§ Mrs. BrintonTo ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many section 36 planning applications for clean coal technology power stations in England are under consideration. [53669]
§ Mr. Battle[holding answer 31 July 1998]: None has been submitted by any power generators.
§ Mrs. BrintonTo ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact on(a) gas-fired electricity generators and (b) the offshore gas supply industry if the present policy on new consents for gas-fired power stations continue beyond the electricity regulator's target date of April 2000 for the completion of market reforms; and if he will make a statement. [55238]
§ Mr. BattleOn 8 October, the Government published their White Paper Conclusions of The Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation (Cm 4071), which sets out the Government's broad energy policy, including radical reforms to the electricity market and, in the interim, a new stricter policy on consents for power stations. These reforms will bring greater competition to electricity generation and lower prices for consumers. Paragraphs 8.8–8.11 and 10.30 of the White Paper refer respectively to the possible impact on the offshore industry of the policy and to the fact that the interests of the promoters of particular new power generation projects will be one of the factors to be taken into account when applying the new consents policy.
§ Mrs. BrintonTo ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by what date he estimates that emissions from clean coal technology in power stations will be reduced to the level of gas-fired power stations. [53319]
§ Mr. Battle[holding answer 31 July 1998]: Although commercial clean coal plant can be made to operate to a very high environmental standard, as shown by a number of advanced supercritical plants now in operation around the world, as well as a number of gasification plants at the demonstration scale, for reasons of basic chemistry and economics, it is not practicable to match all the emissions to the levels of natural gas-fired plant.
The table illustrates the differences in emissions between a commercially available combined cycle gas turbine plant with 55% thermal efficiency and those of a potential commercial clean coal plant with an assumed efficiency of 42%.
Emissions Clean coal plant with 42% efficiency Combined cycle gas plant with efficiency of 55% CO2 800g kWh-1 360g kWh-1 SO2 600mg kWh-1 0 NOx 600mg kWh-1 less than 300mg kWh-1 Note:
Lower levels of emissions of SO2 and NOx are possible with more advanced coal plant now at the demonstration stage and which are expected to become commercially available over the next few years.
Source:
PowerGen plc.
1041W
§ Mrs. BrintonTo ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimates he has evaluated of the cost of fitting FGD technology to all existing United Kingdom coal-fired power stations currently without FGD. [53310]
§ Mr. Battle[holding answer 31 July 1998]: The cost of fitting Flue Gas Desulphurisation equipment (FGD) to coal fired power stations is very site specific, but approximates to around 10% the cost of new plant. There is also a number of different technologies that could be used depending on the level of sulphur removal required. If a limestone-gypsum process was used the estimated costs would probably lie within a range of £80–£100 per kw. Assuming an average cost of £90 per kw, it would cost some £1.8 billion to fit FGD to the remaining 20GW of UK coal fired capacity. These costs exclude the additional running costs associated with coal fired plant subsequently fitted with FGD.
§ Mrs. BrintonTo ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reports he has received about the progress of the complaint to the European Commission against discrimination in favour of coal-fired generation in Spain and Germany. [53668]
§ Mr. Battle[holding answer 31 July 1998]: The UK Government formally complained to the European Commission in September 1997 that state aid paid to the Spanish coal industry is distorting, or is likely to distort, competition between producers in the single market. We argued that a subsidy of 1 peseta per kilowatt-hour for Spanish electricity plants using Spanish coal should also be available for the use of UK coal if discrimination between ECSC coal producers was to be avoided. We understand the European Commission broadly share this view, and we are pressing the Spanish Government for confirmation that the subsidy will be available on a non-discriminatory basis in respect of all ECSC coals.
In the case of Germany, we drew the Commission's attention in September 1997 to the possibility of distortion against UK anthracite in the German power station market. Formal complaints against German state aid for power station anthracite were subsequently submitted by Consolidated Coal and Evans and Reid (the agents for Tower Colliery) and by RJB Mining in respect of state aids for German coal production more generally. In June 1998 the Commission approved state aid of DM 10.4 billion for German coal production. I understand that RJB Mining is lodging an appeal to the European Court against this Decision.