ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES 
DE LA COMMISSION 
 
 
 
COLLECTION RELIEE DES 
DOCUMENTS "COM" 
 
 
 
 
COM ( 83) 381 
 
 
 
Vol. 1983/ 0146 
  
 
Disclaimer  
Conformém ent au règlement (CEE, Euratom) n° 354/83 du Conseil du 1er février 1983 
concernant l'ouverture au public des archives historiques de la Communauté économique 
européenne et de la Communauté européenne de l'énergie atomique (JO L 43 du 15.2.1983, 
p. 1), tel que modifié par le règlement (CE, Euratom) n° 1700/2003 du 22 septembre 2003 
(JO L 243 du 27.9.2003, p. 1), ce dossier est ouvert au public. Le cas échéant, les documents 
classifiés présents dans ce dossier ont été déclassifiés conformément à l'article 5 dudit 
règlem ent. 
In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 of 1 February 1983 
concerning the opening to the public of the historical archives of the European Econom ic 
Communit y and the European Atom ic Energy Communit y (OJ L 43, 15.2.1983, p. 1), as 
amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1700/2003 of 22 September 2003 (OJ L 243, 
27.9.2003, p. 1), this file is open to the public. Where necessary, classified documents in this 
file have been declassified in conformity with Article 5 of the aforementioned regulation. 
In Übereinstimmung mit der Verordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr. 354/83 des Rates vom  1. 
Februar 1983 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen 
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und der Europäischen Atomgem einschaft (ABI. L 43 vom  15.2.1983, 
S. 1), geändert durch die Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr. 1700/2003 vom 22. Septem ber 2003 
(ABI. L 243 vom 27.9.2003, S. 1), ist diese Datei der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit 
erforderlich, wurden die Verschlusssachen in dieser Datei in Übereinstimmung mit Artikel 5 
der genannten Verordnung freigegeben. 
COMMISSION  OF THE  EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 
COM(83) 381 final. 
Brussels,  21 June  1983. 
DEMONSTRATION  PROJECTS  IN THE  FIELD OF ENERGY 
(Communication from  the Commission  to the  Council) 
COM(83)  381 final. 

DEMONSTRATION  PROJECTS  IN  THE  FIELD  OF  ENERGY 
(Communication  from  the Commission to the Council) 
1. Further to the meeting of Energy Ministers on  21  April  1983,  the Commission, 
together  with  the experts  from  the Member States, has reviewed the priori­
ties for the various  subsectors  in the proposed Community demonstration pro­
gramme for the next five years, in the  light  of their impact on the attain­
ment of the objectives in the Community's energy strategy and  with 
due attention  to national programmes. 
Further to this review, which was held on  24  and  25  May, and in the  light 
of the discussions which the Commission held when the Community pluriannual 
energy programme was being drawn up, the supplementary information requested 
by the Council regarding the demonstration programme is set out below. 
2. Demonstration projects in the energy field receive support at present in 
all the Member States, although the extent and the intensity of  that  support 
vary considerably  from  one State to another.. Some of the national program­
mes have been in existence for several years, others have been launched only 
recently. Many projects are being carried out under R&D programmes, as 
there is no separate demonstration stage. National aid to energy-saving projects 
tends to be generalized, whilst activities relating to alternative 
sources  and to the replacement of hydrocarbons vary according to the  availa­
bility  of alternative energies and the circumstances of the national energy 
situations. 
A summary of the additional information provided by the Member States re­
garding their national programmes is given in the Annex. 
3. The different  sub-divisionsof the Community programme have a direct bearing 
on the attainment of the objectives in the Community's energy strategy. 

- 2 -
These  sub-divisions serve in particular, to : 
(i) optimize the use of national and Community budgetary resources; 
(ii) help spread the technological and economi c risks more widely; 
(iii) disseminate information on a wide  scale; 
(iv) create a favourable climate for industrial cooperation and the 
expansion  of markets; 
(v) guarantee a certain measure of solidarity of  effort  in developing 
Community energy resources. 
4. The examination of the sub-divisions together  with  experts  from  the 
Member  States on 24 and 25 May, the consideration of the national pro­
grammes and an appraisal of the merits of these sub-divisions  from  the' 
energy, industrial and employment points of view, lead the Commission to : 
(i) reaffirm  the importance for the Community of continuing  with  and 
stepping up  efforts  to exchange information on the content of national 
and Community demonstration projects; 
(ii) provide additional guidelines on the scope of the Community programme; 
(iii) give some idea of financial requirements, in the  light  of the priori­
ties which have been arrived at. 
5. Discussions on national demonstration programmes have been extremely 
useful.  As a result it has been possible to  assess  actions undertaken 
by the Member States and their interaction  with  the Community programme. 
Nevertheless,  the information provided (see Annex) is still too general 
and there are very few details on individual projects and their results. 
It is therefore  difficult  to use this information as a guide for deciding 
on the aims of the Community programme. It also emerged  from  the discussions 
that  there are  important  shortcomings in the circulation of information, 
which  will  undermine the  full  effectiveness of action being taken  both 
at national and at Community  level. 

