HC Deb 08 May 1978 vol 949 cc755-8
9. Mr. Hugh Jenkins

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress he is making in plans to develop alternatives to nuclear energy.

Mr. Eadie

I must apologise to the House for the length of this reply.

Among work being done on alternatives to nuclear energy is that covered by the Coal Industry Tripartite Group's Research and Development Working Party. This has considered a number of proposals from the National Coal Board and the British Gas Corporation for the conversion and utilisation of coal. My Department is considering its reports which contains some important proposals. It is expected to be published later this month.

In the field of renewable sources of energy, such as wave, wind, tidal, solar and geothermal, assessment studies have been made and their results published. My Department's research programmes are now well under way in all the main fields. Progress, particularly on wave energy, has been encouraging, but we have a long way to go before any of the renewable sources is likely to make a significant contribution to the country's energy needs. For 1977–78, the expenditure on nuclear research and development in the public sector is estimated to be about £130 million and that on all other fuels about £100 million. Energy research and development outside the public sector, including that of the oil companies, is additional to this and involves substantial sums of money.

Mr. Jenkins

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that long and detailed answer. Will he say whether any of these proposals is likely to prevent the development of a dependence by this country upon nuclear energy, with all the dangers that that entails?

Mr. Eadie

I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend an answer to that question. There are far too many uncertainties involved. All I can say—and it is implied in my orginal answer to my hon. Friend—is that we are looking at all options in relation to energy. We believe that any country which wishes to become an industrial nation must have adequate, secure, safe and preferably indigenous sources of energy.

Mr. Powell

Is the hon. Member aware that apology for the inordinate length of a reply is no substitute for concision?

Mr. Palmer

Does not my hon. Friend agree that, with the maximum possible development of alternative energy sources allowing for a reasonable growth of the economy in the future, it will still be necessary, once the oil runs out, to fill the gap with nuclear energy, and that that is the view taken in every advanced industrial country?

Mr. Eadie

Certainly the indications are that, if we are to depend on what is described as alternative or renewable sources of energy, all that we can expect to get in terms of coal equivalent is roughly 10 million tons. However, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins), I referred to the fact that we were looking into the question of research and development into other uses of coal. These are exciting and challenging, and some of us think that they can be very helpful to the nation in the present century.

Mr. Forman

Rather than seeking alternatives to nuclear energy, which must always have a part to play in our energy mix, is it not more important that the Government should seek alternative approaches to energy policy based on some of the new thinking about forecasts and assumptions put forward by Chesshire and Surrey, for example, at Sussex University, and Gerald Leach at the International Institute for Environment and Development?

Mr. Eadie

I am not sure whether the hon. Member is talking, about conservation or alternative sources of energy. I have indicated already that the Government are concerned about alternative sources of energy. My right hon. Friend has announced programmes on conservation. We are aware of the need to look for alternative, renewable sources of energy, and the Government are investing money in that direction.

Mr. Dalyell

May I invite my hon. Friend to a wet and windy weekend in a tent at Torness? Will he ask these 3,000 people to explain where they can get electricity from for their sons and for their grandchildren, even if they themselves are prepared to do without it?

Mr. Eadie

In a previous answer I explained to the House that it is important that the country should have adequate, safe and secure sources of energy. This must be explained to all people who are protesting against various types of energy, whether it be on pollution grounds or any other grounds. We must have energy: without it we freeze, we die.

Mr. Viggers

In view of the percentage of energy that is expected to be received from alternative sources by the year 2000—about 10 per cent.—will the Minister agree that it is simply not responsible to talk about alternatives to nuclear energy but that we must talk only of ancillary sources which will supplement nuclear energy?

Mr. Eadie

I do not think that it is responsible to try to deceive people into thinking that in this century we will get enough alternative sources of renewable energy to sustain our domestic economy, let alone our industrial economy. All our answers have tried to illustrate that, although alternative renewable sources of energy are exciting and challenging, they will not solve the problems of energy provision in this century. Perhaps they will do so a little more in the next century. But it is our duty and responsibility as Members of Parliament to try to explain that to the electorate.