04 Report

A Retrospective View
Of Energy Sector Indicators
1960 - 1980
Written by:
Grant Agnew
Liam Balfour
Nicola Pellow
Completed 21st
August 2009
“Study the past if you would divine the future.”
Confucious, 551-479 BCi
Abstract
This report will look at the energy sector in the UK 40 years ago: the circumstances, expectations,
predictions and targets set. It will also look at the past 40 years and investigate how accurately the
future was forecast. All this is with a view to understanding our ability to plan for the future and
prepare ourselves for the next 40 years.
i
MacKay, Alan L. 1991. ““A Dictionary of Scientific Quotations”, IOP Publishing Ltd. Bristol, UK

- -1
Contents
Contents 1
Introduction 2
Overview 2
1) What was it like 40 years ago? 3
What fuel/energy sources were in operation? 3
What was the grid network like? How did it operate? Who was in charge? 3
What external influences were there? 6
What world events were taking place? 9
2) What was predicted 40 years ago? 10
Which energy sources did they expect to win out? Why? 11
What targets did they set? 16
What would we have predicted? 16
3) What has happened in the last 40 years? 17
How correct were their predictions? 17
Where did they succeed/fail and why? 20
What unexpected factors were there? 20
4) What will happen in the next 40 years? 21
What are people expecting now? 21
What targets are being set? 23
Are these targets realistic? 23
What can we learn and predict? 24
Acknowledgements 25
Bibliography 26
References 27
Appendix 1 – The Working Man’s Viewpoint 30
Appendix 2 – Predictions 33
1950’s 33
1960’s 33
1970’s 34
1980’s 36
Appendix 2 - References 37
Appendix 3 – People in the Industry 38
Appendix 4 – Survey Results 42
Online Energy Survey 42
Atkins Energy Survey 47
Appendix 5 – Industry Organisations 56
Appendix 5 – References 56
Appendix 6 – Glossary and Acronyms 57

- -2
Introduction
Looking at the Power Industry now, it is clear that much of the Transmission
and Distribution infrastructure is reaching the end of its life cycle which has been punctuated by a
spate of component failures in recent years. There is enormous pressure to deliver
replacement solutions which are sustainable, secure and affordable to our clients. On top of this; gas
supplies are starting to dwindle, the security of imports from unstable parts of the world can never be
guaranteed and as a result we aren't entirely sure where the future electrical generation will come
from. Our future designs will have to be fit for purpose but also include enough system redundancy,
flexibility and resilience to cope with the demands of the future.
A great deal of time and effort is being expended just now at an academic and corporate level trying
to predict what the future will look like for our industry at the end of the 40 year lifecycles of our
designs. However; such technological predictions across history have often been
notoriously inaccurate.
What this report aims to do is take a step back 40 years or so in time; roughly when the current
infrastructure was designed and implemented. It will try to gauge how accurate the predictions of the
time really were, what pressures were driving these engineering decisions (whether they were social,
economic, political or technological) and how the infrastructure looked before the engineers of
the time set about creating the electrical grid we live with today.
Overview
This report aims to cover the follow questions.
1) What was it like 40 years ago?
• What fuel/energy sources were there in operation?
• What was the grid network like? How did it operate? Who was in charge?
• What external influences were there?
• What world events were taking place?
2) What did they predict?
• Which energy sources did they expect to win out in the next 20 to 40 years? Why?
• What targets did they set?
• What would we have predicted in their shoes?
3) What happened?
• How correct were their predictions?
• Where did they succeed/fail? Why?
• What unexpected factors were there?
4) What next?
• What are people predicting now?
• What targets are being set? Are they realistic?
• How accurately can we predict the next 40 years?
• What can we learn and predict?

- -3
1) What was it like 40 years ago?
What fuel/energy sources were in operation?
In 1969, 40 years ago, the demography of exploited
energy and fuel resources was radically different to the
one we face today. As the Shannon-Weiner
measurement in Figure 1ii
shows, the diversity of energy
resources in the UK was much lower than it is today;
natural gas generation was virtually non-existent.
Renewable energy resources remained largely untapped
and for the most part remained a theoretical idea. The
exception to this was the hydroelectricity resource
which was almost completely exhausted in Europeiii
but
still only produced a fraction of the countries energy
needs. Fossil fuels still contributed the lion’s share of
energy production in the UK, much as they do today.
Coal accounted for over 85% of electricity generation,
petroleum took the total fossil fuelled generation
capacity to almost 95%. Nuclear contributed the
remaining 4-5% of the country’s energy needs but was
playing an increasingly important role.
What was the grid network like? How did it operate? Who was in charge?
From 1948 until the late 1980s, the electricity industry was largely a nationalised utility. In England
and Wales, the distribution network was operated by area boards, divided as shown in Figure 2
iv
.
Namely: Norweb, NEEB, YEB, Manweb, MEB Midlands Electricity, South Wales Electricity, East
Midlands Electricity, Eastern Electricity, Seeboard, Southern Electricity and SWEB. These area boards
in turn operated under the umbrella of the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB).
The area boards took their supply either from the CEGB’s 400/275kV 3-phase transmission system
which encompassed a total of 14,659km of over head lines. In some cases the area boards tapped
directly into local power plants. The transmission system was comprised mainly of over head lines in
rural areas and underground cables in built up areas. The first 400kV elements were commissioned
into the network in 1965 in order to increase the over all power handling capacity of the system. In
the 1970s the 400kV over head lines were further reinforced raising their power handling capacity
from 1,800MVA to 2,480MVA per circuit. There were further plans at this time to build new lines
capable of carrying 2,770MVA bringing the total load handling of the grid to 175GWv
. Figure 3vi
shows a map of the transmission system in England and Wales circa 1980.
From there the power was stepped down to a standardised 132kV which supplied the distribution
side of the network. The distribution network itself was built around the original transmission
network that was constructed in the 1930s before being extended, reinforced and transferred over
Figure 1 - A breakdown of electrical
generation 1965-2005

- -4
to the CEGB. Portions of this network were also strengthened by a 275kV system which came into
operation in 1953.
In Scotland, a separate transmission and distribution system was in operation under the control of
the North of Scotland Hydro-Board. Later, during the 1955 Electrical Reorganisation Act (Scotland) ,
the South of Scotland Electricity board was introduced with the responsibility of generation,
transmission and distribution in the southvii
. Two 400kV double circuits connected the South of
Scotland Electricity Board’s system to the English system and facilitated the transfer of up to
2000MW across the border.
In addition to the cross border link
with Scotland, a sub-sea high voltage
direct current transmission link with
French suppliers Électricité de
France was added in 1961. This
system could operate at up to
+100kV WRE (with respect to earth)
and permitted the transfer of up to
160MW. This link was later
reinforced to allow power exchange
of up to 2,000MWviii
.
Another High Voltage DC link with a
transfer capability of 640 MW
existed between the 500 MW
generator at Kingsnorth in Kent and
the 275/132 kV substations at
Beddington and Wilesden. The
system comprised of 3 cables;
+266kV WRE (feeding the
Beddington substation), -266kV WRE (feeding the Wilesden substation) and neutral.
Plant gear during this transfer period remained standard as John Narborough, a curator at Amberley
Museum and former Area Board employee explains: “Substation plant technology did not change
much during this period; oil-free, vacuum and SF6 gear was uncommon in Distribution before 1980”.
He goes on to articulate the reasoning behind this slow upgrade, “Planned transfer of ownership of
the original 132kV system from CEGB to Area Boards during the 1980s, led to a perceived lack of
investment by the CEGB in the years prior to handover”.
From the distribution system; the voltage was stepped down again in stages to 33kV, 11kV and the
415V and 240V mains supplies that most domestic and light industrial consumers made use of. There
was also an element of localised, remote-control generation built into the distribution network and
operated by area boards. These distribution level power plants were facilitated by 1957 Electricity
Act and took the form of gas turbine generators. South Western Board was the only area board to
exercise its rights under the 1957 act.
Figure 2 - UK Electricity Board's Districts

- -5
This transmission and distribution
system is markedly similar in
specification to the network we live
with today. However, in addition to
this new infrastructure, there also
existed some older equipment still in
operation. Some residual 66kV, 22kV,
6.6kV and 3.3kV systems remained in
use in the late 60s because they were
deemed to still have a sizable amount
of their life cycles remaining. This
equipment was mostly used to supply
heavy industrial consumers from the
distribution sideix
.
Control and operation of the
Generating Board’s transmission
system was carried out at the National
Control Centre in London and at seven
other Grid Control Centres in
Manchester, Leeds, Nottingham,
Birmingham, St Albans, Grinstead and Bristol. The National Control Centre coordinated the transfer
of power between district networks while The Grid Control Centres operated reserve generation to
meet their local demands and carried out emergency switching at their substations.
Peak demand was catered for with an array of reserve generation facilities. Peak demands with short
duration times (less than 90 minutes) were offset by running gas turbines and pumped storage
plants. Gas turbines were installed to deal with these situations because they were based on aero-
engines and were therefore quick to construct and could be brought up to the loaded condition
using automated control. In 1965 there were two 51 MW gas generators and a total of seven 70 MW
units. Longer lasting peaks and emergencies were met by ‘spinning reserve’ and ‘standing reserve’.
Spinning reserve is generation which is running and configured to about 60% of its maximum load.
Standing reserves are generating facilities which were kept spinning at a minimum idle power so that
they can be brought up to the loaded condition quicker than on a cold start.
The area boards charged varying retail tariffs to their consumers. Larger industrial supplies for
example were charged at a maximum demand tariff with an added fuel price adjustment clause.
Lighter industrial and large commercial consumers were subject to more complex tariffs; these could
include fixed rate charges, two part tariffs or block rates which were decided based on the amount
of installed load. Separate meters were installed on domestic premises to cater for day and night or
peak and off peak consumptionx
.
Figure 3 - The transmission system in England and Wales

