European Energy Scene: Papers Presented at the Tenth Consultative Council of the Watt Committee on Energy, London, 21 May 1981

108 Pages·1990·2.207 MB·English

by  Watt Committee

The views expressed in this Report are those of the authors of the papers and contributors to
the discussion individually and not necessarily those of their institutions or companies or of
The Watt Committee on Energy Ltd.
Published by:
The Watt Committee on Energy Ltd
75 Knightsbridge
London SW1X 7RB
Telephone: [phone]
This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.
“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of
thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”
© The Watt Committee on Energy Ltd 1982
Dajon Graphics Ltd, Bushey, Herts. 3–82
ISBN 0-203-21027-1 Master e-book ISBN
ISBN 0-203-26811-3 (Adobe eReader Format)
THE WATT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY
REPORT NUMBER 11
THE EUROPEAN ENERGY
SCENE
Papers presented at the Tenth
Consultative Council of the Watt
Committee on Energy, London, 21
May 1981
The Watt Committee on Energy Ltd
A Company limited by guarantee: Reg. in England No.
1350046
Charity Commissioners Registration No. 279087
APRIL 1982
Contents
Foreword v
Units used in this Report ix
The energy scene in the United Kingdom 1
D.le B.Jones
Extracts from discussion 15
The energy situation in the Netherlands 21
G.W.van Stein Callenfels and E.F.Bunge
Extracts from discussion 32
Energy and the steel industry in France: present 35
situation and future prospects
J.de Pemille
Extracts from discussion 49
German experience of the oil price crises 52
G.Meurin
Extracts from discussion 62
Danish energy planning after 1973 and its 65
implementation
H.Larsen
Extracts from discussion 75
General discussion 77
Appendix: Energy intensity in the European scene 82
A.Cluer
Member Institutions 92
iv
THE WATT COMMITTEE ON ENE RGY 95
List of published Watt Committee on Energy inside back cover
Reports
Foreword
Shortly after the formation of The Watt Committee on Energy, Sir Jack Rampton,
then Permanent Under-Secretary at the Department of Energy, suggested that
when we had established our general policy we should contact like-minded
people on the Continent of Europe. This could be helpful to all concerned
because their approach to the problems would be different, if only on account of
the differences in their resources compared with those of the United Kingdom.
The Watt Committee acted on this suggestion about a year ago by writing to a
number of individuals who had demonstrated in other connections their
enthusiasm and their willingness to discuss their problems with fellow
professionals. Most of those whom I wrote to were known to me as major
contributors to the work of the International Flame Research Foundation.
Potential speakers were asked if they would be willing to present a simple
statement at our Consultative Council in May 1981 answering in summary form
two questions:
(1)How did your country react to the 1973 oil crisis, and what action occurred
from then till 1980 to meet the new position?
(2)What do you expect your national energy policy to achieve in the period
1980–2000?
Four of the five replied that either they would be glad to accept the challenge or
they had found a man who was in a better position to answer our questions. The
fifth seemed permanently absent from his native country, and was regretfully
dropped from the team. It might be expected that the U.K. speaker would have
been drawn from one of the 60-plus professional bodies in membership of The
Watt Committee; in fact we decided that D.le B.Jones, who had made a most
helpful intervention at an earlier Consultative Council, was the right man, and
were delighted that he agreed to present such a paper, not as a representative of
the Department of Energy, but in a ‘personal capacity’.
It was our initial intention to hold a ‘getting to know you’ type of meeting
without necessarily publishing either the papers or the discussion. Following the
Council meeting, which took place in London on 21st May 1981, our originator,
vi
Sir William Hawthorne, wrote to say how much he and others had enjoyed this
free exchange of views and added that he hoped we would produce a report
containing not only the full texts of the papers—which could not be presented at
the Council owing to shortage of time—but also a report of the discussion. The
Executive agreed, and the authors were asked to let us have complete
manuscripts and edit their replies to the discussion. The delay between the
meeting and the publication of this report was considerably longer than usual,
owing not to the tardiness of any party, but to the need to watch our cash flow.
It is my intention in writing this Foreword not to summarise the contents of the
report, but rather to quote its findings in a way that will tempt the reader to study
the full text, and thereby broaden his or her outlook, and possibly see ways of
tackling the energy problem that, rightly or wrongly, have not been adopted by
other countries. Even a quick browse will suffice to show striking differences in
the problems faced by these five European countries. Equally striking are the
differences in the way the challenges have been met and the proposals for the
next two decades.
The United Kingdom is fortunate in possessing a large amount of coal—
sufficient for 300 years at present rates of consumption (see Watt Committee on
Energy Report No. 9, Assessment of Energy Resources). In addition it has large
supplies of oil and natural gas, and a useful quantity of nuclear power. Given
these facts it is not surprising that D.le B.Jones suggests that ‘the market must
play a major part in determining the pattern of fuel production and use’. The
alternative procedure—that central government should permit optimum allocation
—is modestly declined on the basis that the government and its officials are not
all-wise and all-seeing. He adds that ‘prices must give both the consumer and the
producer reasonably accurate signals about the cost of energy supplies’. The
