No C 31/20 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 2. 91 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision adopting a specific research and technological 
development (R&TD) programme in the field of non-nuclear energies (1990-1994) (*) 
(91/C 31/05) 
On 6 June 1990 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 130Q (2) of the EEC Treaty, on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for preparing 
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 6 September 1990. The 
Rapporteur was Mr Flum. 
At its 280th plenary session (meeting of 18 October 1990) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion unanimously. 
1. Description of the research programme 2. General comments 
1.1. The proposed programme comes under the 
framework programme for Community activities in the 
field of research and technological development (R& 
TD), whose main aim is to develop safe and environ­
mentally-compatible energy technologies. 
1.2. The Community's energy programmes have 
acquired exceptional topicality and importance because 
of the current world political situation and its as yet 
unknown impact on the security of energy supplies. The 
Committee therefore considers that the Community 
should face up to this unusual situation by strengthen­
ing and coordinating its energy policy in all areas. 
1.3. The proposed programme is the first part of a 
large-scale European plan of action. 
1.4. It is also directly linked to the JOULE research 
programme, of which it is a continuation in some 
respects. 
1.5. The JOULE programme was broadly welcomed 
by the Economic and Social Committee on 23 Novem­
ber 1988 despite the criticism that the programme was 
to have fewer funds than its predecessor. 
1.6. The new programme is divided into the follow­
ing four areas: 
— Analysis of strategies and modelling, 
— Power production from fossil sources, 
— Renewable energy sources, 
— Energy utilization and conservation. 
1.7. Funds totalling 157 million ECU have been 
earmarked for the programme, which is to last from 
1990 to 1994. 
(*) OJ No C 174, 16. 7. 1990, p. 77. 2.1. In its comments on energy policy in the past, 
the Economic and Social Committee has unreservedly 
recognized the need for a special R&TD effort in the 
field of non-nuclear energies and has called for more 
support from the Community. 
2.2. The Committee therefore welcomes the new 
programme in principle. It considers, however, that the 
large number of important topics to be covered is out 
of all proportion to the funds provided. 
2.3. The Committee will therefore submit a number 
of proposal and ideas in an attempt to help the Com­
mission ensure that the programme's aim can still be 
achieved. 
3. Specific comments on the research programme 
3.1. Such a research programme should be more 
selective and fill the gaps revealed by an analysis of 
national energy policies and support programmes; in 
particular it should incorporate the results of ongoing 
EC support programmes. 
3.2. The Commission should develop methods for 
ensuring how in rolling research programmes sufficient 
consideration is given to the results of the old pro­
grammes in the new programmes. 
3.3. The Committee considers that the programme 
fails to address the concrete tasks set by the JOULE 
programme. 
3.4. It also considers that the proposal fails to indi­
cate how this programme ties in with the Commission's 
energy strategies. 
6. 2. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 31/21 
3.5. In view of the paucity of the funds provided, 
there can be no point in the programme trying to cover 
every possible energy strategy. 
3.6. The Committee trusts that the review referred 
to in Article 5 will not be sent solely to the Council 
and the European Parliament. The results of the review 
and the end-of-programme assessment should be for­
warded to the Economic and Social Committee, too. 
This is a matter which goes without saying and the 
Commission should not have to be reminded time and 
again. 
3.7. The programme's priority areas are not clearly 
defined. The general descriptions and vaguely worded 
objectives make it possible to assign non-nuclear energy 
research and development (R&D) projects to almost 
any area. 
3.8. The Committee thinks it is necessary to dis­
tinguish here, too, between areas where research still 
has to be carried out and areas where development has 
reached the marketing stage. 
3.9. According to the Committee the following 
points have not been explained adequately in the pro­
gramme : 
a) The breakdown of funds between the four areas of 
work does not reflect these areas'importance. The 
production of energy from fossil fuels will remain 
very important for the foreseeable future and the 
funds earmarked for this area are too small. 
b) The importance of the petroleum industry and of the 
use of oil and oil products is adequately portrayed in 
the programme. What is missing is a survey of 
models and projects which will serve to determine 
which alternative fuels could be important in the 
future, especially in transport. 
c) The concentration of the analysis on the role of 
C02 emissions is too one-sided. The role of other 
greenhouse gases is also particularly important 
environmentally. 
d) The Committee is keeping a particularly close watch 
on work on the further development of combustion 
engines, because the environment will benefit a great 
Done at Brussels, 18 October 1990. deal in future, too. However it would ask the Com­
mission to check whether there are no other possi­
bilities for lending support to this key area. 
e) The analysis of weak links in the energy supply and 
demand structure would be one important point for 
such a programme to focus on. 
Closer study must be made of (a) the time gaps 
between supply and demand peaks and the bridging 
thereof and (b) the use of potential energy sources 
(e.g. waste heat) and the infrastructure problems to 
be solved in that context (e.g. storage problems, 
control systems). According to the Committee, this 
is an area where the suppliers and users of energy 
are likely to act by themselves on only a small scale. 
Hence this area's special suitability for Community 
action. 
f) The programme's description of SOFC technology 
does not seem to the Committee to be true-to-fact. 
SOFC technology is used for methanol applications, 
but not for its production. 
g) Better insulation for windows seems to the Commit­
tee to be a worthy topic for research only in certain 
areas. Appropriate preconditions for its widespread 
introduction (e.g. technical standards) should also 
be created. 
h) The procedures proposed by the Commission for 
participation in this programme are divided up into 
ordinary and exceptional procedures. 
It should be reconsidered whether the best possible 
results can be achieved in this way. 
The criteria to apply to extraordinary cases should 
also be spelt out in more detail. 
The cost-sharing basis on which subsidies are to be 
given in the various cases should be explained, too. 
i) It must be specified that the representatives of man­
agement, workers and consumers are also to be free 
to submit their comments and suggestions to the 
committee of Commission and Member State rep­
resentatives involved in the programme's execution. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francis STAEDELIN