- -6
What external influences were there?
The external influences which determined the future for the UK Electrical Infrastructure, included:
political, media, and social influences. It is quite clear that the predictions and choices which were
made some 40 years ago with regard to the UK Power Industry were driven, not solely by
technological advancements but also social and political pressures. The evidence, taken from;
newspaper articles, eyewitness accounts, speeches at Parliament and political publications suggests
that those in power at the time did not take sustainability into consideration to the extent that we do
today nor to the extent that we will have to in the future.
Political
An interesting insight into the political world can be gained by reading excerpts from The Benn
Diariesxi
. Tony Benn was the Minister of Technology from 1966 until around 1974 when he became
secretary of State for Industry. In 1976 he transferred to Energy Ministry where he remained for
many years.
Thursday 3rd
June 1976
“Jack Rampton came in and told me that Sir John Hill wanted to see me today to tell
me he wanted to cancel the steam-generated heavy-water reactor (SGHWR). An absolute
bombshell. So Hill and Walter Marshall came to see me, with Chris Herzig, Rampton and Alan
Phillips present. John Hill sat looking shifty, watching Rampton most of the time, and said,
‘I’ve been in Russia and in Finland [or Sweden] and I’ve been thinking; I have come to the
conclusion that we should cancel the SGHWR.’ He then gave all sorts of reasons – it was
expensive, there was a small market, the customer didn’t want it, the American light-water
reactor (PWR) had been proved safe – and it turned out that he wanted the development of
the fast breeder reactor to be accelerated…
…I think there is now a plot to kill it off. They see it slipping, costs escalating; they
want to save money and get on with the fast breeder without delay. I said, ‘this news is
tremendously important. It’s the AEA (Atomic Energy Authority) deserting its own child. We
developed the Magnox and the AGR (Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor) ourselves and we are
proud of it. This will come as a real shock. Moreover, it is bound to throw doubt on the fast
breeder because if you are not going to build the system, the SGHWR, which you designed,
people will say, Why not build the fast breeder from abroad?’
As a matter of fact, I am not sorry. I personally don’t want the SGHWR but I shall
fight like a tiger against the American light-water reactor.”
Saturday 9th
April 1977
“I should mention that on the Thursday night, President Carter announced that the
Americans were going to wind down their reprocessing operations and stop work on the fast
breeder reactor because of the risk of proliferation (spread of nuclear weapons) from the
manufacture of plutonium, it was a tremendous statement, and the BBC news took it up
immediately. John Hill attacked it on Friday’s 1 o’clock news, while Brian Flowers welcomed it.
I had a message from number 10 that I was not to comment on it, which made me very
angry – a British Energy Minister forbidden to comment on American energy policy! The
nuclear lobby has obviously got at Jim, saying it will wreck our relations on the Common
Marketxii
and upset the French and the Germans.”

- -7
Monday 2nd
May 1977
“David Owen thought we should welcome the Carter proposals and study them, we
should keep up with the USSR, and we would have some links with the IAEA (International
Atomic Energy Agency) and the nuclear suppliers group.’
I added, ‘We are highly trusted in the United States through our scientific knowledge
and technical capacity in nuclear matters, but we are not America, we are independent,
unless we upset the EEC (European Economic Community) countries.’ All the officials nodded
because they are determined that Britain must not alienate the French or Germans. That is
the main concern of the British Establishment – to bow and kowtow to Europe.”
It is also interesting to note how the public viewed the decisions made by Government. The following
information was exchanged in a meeting with George Foxwell, a member of Atkins Transmission and
Distribution team since 1983. The full interview can be found in Appendix 1.
“With regards to the political agenda, the general public, he felt, were ill informed
and for the most part, the public had no real interest in what went on at Parliament. They
did, however expect affordable power on demand. George felt that the most hated of Prime
Ministers at the time were often the most necessary ones.
Under Edward Heath, the UK faced a coal miner’s strike which forced him to impose
the 3 day week. This meant that the vast majority of the working population were restricted
to a shorter working week to save energy. There were numerous power cuts at this time but
people got used to it. Power workers such as George were hated as they were not restricted
in their work due to the need for energy. Strike action for this working group occurred in
November 1977. They worked to Rule as they pursued cheaper electricity and better payment
for inconvenient shifts. There were yet more power cuts and strike ended due to hostile
Governmental and Public Reaction.
George felt that the best time to be British was in the 1980s under Margaret
Thatcher. The UK economy was in turmoil and he felt she did what was required, although
she was not welcomed by many. Amongst other powerful decisions, this great Prime Minister
enforced privatisation across the board, de-regulation, the ability to purchase council houses.
This was around the time of new technologies such as computers therefore Britain saw the
majority of heavy industry being done away with. Coal mining was reduced (apart from the
North Sea), the steel industry was shut down and there were a massive reduction in the
building of nuclear power stations. This meant huge job losses as the transition was made
from hardware to software. The London Stock Market was born and those who thrived were
the young and versatile. Meanwhile we were fighting a war in the South Atlantic. George said
he felt proud to be British at this time and the worries of electrical generation seemed to be
gone.
Questions still arose regarding the waste products from nuclear power stations and
the consequences if the Britain were to run out of resources in the North Sea. The general
consensus of opinion at the time was that technology would solve problems as and when
they arose. The theory of renewable energy existed but it was never tried on a large scale
until now, when it is desperately needed.”

- -8
Media
At that time, the sources of information for the public were far more limited than they are today. The
internet did not exist and television channels were in short supply. Thus the newspapers and BBC
controlled the information.
“The BBC, which in more recent times has provided the public with the facts and information
they require regarding Governmental decisions was, at that time, very biased towards White
Hall. Being that this was the only broadcasting company, there wasn’t any other media choice
for the public other than newspapers, so many accepted what was broadcast as gospel.”xiii
The mention of newspapers in some of Tony Benn’s diaries suggests at an underlying agenda of the
newspapers depending on the political leanings of their higher ranking owners.
Tuesday 21st
October 1975
“The Daily Mirror ran a story under the heading, ‘Britain to become the nuclear dustbin of the
world’, by a Stanley Bonnet. In fact, the man behind it was Bryn Jones from Friends of the
Earth, who is the Industrial correspondent on the Mirror.”xiv
Sunday 27th
June 1976
“The Observer had a piece on the Energy Conference, the first time they’ve seen any merit in
what I have been doing since about 1970.”xv
Social
Despite the media control and political agenda, the general public also had an influence on the
progression of the power industry. One way in which this happened were the strikes held by miners
over closure of coal mines.
“Benn was anxious to press on with the order, not only for the work it provided for the plant-
makers, but also because Drax B was coal-fired, and the miners wanted it to assure future
jobs in the Selby coalfield.”xvi
At the time there were also various environmental activist groups pushing for solutions which would
not damage the planet. These included Greenpeacexvii
, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF)xviii
, Sierra
Clubxix
and Friends of the Earthxx
. However, they were not taken particularly seriously by the higher
powers as shown in another Tony Benn diary excerpt.
“Peter Shore mentioned the possibility of our dumping at sea and Fred Mulley talked about
‘silly pressure groups’.”xxi

- -9
What world events were taking place?
1969xxii
• Richard Nixon inaugurated as President of the United States.
• Man’s first step on the moon.
• The very first U.S. troop withdrawals were made from Vietnam.
• Hurricane Camille hit the Mississippi coast killing 248 people.
• Britain deployed troops in Northern Ireland following increasing violence.
• Rising Inflation was a worldwide problem.
• The Death Penalty was abolished in the UK.
• The Boeing 747 jumbo jet made its debut. It carried 191 people, most of them reporters and
photographers, from Seattle to New York City.
1970xxiii
• The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty went into effect after ratification by 43 nations.
• First Earth Day celebrated.
• 100,000 people demonstrated in Washington DC against the Vietnam War.
• Edward Heath and the Conservative Party won the British general elections.
• Concorde made its first supersonic flight.
• Cyclone in Bangladesh kills 500,000.
1971xxiv
• Decimalisation in United Kingdom and Ireland, both switched to decimal currency.
• Education Secretary Margaret Thatcher's ("Thatcher the Milk Snatcher") ended free school
milk for children over the age of seven in the UK.
• Problems in Northern Ireland continued as rioting increased as part of the IRA campaign to
end British Government Rule.
• Sierra Leone gained independence from Great Britain.
• Oil Production from the North Sea began in Norway.
• Intel released world’s first microprocessor, the 4004.
1972xxv
• Bloody Sunday - the British Army killed 13 unarmed Roman Catholic civil rights marchers in
Derry, Ireland.
• The British government declared a state of emergency over 47 day miners' strike.
• The world’s leaders agreed to banning biological warfare.
• UK unemployment rises to one million for the first time since the depression years of the
1930s.
1973xxvi
• Recession began in Europe following OPEC Oil price increases.
• Britain, Ireland and Denmark joined the EEC.
• U.S. involvement in Vietnam War ended with the signing of peace.
• Sydney Opera House was opened.
• In the UK, as a result of high coal and oil prices, the Three-Day Week officially comes into
force.

