 per cent of what will be flowing through that gas grid in future will be fossil fuel gas, which will make us more and not less dependent on fossil fuel heating. Of course, we cannot put carbon capture and storage on millions of domestic boilers in people’s homes, so there is a danger that we would lock in emissions if we went down the route of blending hydrogen into the gas grid.

I very much welcome this afternoon’s debate. I would characterise much of it as being about the laws of physics versus magic solutions. I certainly thank Daniel Johnson and Patrick Harvie for reminding us of some of the laws of physics and chemistry in relation to hydrogen and for setting out some of hydrogen’s advantages as an energy vector, as well as some of its limitations. We need to start the debate by understanding the facts on what hydrogen can and cannot do.

The cabinet secretary said early in the debate that the Government’s focus is on the hard-to-abate sectors. As Greens, we very much see a role for green hydrogen, in particular, in the hard-to-abate sectors such as fertiliser production, heavy shipping, aviation, cement production and, potentially, steel. Willie Rennie talked about the need for us to build up the domestic demand for hydrogen in Scotland. However, as Sarah Boyack pointed out, that can come only through an industrial strategy and just transition planning, for example, at the cement factory at Dunbar, at Grangemouth and at Mossmorran. We need to start with the role of hydrogen in our domestic industrial sector and then build up supply chains and understanding around that.

The cabinet secretary moved on quite quickly to talk about the role of hydrogen in easy-to-abate sectors, which is where the Greens disagree with the Government. It makes no sense to invest in hydrogen in uncompetitive uses such as domestic heating, trains and buses in our cities, which are grossly inefficient uses of hydrogen.

The cabinet secretary talked about the 100 pilot projects around Scotland in which the Government has invested, and a number of Scottish National Party members have spoken about the pilots in their constituencies. How many of those pilot projects are focused on the hard-to-abate sectors, and how many of them are experimenting with uses of hydrogen in easy-to-abate sectors for which we already know the answers?

The cabinet secretary mentioned the H100 project in Leven as a domestic application of hydrogen for heating and there being a need to prove the concept for that. However, we have already proven the concept of hydrogen heating many times over. Globally, 54 independent studies have been done that have picked up on hydrogen heating projects. The studies have all reported, and not a single one of them—across Europe or around the whole world—has recommended the widespread use of hydrogen heating. That is partly because each of those studies has shown an increase in energy costs as a result of hydrogen heating. On average, the studies show an 86 per cent increase in costs for householders.

Edward Mountain (Highlands and Islands) (Con) rose—

Brian Whittle rose—

I want to make some progress.

Graham Simpson talked about people out there wanting a wonderful heating system whereby the only thing that is produced at the end of the day is water. That is absolutely fine, but it cannot come at the expense of fuel poverty. If Mr Simpson genuinely wants pensioners and hard-working families to pay astronomically high energy bills because of a hydrogen heating solution, I think that that is wrong and would drive people into fuel poverty. That is exactly why the UK Climate Change Committee has recommended against the widespread adoption of hydrogen for home heating.

I would like to make progress.

A number of members have spoken about the role of blue hydrogen in the mix as part of the transition. I recognise Kevin Stewart’s enthusiasm for CCS, and a part of me really hopes that CCS works and is effective and efficient, but there are still major concerns about CCS and whether it is deployable at scale. It is not just the Greens who are saying that. Several years ago, the UK Climate Change Committee advised the Scottish Government to develop a plan B in case the Acorn project does not match the expectations that Kevin Stewart set out earlier. It is not a dead cert that CCS will be available, will be cost effective and will work.

Several members have mentioned potential applications for hydrogen in the transport sector. I can absolutely see its being used for heavy transport and shipping, but not for lighter forms of transport such as coaches, buses, cars or heavy goods vehicles. It was interesting to hear Graham Simpson and Maurice Golden getting so excited about potentially having hydrogen refilling points every 124 miles. To be honest, that filled me with range anxiety, given that I can charge my own EV at home, overnight, for 8p per kilowatt hour. Why would we move towards a hydrogen transport system that would create so much range anxiety?

A strong hydrogen economy in Scotland is in the offing, but it must be focused on the hard-to-abate sectors. That is where we should put in the research and the just transition planning. It is also where we should put in the science and the effort from Government and industry working together, rather than wasting time on applying hydrogen to areas that will be not cost effective and will end up driving up bills for hard-pressed families around the country.

I will pursue that line of questioning. I am interested in knowing why the section 8 power has been used so infrequently over the decades. It feels as if the power has been redundant. Is part of the reason that there is an in-built fear of judicial review within NatureScot and Scottish Natural Heritage? To go back to Emma Roddick’s point about resourcing, do you fear that if you use that option of a section 8 power, someone might challenge it and you would need deep pockets?