- 3 -
6. In an  effort  to improve the exchange of information the Commission 
proposes  to set up machinery for regular consultation. This would 
consist  of six-monthly meetings to : 
(i) evaluate the results of national and Community demonstration pro­
jects and to devise and develop ways of disseminating these results; 
(ii) use these results to decide on the aims of the various programmes. 
These  meetings would be held in the  first  quarter and the autumm of each 
year. The Council of Energy Ministers would be informed of the conclusions. 
7. The Commission agrees  with  the Council  that  the scope of the regulations 
listed in Documents 5922/83 and 5923/83 should remain unchanged. How­
ever, after its examination of the various subsectors, it would estimate 
the relative emphasis to be placed on them in the presentcircumstances 
as follows : 
B Still of major interest : 
'Solar  heating (difference in the opinions expressed concern merely the 
emphasis  to be given to the  different  solar technologies or "types" of 
solar  energy - active or  passive;  it should be possible to overcome these 
differences when we see  what  projects have been submitted); 
Biomass  (not including energy crops); 
Wind energy; 
Solid  fuels,  both  as regards combustion techniques and as regards  gasi­
fication and liquefaction. 
3 To be continued, but  with  the accent on specific aspects 
Geothermal energy - demonstration of certain technologies 
(e.g.  reinjection, pumps, etc.) 
Energy  saving in industry - industries where the saving is likely to 
be greatest; 

- A -
Energy  saving in buildings - funds should be cut for the next three 
years,  possibly on a descending  scale,  provided  that  all the results 
of national programmes are made available; 
The energy industry - the "heat" sector should also be included and 
attention  should be concentrated on a few  important  projects on the 
storage and, to a  lesser  extent, the transportation of heat. 
8. The Commission feels  that  three sub-divisions require  further  consi­
deration in order to determine more precesely how demonstration projects 
can be of benefit. These three are : 
- energy saving in transport 
» 
- market penetration of electricity 
- small-scale hydroelectric generators (although some delegations were 
extremely interested in these). 
In these three  cases,  the Commission proposes to seek the opinions of 
acknowledged  European experts in order to help  assess  the requirements. 
9. Lastly, the discussion on the national demonstration programmes, 
which  took  place at the  initiative  of the Commission, was very 
useful.  It allowed an in-depth assessment of the Member States' 
efforts  and their inter-connection  with  the Community programme. 
This  examination also indicated the desirability of adjusting the 
magniture of the  effort  at Community level to increase its effec­
tiveness  and intensify the coherence  with  the national programmes. 
The Commission would emphasise  that  the delay in decision making 
has a negative effect on the field of Community activities  from 
the moment when, moreover, national activities are developing and 
carries  the risk of rapidly prejudicing the objectives of the 
Community energy strategy. 

- 5 -
10. Taking  all these considerations  into  account, and subject of course 
to the approval of the Budgetary Authority, the Commission estimates 
that,  unless circumstances change, the following amounts  will  be 
now requi red : 
Alternative energy sources 
Energy  saving (including heat) 
Substitution of hydrocarbons 
(not including heat and power) 
Gasification  and liquefaction 170 MECU 
140  MECU 
85 MECU 
95 MECU 
490  MECU 
Of these amounts, some 15  MECU  should be made available each year 
in order to : 
(i) meet any needs identified as a result of the Commission's 
consultation of experts concerning the three sub-divisions 
mentioned in section  8; 
(ii) supplement amounts allocated to other sub-divisions in the  light 
of project results; 
The Commission would discuss this allocation  with  the Member States 
at the second annual consultation meeting referred to in Section  6. 