- -10
2) What was predicted 40 years ago?
Forty years ago there was a big change occurring in the energy industry in the UK. Climate change
was beginning to affect the decisions made by Government and individual companies. New resources
were being discovered, such as North Sea oil and gas, and there was much debate about how long
those resources would last. It was also the dawn of major investment in nuclear power. Many of the
nuclear power stations commissioned during that period have now reached the end of their working
life.
There were many different opinions about the future of UK energy, just as there are now. Not
everybody believed that climate change was happening, many were anti-nuclear and very few felt
that the future could be confidently predicted. One newspaper of the time said that “the Department
of Energy ‘cannot see beyond the immediate future with any confidence’” xxvii
.
However, many of the predictions made show great forethought. For example, in 1968 one journalist
wrote that “The ideal solution would be nuclear energy for base-load, natural gas burnt in gas
turbines for intermediate extra demand and oil for peak loads”xxviii
. That is a fairly accurate description
of the way that the electricity industry operates today.
This section will look at the ranging beliefs held about the main energy options that were being
discussed and predictions that were made over the years.
Figure 4: 1967 Predictions of Fuel for Electricity Generation

- -11
Which energy sources did they expect to win out? Why?
Nuclear
Nuclear power was much debated around this time but many felt that it was the way forward. In fact,
one newspaper described “the dawning age of nuclear power” xxix
. Around 1955 it was predicted that:
“Within 20 years, A-power will save Britain 40,000,000 tons of coal a year”xxx
.
By the 1960s, about 15% of the electricity generated came from nuclear power plants and this was
expected to double within ten years. In 1969 Mr Tony Benn (the Minister of Technology) said, of
megawatts of electricity generated by nuclear, that:
“In 1950 the quantity was nil. In 1960 it was 6,500MW. It is forecast as rising, in very round
figures, to 20,000 in 1970, 300,000 in 1980 and between 500,000 and 600,000 in 1985.”xxxi
The best use of nuclear was being researched and most envisioned a constantly running, nuclear
base-load which is still the case today.
“the ideal position for Britain in 1975 might seem to be one in which all base-load stations –
some 25% of total generating capacity…were nuclear” xxxii
At that time it was expected that Britain would lead the way in the development of new nuclear
reactors and in 1975 the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) “told the royal commission on
environmental pollution that by 2000 Britain would have 104 nuclear reactors”xxxiii
.
However, Britain lost its lead in nuclear development as America accelerated their nuclear
programme. One of the problems with nuclear power was the difficulty in estimating the costs
involved. Early estimations proved to be considerably off-target and this provide ammunition for
debate in the favour of other options.
“At 1964 costs, the AGR was expected to cut capital expenditure to less than £90 a
kilowatt…Unhappily these optimistic forecasts have been short lived”xxxiv
Gradually the production of reactors slowed as one article reported in 1973,
“Nuclear power could be envisaged as an abundant energy source for the future, but it was
not developing -fast enough to satisfy increased demand for electricity”.xxxv
Despite the many arguments about cost, implementation, international development, safety, and
various other difficulties involved in providing nuclear power. In 1976, Dr Edward Teller was certain
that,
“an enormous world energy gap of the next 15 to 20 years will be averted by an increase in
the amount of electricity generated from nuclear power”xxxvi
Sounds familiar doesn’t it?

- -12
Natural Gas
In 1968, the first gas from the newly discovered North Sea gas supplies joined Britain’s pipeline
system. This new supply was seen by many as a way to end Britain’s vulnerability to unstable oil
imports. However, since the abundance of gas available in the North Sea could only be guessed at
there was still concern that if gas consumption increased, the UK would have to turn to African
countries such as Algeria, Libya or Venezuela which would charge more for their reservesxxxvii
.
However, in 1968 the general belief was that,
“the present reserves could sustain a rate of production of some 3,000m cu. ft. a day over a
20-25 year period.”xxxviii
Thus the predictions for gas consumptions showed a dramatic rise, as can be seen in Figure 4.
“The projections for usage of natural gas … indicate a rise in North Sea gas piped ashore
from 25m tons of coal equivalent in 1970 (which is 2,000m cubic feet a day – twice Britain’s
present gas needs) up to 70m tons of coal equivalent (6,000m cubic feet a day) in 1980.”xxxix
Oil
Oil had been used in conventional power stations for many years by this time and despite various
drawbacks it can be seen from Figure 4 that it was expected to play an increasing role in the
generation of electricity. In 1967 it was predicted that:
“oil usage will rise to 130m tons of coal equivalent by 1970 – a rise of some 4% between
now and then” xl
One of the reasons that oil use was expected to grow, was that people expected the newly
discovered North Sea oil to be an extremely cheap source of energy. It was considered far cheaper
than coal which by this point was receiving subsidies from the Governmentxli
.
A few years later, in 1972, the chairman of Électricité de France (EDF) wrote that:
“Petroleum dominates – and this supremacy will last for the next 25 to 30 years; around the
year 2000, petroleum will probably cover up to 70% of world primary energy requirements.”
xlii
However then, as now, some people felt that oil could be put to better use than to simply be burned
and Shaikh Yamani (the Minister of Oil for Saudi Arabiaxliii
) was quoted as telling Mr Benn ‘Don’t burn
oil – it is criminal’xliv
.
There was also the uneasy relationship between Middle Eastern suppliers and consumer countries.
The Labour party said at a party conference that,
“the country needs to be guarded against the international oil cartel, robbing it of profit from
a precious national resource”xlv

- -13
Coal
If we take another look at Figure 4 it is interesting to note that coal is the only option represented on
the graph which was predicted to decrease over the next 20 years. In the fuel policy proposed around
1967, this graph was shown and showed,
“a decline in demand for coal to only 80m tons by 1980.”xlvi
At this time, Lord Robens was the chairman of the National Coal Board (NCB). He fought extremely
hard for the coal industry over the year, often arguing that nuclear pricing was a “murky business”.
He did accept, however, that coal could not compete with natural gas as a source of power. He
continued to push the Government to increase their aims with regards to coal and in 1967 the cheap
fuel policy proposed a
“155 million ton figure for coal in 1970”.xlvii
However, much of this coal would have to come from abroad as Britain’s collieries were closing
rapidly. In 1967,
“The plan was to reduce the number of collieries to 310-320 by March 1971. By the end of
last year the number of pits was already down to 440 and the closures have been taking
place at the rate of one a week”xlviii
By 1974, the coal industry was reporting huge losses and the Government was paying large subsidies
of up to £40m a year. The increasing fuel prices and decreasing supply of coal caused many
problems.
““The upshot of the coal supply situation is that we now have to run our system having
regard not only to the price of fuel but to its availability. With coal in short supply we cannot
increase the output of our coal-fired power stations as we should like to do”.xlix
In the words of Paul Delouvrier, the coal era was drawing to a close.l

- -14
Renewable
Many of the renewable technologies which are now fairly well known were in existence further back
than we might guess. Wave, tidal, solar and wind technologies were all under development
throughout the 20th
Century. There were also ideas which did not succeed such as,
“generation of electricity by means of a blast of magnetised hot gas”. li
And even more unusually,
“During the 1973/74 fuel crisis it was seriously argued that horses should be employed to
generate electricity”.lii
But even the more traditional options were mainly expected to play only a minor role in the future of
electricity generation. In an article about wind energy in 1973 it was concluded:
“But none of this or the direct utilisation of solar energy, of tidal energy, of geothermal
energy or any other of the less-conventional sources, will solve our long-term problem”.liii
And in 1976 another writer agreed that:
“the alternative primary energy sources…have the potential for making only a modest
contribution to the UK’s energy requirements over the next 50 years.” liv
Despite the expectation that renewable technologies would not play a large role, the designers were
hugely optimistic in the amount of power that could be produced. In 1975, a research project on
wave power claimed that:
“a 600 mile stretch could meet half the total United Kingdom electricity requirements” lv
This seems unrealistic enough, but in 1981 the prediction stretched to say that:
“a 150 mile stretch of Britain’s Atlantic coast could yield enough energy to satisfy all the
country’s needs” lvi
This was based on the belief that up to 90% of the motive power within a wave could be captured.
However, the overall message with regards to renewables was not dissimilar to the popular belief
today that:
“in the urgent crisis pending there will be room for every type of alternative energy source
from wind generators to nuclear capacity.” lvii

- -15
Combined Head and Power (CHP)
CHP was still not widely know about and thus opinions were wide-ranging from those who believed
that,
“A CHP programme could easily replace the nuclear one” lviii
To the more critical belief that,
“if combined heat and power is introduced substantially…it will need an expensive, massive
and sustained effort to do so”.lix
Fusion
The opinions on fusion varied greatly but most believed that though it may be an ideal solution, it
would not be perfected for many years. This was summed up by Dr Marshall in 1976,
“By harnessing the nuclear reaction which is taking place continuously in the Sun” Dr Marshall
explains, “we could obtain an energy sources which would meet the total world’s
requirements for thousands of years”. “The basic fuel would be the heavy hydrogen atom
present throughout the world’s seas. No long-term waste disposal problems would arise. The
potential of this energy sources is therefore enormous, but so also are the technological
problems.”
Substantial fusion research programmes have been under way in many countries since the
late 1940s. “Yet only now are we within sight of proving the scientific feasibility of fusion
power”. Though fusion is not expected to contribute at all to UK energy supplies over the
next 50 years, Dr Marshall favours further fusion research because the prospect of enormous
benefits beyond that date.”lx
Pumped Storage
Methods of storage such as hydro-electric power stations was commonly in use at this time but it was
realised that space was running out for plants which have quite specific geographical requirements.
By 1972, it was believed that,
“Hydro resources are almost exhausted in Europe” lxi
Nonetheless, the growing energy consumption and difficulty in providing a sufficient supply led one
journalist to suggest that,
“Pumped storage…is also likely to be extremely important in the general context of the future
pattern of electricity supply in Britain. By the mid-1980s…the pressure for simply storing
nuclear-generated power at night could become quite strong.”lxii

- -16
What targets did they set?
It can be concluded from the political climate, mentioned earlier, that the issue of climate change and
the environment wasn’t of as much concern as it is in the present day. No specific targets were set
during this period with the aim of reducing or capping emissions or controlling climate change.
The majority of policies and interests of the time seem concerned with securing energy supplies and
safeguarding affordable prices; whilst not taking account of the need for sustainability that Engineers,
scientists, politicians and other professionals are constrained by today. A possible reason for this is
that the theory of climate change was still very much in its scientific infancy at the time and didn’t
enjoy the robust evidence and therefore attention that it does today.
What would we have predicted?
This is obviously a question which is impossible to answer with any certainty. But after having a
thorough look through the beliefs held and decisions made at the time, it seems likely that we would
have made exactly the same choices.
There was far less scientific evidence for climate change which meant that fossil fuels were an
entirely practical choice. They were well known and reasonably cheap. Although the extent of the
reserves was unknown they were considered to be large enough to last well into the future. Coal
mining was also still a large source of employment in the UK so we probably have been as unwilling
to reduce coal use as they were.
The newly developing renewable energy technologies were an untried method. They still could not
produce sufficient power to compete with the conventional power stations and despite the
attractiveness of ‘free’ energy there were many unknowns. Even today, with climate change a hot
topic, there is still debate about how large a role renewable energy can play without having to
industrialise the entire landscape.
The fact that we are, once again, debating a large increase in nuclear power shows that not much
has changed with regards to fission. As for fusion, we may be closer now to using it as a viable
energy source than they were 40 years ago but we still know that it is a technology which will not
come into play for many years yet and so are taking the same route of continuing to research and
develop while supplying our energy needs from more well-known methods.

