- Email: [email protected]
From blissful ignorance to intelligent foreboding
Conference reports From blissful ignorance to intelligent foreboding "Future Energy Concepts', conference organized by the Institution of Electrical Engineers in association with other UK engineering institutions, London, UK, 30 January- 1 February 19 79.
The chairman of the organizing committee, D.T. Swift-Hook, explained the rationale of the conference in his opening address: the engineering institutions had collaborated to organize an event which would give a 'serious scientific and engineering look at new concepts' to 'clothe new ideas with figures' and to 'introduce practicality in a way which did not deny innovation'. In his closing address he claimed that this would be the major UK energy conference of 1979. The combined prestige of the engineering institutions ensured that there would be contributions from the 'men of power' in energy politics and in this sense the conference was a major one. However in terms of the contributions from 'men at work' in the energy field the claim is not easily substantiated. Although the conventional sources of enexgy were reviewed in some of the keynote addresses to reassure us that our 'long term future was in good hands' the conference was mainly about alternative energy and included sessions on solar energy; geothermal energy and heat pumps; waves and tides; storage; wind power; and advanced combustion. With major speeches by Sir Hermann Bondi (Chief Scientist at UK Department of Energy), F. Clarke (Energy Director of Harwell and Chairman of both wave and wind energy steering committees), Alex Eadie (Minister of State at the UK Department of Energy responsible for alternative energy) and J.K. Wright (of the CEGB planning department) the official view of alternative energy came across clearly. Alex Eadie outlined government strategies in his set piece speech. He asserted with one breath that the
E N E R G Y P O L I C Y June 1 9 7 9
government was 'firmly committed to establish the technologies', ie the renewables, while with another he cautioned that the 'only assured source of energy apart from coal is nuclear power'.
'Full stomach' Sir Hermann Bondi, in a virtuoso performance, emphasized the policy uncertainties arising from uncertainties in the size of resources, and the technical and political uncertainties associated with extraction and conversion technologies. In Sir Hermann's view our own energy debate was one for a 'full stomach'; the developing world could not afford such luxury in their pursuit of economic growth. Their success, which as humanitarians we should foster, would affect world demand and our own supply position. The two planks of his policy were conservation and sure access to a range of technologies: 'we need as many shots in our locker as possible'. Freddie Clarke enumerated the problems which have arisen for wave energy in the wake of Rendel, Palmer and Tritton's latest assessments. Although 'the problems loom larger than solutions', he was 'not knocking wave power' and claimed that already one device team had responded to criticism by forecasting significant cost reductions. Also the UK Wave Energy Steering Committee were exploring new concepts which "showed great promise; the device invented by Professor French of Lancaster University was mentioned in particular. Clarke's assessments of tidal power were more cautious; he enumerated the problems and although
government funds are being made available for work on these he did not encourage hope. In discussion he responded to criticism of the UK government's attitude to solar energy by inviting the UK section of the International Solar Energy Society to make proposals which he would discuss. Swift-Hook, again in discussion, enlarged on what is emerging as the official view of alternative energy: it is to be an insurance policy in the event of a main option, ie nuclear power, being impeded. He asserted that to be credible in this role there must be tens of GWs of alternative energy capacity. Provided that their costs were not enormous, there was no reason why the alternative sources should have to compete with nuclear power. This adds up to a neat policy of containment of the alternative technologies. It is acceptable to the proponents at this stage because it means that the technologies will at least be investigated, but also comforting for the CEGB because it implies that they will never go beyond prototype stage. Insurance by its very nature is something we hope we shall never have to use.