ANNEX 
NATIONAL  DEMONSTRATION  PROGRAMMES 
(Meeting  held on  24  and  25  May  1983) 
Further information  from  the Member States 
The national delegations at the meeting on the energy demonstration programme 
on 24 and 25 May 1983 supplied  further  details of the national programmes,and 
in particular of the developments, changes and new directions taken since June 
1982,  when the Commission examined the national demonstration programmes in 
the light  of the information submitted to it (see the working paper on the 
replies  to the questionnaire on the national demonstration programmes in the 
field of energy savings and alternative energy sources). 
ALL the information set out below was submitted orally at the meeting, though 
the Belgian and United Kingdom delegations added  written  notes. 
United Kingdom : The United Kingdom and Community programmes are complemen­
tary,  each stimulating the other. The priorities are detei— 
mined by the minimum budget regarded as necessary for a given 
project, the  time  needed to introduce a new technology and 
the potential contribution of the project covering the United 
Kingdom's  energy requirements. 
~ §Q££2Z_§§^lD2 : the £5 million per year (8.87 million ECU) 
programme covers a  total  of 230 projects in all syb-sectors 
(including 70 started since July 1982); 35 have already pro­
duced  successful results. A State subsidy of 25% is paid, 
subject to the criterion  that  every 1 ECU paid  from  public 
funds must generate a saving of 5 ECU per year. So far the 
demonstration projects have been replicated 312 times. 
Industry,  buildings (electronic temperature-control and 
regular systems) and transport remain the  priority  sectors. 
Together, the projects sponsored save between 9 000 and 
10 000 tee a year. 

- 2 -
- RenewabLe_sources_of^ene£2^ : 
This  sub-programme is expanding to follow up the R&D 
already completed. A budget of between £13 million and £14 
million (23 to 25 mi I  lion-ECU)  is planned for 1983-84. 
Few projects have been brought to fruition. The accent is 
on wind power  (with  the 3-MW station in the Orkneys) and 
on geothermal energy (i.e. hot-water aquifers and hot dry 
rocks).  Geothermal resources in the South of England are to be 
tapped. 
- EHomass  : 
Only  modest projects are in progress, even though this  sec­
tor holds out the most promising long-term projects. 
~ Solar_heat i_n2 : 
Modest  budget for passive solar energy,  with  less  interest 
in active solar systems. 
- Tidal : 
Costs  too high. 
- Wave_gower : 
About to be abandonned. 
- Coal : 
A number of projects are now being exploited. 
The subsidy is up to 50% of the investment cost; the annual 
budget stands at 10 million ECU. 
Greece  : ' The Greek and Community programmes are highly complementary. 
The maximum subsidy for demonstration projects is 65%, or 35% 
for industrial investment. 
There is no fixed budget; in 1982, however, 6 million ECU was 
spent on wind power and solar energy (including  both  passive 
systems  and photovoltaic conversion). On Crete and  Thassos 
150 000 photovoltaicpanels have been installed; orevillage has 
been  equipped  with  passive solar systems. 

- 3 -
Other promising sectors include geothermal energy (4-MW station 
on Milos,  other promising sites, target  output  : 150 MW plus 
low-enthalpy heat for greenhouses), small hydroelectric and 
the gasification of brown  coal.  One of the medium-term objec­
tives is to cover almost the  total  electricity demand from 
hydroelectric power and the gasification of brown  coal. 
France  : Sectors  are abandoned as the projects are successfully comple­
ted.  Energy saving in buildings - where consumption has dropped 
from 2.3 toe to 0.9 toe per housing  unit  - and the wcrd indus­
try, where all premises are now heated by wood-fired units, are 
two such sectors, and will soon be followed by the milk and 
milk producers industry (where energy is recovered from whey), 
and by vineyards and distilleries where raw materials are 
reused. 
Modest  successes  have been achieved  with  active solar space 
heating systems and  with  wind power. 
The energy-saving budget stood at FF 85 million (12.4 million 
ECU)  in 1980, FF 120 million (17.5 million ECU) in 1981 and 
FF 200 million (29.2 million ECU) in 1982; aid of up to 40% 
or 50% of the cost of the project is available. 
The main items in the 1981 budget were between FF 15 million and 
FF 20 million (2.2 to 2.9 million ECU) on heat pumps, FF 16 
million (2.3 million ECU) on thermal insulation, FF 25 million 
(3.63 million ECU) on energy recovery and FF 11 million (1.6 
million ECU) on measurements. 
Assuming  that  the'-originaI  demonstration is a  success,  the 
second  and  third  (following) demonstration qualify for support 
under an aid programme, regardless of whether the  first  recei­
ved a subsidy or not. The original demonstration qualifies 
for a subsidy of up to 60%,  with  subsequent reproductions 
receiving  between 20% and 40%. The aid towards the dissemina­
tion  of results also extends to the procurement of more effi­
cient appliances which will save energy. 
The most promising alternative sources are : 