- -17
3) What has happened in the last 40 years?
In the last 40 years, a lot of radical changes occurred in the energy sector. Technology continued its
exponential rate of development, changes occurred in politics and society and the demography of
energy production and demand shifted as a result. In these years a lot of the predictions, forecasts
and projections of the period of focus were tested and showed a mixed amount of accuracy.
How correct were their predictions?
Nuclear
As mentioned in the previous section nuclear energy was viewed in a mixed light across society
during the period of interest. There was, in general, a positive view of the potential benefits of
nuclear power in the proceeding years. As one journalist articulated;
“Within 20 years, A-power will save Britain 40,000,000tons of coal per year”lxiii
.
This claim was overly optimistic. In 1975, 20 years after the prediction was made, coal production
had fallen to 74,400,000 tons from its original value of 224,000,000. Despite this constituting a total
saving of 149,400,000 tons it is difficult to ascertain how much of this coal saving can be attributed to
the introduction of nuclear power alone.
The first operational nuclear reactor in the UK, Calder Hall, was opened in 1956lxiv
so it is fair to
assume that there was no industrial nuclear generation in the UK in 1955. It is also worth noting that
primary electricity production was 12,116,041 tonnes of coal equivalent in 1975lxv
. From this we can
deduce that 12,116,041 tonnes of coal were saved by nuclear power since fossil fuels would have had
to be burned in order to cater for the increasing demand. 12,116,041 tonnes equates to
approximately 13.4million short tons. So despite the substantial saving of finite resources and
emissions which can be attributed mostly to nuclear power, the above prediction is greatly
overestimated.
This overestimation of the capabilities of nuclear energy led to what appears to be some fairly rash
decision making. In the 1970s for example, nuclear physicist Dr Edward Teller warned of
“…an enormous world energy gap of the next 15 to 20 years will be averted by an increase in
the amount of electricity generated from nuclear power”.lxvi
The British Government’s response to this apparent energy gap was to order the construction of 10
new nuclear reactors. Only one of these 10 proposed reactors ever saw commissioning and it had
doubled in cost by the time it openedlxvii
.
Even Engineering professionals of the time had unrealistic ambitions for the future of nuclear power.
For example in 1975 the UK Atomic Energy Authority told the Royal Commission on Environmental
Pollution that there would be 104 operational nuclear reactors in operation in the United Kingdomlxviii
.
This is a substantially different figure to the 19 reactors in service todaylxix
.

- -18
Fossil Fuels
During the period of focus, society in general recognised a large future requirement for fossil fuels;
which is fairly consistent with the generation demography we live with today. In some cases however,
the extent to which our energy needs could be quenched by newly exploited oil and natural gas
reserves (the North Sea for example) was greatly overestimated.
Again we see some high level engineering professionals making unrealistic projections for energy
generation in this field. Taking Figure 1 as an example, we see petroleum being effectively phased
out in electrical generation in the past 25 years; however some of the people of the times had
different ideas for the future of the fuel. For example, in 1972 Paul Delouvrier, chairman of Électricité
de France predicted that
“Around the year 2000, petroleum will probably cover up to 70% of world primary energy
requirements”lxx
.
In actual fact, in the year 2000, petroleum only accounted for 2-3% of total generating capacity as
shown in Figure 1.
Renewable
People’s predictions about the future of fossil fuels and nuclear were mixed and projections for
renewable energy resources exhibit a similar spread of accuracy. For example:
“But none of this or the direct utilisation of solar energy, of tidal energy, of geothermal
energy or any other of the less-conventional sources, will solve our long-term problem”lxxi
“The alternative primary energy sources…have the potential for making only a modest
contribution to the UK’s energy requirements over the next 50 years.”lxxii
These two statements are fairly accurate when compared with the reality of renewable energy
resources today. Renewable energy currently provides only 6% of total energy generation in the UK.
Others however, didn’t have quite as realistic an approach a view of renewable energy resources.
Wave power as an example, was held in particularly high esteem. As mentioned previously power
output from wave power would require the entire west coast of the United Kingdom to be
industrialisedlxxiii
.
In the media statements of great enthusiasm such as:
“A 600 mile stretch could meet half the total United Kingdom electricity requirements”lxxiv
“a 150 mile stretch of Britain’s Atlantic coast could yield enough energy to satisfy all the
country’s needs”lxxv
were not uncommon. Cambridge Physicist Professor David MacKay gives a more realistic estimation of
the power available from the UK’s Atlantic facing coast which is adjusted to allow for the limitations of
modern technology. After calculations and adjustment, Professor MacKay concludes:
“That’s 4 kWh per day per person [per meter]”

- -19
This figure (the total yield of all Atlantic
facing coasts) when converted to the
standard units of power rounds to 10.2GW.
Based on National Grid’s most recent
demand data of approximately 41GWlxxvi
the
previously mentioned projections seem
overly optimistic, especially when it is
considered that this peak generating value
would require the industrialisation of the
entire Atlantic facing coast. Will the future
oceans be more cluttered than already
shown in Figure 5lxxvii
? This makes the
generating contribution outline in the
statements such as those above completely
unfeasible.
In stark contrast to the views people
expressed over wave energy, the people of
the time seemed to have a fairly thorough
and realistic understanding of hydroelectric
generation. In 1972 it was stated that:
“Hydro resources are almost exhausted in Europe”lxxviii
.
This was a fairly accurate projection as a recent study concludedlxxix
. However there is debate still
about the potential of hydropower. The book “Local Energy: Distributed generation of heat and
power” is a useful book published as part of the IET Power and Energy series. In the section on
hydropower it says:
“The general impression from assessments of renewable options is that almost all the UK’s
capacity has been exploited. But there are new sites that can be considered and there are
many mill sites … in various stages of decay.”lxxx
Fusion
Nuclear fusion was also an area of great promise from the perspective of the people in power at the
time. One expert predicted that:
“Though fusion is not expected to contribute at all to UK energy supplies over the next 50
years”. lxxxi
Strictly speaking this statement was correct. However, nuclear fission probably won’t contribute to
energy production for over a century; roughly 150 years from when the statement was made. This is
another demonstration of how difficult it is to make predictions about technological and scientific
progress.
Figure 5 - Are we prepared to industrialise nature?

- -20
Where did they succeed/fail and why?
Taking nuclear power and the planned 104 nuclear reactors as an example, it is difficult to
understand why these targets were never realised when these predictions came from Engineers and
other professionals for whom education on the subject is a prerequisite. Some comments from a
journalist in 1973 shed some light,
“Nuclear power could be envisaged as an abundant energy source for the future, but it was
not developing -fast enough to satisfy increased demand for electricity”.lxxxii
This statement is partly true for the way nuclear power developed in the years after 1973; however
the author is incorrect about the reasons for its slow implementation. It wasn’t the case that nuclear
energy didn’t develop quickly enough; in actual fact the technology surrounding the nuclear industry
improved rapidly, however, the economics surrounding the construction and running of plants
constrained their development.
Tom Burke, environmental advisor to Rio Tinto and current day journalist explains the
aforementioned economic difficulties that the construction and operation of nuclear power plants
encountered;
“It [government nuclear policy] failed because economic reality intruded. It will do so
again”lxxxiii
. He goes on to add “What actually killed nuclear power in Britain was Thatcher's
decision to privatize the Central Electricity Generating Board-the previously nationalized
generation utility. The City took one look at the books and told the Government that the
nuclear power stations were unsellable”lxxxiv
.
Another example of Engineers miss-judging future technological progression can be seen in the
Electricity Council’s 1980 publication ‘Electricity Supply in the United Kingdom: Organisation and
Development’, it says:
“Super-conducting cables may not be economically competitive with conventional cables at
the kind of power levels required on the system before the year 2000.”lxxxv
When taken at face value this statement is absolutely true; super conducting materials are still an
area of scientific research today and will probably not be integrated into economically competitive and
technologically feasible engineering solutions for some time. However, this statement shows that
there was an underlying belief at the time that super conductors were close to becoming a
technological reality. Although they apparently recognised that there was still a lot of work to be done
in the field, they appear to have grossly underestimated the time scale of its development.
What unexpected factors were there?
The difficulties in accurately predicting the development of technology are as numerous now as they
ever were. Over the last 40 years there were many events which, though not specifically related to
the world of power engineering, affected the decisions made and actions taken. In section 1, a few
world events from 1969 to 1973 are mentioned. Any government dealing with issues from
unemployment and recession to wars and natural disasters would find it immensely difficult to stick to
plans and projections made previously, as priorities change constantly. Thus it is always important to
bear in mind that nobody knows what may happen years, months or weeks down the line. We must
simply make the best plans we can with the knowledge we have now.

- -21
4) What will happen in the next 40 years?
What are people expecting now?
Energy and power have once again made it into the headlines of the national press. It is being
discussed more and more commonly amongst the general public and school age children are being
educated on their ‘carbon footprint’. So what are people expecting?
Within industry there is a vast range of views. Mark Venables, Power Editor of the IET magazine E&T,
believes that:
“The world is on the cusp of an energy revolution, and offshore wind is the key driving agent
in achieving the UK government’s ambitious renewable energy targets.”lxxxvi
In a recent article he provided information on the amount of power that offshore wind could be
expected to provide. The government’s strategic environmental assessment (SEA) had announced
that:
The seas around the UK coastline could provide enough extra wind energy to power the
equivalent of 19 million homes, an assessment by the government has found.” lxxxvii
Many other countries are investing heavily in solar power. China, for example:
“China wants to increase installed solar power capacity from the current 180MW to 2GW by
2011 and 20GW in 2020 as part of its plan to find alternatives to fossil fuel.”lxxxviii
Despite the focus on renewable energy due to climate change worries, many accept that fossil fuels
will around for many years yet. In the UK, in April 2009, four new coal-fired power stations were
announcedlxxxix
. Some justify the building of new coal power stations with the promise of carbon
capture and storage (CCS). Although, according to another IET article,
“To date, only six plants are in operation and, perhaps surprisingly, only one of them,
Vattenfall’s Schwarze Pumpe in Germany, captures CO2 from coal.”xc
As part of the research for this report, two surveys were carried out. One was sent amongst fellow
Atkins employees. The other was made available online to both professional engineers and the
general public. Both asked participants to rate each of the mainstream energy options on a scale from
1 to 5 (1 being the best and 5 the worst). The results are shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7. Graphs of
the spread of votes for each option can be found in Appendix 4.
It is interesting to note both the similarities and the differences. Both groups of participants have
rated the conventional fossil fuels: gas, oil and coal very lowly. They have also rated the renewable
sources highly, although the general public ratings were on average higher than those in the Atkins
survey. The main difference comes when you look at the position of nuclear. Within Atkins it seems
that nuclear is the best choice by quite a lead. In the public domain, however, nuclear has rated
below every renewable option. Is this because Atkins is bias? Or are they in on the secret? If the
public is against nuclear (or any other option) will that sway the Government more than the prudence
of such a scheme?