Gentle jibes Walt Patterson appeared on the programme as the 'token oddball'. His talk was bland and did not overstep the bounds of what was acceptable to his audience. He was concerned about semantics and the resuscitation of the word 'fuel'; plugged the International Institute for Environment and Development's latest publication on energy conservation (as also, perhaps more significantly, did Alex Eadie), and made a few gentle jibes which were tolerantly accepted. Subversives who trade radicalism for acceptability tread a dangerous path and can be all too easily contained by polite attention and friendly smiles. That this has not happened to Walt Patterson became clear on the last day when he succeeded in unbalancing J.K. Wright on the subject of the real costs of nuclear power and the reasons why the CEGB wanted the government to fund a new fast breeder rather than doing it themselves. The significance and impact of the contributed papers is more difficult to
169
Conference reports judge than that of the major speakers. This is due partly to a rapporteur system of presentation which was used with mixed success. Besides getting their name in print, conference contributors usually expect a captive audience, at least for a short time. But the discussion which followed the rapporteurs' presentations was turgid and H.C. Radha Krishna from India and C.J. Warren from the World Bank in Washington were two of many authors who did not get a chance to speak at all. They must have wondered whether the trip had been worth their while. Stephen Salter contributed a major paper on power take off from ducks. This was unsympathetically presented by the rapporteur (I. Glendenning) and so made no impact. However, in discussion Salter turned aside the criticism of his new gyroscopic power take off mechanisms and of his research philosophy ('If we can do it in the lab we can do it at sea') with masterly ease. One senses that his simple demonstration of a gyroscopic model was impressive to an engineering audience with its high regard for invention. His riposte to the criticisms of his philosophy was that if the lab is not a good simulation of real conditions then there is something wrong with the lab!
Wind energy economic? However, accepting the defects of the system, the rapporteurs in general did a very good job. R. Bird of the Energy Technology Support Unit, who is project manager of the UK wind energy programme, gave a clear summary of UK developments. It seems that wind energy is economic today at selected sites in the UK and that Swift-Hook's tens of GWs could be available with offshore siting. In comparison with the prospects for tidal, solar and now wave energy, those of wind energy are much more optimistic and it looks almost certain to reach prototype stage (yet again). J.K. Wright nicely summarized the essentials from ten papers in the session on systems and economics, but the impression was left of an underdeveloped field in terms of underlying economic theory and basic agreed data on costs. There is
170
considerable scope here for someone who can combine realistic cost estimations with a bit of imagination. The morale of the 'men of power' seemed high but that of the 'men at work' was less so, only the wind power people were buoyant and although the balance of the papers submitted did not give a complete picture, the alternative energy field as a whole seems a little tired. It is five years now since 1973 and conventional fuel prices are falling in real terms. At this stage a lack of interest leading to a decline in morale amongst the scientists and engineers who are writing our energy insurance policy would be serious. Perhaps what we are
seeing is the natural development of the field from 'blissful ignorance to intelligent foreboding' (as K. Tittle of the CEGB expressed his own developments in deriving fuel from wastes). It is to be hoped that the next stage will be informed confidence.
Bob Harrison Sunderland Polytechnic Sunderland, UK The proceedings of this conference have been published in Future Energy Concepts, lEE Conference Publication No 171, Institution of Electrical Engineers, London, 1979.
N uclear problems- unclear solutions 'Nuclear power -implications for society', colloquium organized by the Groupe de Bellerive, Geneva, 15-17 February 1979. to establish ... councils of reflection and evaluation able to rise above the polarized confrontations', and they hoped that the experience acquired from this approach to nuclear problems could then be used to advantage in a broader context. This colloquium was a first step towards such an independent effort of evaluation and deliberation. The colloquium was broken up into five sessions. There were opening addresses from Lord Flowers, and from Prince Sadruddin Aga, President of the Groupe de Bellerive. There were then four sessions in succession each of which took the form of three or four speakers addressing the assembly, followed by a similar amount of time devoted to the sharper such a turning point, the more it questions or statements from the floor. throws into relief the inevitable conflict The sessions were given the following between those in power, bound by their prior titles: commitments,and those who seek reform • Do we need nuclear energy at all? and by the