§ 13. Mr. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the anticipated load factor of the hydro-electric works embodied in the Strathfarrar and Kilmorack project No. 30 Constructional Scheme, capacity installed 102,000 kilowatts, referred to in the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Constructional Scheme No. 30) Confirmation Order, 1958; the anticipated coal economy in tons per annum based on the performance of recently completed Central Electricity Generating Board power stations and their average coal conversion rate; and what consideration has been given to providing equivalent generation facilities by nuclear methods as an alternative to the hydro-electric scheme proposed.
§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson)The Strathfarrar scheme is designed for an average annual load factor of 29 per cent., and is expected to save 130,000 tons of coal each year, on the basis of a conversion rate of 1.12 lbs. per unit. The Explanatory Memorandum laid before the House explains why this scheme is a more economical method of providing electricity at the load factor required by the Board than a nuclear station.
§ Mr. NabarroIs my hon. Friend aware that the public inquiry held in connection with this very expensive scheme specifically excluded reference to any financial, economic and scientific considerations? As the information given in the Explanatory Memorandum to which he has referred is sketchy, to say the least, and highly inconclusive, would he state in the OFFICIAL REPORT exactly what were the considerations that led the Secretary of State to prefer the water power scheme to the nuclear power alternatives?
§ Mr. MacphersonIt is not true that the inquiry specifically excluded anything. 1053 The evidence was adduced by the Board, and it was not challenged on the economic aspects. My hon. Friend will find the arguments in the Explanatory Memorandum.
§ 14. Mr. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the cost £/kilowatts installed, respectively including and excluding capital costs, in respect of distribution facilities to the South of Scotland and elsewhere, for the 102,000 kilowatts installed capacity of the hydro-electric works embodied in the Strathfarrar and Kilmorack project, referred to in the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Constructional Scheme No. 30) Confirmation Order, 1958; when the estimate of cost £14,250,000 was made; and the projected commencement and completion dates for the scheme.
§ Mr. N. MacphersonI am informed that the capital cost of connecting this scheme to the Board's grid is estimated to be £600,000, that is, almost £6 per kilowatt installed at the scheme. In 1957 the annual cost of the grid per kilowatt installed in all the Board's stations connected to it was £1.1, including capital charges, and £0.17, excluding capital charges, and no material change in these figures is expected when the Strathfarrar scheme comes into operation. The estimate of the cost of the scheme was made when it was published in March, 1957, and was confirmed before the public inquiry in December, 1957. If the scheme becomes operative, work will start this year, and stations will be commissioned progressively from 1961 to 1963.
§ Mr. NabarroAnd by that date, is not it the fact that there will be substantial numbers of standard nuclear power stations in operation in the United Kingdom, including the Hunterston station in the South of Scotland? In the circumstances, is it really wise to continue with pre-nuclear means of generating electricity when we already have at our disposal scientifically more advanced nuclear means that can be implemented at far lower capital cost, and with better prospect of success in the longer-term future?
§ Mr. MacphersonThe Board is convinced that this is the most economical way of meeting the expected expansion of demand over the next few years.
§ 15. Mr. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, having regard to the 1054 estimate of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board that pumped storage stations in the North of Scotland area, worked in conjunction with nuclear stations, would be highly economic, and that the capital cost might be of the order of £40 per kilowatt installed, whether he will state the capital cost per kilowatt installed of the Strathfarrar and Kilmorack proposals, Statutory Instrument No. 885, S. 40, and supporting explanatory memorandum, Constructional Scheme No. 30; and why pumped storage is not being proposed in this instance and having regard to the Hunterston nuclear power installations.
§ Mr. N. MacphersonThe capital cost of this scheme is estimated to be £140 per kilowatt installed. I am informed that a pumped storage scheme was not proposed in this instance because the site was not suitable. As my hon. Friend is aware, my right hon. Friend is at present examining the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board's proposal for a pumped storage scheme at Loch Awe which is intended to operate in conjunction with base load power stations in the South of Scotland, including the Hunterston Station.
§ Mr. NabarroIs my hon. Friend aware that his Answer seems to suggest that he has not read with his customary avidity the evidence given by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board chiefs themselves, to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, which made it perfectly clear, in the words of those chiefs of the Hydro-Electricity Board, that pumped storage schemes worked in conjunction with base load nuclear power stations were by far the most economic means, both in capital cost and in terms of the cost of operation, for future electricity generation in Scotland? Will he, therefore, read that evidence, and place no limitation upon pumped storage in the future, instead of bringing forward outmoded and outdated means of hydroelectricity generation?
§ Mr. MacphersonFirst of all, I would say again that my right hon. Friend is considering the Loch Awe scheme, which will be a pumped storage scheme. What the hon. Gentleman has said is not true, without qualification. A pumped storage scheme requires, in the first place, a high local storage reservoir in close proximity to a larger reservoir at a lower level into 1055 which the water from the upper reservoir can discharge each day without undesirably wide fluctuations in water level; and, secondly, a reasonably close supply of base load power for pumping the water back to the upper reservoir each night. That second qualification is supplied at Loch Awe, and not at Strathfarrar.
§ Mr. WoodburnIs not the Under-Secretary aware that this is probably the finest justification for hydro-electric scheme—that it should be used in conjunction with pumped storage and the use of that atomic electricity that is produced during the night but which would otherwise be useless? Would not it be wise to publish a White Paper, or something of that nature, that would give a complete picture? The public are very interested in this matter, and I think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has raised a very important question.
§ Mr. MacphersonI shall convey to my right hon. Friend what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and we shall, of course, consider it. I would point out that the House has its opportunities of considering these schemes as they come along. That applies to the Strathfarrar scheme, and to the Loch Awe scheme, should it be approved.
§ Mr. WoodburnBut the hon. Gentleman does not seem to have grasped the point. A particular scheme is one thing, but the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has raised the principle of whether or not the Government's new hydro-electric schemes should be developed in conjunction with nuclear power? It would seem that some explanation ought to be given to the House, apart from what hon. Members can find out for themselves when a particular scheme comes along.
§ Mr. NabarroOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory Answers that I have received to these three Questions, I beg leave to give notice that I shall pray against the Order.