- -22
Average Power Scores
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
Tidal Solar Geothermal Wave Wind Fusion Nuclear Gas Coal Oil
Power Options
Score(lowestisbest)
Figure 6 - Online Energy Survey
Average Power Scores
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
Nuclear
Tide
CHP
W
ind
Fusion
W
ave
G
eotherm
al
FuelCells
Coal+
CCS
O
therRenewable
Solar
Biom
ass
Coal
G
as
O
il
Power Options
Score(lowestisbest)
Figure 7 - Atkins Energy Survey

- -23
What targets are being set?
The UK Government has recently set various targets. These are detailed below based on the latest
Digest of UK Energy Statisticsxci
. Many of these new targets are motivated by UK's legally binding
target to cut greenhouse gas emissions to at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. The new
measures include:
• Legally binding carbon budgets for the first three five-year periods 2008-2012, 2013-2017 and
2018-2022.
• A revised target to reduce emissions to at least 34% below 1990 emissions by 2018-22.
Renewable
The European Union’s Renewables Directive (RD) came into force in October 2001. It proposed that
Member States adopt national targets for renewables that were consistent with reaching the overall
EU target of 12 per cent of energy (22.1 per cent of electricity) from renewables by 2010. The UK
“share” of this target was that renewables sources eligible under the RD should account for 10 per
cent of UK electricity consumption by 2010.
In March 2007 the European Council agreed to a common strategy for energy security and tackling
climate change. An element of this was establishing a target of 20 per cent of EU's energy to come
from renewable sources. During 2008 a new Renewables Directive was negotiated on this basis and
resulted in agreement of country “shares” of this target. For the UK, the share is that by 2020 15 per
cent of final energy consumption - calculated on a net calorific basis, and with a cap on fuel used for
air transport - should be accounted for by energy from renewable sources (see paragraph 7.31,
below). The Government published a new UK Renewable Energy Strategy earlier this summer, setting
out how we will meet the 15 per cent target.
Combined Heat and Power
To reduce carbon emissions and help deliver the UK’s Climate Change Programme, the
Government has a target of achieving at least 10,000 MWe of Good Quality CHP capacity (GQCHP) by
the end of 2010.
Transport
The Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO), introduced in April 2008, places a legal
requirement on transport fuel suppliers (i.e. those who supply more than 450,000 litres of fossil fuel
per annum to the UK market) to ensure that a specified percentage (by volume) of their overall fuel
sales is from a renewable source.
The targets have recently been adjusted in the light of the Gallagher review into the indirect effects
of bio fuels and the subsequent consultation. The target for 2009/10 is now 3.25 per cent, for
2010/11 is 3.5 per cent and subsequently rises by 0.5 percentage points per year to 5 per cent in
2013/14. Once the 5 per cent level is reached it is estimated that it will save around a million tonnes
of carbon per annum.
Are these targets realistic?
As for the governments short-medium term targets with regards to energy; a reduction in emissions
of 20% by 2020 and an increase in renewable energy production up to 30% by 2020. These targets
may well be achievable but anything beyond these deadlines remains tainted with uncertainty.
Further government targets exist in a preliminary form to reduce emissions by 50-80% by 2050. If
these are to be met; radical changes will be necessary.

- -24
As well as the trends of pushing new technology, encouraging innovation and technological
excellence with funding and increasing renewable generation which have become the flagships of the
Government’s energy policy, a significant effort at the consumer side of the industry is required. As
has been demonstrated in this report; public opinion is often a major hindrance and often the
undoing of technically feasible projects. Within the coming years, save for a major scientific or
technological breakthrough or the complete industrialisation of our eco system, people’s lifestyles will
have to change in order for our activities on this planet to be sustainable. Population increase alone
dictates this.
How accurately can we predict the next 40 years?
It has been demonstrated in this report that, even with the best of data and expertise at hand, it can
be extremely difficult to accurately predict the future in the energy sector. As an industry the
variables which restrict its heading such as technology, economics, politics, society, the media and
nature are far to diverse and unpredictable to be projected far beyond the short-medium term.
What can we learn and predict?
Although we cannot predict the future with any real accuracy it is still important to try and forecast
future trends. These must all be based on current knowledge and an element of educational
guesswork. It is known with reasonable certainty how many power plants will be closing and the
reduction in supply this will cause. From this, E.ON has plotted this against an estimate of the
increasing demand as shown in Figure 8xcii
.
With these forecasts similar to this we must try to prepare for the worst case scenario while also
balancing the short-term consequences with the long-term benefits. We must take a certain amount
of responsibility for the effect that our decisions will have on future generations but also realise that if
too much time is spent trying to predict an unknowable future opportunities may be missed now.
Figure 8 - UK Energy Gap

- -25
Acknowledgements
There are many people to whom we owe our thanks for their help in the various stages of our
research. Listed below in Figure 9 are all those, whose names we know, that contributed to this
report in some form.
Surname First name Company Surname First name Company
Ackroyd Stuart
Edinburgh
University
Heath Emily
Energy
Institute
Agnew Thomas
Scottish and
Southern Energy
plc.
Infield David
Strathclyde
University
Armstrong Donald Atkins Jeral Mert Atkins
Barker Jon C Atkins Johnston Ian Atkins
Baxter Trevor Atkins King Julian Atkins
Bell Keith
Strathclyde
University
Kirby Alison Atkins
Birchenough Elizabeth Atkins Knowles Stephan Atkins
Bullas John Atkins Kockar Ivana
Strathclyde
University
Burt Graeme
Strathclyde
University
McBurnie Iain Atkins
Chadbourn Matthew Atkins Narborough John
Amberley
Museum
Chan Alex Atkins Needham Mike J Atkins
Charters Clive MoD Nicholas Stuart Atkins
Courtman Lee Atkins Pitt Timothy Atkins
Cunningham David Atkins Pritchard John Atkins
Daley Clare
British Wind
Energy
Association
Rawson Joel
Centre for
Alternative
Technology
Evans Ian Atkins Rochard Bernard Atkins
Fawcett Dan Atkins Rose Claire Atkins
Firebrace Cathy IET Sewell Rob Atkins
Foxwell George Atkins Smith James
Strathclyde
University
Fraser Thomas
Strathclyde
University
Spahiu Pelqim Atkins
Grayston Paul Atkins Spatola Will Atkins
Grimble Mike
Strathclyde
University
Taylor Paul Atkins
Harris Colin Atkins
Thomas-
Spowart
Paula Atkins
Haziraei-
Yazdi
Rose Atkins Waloff Basil
Faithful +
Gould
Figure 9 - Table of Acknowledgements

- -26
Bibliography
Leaflets
“Electricity supply in the United Kingdom: a chronology from the beginnings of the industry to 31
December 1985”
“Electricity supply in Great Britain: organisation and development, 31 December 1972”
“Annual report 1973-74”
“One hundred years of electricity supply 1881-1981: a brief account of some aspects of growth and
development over the past century”
“Electricity Before Nationalisation: A Study Of The Development Of The Electricity Supply Industry”
“Southern Electric 1909-1979: The History Of The World's Largest Suburban Electrified System”
“Implications of ‘‘peak oil’’ for atmospheric CO2 and climate”, GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES,
VOL. 22, GB3012
“Global oil & gas depletion: an overview”, www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol
“Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels”, M. King Hubbert, Publication No. 95, Shell Development
Company, June 1956
“Summarized proceedings of a conference on nuclear fuel cycles - London, January 1959”, British
Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 10 June 1959
“60th
Anniversary Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics”, Department of Energy and Climate
Change, 2009.
Books
Lewis, Russell 1978. “Tony Benn: A Critical Biography”, Associated Business Press
Jay, Kenneth, 1956. “Calder Hall: The Story of Britain's first Atomic Power Station”, London: Methuen.
MacKay, David J.C., 2008. “Sustainable Energy – without the hot air”, UIT Cambridge.
(Available free online from www.withouthotair.com)
Wood, Janet. 2008. “Local Energy. Distributed generation of heat and power”. IET Power and Energy
Series 55. Published by IET, London.
Benn, Tony. 1996. “The Benn Diaries: 1940 – 1990”, Published by Hutchinson, UK.
Lewis, Russell. 1978. “Tony Benn. A Critical Biography”, Published by Associat4ed Business Press,
London.