- 4 -
- Passive  solar : 
High  priority  : today's building legislation takes account 
of the contribution which passive solar systems can make. 
Europe  must make a special  effort  in this field,  with  the 
developing countries in mind. 
SoLar  water heatina systems 
In swimming pools, hospitals, housing and camp sites. 
- Photovoltaic 
Electricity supplies to remote locatiens and cell production. 
- Biomass 
This  is the most abundant resource. Wood, straw and maize 
account  for 75 % of it,  with  a combined  output  of 5 million 
toe per year when  burnt  in automatic incinerators. 
- Geothermal energy 
A total  of 20 operations in the  Paris  region of an energy 
equivalent of 50 000 dwellings per year; other operations 
in Aquitaine. (Maximum subsidy of 30% plus guarantee fund 
with  a limit  of FF 15 000 to 20 000 per toe per year (2 200 
to 2 900 ECU per toe per year) for the  first  borehole. The 
budget was FF 3.7 million (0.54 million ECU) in 1980. 
- Alternative fuels 
Alcohol  - three pilot projects, of which two are still being 
examined. 
Federal  Republic 
of Germany : There  is no specific demonstration programme but 40 to 50 
million ECU of an annual expenditure of 220 million ECU 
on R & D is used for what the Community considers to be 
demonstration projects. 
The 1984 budget will be 30% Lower than  that  for 1983 and 
fewer fundi will hence be available for a Community programme. 
The emphasis is on the innovatory nature of projects concer­
ning large heat pumps, wind energy, coal and waste heat. As 
far as solar energy is concerned, slight  priority  is given 
to photovoltaic energy but no  priority  is given to passive 
solar  energy. The energy saving programme in buildings and 
industry has been completed, and matters will now be  left 
to the influence of market forces. 

- 5 -
The present problem is to assist industry in investing in 
new technology  .(more  rapid market penetration and mass pro­
duction of equipment). 
Denmark  : As is the practice in the Federal Republic of Germany, no 
distinction is made between R&D and demonstration. 
The Biomass  programme has been cut back owing to the poor 
quality of the research; the geothermal programme has been 
dropped having produced negative results at a very high cost. 
Priorities  are : 
passive  solar energy 
wind energy : machines scaled up  from  600 kW to 2 MW; 
making wooden vanes 
alternatives to oil : replacement of oil-fired units by 
fluidized bed combustion 
Belgium  : There  is no central demonstration programme. No priorities 
exist,  proposals are accepted on  their  own merits. There 
are no  OTEC  or high-enthalpy geothermal projects. The  Bel­
gian Government has proposed a law on energy which also 
covers  the demonstrati on, and marketing  phases.  The Community 
programme is of interest to small countries since it gives 
them  access  to larger projects. 
It is suggested  that  the Community programme forms the  basic 
programme,suppLemented  by national programmes. 
It is too early to evaluate projects in hand. The active 
solar  energy programme has been dropped and emphasis is 
now put on photovoltaic and wind energy. 
Support is also provided for coal projects (gasification, 
hydropyrolysis,  fluidized bed combustion), geothermal and 
hydroelectric power projects. 
The 1983 demonstration programme budget is some BFR 440 
million (9.65 million ECU) allocated as follows : 
" §Q£E2Z_£a.Y.lQ2  : B|IR 120 million (2.63 million ECU) 
- Renewable_ener2^_sources  : 
BFR 215 million (4.7 million ECU) : BFR 16.3 million (0.36 
million ECU) for photovoltaic energy, BFR 76 million (1.67 
million ECU) for geothermal energy, BFR 21 million (0.46 
million ECU) for wind energy, BFR 100 million (2.19 mil-

