Flue Gas Desulphurisation (Hansard, 25 June 1990)

§ 13. Mr. Butler
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of the flue gas desulphurisation programme.

§ Mr. Wakeham
Work on retrofitting FGD to the 4 GW Drax power station is proceeding well. In addition, I am considering applications from PowerGen for my consent to it retrofitting FGD to Ratcliffe and Ferrybridge C power stations.

§ Mr. Butler
Although Fiddler's Ferry power station was originally considered for flue gas desulphurisation, what progress has been made in reducing sulphur dioxide emissions by burning low-sulphur coal, and does it represent a saving to the ultimate consumer?

§ Mr. Wakeham
The fitting of FGD equipment in general adds to the costs of producing electricity; it does not reduce them. How the power station at Fiddler's Ferry will be run is a matter not for me but for the company. I recognise my hon. Friend's legitimate interest in these matters.

§ Mr. O'Brien
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the urgency of installing this equipment at Ferrybridge C power station, where a number of my constituents are employed? Is he aware that any greater delay in agreeing that the equipment should be fitted will mean a significant danger of more coal mines in the area being closed? Will the right hon. Gentleman urgently consider the application from Ferrybridge C power station, so that we can get on with the job and assure the people who work in the mining industry that at least their jobs will be made secure?

§ Mr. Wakeham
I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's question. There certainly will be no delay on my part. If the initial 8 GW of retrofitting is completed, as we hope, it will be sufficient to enable British Coal to produce about 70 million tonnes of coal for the generators. That will meet the provisions of the European directive until, I think, 1998. At the moment, there is a commitment only to 8 GW of retrofitting. It will be some time before we must deal with the problem of extra retrofitting.

§ Mr. Viggers
Does my right hon. Friend agree that considerable caution is justified in approaching the FGD programme? Does he agree that the plant is large, the cost is great and the efficiency of the burning system is diminished by it? Could not FGD turn out to be an expensive cul-de-sac? Does he agree that it might be more productive to consider more efficient burning systems?

§ Mr. Wakeham
We have told the generators, "You must bring forward your plans"—they are not the Government's plans—"on what you believe to be the most efficient and effective way of dealing with the European directive." The generators must deal with that directive, and that is why we have reached the present position. My hon. Friend is right: it is an expensive and, in some ways, retrograde technology. I believe that it will play an important part in achieving the reductions that are called for, but other measures will be needed too.