- -27
References
ii
2006. “Energy Sector Indicators 2006”, Department of Trade and Industry, Page 6.
iii
Argotrade. 2009. Hydroelectric [Online] Available at: http://www.argotrade.com/hydroelectric/
[Accessed 18 August 2009].
iv
1973. “Electricity Supply in Great Britain - Organisation and Development”, Electricity Council
v
1973. “Electricity Supply in Great Britain – Organisation and Development”, Electrical Council, Page
30.
vi
29.
vii
48.
viii
28.
ix
7.
x
8.
xi
Benn, Tony. 1996. “The Benn Diaries: 1940 – 1990”, Published by Hutchinson, UK.
xii
Group formed by countries within a geographical area to promote duty free trade and free
movement of labour and capital among its members. European community (as a legal entity within
the framework of the EU) is the best known example. Common markets impose common external
tariff (CET) on imports for non-member countries.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/common-market.html
xiii
2009. Interview with George Foxwell, 18th
April.
xiv
Benn, Tony. 1996. “The Benn Diaries: 1940 – 1990”, Published by Hutchinson, UK. P333.
xv
Benn, Tony. 1996. “The Benn Diaries: 1940 – 1990”, Published by Hutchinson, UK. P364.
xvi
Lewis, Russell. 1978. “Tony Benn. A Critical Biography”, Published by Associat4ed Business Press,
London,p169.
xvii
Greenpeace. 2009. The Greenpeace Story. [Online] Available at:
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/about/our-story [Accessed 20 August 2009].
xviii
ELF. Earth Liberation Front. [Online] Available at: http://earth-liberation-front.org/ [Accessed 20
August 2009].
xix
Sierra Club. 2009. Sierra Club History. [Online] Available at:
http://www.sierraclub.org/history/timeline.asp [Accessed 20 August 2009].
xx
Friends of the Earth. 2009. [Online] Available at: http://www.foe.co.uk/index.html [Accessed 20
August 2009].
xxi
Benn, Tony. 1996. “The Benn Diaries: 1940 – 1990”, Published by Hutchinson, UK. p415.
xxii
The People History. 2009. The Year 1969. [Online] Available at:
http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1969.html [Accessed 20 August 2009].
xxiii
xxiv
xxv
xxvi
xxvii
Owen, K. 1976. Researching sources of energy for an uncertain future. The Times, 1 October.
xxviii
1968. Gas as atom fuel rival? The Times, 23 April.
xxix
Layton, C. 1968. Atom Fusion for Europe. The Times, 4 March.
xxx
1955. Daily Mirror, 16th
February.
xxxi
Rowley, A. 1969. Benn opens new nuclear power plant. The Times, 11 June.
xxxii
1967. How Big? How Many? How Soon? The Times, 4 March.
xxxiii
Burke, T. 2008. Why the Government’s nuclear policy will fail. The Telegraph, 3 September.

- -28
xxxiv
Wright, P. 1967. Fissure in fission. The Times, 23 May.
xxxv
1973. Alternatives to oil needed as source of power. The Times, 7 June.
xxxvi
Wright, P. 1976. Nuclear energy pioneer looks at power. The Times, 28 October.
xxxvii
Roeber, J. 1968. How long can north sea gas last out? The Times, 15 August.
xxxviii
xxxix
1967. Referee for the Power Games. The Times, 22 May.
xl
xli
Noyes, H. 1967. Subsidies to help coal industry. The Times, 19 July.
xlii
Delouvrier, P. 1972. Power without pollution. The Times, 5 July.
xliii
BBC News. 2009. Defining Moments: Sheikh Yamani [Online] Available at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3055760.stm [Accessed 17 August 2009].
xliv
1975. Britain’s bid for leadership in European energy planning. The Times, 29 October.
xlv
xlvi
xlvii
1967. Implementing the cheap fuel policy. The Times, 20 July.
xlviii
xlix
Vielvoye, R. 1974. Electricity users face higher tariffs after power industry’s £176m deficit. The
Times, 31 July.
l
li
1967. What price electricity from hot gas? The Times, 15 December.
lii
1978. “Country Life”, 2 March.
liii
Stodhard, A. H. 1973. Energy crisis and wind power. The Times, 22 October.
liv
lv
1975. Energy study looks to wave power. The Times, 17 July.
lvi
“Power to the People – A century of electricity in Britain”, The Electricity Council, 1981
lvii
Peters, C. M. D. 1977. Developing future energy sources. The Times, 15 October.
lviii
Jenkins, N. 1978. Electricity’s place in energy policy. The Times, 27 November.
lix
lx
lxi
lxii
Owen, K. 1973. Harnessing tides to energy needs. The Times, 30 November.
lxiii
February.
lxiv
Jay, Kenneth, 1956, Calder Hall: The Story of Britain’s first Atomic Power Station,
lxv
[Online] stats.berr.gov.uk/energystats/dukes1_1_2.xls [Accessed 18 August 2009]
lxvi
“Nuclear energy: Pioneer looks at power”, The Times, 28th
October 1976
lxvii
7.
lxviii
“Why the Government’s nuclear energy policy will fail”, The Independent, 3rd
September 2008
lxix
World Nuclear Association. 2009. Nuclear Power in the United Kingdom. [Online] Available at:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf84.html [Accessed 18 August 2009]
lxx
lxxi
lxxii
lxxiii
MacKay, David JC, 2007, Sustainability: Without the Hot Air, Page 74
lxxiv
lxxv
lxxvi
National Grid. 2009. Electricity Demand Last 7 Days. [Online] Available at:
http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Data/Realtime/Demand/Demand8.htm [Accessed on 20
August 2009].
lxxvii
Department of Energy and Climate Change, “Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics”
lxxviii

- -29
lxxix
Argotrade. 2009. Hydroelectric [Online] Available at: http://www.argotrade.com/hydroelectric/
[Accessed 20 August 2009].
lxxx
Wood, Janet. 2008. “Local Energy. Distributed generation of heat and power”. IET Power and
Energy Series 55. Published by IET, London. P53
lxxxi
“Researching sources of energy for an uncertain future”, The Times, 1st
October 1976
lxxxii
lxxxiii
Burke, Tom, 2009, Why the Government’s nuclear energy policy will fail, 3rd
September
lxxxiv
1973. “Electricity Supply in Great Britain – Organisation and Development”, Electrical Council,
Page 8.
lxxxv
1973. “Electricity Supply in Great Britain – Organisation and Development”, Electrical Council,
Page 28.
lxxxvi
Venables, Mark. 2009. “IET E&T Magazine”. Vol 4, Issue 12, 11 Jul – 24 Jul. p18.
lxxxvii
Venables, Mark. 2009. “IET E&T Magazine”. Vol 4, Issue 12, 11 Jul – 24 Jul. p6.
lxxxviii
Dennis, William. 2009. “IET E&T Magazine”. Vol 4, Issue 13, 16 Jul – 8 Aug. p8.
lxxxix
Kandiyoti, Rafael. 2009. “IET E&T Magazine”. Vol 4, Issue 12, 11 Jul – 24 Jul. p50.
xc
Lewis, Dan. 2009. “IET E&T Magazine”. Vol 4, Issue 12, 11 Jul – 24 Jul. p54.
xci
“Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2009”, Department of Energy and Climate Change.
xcii
E.ON UK. 2008. Carbon, cost and consequences. Published by E.ON UK.

- -30
Appendix 1 – The Working Man’s Viewpoint
The following information was exchanged in a meeting with George Foxwell, a member of Atkins
Transmission and Distribution team since 1983. This meeting took place on the 18th
of August 2009.
Born in 1946, George Began his career as an electrical apprentice straight from school at the age of
16 (1962). The company he served his time with was Electrical Installations Limited. He was an
Indention Apprentice working at evening classes and day release until he was 21 years of age (1967)
with a City and Guilds qualification which entitled him ET5 (Electrical Technician-Level 5). George
wanted membership to the IEEE at the time but the qualifications for membership were continually
being raised and they had just reached HNC level which meant George would have spent more time
at college; time which his business were not willing to fund.
At 22 years of age, George began working with Crown House Engineering who specialised in nuclear
power station construction. This new company were part of a consortium who would be employed to
build Dungeness B Nuclear Power Station.
George worked on this particular project for a number of years and was seconded to the Central
Electricity Generating Board (CEGB). He was later made redundant from his role there and was
offered a generous redundancy package, which he took.
George realised that, as it was the late 1970s and the petrochemical and technological industries
were booming, he would no doubt walk into another job very soon.
Foxwell soon joined Taylor Woodrow Construction. His role with this company was to reprocess fuel
canisters from nuclear power stations which he did with great ease. George said that this job was
‘boring’ due to the fact that the company were paid by the Government for each person they
employed for reprocessing which meant that they employed more bodies than they could ever have
needed and often workers had nothing to do leaving many feeling uninspired.
Due to being unfulfilled with Taylor Woodrow Construction, Foxwell joined Atkins in 1983 and has
been here ever since. He currently solves issues regarding the 2012 Olympic site as an engineer
based in London.
Predictions
George felt that predictions made by the Government at the time were based primarily on cost. This
also effected the decisions made by companies as the payback period on projects was much shorter
than it is nowadays where those investing money expected immediate return. Pressure from coal
miners also steered decisions, quite often, away from coal power stations and into the hands of
nuclear.
In the early 1970s the nuclear dream was truly born. This meant stable, affordable power for all. The
first power stations which George worked on were the Magnox Series. These were the first
generation of nuclear power stations which were reliable but ‘there were problems’ explained George.
The Magnox reactors had a low thermal efficiency and were soon replaced by the AGR series
(Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors) which were then being rolled out across the country. There were,
however issues with regard to the completion of these AGR projects. An example of which was
Dungeness B nuclear power station. Initially, George and his colleagues who were installing the
power station at the time were left poorly informed regarding the slow decision making of those at a
higher level. They purchased newspapers which gave speculated poor design and financial issues.
There was some truth behind the media in that there was a big issue behind the design which the
fitters were soon to find out about. The concrete protective outer core for the reactor was