fact that the nuclear • If so, how much, what kind and for controversy had become polarized and how long? biased in favour of those with access to • What cost are we willing to pay? the information - the promoters of • Who should decide these questions nuclear power. and how? But how should this situation be improved? The Groupe de Bellerive For me, the most valuable session was concluded that 'there is an urgent need the first one, being the only session in The demonstration in summer 1977 against the proposed French fast reactor, Superph6nix, at Creys-Malville received considerable publicity and appears to have had widespread repercussions. In particular, it catalysed the Geneva based Groupe de Bellerive to issue a declaration in October 1977. In their declaration the Groupe de Bellerive saw the Creys-Malville confrontation and the nuclear controversy in general as part of much broader changes in attitudes and in the climate of opinion in fact, a turning point in the evolution of western society. The Groupe was disturbed by the fact that
ENERGY
POLiCY June 1979
The chairman of the organizing committee, D.T. Swift-Hook, explained the rationale of the conference in his opening address: the engineering institutions had collaborated to organize an event which would give a 'serious scientific and engineering look at new concepts' to 'clothe new ideas with figures' and to 'introduce practicality in a way which did not deny innovation'. In his closing address he claimed that this would be the major UK energy conference of 1979. The combined prestige of the engineering institutions ensured that there would be contributions from the 'men of power' in energy politics and in this sense the conference was a major one. However in terms of the contributions from 'men at work' in the energy field the claim is not easily substantiated. Although the conventional sources of enexgy were reviewed in some of the keynote addresses to reassure us that our 'long term future was in good hands' the conference was mainly about alternative energy and included sessions on solar energy; geothermal energy and heat pumps; waves and tides; storage; wind power; and advanced combustion. With major speeches by Sir Hermann Bondi (Chief Scientist at UK Department of Energy), F. Clarke (Energy Director of Harwell and Chairman of both wave and wind energy steering committees), Alex Eadie (Minister of State at the UK Department of Energy responsible for alternative energy) and J.K. Wright (of the CEGB planning department) the official view of alternative energy came across clearly. Alex Eadie outlined government strategies in his set piece speech. He asserted with one breath that the
E N E R G Y P O L I C Y June 1 9 7 9
government was 'firmly committed to establish the technologies', ie the renewables, while with another he cautioned that the 'only assured source of energy apart from coal is nuclear power'.
'Full stomach' Sir Hermann Bondi, in a virtuoso performance, emphasized the policy uncertainties arising from uncertainties in the size of resources, and the technical and political uncertainties associated with extraction and conversion technologies. In Sir Hermann's view our own energy debate was one for a 'full stomach'; the developing world could not afford such luxury in their pursuit of economic growth. Their success, which as humanitarians we should foster, would affect world demand and our own supply position. The two planks of his policy were conservation and sure access to a range of technologies: 'we need as many shots in our locker as possible'. Freddie Clarke enumerated the problems which have arisen for wave energy in the wake of Rendel, Palmer and Tritton's latest assessments. Although 'the problems loom larger than solutions', he was 'not knocking wave power' and claimed that already one device team had responded to criticism by forecasting significant cost reductions. Also the UK Wave Energy Steering Committee were exploring new concepts which "showed great promise; the device invented by Professor French of Lancaster University was mentioned in particular. Clarke's assessments of tidal power were more cautious; he enumerated the problems and although
government funds are being made available for work on these he did not encourage hope. In discussion he responded to criticism of the UK government's attitude to solar energy by inviting the UK section of the International Solar Energy Society to make proposals which he would discuss. Swift-Hook, again in discussion, enlarged on what is emerging as the official view of alternative energy: it is to be an insurance policy in the event of a main option, ie nuclear power, being impeded. He asserted that to be credible in this role there must be tens of GWs of alternative energy capacity. Provided that their costs were not enormous, there was no reason why the alternative sources should have to compete with nuclear power. This adds up to a neat policy of containment of the alternative technologies. It is acceptable to the proponents at this stage because it means that the technologies will at least be investigated, but also comforting for the CEGB because it implies that they will never go beyond prototype stage. Insurance by its very nature is something we hope we shall never have to use.
