§ 42. Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Power if he will state the approximate comparative building costs of a dual-fired 2,000 M.W. power station and of a coal-fired station of the same capacity.
§ Mr. WoodI am told by the Generating Board that a dual-fired power station with a capacity of 2,000 M.W., sited to take seaborne fuel, might cost £78 million campared with £72 million for a station on the same site designed only to burn coal.
§ Mr. DalyellNotwithstanding these figures, and in the light of the position in the north-eastern coalfields and in Scotland, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would not reconsider his decision to have the Medway power station dual-fired and make it a coal-fired station?
§ Mr. WoodThe position is that the station which will be built on the Medway, to which I have given my consent, is able to take, as the hon. Member knows, not only oil but also coal, possibly from the North-East. I think it is right that the industry should have this flexibility to use in this place the fuel which it thinks most economical.
§ Mr. T. FraserWhen the right hon. Gentleman considers the economics of building a power station such as this, does he not also take into account that it will cost the consumers of electricity an additional £6 million to ensure that this station will be able to take either coal or oil? It may very well be that the interests of the nation as a whole would be better served by constructing a coal-fired station, thereby ensuring that we would use the fuel we have in this country.
§ Mr. WoodI assure the hon. Member that I would not have given consent to a dual-fired station on the Medway if I did not feel that it was going to be for the benefit of consumers of electricity.