Page images
PDF
EPUB

Testimony to the

House Science and Technology Committee
Energy Development and Applications Sub-Committee

June 14, 1979

by J. Douglas Balcomb

Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory
Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545

Thank you for asking me to testify on my favorite topic--solar energy. I have served as Solar Energy Program Coordinator at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory since 1973, building up a group of 40 people working on solar collectors and systems analysis, with a recent emphasis on passive solar heating research. I served as Technical Advisor to the Solar Working Group which completed a major policy review initiated under the direction of the General Advisory Committee of ERDA. I am Chairman of the American Section of the International Solar Energy Society, the largest solar organization in the world.

The Solar Working Group study was conducted by a very high level group who were, by and large, not solar advocates. We were assisted through a $250,000 systems analysis contract with the Stanford Research Institute. I believe that the principal findings of that study were sound and I will stand by them today. Among solar technologies, we predicted the major impacts to be by solar heating, principally by passive systems and domestic hot water heating systems, and by fuels from biomass. The study was relatively pessimistic about the promise of solar electrification with the exception of two technologies, large-size wind machines and photovoltaics. The promise of photovoltaics was seen to be principally in the long-term through hoped-for advances stemming from intensive research. The technology with lowest projected impact was found to be industrial process heat. The report recommended a reordering of priorities to give greater emphasis to distributed systems instead of centralized ones, to de-emphasize large-scale demonstrations, and to increase the proportion of funding for research across the whole program so as to provide a firm foundation for early maturing technologies and maximize the probabily for breakthrough in the longer term technologies.

My personal assessment, however, is that the bulk of solar funding has been misdirected. R & D funding has been allocated almost in inverse proportion to the promise of the various technologies. The glittering and

glamorous have been given priority over the practical and cost effective. Solar has been seen as a panacea to be dreamed about rather than a practical solution virtually in hand. Proposed future funding trends continue this pattern.

I believe that the overall result of government support for solar R & D has been positive but that in the area of solar commercialization it has been negative.

The national program has been very unresponsive to public input. For example, the NEA tax credits for solar do not apply to most passive systems despite this having been identified as a problem two years ago and extensive pressure by grass roots solar organizations. The DOE program seems to have developed a momentum of its own, proceeding without high level support or understanding within the Department or well-defined guidelines and goals.

As a nation, 13% of our end-use energy is electricity, twice that is used heating buildings and hot water, and three times as much for transportation fuels. Of these applications, by far the most difficult and costly for solar is generation of electricity and the easiest and cheapest is for heat. Yet the solar electric programs continue to receive 63% of the national solar funding, and this proportion is growing. You must understand that it is far easier and more cost effective to displace a kilowatt hour by either conservation or use of solar energy than it is to generate a kilowatt hour by any means, including solar.

Passive solar systems have been shown to be cost-effective in competition with electric heating throughout the United States, with oil heating in most places, and with natural gas in some. Passive systems are two to three times as cost effective as active systems for space heating and are roughly comparable to active systems for domestic hot water heating. Passive systems are attractive and offer comfort, convenience, and reliability. They have been shown to be effective in every part of the United States and to be suitable for retrofit of existing buildings as well as new construction. Los Alamos we have been monitoring buildings and test rooms, developing and validating mathematical analysis techniques, performing systems analysis for the entire range of U.S. climatic conditions, and developing design tools that can be used by architects and engineers to incorporate passive solar into their building designs. Our progress includes development of a Passive Solar Design Handbook incorporating our findings to date. There is an enormous

At

amount of research and evaluation to do, but I fear that much of it will go undone.

A principal problem has been that once a technology is identified as being cost-effective, this is taken as a signal that no further research need be done. This plagued the National Solar Demonstration Program for active systems where major problems stemmed from a failure to evaluate systems before demonstration. Solar water heating is another case in point. Conventional wisdom holds that solar water heating is here and that no further research and development need be done, at least by the Government. Yet the performance of water heaters is not well understood and the cost of systems available in this country is double that of water heaters in many other countries. In Australia, for example, a complete solar water heating system can be purchased for $750 and installed for an additional $100. These systems outperform a typical U.S. system and there are 50,000 units installed despite energy costs which are lower than in the U.S. I think part of this imbalance can be attributed to U.S. government intervention which has tended to lay down rules rather than provide concrete assistance.

I believe that any building which does not utilize solar heat will be obsolete the day it is finished-obsolete in the sense that it will outlast its economic fuel supply.

I will conclude with my reactions to the Domestic Policy Review of Solar Energy. I concur with the general findings of the Summary and support the tenor of Option III--"to dramatically increase federal support with a variety of programs that give solar energy high priority as a national goal". I find that the Summary correctly identifies the key technologies which should be emphasized although I would not agree with the projections of energy displaced by those technologies in many instances. In particular, I feel that the estimate of energy displaced by passive solar design under the "maximum practical" and "technical limits" categories are small by a factor of about three. I also believe that the "base-case" estimate for energy displaced by industrial and agricultural applications is much too large, although the "maximum practical" and "technical limits" are probably about right.