Gentle jibes Walt Patterson appeared on the programme as the 'token oddball'. His talk was bland and did not overstep the bounds of what was acceptable to his audience. He was concerned about semantics and the resuscitation of the word 'fuel'; plugged the International Institute for Environment and Development's latest publication on energy conservation (as also, perhaps more significantly, did Alex Eadie), and made a few gentle jibes which were tolerantly accepted. Subversives who trade radicalism for acceptability tread a dangerous path and can be all too easily contained by polite attention and friendly smiles. That this has not happened to Walt Patterson became clear on the last day when he succeeded in unbalancing J.K. Wright on the subject of the real costs of nuclear power and the reasons why the CEGB wanted the government to fund a new fast breeder rather than doing it themselves. The significance and impact of the contributed papers is more difficult to
169
Conference reports judge than that of the major speakers. This is due partly to a rapporteur system of presentation which was used with mixed success. Besides getting their name in print, conference contributors usually expect a captive audience, at least for a short time. But the discussion which followed the rapporteurs' presentations was turgid and H.C. Radha Krishna from India and C.J. Warren from the World Bank in Washington were two of many authors who did not get a chance to speak at all. They must have wondered whether the trip had been worth their while. Stephen Salter contributed a major paper on power take off from ducks. This was unsympathetically presented by the rapporteur (I. Glendenning) and so made no impact. However, in discussion Salter turned aside the criticism of his new gyroscopic power take off mechanisms and of his research philosophy ('If we can do it in the lab we can do it at sea') with masterly ease. One senses that his simple demonstration of a gyroscopic model was impressive to an engineering audience with its high regard for invention. His riposte to the criticisms of his philosophy was that if the lab is not a good simulation of real conditions then there is something wrong with the lab!
Wind energy economic? However, accepting the defects of the system, the rapporteurs in general did a very good job. R. Bird of the Energy Technology Support Unit, who is project manager of the UK wind energy programme, gave a clear summary of UK developments. It seems that wind energy is economic today at selected sites in the UK and that Swift-Hook's tens of GWs could be available with offshore siting. In comparison with the prospects for tidal, solar and now wave energy, those of wind energy are much more optimistic and it looks almost certain to reach prototype stage (yet again). J.K. Wright nicely summarized the essentials from ten papers in the session on systems and economics, but the impression was left of an underdeveloped field in terms of underlying economic theory and basic agreed data on costs. There is
170
considerable scope here for someone who can combine realistic cost estimations with a bit of imagination. The morale of the 'men of power' seemed high but that of the 'men at work' was less so, only the wind power people were buoyant and although the balance of the papers submitted did not give a complete picture, the alternative energy field as a whole seems a little tired. It is five years now since 1973 and conventional fuel prices are falling in real terms. At this stage a lack of interest leading to a decline in morale amongst the scientists and engineers who are writing our energy insurance policy would be serious. Perhaps what we are
seeing is the natural development of the field from 'blissful ignorance to intelligent foreboding' (as K. Tittle of the CEGB expressed his own developments in deriving fuel from wastes). It is to be hoped that the next stage will be informed confidence.
Bob Harrison Sunderland Polytechnic Sunderland, UK The proceedings of this conference have been published in Future Energy Concepts, lEE Conference Publication No 171, Institution of Electrical Engineers, London, 1979.
N uclear problems- unclear solutions 'Nuclear power -implications for society', colloquium organized by the Groupe de Bellerive, Geneva, 15-17 February 1979. to establish ... councils of reflection and evaluation able to rise above the polarized confrontations', and they hoped that the experience acquired from this approach to nuclear problems could then be used to advantage in a broader context. This colloquium was a first step towards such an independent effort of evaluation and deliberation. The colloquium was broken up into five sessions. There were opening addresses from Lord Flowers, and from Prince Sadruddin Aga, President of the Groupe de Bellerive. There were then four sessions in succession each of which took the form of three or four speakers addressing the assembly, followed by a similar amount of time devoted to the sharper such a turning point, the more it questions or statements from the floor. throws into relief the inevitable conflict The sessions were given the following between those in power, bound by their prior titles: commitments,and those who seek reform • Do we need nuclear energy at all? and by the fact that the nuclear • If so, how much, what kind and for controversy had become polarized and how long? biased in favour of those with access to • What cost are we willing to pay? the information - the promoters of • Who should decide these questions nuclear power. and how? But how should this situation be improved? The Groupe de Bellerive For me, the most valuable session was concluded that 'there is an urgent need the first one, being the only session in The demonstration in summer 1977 against the proposed French fast reactor, Superph6nix, at Creys-Malville received considerable publicity and appears to have had widespread repercussions. In particular, it catalysed the Geneva based Groupe de Bellerive to issue a declaration in October 1977. In their declaration the Groupe de Bellerive saw the Creys-Malville confrontation and the nuclear controversy in general as part of much broader changes in attitudes and in the climate of opinion in fact, a turning point in the evolution of western society. The Groupe was disturbed by the fact that
ENERGY
POLiCY June 1979