§ Mr. Skeetasked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is contemplating abandoning the SGHWR.
§ Mr. BennI have regular meetings with the chairmen of our nuclear organisations to keep in touch with the SGHWR and our other reactor programmes. On the SGHWR, the industry are currently completing reference design documentation and the Atomic Energy Authority have suggested to me that this is an appropriate point to take stock of progress. They will be advising me further. At these meetings we also discuss matters of24W general relevance to our programmes, such as electricity demand forecasts, the role of nuclear power and our nuclear technical and industrial capability. The meetings therefore provide me with an ongoing review of our programmes.
§ Mr. Skeetasked the Secretary of State for Energy what are his estimates of comparative costs of building a commercial SGHWR station and a station of similar capacity using light water reactor technology.
§ Mr. BennIn 1974 it was estimated that the SGHWR would cost between 8 per cent. and 12 per cent. more than a light water reactor on total construction cost. The Nuclear Power Company is completing reference design documentation for the SGHWR, on the basis of which it will carry forward cost estimates.
§ Mr. Skeetasked the Secretary of State for Energy what design or other problems are holding up the SGHWR programme which was launched a substantial time ago.
§ Mr. BennI refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) on 14th June.—[Vol. 913, c. 8.]