counsel to US Senator Abraham Ribicoff's Government Operations Committee, revealed that a shipload of 200 tonnes of uranium had vanished ten years before, and that international safeguards officials had never found out where it had gone. The media contingent at the conference, which included a respectable turn-out from the nuclear trade press, pounced on the story and gave it headlines world-wide.

Another highlight was the contribution from Dr Amulyah Reddy of the Indian Institute of Science at Bangalore, on 'Energy futures for the Third World', an incisive dismissal of the putative case for electronuclear energy development in Third World countries.

Other conference sessions discussed nuclear economics, radioactive waste, reprocessing, the breeder reactor, and nuclear safety.

The concluding session was given over to a wide-ranging and frequently heated plenary discussion of strategies and philosophies, focused on the drafting of an agreed conference 'Declaration'. Some participants sought an aggressively uncompromising statement, a call to the barricades, while others wanted a more measured and cautious tone. The two attitudes could be correlated broadly with the internal political context of the nuclear debate within the different countries

represented. Those participants who felt able to influence their national decision- makers directly were prepared to use the existing channels; those who felt unable to do so insisted on confrontation. However, a thoughtful intervention by Brice Lalonde of Les Amis de la Terre, the French wing of Friends of the Earth, reconciled the disparate factions and restored a sense of common purpose. The closing moments of the conference took place in an atmosphere of amity and mutual enthusiasm.

The NNF conference clearly convinced the delegates that they were part of a world-wide movement which was more substantial than most had previously realized. The organizers conceded that opportunities had been lost, that the programme could have been far more demanding, pitched at a much higher technical and economic level. But they claimed consolation from the thought that no such subsequent conference could easily be ignored by electronuclear officialdom. They also pointed out that, unlike that of the IAEA, the Conference on Non-Nuclear Futures had no need for police toting machine-guns at the entrance.

Walt Patterson Friends of the Earth

London, UK

Energy in the 80s

Organized by the Institution of Chemical Engineers, Teesside Polytechnic, Middlesbrough, 5 -7 Apri l 19 7 7

Energy conservation tended to dominate the proceedings, perhaps demonstrating the importance which the Institution of Chemical Engineers now attaches to those aspects of engineering technology relevant to the more economical and rational use of energy. Indeed, the President of the Institution, Dick Morris of Courtaulds, himself presented a most stimulating paper on 'Organization of energy conservation'. Morris speaks authoritatively on the subject, not only from experience gained

as a member of the Advisory Council for Energy Conservation (ACEC) industry group, but also from practical knowledge of an effective energy conservat ion system used by Courtaulds. On behalf of Morris' company, a generous offer was made of assistance to smaller firms wanting to save energy in the factory.

The conference was split into four sessions - on 'Energy policy', 'Energy sources and utilization', 'Energy conservation' and 'Equipment and plant

Conference reports

design with respect to energy'. Following brief presentations by their authors, groups of 5 or 6 papers were taken for collective discussion. The session on 'Energy policy' was the part of the conference of most interest to readers of this journal.

The first paper on policy was given by Dr John Cunningham, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Energy, who not only made a useful presentation, but remained to made a valuable contribution in the discussion panel. So often Ministers will present a paper to a conference and immediately leave for another appointment, giving an impression of only moderate interest - but Dr Cunningham is clearly devoted to his subject. His paper summarizes UK energy resources and their stage of development. He deliberately includes 'conservation' among our resources, arguing that 'more efficient energy use is one means of helping to meet the country's requirements'. He estimates that the combined effects of pricing of fuels, publicity, and other measures have saved over 2% of the UK's primary energy consumption in 1975, equivalent to over £200 million worth of oil. One wonders just how this can be calculated, there is so much 'noise' confusing the data, but we have this figure from the energy department of government ...

Cunningham would base our long- term policy options on a combination of coal, energy conservation, nuclear power and the renewable sources. He stressed, however, that the government recognized the importance of the safety and security issues of the fast breeder reactor that were raised in the Royal Commission report, and was aware of the general concern about them. His final message was that since we do not know all the answers at this stage, we need to take out an insurance policy on a broad front, but 'we do know that unless we vigorously pursue our efforts to achieve economic efficiency in the use of fuels we shall be poorly prepared to respond to, or anticipate, yet higher energy prices'.

