Chamber and committees

Sarah Boyack has a final question is for one panel member. Nigel Holmes has had quite a run, so go for whoever you like.

Will price—the price of hydrogen compared with the price of electricity—limit development?

With the exception of Mark Symes, who wants to move to green hydrogen straight away because he thinks—I realise that I am putting words in his mouth—that that will be better, I think that you are all saying that, realistically, we will need to use a bit of blue hydrogen to start with, and that we will move towards green hydrogen by 2045, which I think is our target. For how long will we need to have a mix before we move over totally to green hydrogen? I am not clear about that. Are we talking about five years or 10 years? What timeframe are we looking at?

Simon, blue or green?

Item 4 is consideration of another type 1 consent notification relating to a proposed UK statutory instrument. The regulations in question would make two key changes to existing provision on extended producer responsibility for waste electrical and electronic equipment. First, they would extend the term “producer” to include online marketplaces, and secondly, they would create a new category of equipment for vapes and electronic cigarettes to ensure that producers are responsible for the waste disposal costs.

On 22 April, the Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy notified the committee of the proposed UK SI. As with the previous instrument, the key issue is whether we agree with the Scottish Government that the UK Government should legislate in this devolved area in this way. If we are content for consent to be given, the committee will write to the Scottish Government accordingly. We have the option to pose questions or to take up any issues with regard to the date and relevant developments.

If members do not have any views on the matter, we will move to the substantive question. Is the committee content that the provisions set out in the notification should be made in the proposed UK statutory instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

Our next item of business is consideration of a type 1 consent notification relating to a proposed UK statutory instrument. The regulations in question would remove two persistent organic pollutants from the list of those to be eliminated, due to certain uses of those chemicals, relating to medical technology, having come to light.

On 22 April, the Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy notified the committee of the proposed instrument, which involves the United Kingdom Government legislating within devolved competence. The UK Government is seeking the Scottish Government’s consent in that respect, and the committee’s role is to decide whether it agrees with the Scottish Government’s proposal to consent to the UK Government making the regulations within devolved competence and in the manner that the UK Government has indicated to the Scottish Government.?

If members are content for consent to be given, the committee will write to the Scottish Government accordingly. In writing to the Scottish Government, we have the option to draw various matters to the Government’s attention, and to pose questions or ask to be kept up to date on relevant developments. If the committee is not content with the proposal, we might make one of the two recommendations outlined in the clerk’s note.

Do members have any views on the regulations?

You are both so polite.

I think that I saw on the screen that Mark Symes put his hand up to come in, but it looks like Jan Rosenow is heading off.

Our second item is the first of two evidence-taking sessions this month on plans for the future of Grangemouth refinery. Refining there has ceased, and the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments are looking for new uses for the site as a green energy hub.

The project willow study, which is supported by both the UK and Scottish Governments, was published in March. It proposed nine possible projects, four of which relate in some way to the production of hydrogen, and we will discuss those today.

This is an opportunity to touch more widely on the prospects for a thriving and competitive hydrogen sector in Scotland, which to some extent lie behind any aspirations for Grangemouth to be a green hub in the future.

We will hear from two panels of witnesses. On the first panel are Professor John Andresen, professor of engineering and physical science at Heriot-Watt University; Dr Graeme Hawker, chancellor’s fellow in future energy systems, University of Strathclyde; and Dr Nigel Holmes, chief executive officer for Hydrogen Scotland. Good morning, and thank you for attending.

We will move straight to questions. As usual, I have the easy question to ask at the beginning. The project willow study does not advocate the use of either green or blue hydrogen; it says only that a reliable source of low-carbon hydrogen will be required. Which of those production methods will offer the more reliable and affordable supply of hydrogen in Scotland? Nigel Holmes, do you want to kick off by answering that? I will then ask the same question across the panel.

I am sure that somebody will delve into that, but what might concern some people is whether the explosive content in those tanks would be the same as that of gas. If hydrogen goes wrong, does it go wrong big time, compared to gas?