Flue Gas Desulphurisation (Hansard, 22 March 1990)

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, the Government are committed to reducing the United Kingdom's emissions of acid gases in accordance with the European Community's large combustion plants directive. Contracts have already been placed for the retrofitting of flue gas desulphurisation equipment to the four gigawatt Drax power stations. Other retrofits are in prospect. A number of measures, including the burning of low-sulphur fuels, will also make a contribution.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, that is not an Answer to my Question. Is the noble Viscount aware that his own Government's consultation paper last August stated that the electricity supply industry would retrofit 12,000 megawatts of generating capacity with flue gas desulphurisation equipment?
408 Is he further aware that the Prime Minister told the United Nations in November: With regard to energy, we already have a £ 2 billion programme of improvements to reduce acid rain emissions from our power stations", yet in February the noble Viscount's department said that the £ 2 billion programme would not be completed? Will he answer the Question on the Order Paper in the light of that evidence?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, the remarks of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister were made nearly four months ago. Work on electricity privatisation has moved on since then. It is correct to say that, until fairly recently, it was the industry's expectation that it would have to meet the directive's requirements by retrofitting FGD equipment— if I may use that phrase— to 12 gigawatts of capacity. However, the advantages of combined cycle gas turbines, particularly their environmental benefits, have also become more widely appreciated. FGD retrofits will continue to form a part of the UK's programme for complying with the directive, but other measures will also contribute.

§ Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that 70 per cent. of the acid in Britain's rain comes from sulphur and that we are the largest emitters of sulphur dioxide in Europe? The Minister tells us that part of the programme to fulfil the Prime Minister's promise will depend on the import of low-sulphur coals. However, does he recall that in the past few years 49 low-sulphur coal-producing mines in this country have been closed? Will he reflect before he further damages the British mining industry by importing such fuels?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, the burning of low-sulphur coal is an option open to the electricity generators as they prepare their plans to comply with the European Community large combustion plant directive. The source of such coal will be a matter for the generators. The best protection for the United Kingdom coal industry is for it to produce reliable supplies which are competitive on the world market.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, when will that important but costly programme be completed? Will it be paid for by the consumers or the taxpayers, or a bit of each?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, the order for the first four gigawatts that I mentioned in my original Answer was placed in February 1989. The capital cost of the programme and of further retrofits which will be required will be reflected in the capital structure of the two generators when they are marketed.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, does the Minister not understand that his Answer to the Question of my noble friend Lord Hatch means that, even with the improvements that he has announced, Great Britain will still be a massive contributor to acid rain and damage to the ozone layer? Does he realise that the programme that he has announced is not what was originally envisaged and announced by various Ministers, including the Prime Minister?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, I should point out that FGD technology is a retrograde technology and is environmentally disruptive. For instance, the FGD installation at a two gigawatt coal-fired power station would require some 300,000 tonnes of limestone per annum.

§ Lord Ezra
My Lords, will the noble Viscount kindly elucidate what he said about the installation of combined cycle gas stations? That is obviously for the future. There are no such stations in operation at the moment. Does he agree that what is at issue is the existing stations which will continue to operate for many years? Will he therefore confirm that the new owners of the industry will go ahead with the originally proposed plan for getting rid of acid rain emissions?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, I do not think that I can go any further than I went in my original Answer. I must reiterate that the United Kingdom Government will comply with the EC directive. It is, as the noble Lord will know, part of that directive that we should reduce our emissions in 1993 by 20 per cent., in 1998 by 40 per cent. and in 2003 by 60 per cunt. The last figure, which takes us into the next century, will allow the construction of the power plants that I discussed.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that his previous answer is bound to cause a certain amount of confusion? Perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong, but I thought I heard him say that flue gas desulphurisation was a retrograde technology. If that is so, is that something which has been learnt since the Prime Minister made her statement about retrofitting a certain number of power stations, or is it more to do with privatisation than with the retrograde nature, or whatever it may be, of flue gas desulphurisation? While I am on my feet, perhaps I may also ask the Minister what further progress is being made with fluidised bed combustion.

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, on the noble Lord's first point, when I said that it was a retrograde technology, I meant that it also had those environmentally disruptive facets. Not only does it require the extensive mining of limestone: the FGD plants produce large quantities of gypsum as a by-product of the operation. I gave an example of what a 2 gigawatt station would require in terms of 300,000) tonnes of limestone. It would create between 400,000 and 500,000 tonnes of gypsum which would have.0 be removed from the station. Some of it might be sold but the rest would have to be disposed of to a suitable landfill site.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, the noble Viscount did not answer my last point about fluidised bed combustion. The answer that I sought to elicit from him referred to the Prime Minister's statement. She must have known all that when she announced the £ 2,000 million programme. What has happened since to undermine that programme?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for not having answered his second question. Yes, the fluidised bed technique and also coal gasification are the techniques of the future for coal burn. A certain amount of investment is being made into the R&D of those processes.
In my answer to the first supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, I said that the advantages of combined cycle gas turbines, for instance, and in particular their environmental benefits, have recently become more widely appreciated. That is since the remarks of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.

§ Lord Northfield
My Lords, can the noble Viscount say whether the new proposals which concern a change in the way in which we are to carry out the directive have been cleared with the Commission in Brussels? Has the Commission said that it is satisfied that this is a proper or acceptable way of carrying out the directive? Does the noble Viscount realise that for 10 years now, ever since we tried to upgrade the environmental activity of the Community into a full directorate— which we finally achieved— the difficulty that friends of Britain have had all through Europe is that we have always seemed grudging about the implementation of every directive concerning the environment in matters such as this? Does he agree therefore that it is doubly important to take the Commission along with us and to have its approval?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, I do not agree with the last part of the noble Lord's question. The United Kingdom's programme for complying with the directive has to be drawn up by the end of June. Discussions on the achievement of reductions with the generators and others who operate these large combustion plants are nearing completion and final decisions will be taken very soon.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, the noble Viscount has not explained when the Government suddenly discovered that the FGD process, which they mentioned in the consultative paper and which was referred to by the Prime Minister only last November, had become what he calls retrograde. As I understand it, it will still be applied in the Drax power station. When did the Government make that discovery? Is it not the case that the real discovery was that the generating companies which are to take over were not prepared to put that kind of money into cleaning up their gases and that the Government apparently were not prepared to give them what they asked for, namely, what is commonly known as a green dowry?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, it would be wrong to say that fitting FGD is a panacea for getting rid of all the greenhouse gases. The noble Lord will know that in fact it lowers the efficiency of the plants and therefore, in order to produce the same amount of power, more carbon dioxide will have to be pumped into the atmosphere.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, then can the noble Viscount say why this system was adopted? Why did the Prime Minister adopt it? Will he answer the second part of my question? Is it not the case that the new generating companies refused to pay that money and that the Government refuse to subsidise them?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, the answer to the last question is no. Flue gas desulphurisation is one of the techniques required to reduce our emissions of sulphur dioxide by the percentages of the EC directive.