ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´

STEPHEN Lindsay, an energy management consultant, received a particularly
warm welcome in Hungary three winters ago: his first appointment at a hospital
complex in Budapest took him to the director’s office where the temperature
was 32 Degree C, nearly twice what it needed to be and not far short of
body temperature. Snow, about 600 millimetres deep, lay on the ground outside
and all the windows of the room were wide open, recalls Lindsay. ‘The director
was concerned about energy consumption. He told me: ‘Our X-ray equipment
is simply devouring electricity. Can you help?’ Despite the fresh snow,
I surveyed the entire complex without getting my shoes wet by simply following
the routes of the underground heating mains, none of which was insulated.’
It turned out that 90 per cent of the hospital’s annual energy bill of Pounds
sterling 500 000 went on heating. Things have changed little since then.

The waste of energy at the hospital is typical of what goes on elsewhere
in Hungary, particularly in industry, and in Comecon states generally. The
root of the problem is a lack of accountability. For example, factories
in Hungary often take steam from a neighbouring factory when they could
raise steam more efficiently themselves. Hungarian industry is centralised
with energy consumption dominated by about 165 companies. According to Lindsay,
even a rudimentary programme of energy conservation that concentrated on
these companies could reduce consumption by 25 per cent. This would mean
coordinating their activities; at the moment, no mechanisms exist to forge
a joint approach to conservation. Also there are few people in the country
with the necessary skills. To comply with regulations, companies nominate
one of their employees to monitor energy consumption at large industrial
sites. These impromptu ‘energy managers’ rarely have enough power, expertise
or resources to do the job properly.

The result is that opportunities to make large savings of energy are
wasted. Pipes that could recycle steam from a generator to a boiler have
rusted through; patching the holes at a cost of Pounds sterling 50 would
save Pounds sterling 30 000 per year. Broken valves cause steam and hot
water to run through mains, which are usually unlagged, 24 hours a day,
seven days a week. A pressurised circuit in a chemicals factory or in a
power station that is designed with three compressors will very soon need
a fourth to compensate for leaks.

Hungary’s greatest folly, however, was to become involved in the Danube
hydroelectric scheme (‘Hungarian Greens with the Danube blues’, New ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´,
18 August 1988). This involves the construction of two power stations, one
at Gabcikovo in Czechoslovakia and another, now almost certain to be cancelled,
at Nagymaros in Hungary. The cost of the project, which is being shared
with Czechoslovakia, is more than Pounds sterling 1 billion. But what about
the benefits? Hungary is due to receive half of the power generated; this
will be about 1800 million kilowatt-hours, just 4 per cent of the country’s
demand. But first it must reimburse Austria, which financed the scheme:
for the first 20 years that the scheme operates, two-thirds of the energy
due to Hungary must be exported to Austria. In winter, Austria must receive
twice as much power as it does in summer, which requires Hungary to build
more coal-fired power stations to generate electricity for export. No wonder
Hungary wants to withdraw from the scheme. A programme of energy conservation
in the first place would have saved a lot of trouble.