government must of course have an energy policy that includes an investment
programme and corporate plans for the nationalised energy industries, e.g.
Financial targets for the nationalised industries
A pattern of development and rate of depletion for North Sea oil and
gas
The main nuclear decisions
The level of taxation on fuels
Energy conservation matters
Financial support for research, development and demonstration
Special schemes, such as subsidised conversion of equipment from oil
to coal firing.
The position in The Netherlands, described in the paper by G.W.van Stein
Callenfels (presented at the meeting by E.F.Bunge) was radically changed by the
vii
discovery around 1960 of the Groningen or Slochteren natural gas, which is
similar to North Sea apart from its content of about 14% of nitrogen. This was
quickly followed by the construction of a network of high-pressure (60 bar)
pipelines to feed not only Holland but Germany, Belgium and France, and, more
recently, Italy.
As a result of this major discovery the remaining coalmines in Holland were
closed and reliance was placed on oil for the extra energy needed particularly by
transport. Nuclear reactors were suggested, but kept to a minimum by public
opposition. In 1973 the drop in oil supplies led to a review of the whole energy
position. It was decided that certain export contracts for gas should not be
renewed and that more coal should be imported. The heavy dependence of
Holland on its production of flowers and vegetables for export meant looking
again at the heating of greenhouses. That was easy with cheap natural gas, but
more efficient gas burning must now be developed, and such techniques as
double glazing and blinds used to reduce heat loss during the night. In addition
gas-fired heat pumps were developed and are being widely used in both small
industries and housing complexes.
What, you may well ask, happened to the windmills— almost a national
emblem of the country? The sad answer is that few of them turn, because their
use would be uneconomic in comparison with other types of energy. Research is,
however, proceeding on wind power, and a first large windmill (or should it be
an aero-generator) has been built on the sea-coast north of Amsterdam. This first
large unit has a 50-m wing-span and a capacity of 300 kW.
The position in France, as described by J.de Pemille, is different again. France
has a fair amount of coal and a small amount of natural gas, but is still heavily
dependent on the importation of oil. The desire to be relatively independent has
led to the vigorous pursuit of nuclear energy which already supplies about a third
of the electricity demand. Future installations will include fast-breeder reactors.
Alternative sources include geothermal energy: parts of Paris are district-heated
by hot water pumped from underground wells. There is also a strong emphasis
on conservation. It is stated, for example, that in 1980 GDP was increased by 2.
2% while energy consumption dropped by 1.6%. Incidentally, such achievement
is often referred to in terms of ‘energy coefficients’. It is the confusion arising
from the use of such terms and the non-validity of some cross-comparisons that
led Alf Cluer (one of our Executive members) to produce the Appendix to the
present Report, entitled ‘Energy intensity in the European scene’.
Of Germany G.Meurin says, ‘Loyal to its principle to pursue objectives in
energy policy not by regulations but by strengthening the market forces, the
Federal government has chosen the way of off-set payments to compensate the
differences between the cost of electricity generation from German hard coal and
that from heavy fuel oil’. Furthermore, power plants that would burn fuel oil or
natural gas were not allowed to be built without special authorisation. Forecasts
for future oil requirements have been reduced but not by as much as was hoped
owing to public concern about nuclear energy.
viii
Conservation is encouraged by grants by the Federal Government of about
20% for all measures installed in existing buildings, improvements to heating
systems, and devices installed to promote the use of renewable energy for space
and water heating. The 1979–80 further oil price rise led to the Federal
Republic’s trade balance being in the red for the first time in 14 years: that
caused, among other things, a determination to use more indigenous coal.
This brings me to the last of the papers, in which H.Larsen discusses the
almost total dependence of Denmark on imports until 1972. The main import
was of oil, only 20% of electricity being produced by burning coal; because there
is relatively little heavy industry in Denmark the main consumption of energy is
for space heating. The coal usage for space heating is related to district heating,
based on combined heat and power (CHP). About 80% of Danish electricity is
now produced from coal. Fortunately Denmark expects to obtain natural gas from
Germany, and also from its own sector of the North Sea. As the programme for
local heating plants has not yet been completed, people still do not know whether
they will be offered natural gas or district heating associated with CHP. The
main changes, it is stated, have ‘been achieved on a voluntary basis, i.e. more or
less solely based on economic arguments’.
That would seem to be the right note on which to end this Foreword.
Incidentally, The Watt Committee on Energy has embryonic contacts with the
British Institute of Energy Economics, with which there might be a future joint
meeting.
J.H.Chesters
Chairman, The Watt Committee on Energy
Units used in this Report
The units used and other matters of style in this Report vary, in some instances,
according to the practices common in the authors’ respective countries and
languages, although the units of the Système internationale (S.I.) are usually
preferred. Conversion factors and approximate equivalents for certain quantities
that occur frequently are given below.
*Note. These approximate equivalents are not suitable for accurate calculations, for which
accurate conversion factors should be used.