- -31
constructed first then the stainless steel reactor core was constructed to fit inside the concrete body.
The CEGB decided at the time that it would be too expensive to rebuild the inner core so they may
just ‘make it fit.’ It was later decided, in the interest of safety that they would construct a new vessel
to fit inside the concrete casing.
There were other issues which caused further delay in the plant’s construction:
Sea Water from the English Channel was the main cooling method for the reactor. During
construction however, the saltwater found its way into the pumps and corroded the metal which to
replacement valves (found to be inefficient) and new water pumps.
Construction of another nuclear power station was going on at Haysham in Northern England. There
was a malfunction of the transformers on the site at the time and transformers from Dungeness B
had to be commandeered causing further set backs to the project.
Before commissioning could occur, the Nuclear Inspector visited site and did a survey of the power
station. His findings were that the pump system must be reinforced (6 pumps were required instead
of only 4 pumps which existed). It was also felt that additional sub stations and control rooms would
be required to handle the load. George worked on these final decisions and was able to pass any
further work on to other colleagues.
The building of nuclear power stations came to somewhat of a halt when oil and coal were discovered
in the North Sea. George conveyed the idea that nuclear was forgotten about as the North Sea
reserves were cheap and plentiful.
Political Influence
With regards to the political agenda, the general public, he felt, were ill informed and for the most
part, the public had no real interest in what went on at Parliament. They did, however expect
affordable power on demand. George felt that the most hated of Prime Ministers at the time were
often the most necessary ones.
Under Edward Heath, the UK faced a coal miner’s strike which forced him to impose the 3 day week.
This meant that the vast majority of the working population were restricted to a shorter working
week to save energy. There were numerous power cuts at this time but people got used to it. Power
workers such as George were hated as they were not restricted in their work due to the need for
energy. Strike action for this working group occurred in November 1977. They worked to Rule as they
pursued cheaper electricity and better payment for inconvenient shifts. There were yet more power
cuts and strike ended due to hostile Governmental and Public Reaction.
The BBC, which in more recent times has provided the public with the facts and information they
require regarding Governmental decisions was, at that time, very biased towards White Hall. Being
that this was the only broadcasting company, there wasn’t any other media choice for the public
other than newspapers, so many accepted what was broadcast as gospel.
George felt that the best time to be British was in the 1980s under Margaret Thatcher. The UK
economy was in turmoil and he felt she did what was required, although she was not welcomed by
many. Amongst other powerful decisions, this great Prime Minister enforced privatisation across the
board, de-regulation, the ability to purchase council houses. This was around the time of new
technologies such as computers therefore Britain saw the majority of heavy industry being done away
with. Coal mining was reduced (apart from the North Sea), the steel industry was shut down and

- -32
there were a massive reduction in the building of nuclear power stations. This meant huge job losses
as the transition was made from hardware to software. The London Stock Market was born and those
who thrived were the young and versatile. Meanwhile we were fighting a war in Argentina. George
said he felt proud to be British at this time and the worries of electrical generation seemed to be
gone.
Questions still arose regarding the waste products from nuclear power stations and the consequences
if the Britain were to run out of resources in the North Sea. The general consensus of opinion at the
time was that technology would solve problems as and when they arose. The theory of renewable
energy existed but it was never tried on a large scale until now, when it is desperately needed.

- -33
Appendix 2 – Predictions
1950’s
1955
“Within 20 years, A-power will save Britain 40,000,000 tons of coal a year”i
1960’s
1967
“That (White) paper envisaged nuclear resources as big as 200MW…the generating boards intend to
bring 8,000MW of energy into operation between 1970 and 1975”ii
“By 1975, on this basis 15% of our total generating capacity will be nuclear”, “the ideal position for
Britain in 1975 might seem to be one in which all base-load stations – some 25% of total generating
capacity…were nuclear” and “Not until 1979 will nuclear power stations become available that are
suited for other than base-load operation”.iii
“The pretence that Britain leads in the development of civil nuclear power must be abandoned”.iv
“a decline in demand for coal to only 80m tons by 1980”, “aspirations to be burning natural gas under
many power station boilers by the 1970s”, “growth of nuclear power in the 1970s from 15m tons of
coal equivalent in 1970 to 35m tons in 1975 and 90m tons in 1980”, “oil usage will rise from 130m
tons of coal equivalent by 1970” and “a rise in North Sea gas… from 25m tons of coal equivalent in
1970 … up to 70m tons in 1980”v
.
“The United Kingdom produces more electricity from nuclear energy than the rest of the world put
together. However, this lead will not be held much longer because the Americans have decided to
accelerate their nuclear power programme”, “15% of electricity generated in this country comes from
nuclear stations. Over the next decade this will double as new generation of atomic power stations is
brought into operation” and “At 1964 costs, the AGR was expected to cut capital expenditure to less
than £90 a kilowatt…Unhappily these optimistic forecasts have been short lived”.vi
“natural gas and nuclear energy…may be contributing around ¼ of Britain’s total energy
requirements in the mid-1970s”, “the 155million ton figure for coal in 1970 is the aim of Government
policy” and “the maximum demand that can be envisaged for coal in 1980 is 80 million tons”vii
“The CEGB has given up its programme to develop full-scale equipment for generation of electricity
by means of a blast of magnetised hot gas”viii
1968
“Both Germany and France now plan to build prototype sodium-cooled fast-breeders, starting in
1969” and “Britain’s nuclear endeavours must, therefore, be made the instrument of the creation of
powerful European industrial groups, which can be in a position to export reactors and knowhow all
over the world, in the dawning age of nuclear power, to the benefit of all the partners”.ix
“The ideal solution would be nuclear energy for base-load, natural gas burnt in gas turbines for
intermediate extra demand and oil for peak loads”x

- -34
“natural gas consumption would increase to 2,000m. cu. ft. a day in …1972 – and 4,000m. in 1975”,
“the present reserves could sustain a rate of production of some 3,000m cu. ft. a day over a 20-25
year period.”xi
1969
“ ‘by forecasts prepared by the IAEA of megawatts of electricity generated by nuclear power
throughout the world, but excluding the USSR, Eastern Europe and China’, Mr Benn said. ‘In 1950 the
quantity was nil. In 1960 it was 6,500MW. It is forecast as rising, in very round figures, to 20,000 in
1970, 300,000 in 1980 and between 500,000 and 600,000 in 1985’.”xii
1970’s
1971
“Nuclear power, hydro-electricity and natural gas, for all their future promise, still account for less
than 10% of our total energy supply. There seems little prospect that this balance will change
dramatically in the immediate future”.xiii
1972
“The board (North of Scotland Hydro Electric Board) has made it clear that it must order a new
1,320MW power station this summer if the likely 1978 demand is to be met.”xiv
“expect a consumption of 30,000million tonnes of coal equivalent (TCE) for the year 2000”, “The
proportion of primary energy used as electricity will reach 50% around the year 2000”, “Hydro
resources are almost exhausted in Europe”, “the coal era is drawing to a close”, “around the year
2000, petroleum will probably cover up to 70% of world primary energy requirements” and “the only
future in the energy field is – ‘all nuclear’ and ‘all electric’ “.xv
1973
“The world will be running short of power by 1980 unless adequate measures are taken now to
develop alternative energy sources to oil and unless fuel wastage is cut”, “Electricity, less than half as
efficient as gas or oil in conserving resources, should be limited as a means of heat” and “Nuclear
power could be envisaged as an abundant energy source for the future, but it was not developing -
fast enough to satisfy increased demand for electricity”.xvi
“But none of this (wind energy), or the direct utilisation of solar energy, of tidal energy, of
geothermal energy or any other of the less-conventional sources, will solve our long-term problem”.xvii
“Pumped storage…is also likely to be extremely important in the general context of the future pattern
of electricity supply in Britain. By the mid-1980s…the pressure for simply storing nuclear-generated
power at night could become quite strong.”xviii
1974
“CEGB remains firmly convinced that long term requirements justify heavy investment in big nuclear
stations” and “the future fuel policy must be made more flexible, with more dual firing so stations can
use alternative fuels according to events and circumstances. Another idea is the building of a really
major supply interchange system across to mainland Europe so power surpluses can be shared”.xix

- -35
“The electricity industry yesterday reported a loss of £176m last year”, “the £40m a year subsidy for
this class of consumer (off-peak users) could not last forever” and “With coal in short supply we
cannot increase the amount of our coal-fired power stations as we should like to do”.xx
1975
“the UK Atomic Energy Authority told the royal commission on environmental pollution that by 2000
Britain would have 104 nuclear reactors. This did not happen”xxi
“A novel kind of ‘rocking wave power device’ has proved a practical contender for future power
generation systems”, “the available power from such a source in the North Atlantic can be as much as
77kW along each metre” and “the rocking-boom device is very promising as the basis of a wave-
power system”.xxii
“Wave power was perhaps the most promising non-conventional source of energy”, “a 600 mile
stretch could meet half the total United Kingdom electricity requirements” and “Most countries were
looking towards nuclear power in the medium term”.xxiii
“Ahead is a new round of North Sea licensing” and “Shaikh Yamanj told Mr Benn: ‘Don’t burn oil – it is
criminal’.”xxiv
1976
“is there a generally agreed view of this future situation (over the next 25-50 years)? There is not.”,
“the Department of Energy ‘cannot see beyond the immediate future with any confidence’”, “Dr
Marshall himself favours a middle-of-the-road scenario which says that conservation, coal and nuclear
power will become increasingly important”, “(there is) a non-nuclear future in which the shortage of
fossil fuels is allowed to restrict economic growth to levels of much lower than we have come to
expect”, “Coal mining…for oil and natural gas are regarded as highly important, with large
contributions in both the medium (25 years) and long (50 years) term”, “in all views of the future we
shall need nuclear power”, “the alternative primary energy sources…have the potential for making
only a modest contribution to the UK’s energy requirements over the next 50 years. They might
contribute up to 7% in the year 2000, it is estimated, rising to perhaps 10% by 2025”, “(speaking on
fusion) we could obtain an energy source which would meet the total world’s requirements for
thousands of years”, “Though fusion is not expected to contribute at all to UK energy supplies over
the next 50 years” and “if combined heat and power is introduced substantially…it will need an
expensive, massive and sustained effort to do so”.xxv
“he (Dr Edward Teller) is convinced that an enormous world energy gap of the next 15 to 20 years
will be averted by an increase in the amount of electricity generated from nuclear power”xxvi
1977
“in the urgent crisis pending there will be room for every type of alternative energy source from wind
generators to nuclear capacity, the latter of which is quoted as possibly having ‘upper limits’ of 35-40
GW by the year 2000”.xxvii
1978
“During the 1973/74 fuel crisis it was seriously argued that horses should be employed to generate
electricity”.xxviii
“by the turn of the century a surplus of off-peak nuclear capacity will be available, making energy
storage…attractive”, “alternative renewable sources of energy…are unlikely to contribute significantly