The paper by Len B.rookes (UKAEA) seemed to strike a somewhat discordant note. He challenged the 'prevailing' wisdom, arguing that there is no 'energy gap' coming uP - that

ENERGY POLICY September 1977 253

Conference reports

supply and demand will always balance at some price, and our policy objectives should merely be to keep prices as low as possible. He even postulated that there is no reason to assume that the days of cheap energy are gone for ever - 'it would be counter productive to think along these lines'. Predictably, Brookes was emphatic that nuclear power was the cheapest, safest and cleanest way of producing electricity. Unfortunately he gave no figures or reasoning, nor references, to support these views - it was supposed to be a scientific conference, not a political gathering. He stretched credibility to the limit by claiming that plutonium was a benign material. He believed that to make nuclear plant more expensive by pursuing an illusory notion of complete freedom from industrial hazards was to misallocate national resources. This sort of presentation is hardly calculated to create support for the nuclear energy lobby - indeed it tends to alienate professional people. A delegate from the National Coal Board believed that there was a case for nuclear power in the UK, but that UKAEA staff underestimated the dangers. 'No we don't ' , replied Brookes, 'We deplore other people overestimating them'.

Members of the petrochemical industry attended in strength, and were particularly concerned with the future availability of fossil fuels which are, or could be, used as chemical feedstocks. Large concerns such as ICI and Monsanto take energy conservation quite seriously. The economics of their business as major suppliers of intermediates for the plastics industries could be very much affected in the future depending upon whether their main raw material comes from petroleum (naphtha), natural gas or coal.

Some contributions from the USA evoked considerable interest, not least those referring to fuel saving targets for US industry. The US chemical industry had voluntarily agreed to establish energy conservation goals and to report to the government at intervals. A 15% reduction in energy use per unit weight of product by the year 1980 was the target of many firms. ICI United States Inc already have this well in sight. Monsanto seem to be doing even better, and offering even more, according to

Hoyt Clark, Director of Energy Conservation for that company in North America. He told delegates that the very latest decision, taken since his paper was written, was to aim for a 25% fuel conservation target in 1980 (against 1972 data) and even 35% by 1985.

The conference organizers intend to publish the full conference discussions, which with the bound papers should provide a useful and up-to-date view of

current attitudes and approaches of professional engineers who are in some way interested in fuels for the future - indeed, it is hard to think of any engineers who do not need to have such a concern.

Fred Roberts Resources consultant

Bainbridge, Leyburn North Yorkshire, UK

The Greek energy debate

The Energy Problems of the Greek Economy, organized by the Technical Chamber of Greece,A thens, 23-28 May 1977

Familiar problems of future energy availability and price in an increasingly uncertain supply-demand situation, and their possible remedies, dominated the Athens Energy Conference. Organized by the Technical Chamber of Greece (the Greek equivalent of CEI) to discuss the country's energy problems, the conference brought together politicians, planners, producers and consumers of energy, professional associations, environmental groups, and an array of experts from outside the country. The organizers, being professional engineers, went out of their way to demonstrate that they regarded the issue as a national and political one, and to dissociate themselves from any ' technocrat ic ' tendencies in its approach. In fact, the conference as a whole did not prove an easy ground for 'piece meal' approaches. After all, the energy debate - especially in the light of recent developments - addresses itself to wider issues linking technology and economic development with social philosophy, and it would have been surprising if that point had been missed in Greece. In touching upon some issues of energy supply and nuclear reactors, the conference found itself discussing the country's political philosophy and orientation in a way that reflected the national ideological debate.

The fundamental nature of the Greek energy problem sounds familiar. The creation of the country's economic infrastructure coincides with an era of

cheap oil imports, posing some formidable adaptation problems. Not only is industry centred around a few energy-intensive sectors like metals, cement, and paper, but gas - in any form - is almost unknown in Greece. Given the absence of any attractive alternative coupled with an atmosphere of energy euphoria, electricity was allowed to dominate the energy market. At present electricity accounts for more than one third of the country's total primary energy consumption and continues to grow disproportionately. This has led, more or less, to a British- type situation with an overgrown, inefficient and under-used generating system posing short-term political and economic obstacles to electricity supremacy.

The main contributor to Greece's energy needs is petroleum. The country's transport system - renowned for its low energy-use efficiency - is heavily dependent upon small, privately owned lorries and cars, while the public transport system can be regarded as ineffective, even insignificant. Electricity apart, industry seems to use nothing else but oil. In a country with substantial lignite reserves, mainstream industries such as cement and sugar have nevertheless been developed on fuel oil. A substantial part of electricity generation is still based on fuel oil, though lignite plays an increasingly important role here. It is hardly surprising under these circumstances

254 ENERGY POLICY September 1977