§ Mr. MorleyTo ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will set out the conclusions of his Department's evaluation of the environmentally damaging aspects of(a) nuclear power, (b) coal-fired power plants, (c) oil-fired power plants, (d) gas-fired power plants, (e) large scale inland hydropower, (f) low-head hydropower, (g) estuarial power generating tidal barrages, (h) wind power, (i) solar water heating, (j) photoelectric solar power, (k) pump-storage power schemes, (l) off-shore wave power, (m) on-shore wave power, (n) ocean thermal electric power, (o) geothermal power, (p) refuse fuelled power plants, (q) biomass fuelled power plants and (r) combined heat and power pebble-bed/fluidised bed plants; and if he will make a statement on the benefits of each type of plant in regard to mitigation of greenhouse global warming.
§ Mr. Michael SpicerThe latest comprehensive and systematic evaluation of the full range of energy supply technologies undertaken for my Department was reported in Energy Paper 54 and its complementary "background papers" volume ETSU-R-43. Both of these publications are available in the Library of the House. Thy describe in general terms the principal environmental impacts of each technology. Environmental considerations form an integral part of many of the Department's R & D projects.
As part of the study leading to Energy Paper 54, consideration was given to the additional benefits of these technologies if restrictions on CO2 emissions were necessary. However, the results were not quantified. The current United Kingdom work in support of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group on "Response Strategies" should improve our analysis of the cost and benefits in regard to climate change for many of the technologies listed.