Nuclear Power Stations

HC Deb 04 July 1967 vol 749 cc1541-5

2. Mr. David Griffiths

asked the Minister of Power how much coal is being displaced from power station use by the present nuclear power stations, and at what extra cost to the consumer of electricity.

Mr. Freeson

Nuclear power accounted for just under 8 million tons of coal equivalent in 1966. I cannot estimate how much of this would have been replaced by coal if the nuclear power stations had not been built. In 1969, when the first nuclear power programme is completed, the additional annual cost may be about 2 per cent. of total revenue from electricity sales.

Mr. Griffiths

Is my hon. Friend aware that many experts—and I mean experts—are dubious about the costing of nuclear power stations? In view of this, will he reconsider whether to build any more nuclear power stations until the costings are revealed, and particularly until the Select Committee on Science and Technology has reported?

Mr. Freeson

The expert knowledge available in the Department does not lead to the conclusion reflected in my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. Griffiths

It should do.

Mr. Freeson

It should be borne in mind that no matter what the position may be with future nuclear power stations, no effect of any developments will be felt in the coal industry between now and 1970.

Mr. Webster

Would not the cost of nuclear power be more realistic if power stations were amortised at 30 years, as is the normal practice with electric power stations?

Mr. Freeson

This might make the nuclear power stations even more competitive.

7. Mr. Woof

asked the Minister of Power whether he will, before taking a decision to allow the Central Electricity Generating Board to build a nuclear power station at Seaton Carew, require the Board to submit alternative proposals for a coal-fired station so that the estimated operating costs for the two fuels can he compared accurately.

23. Mr. Shinwell

asked the Minister of Power if the proposed power station at Seaton Carew will be based on coal.

29. Mr. Urwin

asked the Minister of Power what estimate has been submitted to him by the Central Electricity Generating Board of the cost competitiveness of coal against nuclear power as the proposed generating fuel for the new power station at Seaton Carew; and what would be the comparative cost of the two fuels in price per therm.

38. Mr. Shinwell

asked the Minister of Power what estimates have been made of the effect on neighbouring coalfields of the proposal to build a nuclear power station at Seaton Carew.

Mr. Freeson

My right hon. Friend has not yet reached a decision on the C.E.G.B.'s application to build a nuclear power station at Seaton Carew. Before doing so, he will take account of the prospects of all the alternative fuels for electricity generation in the context of fuel policy as a whole.

Mr. Woof

Is my hon. Friend aware that the National Coal Board has gone into great detail on the costs of such a project? In view of the serious unemployment expected from the forthcoming run-down in certain parts of the North-East coalfield, does not he agree that the Coal Board should be given the opportunity to present its case, even if merely for the sake of national economic advantage?

Mr. Freeson

The Coal Board is presenting its case, but I repeat, on the general point raised by my hon. Friend about unemployment—and I am not saying this to belittle the fears and concern expressed in a number of quarters in mining communities—that whatever decisions are made by my right hon. Friend with regard to the future nuclear power station programme, they cannot affect the position in the coal industry for the next four or five years.

Mr. Shinwell

Before a decision is reached, will my hon. Friend's right hon. Friend take account of the social consequences which are likely to ensue? Secondly, is he aware of the effect of the construction of a nuclear power station at Seaton Carew on the pits for which I am politically responsible in South-East Durham?

Mr. Freeson

On the last point, I cannot go much further than what I have just said in answer to the previous supplementary question concerning the effects of any programme now embarked upon for the mid and late 1970s in relation to the run-down and contraction of the coal industry between now and 1970. What I can say about any nuclear power station is that during the period in which construction is undertaken there will be an injection of many thousands of job opportunities into not merely this area but all the areas concerned. On my hon. Friend's first point, I stress that we are very much aware of the social consequences for the coal industry and mining areas of the present situation and are giving a great deal of attention to it.

Mr. Urwin

Is my hon. Friend aware that, as far as the proposed station is concerned, there are six large modern collieries in close proximity—three of them in my constituencey—which could literally pour in coal at a cost per therm estimated by the N.C.B. to be highly competitive? In view of the fact that the Dungeness costing is highly suspect, is there not a case for treating this proposition on a basis of conventional firing?

Mr. Freeson

I cannot give an answer different from that which I gave in the first instance. All possible alternatives will be considered by my right hon. Friend in coming to a decision on the matter. Whatever decision is come to it will affect more than the area in which the siting takes place; it will affect the generation of power nationally and not merely in the area concerned.

Mr. Varley

Is it not a fact that the present technological uncertainties and enormous investment involved in the development of the A.G.R. system will prove to be out of all proportion to the technical knowledge required to move to the fast-breeder reactor type of station?

Mr. Freeson

This is not the opinion of the electricity industry, and we must bear in mind that any decision it takes is based on the desire to get the cheapest possible and most effective kind of fuel for generating power in this country.

8. Mr. Woof

asked the Minister of Power whether he will refuse to authorise the building of an advanced gas-cooled reactor nuclear power station at Seaton Carew until the first of the advanced gas-cooled reactors has been operating for some time and he has further evidence as to the running costs.

Mr. Freeson

No, Sir. Technological progress would be intolerably slow if we waited for operating results of one station before starting the next.

Mr. Woof

Is my hon. Friend aware that the country is being asked to invest huge sums of money in a process that will take at least three years to prove? Does not he, therefore, agree that the project should be postponed until much more precise information is available on the costs?

Mr. Freeson

In coming to its decision—as I indicated earlier—my right hon. Friend will take account of all available information in this field.

Mr. Alison

What account has been taken of the published cost results of the boiling water reactor established in the United States of America?

Mr. Freeson

This is being considered.

28. Mr. Urwin

asked the Minister of Power what representations he has received from the National Coal Board regarding the proposal to provide a nuclear power station at Seaton Carew.

Mr. Freeson

My right hon. Friend received a letter on this subject from the Chairman of the Board yesterday afternoon.

Mr. Urwin

I am quite sure that there must have been some very important things in this letter. Has the Coal Board made any representations to my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend on the desirability of utilising the full resources of coal produced in the industry, bearing in mind that in the north of England at the end of this year there will be 2 million tons stockpiled and that this would in itself be sufficient to fire a power station for one year as opposed to the proposal for nuclear power?

Mr. Freeson

While it is not for me to discuss the contents of the letter this afternoon, the answer to my hon. Friend's supplementary question involves the contents of the letter. When representations have been received, they will be considered by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Shinwell

As there appears to be a conflict on this important issue as between the National Coal Board and the Ministry of Power, how are we to judge who is right? Does not my hon. Friend think it desirable that the representations made to the Ministry should be made available, not only to hon. Members who are concerned in the matter but to the mineworkers?

Mr. Freeson

I am not unaware that there has been a good deal of discussion internally in the industry, and publicly. All I can say on the particular question is that it will be considered by my right hon. Friend in the same way as any other application.