My general concern is that the program proposed in the DPR does not follow from the findings of the Summary nor from the results of the public forums. These were very explicit in recommending a different type of program than in the past, but the DPR recommendations follow previous DOE planning with only minor variation. The proposed options are badly balanced.

The report of the RD&D panel recommends a very hardware-oriented effort, placing continued massive emphasis on programs with little promise.

I continue to be concerned about premature government efforts to disseminate solar information. In the past some information disseminated has been either wrong or valueless. Programs have been developed on the assumption that accurate and reliable information exists in a suitable form when this has not always been the case.

I feel that the Option III strategies, while correct in the general level of effort proposed, have not been well thought out. In many instances a goal has been stated with little indication as to how that goal is to be achieved. Mandates are too often indicated where no mechanism is identified which would lead to the desired result. The impact of both the NEA and Federal Buildings programs is much overrated.

Solar energy development must be a national priority. All government programs must be consistent with this goal. Often the government itself provides the greatest barriers to commercialization.

For example the proposed Building Energy Performance Standards will tend to freeze the technology and drive up costs. We are in the infancy of our knowledge regarding rational energy use in buildings and it is altogether the wrong time to stifle innovation through standards.

In conclusion I hope that the recommendations of the Domestic Policy Review will result in establishing solar energy use as a major national initiative and goal. Too often in the past positive action has been delayed by ordering yet another major review. Based on the information assembled by the DPR, an effective program could be developed. I believe that the nation should make a major commitment without further delay.

Mr. BALCOMB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the members of the committee for asking me to testify on my favorite topic, solar energy. I have served as solar energy program coordinator at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory since 1973, building up a group of 40 people working on solar collectors and systems analysis, with a recent emphasis on passive solar heating research.

I served as technical adviser to the solar working group which completed a major policy review initiated under the direction of the General Advisory Committee of ERDA. I am chairman of the American Section of the International Solar Energy Society, the largest solar organization in the world.

The solar working group study was conducted by a very high level group who were, by and large, not solar advocates. We were assisted through a $250,000 systems analysis contract with Stanford Research Institute.

I believe that the principal findings of that study were sound and I will stand by them today. Among solar technologies, we predicted the major impacts to be by solar heating, principally by passive systems and domestic hot water heating systems, and by fuels from biomass.

The study was relatively pessimistic about the promise of solar electrification, with the exception of two technologies: large-size wind machines and photovoltaics. The promise of photovoltaics was seen to be principally in the long-term, through hoped for advances stemming from intensive research.

The technology with lowest projected impact was found to be industrial process heat. The report recommended a reordering of priorities to give greater emphasis to distributed systems, instead of centralized ones, to de-emphasize large-scale demonstrations and to increase the proportion of funding for research across the whole program so as to provide a firm foundation for early maturing technologies and maximize the probability for breakthrough in the longer-term technologies.

My personal assessment, however, is that the bulk of solar funding has been misdirected. R. & D. funding has been allocated almost in inverse proportion to the promise of the various technologies. The glittering and glamorous have been given priority over the practical and cost effective. Solar has been seen as a panacea to be dreamed about rather than a practical solution virtually in hand. Proposed future R. & D. funding trends continue this pattern.

I believe that the overall result of Government support for solar R. & D. has been positive because there has been so much of it, but that in the area of solar commercialization it has been negative. The national program has been very unresponsive to public input. For example, the NEA tax credits for solar do not apply to most passive systems, despite this having been identified as a problem two years ago and extensive pressure by grassroots solar organizations. The DOE program seems to have developed a momentum of its own, proceeding without high level support or understanding within the department or well-defined guidelines and goals.

As a nation, 13 percent of our end use energy is electricity. Twice that is used heating buildings and hot water, and three times as much for transportation fuels. Of these applications, by far the most difficult and costly for solar is generation of electricity and the easiest and cheapest is for heat.

Yet the solar electric programs continue to receive 63 percent of the national solar funding, and this proportion is growing. You must understand that it far easier and more cost effective to displace a kilowatt hour by either conservation or use of solar energy than it is to generate a kilowatt hour by any means, including solar.

Passive solar systems have been shown to be cost effective in competition with electric heating throughout the United States, with oil heating in most places, and with natural gas in some. Passive systems are two to three times as cost effective as active systems for space heating and are roughly comparable to active systems for domestic hot water heating. Passive systems are attractive and offer comfort, convenience and reliability. They have been shown to be effective in every part of the United States and to be suitable for retrofit of existing buildings as well as new construction.

I live in a passive solar home in northern New Mexico and it is about 95 percent solar heated. It cost me $27 the winter before last and $43 last winter to heat a 2,000 square foot building very comfortably in a climate which is roughly as severe as Chicago. Of course, we have more sun than Chicago, but these regional variations account for only about a factor-of-two variation in cost effectiveness.

« PreviousContinue »