- 6 -
Lion  ECU) for hydroelectric power and BFR 0.8 million 
(0.02 million ECU) for solar energy. 
~ £2SiIi£§^i2Q_2Q^_il9y£l§£il2D_: BFR 105 million 
(2.3 mi I lion ECU) 
A similar budget is planned for the next two years. 
Ireland : Ireland's demonstration programme is very similar to the 
Community programme and puts great emphasis on the dissemi­
nation of results. 
A total  of nine demonstration projects has been successfully 
completed;  their evaluation is still in progress although 
it has been completed for two projects. 
Government  aid may be up to 33% of investment costs including 
measurement costs. 
The programme centres on wind energy, hydroelectric power and 
biomass.  Other  priority  sectors are energy saving (heat pumps, 
residential buildings, waste heat, fluidized combustions, 
passive  solar energy, agriculture and, at a later date, 
transport (alcohol). 
What is involved is a number of small projects for which 
less  than £1 million (1.4 million ECU) has been budgeted. 
No fixed sum has been set aside for 1983. 
Italy  : A demonstration programme (energy saving and renewable sour­
ces of energy), adopted under the May 1982 framework law on 
energy and based on the Community programme, was launched 
recently (decree of January 1983). 
There  is no system of priorities in each sector. The main 
criteria for acceptability of a project are its quality and 
the amount of energy  that  will  be  saved. 
With regard to energy saving, the idea is to concentrate on 
financing projects which  will  improve the energy aspect of 
manufacturing  processes;  where renewable sources are concer­
ned,  the object is to combine two or more sources or one  con­
ventional and one renewable source. 

- 7 -
The renewable sources involved are solar energy, biomass, 
geothermal energy, wind and energy  from  small hydroelectric 
generators. 
The sum set aside for the purpose is LIT 51 000 million, or 
40 million ECU (7.7 million ECU in 1982, 16 million in 1983 
and 16 million in 1984). 
The government may provide as much as 50% in aid and this is 
over and above Community support. 
Luxemburg : No demonstration projects but 15 current projects involving 
a sum of LFR 10 million (0.22 million ECU) in the following 
sectors  : 
- energy recovery, 
- heat pump, and 
- solar energy. 
The aid is additional to  that  provided under the Community 
programme. 
Netherlands : The Netherlands programme is similar to the Community's and 
involves 25% non-repayable subsidies and 25% repayable in 
the event of the project proving  successful. 
No change in the programme since last year. 
Priority is going to : 
- energy saving in buildings and in industry 
(in 1982 about 50 of a  total  150 proposals, spread over 
almost all sectors, were adopted); 
- wind energy (electricity); 
- solar energy; 
- alternative sources, where some 50% of projects are concer­
ned with  solar energy (16 in 1982, of which 5 have been 
completed) and 25%  with  wind energy (10 projects, none yet 
completed); there are some projects based on fluidised bed 
combustion and none using geothermal energy. 

ENERGY  DEMONSTRATION  PROGRAMME  : MEETING  OF  NATIONAL  EXPERTS 
(Brussels,  24 and 25 May 1983) 
PRESENT 
Name Delegation 
M. R.  FABRY 
M. P. DE  BEUSSCHER 
M. W.  MOSTERT 
M. G.  EISENBEISS 
M. F.  WALTER 
M. W.  JEAGER B 
B 
DK 
D 
D 
D 
M. R. STUTZMANN (1st  day)  F 
Mme L.  SIN 
Mme I.  BAUDELAIRE 
M. B.  GAGNEAU 
M. C.  VLACHOULIS 
Mme E.  BORG 
M. K.  EGAN 
M. GRAHAM  (2nd  day) 
M. A.  REGA F 
F 
F 
6R 
GR 
IRL 
IRL 
I 
M. UGUCCIONI  (2nd  day) I 
M. R.  BECKER  (1st  day) Lux 
M. E.  J ONES  PARRY  GB 
M. N.J.  BURROUGHS  GB 
M. SCHOUSTRA  NL Energy Administration 
Department for Energy Savings 
Permanent Representation 
Federal  Ministry for Research and Technology 
Federal  Ministry for Economic Affairs 
Permanent Representation 
Permanent Representation 
MIRE 
MIRE 
MIRE 
Ministry of Energy 
Permanent Representation 
Department for  Industry  and Energy 
Permanent Representation 
Ministry for  Industrial  Affairs 
Permanent Representation 
Ministry of Energy Affairs 
Permanent Representation 
Department of Energy 
Ministry of Economic Affairs