Electricity Generation (Hansard, 27 June 1973)

§ 13. Mr. Dalyell
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in the light of the latest projection of world oil shortage he will instruct the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board urgently to reconsider its decision to go ahead with an oil-burning power station at Boddam, Aberdeenshire, and to revert to the plan for a nuclear-powered station at Stakeness.

§ Mr. Younger
No. I do not accept that current projections of oil supply require reconsideration of the decision to build a power station at Peterhead, which will be designed to burn gas as well as oil, and which is urgently needed to meet electricity demands in the north-east of Scotland from 1978.

§ Mr. Dalyell
Following a series of long, detailed and well argued letters from me to the Minister on this subject, does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the month that Michigan and Detroit start rationing petrol it is not very wise to commit ourselves to burning liquid hydrocarbons for 30 years? Furthermore, how can the nuclear industry iron out its complex diffi- 1516 culties if it is not given the orders to enable it to do so?

§ Mr. Younger
I would not dispute that the hon. Gentleman's letters to me are long, detailed and well argued.

§ Mr. Ross
What about the answers?

§ Mr. Younger
They are shorter, less detailed, but also very well argued.
Whatever we would have wished the fuelling of the power station to be, there was no possibility of getting it into operation by the necessary date of 1978 unless we had it as a non-nuclear station. That was why the decision was taken, and I see no reason to reconsider it. But, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the excellent site at Stakeness which was available for a nuclear station is still being keept available for that purpose. When the studies at present in hand are completed, it will be possible for the matter to be reconsidered.

§ Mr. Ewing
The Minister said that the power station was being designed to burn gas. Will he make clear whether the gas will be derived from North Sea oil and, therefore, supplied by the oil companies or whether it will be supplied on offer from the Gas Council?

§ Mr. Younger
No decision about what gas might be used would be taken until the time came to consider whether there was a need to use gas. The station is designed to be fired by oil, but it is also designed in a way which would enable it to be supplied by gas from any source if that should prove appropriate.

§ Mr. Ross
Was not the original proposal of the hydro board for a nuclear station, and is it not the case that as long as the discussions and arguments in the Government Departments went on it was inevitable that there had to be a return to an oil-fired station?

§ Mr. Younger
I think that it was inevitable if we were to have the power station in production by 1978. The right hon. Gentleman will admit, if he thinks about it, that he is very much oversimplifying the matter. There is much difficult technical evaluation to be done. There has been no delay in doing it. It would have been ridiculous to put in hand a station which could not be ready in time and, still worse, to put it in hand with a 1517 form of reactor which had not been properly proved. I could imagine what the right hon. Gentleman would have said if we had done that.