- -36
to electricity generation” and “wave energy will not compete with nuclear power, or with conventional
generation”.xxix
“It is energy we need not electricity”, “A CHP programme could easily replace the nuclear one” and
“The blind insistence on electricity irrespective of wasting fuel, that was to some extent economically
understandable pre 1973, is no longer tolerable”xxx
1979
“They recorded the decision of Margaret Thatcher’s newly elected government to build 10 nuclear
reactors. The arguments were familiar. Oil prices were rising. An energy gap was imminent. Without a
crash programme of nuclear reactors we would freeze in the dark.”xxxi
1980’s
1981
“1/5 of our electricity will be nuclear based” and “a 150 mile stretch of Britain’s Atlantic coast could
yield enough energy to satisfy all the country’s needs” and “as much as 90% of the coastal seas
motive power could be trapped”.xxxii

- -37
Appendix 2 - References
i
February.
ii
1967. Atom Power Policy Overtaken. The Times, 3 March
iii
1967. How Big? How Many? How Soon? The Times, 4 March.
iv
Owen, K. 1967. Britain’s errors on nuclear power exposed. The Times, 1 May.
v
vi
Wright, P. 1967. Fissure in fission. The Times, 23 May.
vii
1967. Implementing the cheap fuel policy. The Times, 20 July.
viii
1967. What price electricity from hot gas? The Times, 15 December.
ix
Layton, C. 1968. Atom Fusion for Europe. The Times, 4 March.
x
1968. Gas as atom fuel rival? The Times, 23 April.
xi
xii
Rowley, A. 1969. Benn opens new nuclear power plant. The Times, 11 June.
xiii
1971. The balance of oil power. The Times, 9 February.
xiv
Vielvoye, R. 1972. North Sea gas may replace nuclear energy as power station fuel. The Times, 17
April.
xv
xvi
xvii
Stodhard, A. H. 1973. Energy crisis and wind power. The Times, 22 October.
xviii
Owen, K. 1973. Harnessing tides to energy needs. The Times, 30 November.
xix
Corina, M. 1974. Power authorities pool ideas to provide ministers with first national plan. The
Times, 25 February.
xx
Vielvoye, R. 1974. Electricity users face higher tariffs after power industry’s £176m deficit. The
Times, 31 July.
xxi
xxii
1975. Energy: Power from waves. The Times, 10 April.
xxiii
xxiv
1975. Britain’s bid for leadership in European energy planning. The Times, 29 October.
xxv
xxvi
Wright, P. 1976. Nuclear energy pioneer looks at power. The Times, 28 October.
xxvii
xxviii
1978. “Country Life”, 2 March.
xxix
Wright, P. 1978. Electricity boards aim to use underground turbines in big surplus energy scheme.
The Times, 11 April.
xxx
Jenkins, N. 1978. Electricity’s place in energy policy. The Times, 27 November.
xxxi
xxxii

- -38
Appendix 3 – People in the Industry
Start
Year End Year Role Name Reference
1950 1951 Minister of Fuel and Power Mr Philip Noel-Baker
i
1951 1955 Prime Minister
Mr Winston
Churchill
ii
1951 1955 Minister of Fuel Mr Geoffrey Lloyd
iii
1955 1957 Prime Minister Mr Anthony Eden
iv
1955 1957 Minister of Fuel and Power Mr Aubrey Jones
v
1957 1963 Prime Minister Mr Harold Mcmillan
vi
1957 1961
Deputy Chairment of Electricity
Council Sir Ronald Edwards
vii
1959 1963 Minister for Power Hon. Richard Wood
viii
1960 1964 Minister for Science Mr Quintin Hogg
ix
1961 1971 Chairman of the National Coal Board Lord Robens
x
1962 1968 Head of Electricity Sir Ronald Edwards
xi
1963 1967 Deputy Chairman of CEGB Mr Owen Francis
xii
1963 1964 Prime Minister
Sir Alec Douglas-
Home
xiii
1963 1964 Minister for Power Mr Frederick Erroll
xiv
1963 1964 Secretary of State for Industry Mr Edward Heath
xv
1964 1970 Prime Minister Mr Harold Wilson
xvi
1964 1966 Minister of Power Mr Fred Lee
xvii
1966 1976
Deputy chairman of the Electricity
Council and chairman of Glaxo Sir Alan Wilson
xviii
1966 1968 Minister of Power Mr Marsh
xix
1966 Minister of Technology Tony Benn
1967 1968 Chairman of the Gas Council Sir Henry Jones
1967 1967 Head of Electricity Generation Mr Stanley Brown
1967 1967
Deputy Chairman of Electricity
Council Mr Neville Marsh
1967 1967 President of South Wales Miners Mr Glyn Williams
1956 1969 Member of CEGB Mr L Rotherham
xx
1968 1969 Minister of Fuel and Power Mr Roy Mason
xxi
1968 1968 Director of Marchwood Laboratory Mr H. R. Johnson
1968 1968 Minister for Power Mr Raymond Gunter
xxii
1969 1979 Chairman Electricite de France Paul Delouvrier
xxiii
1970 1974 Prime Minister Mr Edward Heath
xxiv
1970 1972 Secretary of State for Environment Mr Peter Walker
xxv
1970 1972
Secretary of State for Trade and
Industry Mr John Davies
xxvi
1970 1970 Minister for Technology Mr Geoffrey Rippon
xxvii
1972 1974 Secretary of State for Environment Mr Geoffrey Rippon
xxviii
1972 1974
Industry Mr Peter Walker
xxix
1973 1973
Shell International Petroleum
Employee Dr H. J. Alkema
1973 1973
Shell International Petroleum
Employee Mr E. V. Newland
1974 1976 Prime Minister Mr Harold Wilson
xxx
1974 1975 Secretary of State for Energy Mr Eric Varley
xxxi
1974 1974 Chairman of the Electricity Council Sir Peter Menzies
1974 1974 Chairman of CEGB Mr Arthur Hawkins

- -39
1974 1974 Chairman of the National Coal Board Mr Derek Ezra
1975 1979 Secretary of State for Industry Mr Eric Varley
xxxii
1974 1980
Permanent secretary of Department
of Energy Sir Jack Rampton
xxxiii
1976 1979 Prime Minister Mr James Callaghan
xxxiv
1976 1979 Secretary of State for Environment Mr Peter Shore
xxxv
1976 1976
Chief Scientist of the Department of
Energy Dr Walter Marshall
1976 1976 Deputy Chairman of the UKAEA Dr Walter Marshall
1967 1981 Chairmand of the UKAEA Sir John Hill
xxxvi
1977 1977
Chairman of National Environmental
Research Council Sir Peter Kent
1978 1978 UKAEA Employee Dr Brookes
1979 1990 Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
xxxvii
1979 1983 Secretary of State for Environment
Mr Michael
Heseltine
xxxviii
1979 1981 Secretary of State for Energy Mr David Howell
xxxix
1979 1981 Secretary of State for Industry Sir Keith Joseph
xl
1981 1983 Secretary of State for Energy Mr Nigel Lawson
xli
1981 1983 Secretary of State for Industry Mr Patrick Jenkin
xlii
1983 1987 Secretary of State for Energy Mr Peter Walker
xliii
1983 1985
Industry Mr Norman Tebbit
xliv
1983 1983 CEGB Employee Ross Hesketh
1983 1983 Secretary of State for Environment Mr Tom King
xlv

- -40
Appendix 3 - References
i
UK Parliament Hansard. 2009. Minister of Fuel and Power. [Online] Available at:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/offices/minister-of-fuel-and-power [Accessed 11 August 2009]
ii
UK Parliament Hansard. 2009. Prime Minister. [Online] Available at:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/offices/prime-minister [Accessed 11 August 2009]
iii
This day that year. 2008. Birthdays of Important Personalities on January 17. [Online] Available at:
http://www.thisdaythatyear.com/jan/people17.htm [Accessed 10 August 2009]
iv
v
vi
vii
British Library of Political and Economic Science. 2008. Edwards, Sir Ronald Stanley. [Online]
Available at: http://www.aim25.ac.uk/cats/1/8172.htm [Accessed 10 August 2009]
viii
UK Parliament Hansard. 2009. Minister for Science. [Online] Available at:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/offices/minister-for-power [Accessed 11 August 2009]
ix
UK Parliament Hansard. 2009. Minister for Science. [Online] Available at:
x
The Independent. 2009. Obituary: Lord Robens of Woldingham .[Online] Available at:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituary-lord-robens-of-woldingham-1103125.html
[Accessed 10 August 2009]
xi
British Library of Political and Economic Science. 2008. Edwards, Sir Ronald Stanley. [Online]
Available at: http://www.aim25.ac.uk/cats/1/8172.htm [Accessed 10 August 2009]
xii
Mr Owen Francis [Online] Available at: www.competition-
commission.org.uk/rep_pub/.../136appendices.pdf [Accessed 10 August 2009]
xiii
xiv
UK Parliament Hansard. 2009. Minister for Power. [Online] Available at:
xv
UK Parliament Hansard 2009. Secretary of State for Industry. [Online] Available at:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/offices/secretary-of-state-for-industry [Accessed 11 August
2009]
xvi
xvii
xviii
Trusted Archives for Scholarship. 2009. [Online] Available at:
links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0080...0.CO%3B2-O [Accessed 7 August 2009]
xix xix
xx
The National Archives. 2009. [Online] Available at:
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/.../browser.asp?...3... [Accessed 10 August 2009]
xxi
xxii xxii
xxiii
Wikipedia. 2009. Paul Delouvrier. [Online] Available at: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Delouvrier
[Accessed 10 August 2009]
xxiv
UK Parliament Hansard. 2009. Mr Edward Heath. [Online] Available at:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/people/mr-edward-heath [Accessed 11 August 2009]
xxv
UK Parliament Hansard. 2009. Secretary of State for Environment. [Online] Available at:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/offices/secretary-of-state-for-environment [Accessed 11 August
2009]

04 Report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (16)

Similar to 04 Report

Similar to 04 Report (20)

04 Report