systems by touting, with unfounded negative remarks on passive solar, the expensive, high-technology systems produ~ed by big business. The ERDA response to Rain and this wnter over the telephone was appalling. October 1977 RAIN P_age 17 But it is no longer "outsiders" like CAN, CSPI, PIRG or R_AIN, however respected and supported by large constituencies, who now have second thoughts on ERDA's high-tech, big business, utility, aerospace orientation. Or state agencies First, a diatribe against the young staffers at the California like California ERCD,c; whose staffers have the nerve to speak Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission the truth to the federal juggernaut and get bad-mouthed on ~ho fir~t calle~ ~tte11:tion to the blatant, anti-passive solar, pro- taxpayer-funded WATS lines for it. big busmess/utihty bias of the ERDA/Honeywell Transport- . Now the questions on ERDA's'direction and fuQ.-ding levels able Solar Lab (TSL). Then Rhett Turnipseed, assistant to the· come from_the U.S. Congresf Office of Technology AssessE~DA solar division director, explained to me that Jeffrey ment (OTA) and from Science magazine, definitely "establishReiss' ,and Gary Starr's critique of the TSL could be dismissed ment sources." OTA's report says that small-scale, on-site ~ut of hand be~a:u~e 1,~they were simply rebellious pro-solar electric and heating/cooling systems are too important to igyoung Tur~s, ~1th counterculture connections," 2) they nore. Solar energy will become competitive with conventionhave no engmeermg degrees and therefore cannot poss-ibly al fuels abroad before it reaches that state in the U.S., because k~ow enoug~ to critique a certified engineer, 3) Dr. George of higher fuel and lower'.labor cosi:s, creating a significant exLof says their arguments are "technically incorrect"·and 4) port market for U.S.-made solar equipment. It would also Lof is advisi,ng ERDA on changes to be made. relieve some of the strain imposed on international stability Befor~ debunk~ng each point and noting that the follow-up by competition for energy resources. Furthermore, since solar letter which mentioned none of our phone disagreements re- is l~bor-intensive, it creates jobs in trades now suffering from counted below and seemed written to soothe my congressmen, senous unemployment, such as the building trades. Solar techto wh~m I had sent copies, there is one hint you may find ~10logy also allows a number of small enterprises to compete useful if ERDA/DOE calls you on your own criticism. Just m the market for energy generating equipment-a market listen. Let them dig themselves into a deep tech~ical and denied to small business for decades. Finally, the OTA study public relations (with you!) hole while you take notes on concludes the major environmental impact of small-scale, biased attitudes ("counterculture," no engineering degree, on-site solar equipment is positive because it would replace etc._) and unfounded assumptions which can he countered by energy ~esou_rces which create much greater environmental their own reports and studies (Passive Solar Heating & Cooling damage. , • • Conference & Workshop Proceedings, May 18-19, 1976, Albu- Sound f~miliar? Right, it's what the "outsiders" all the q~erqu_e, NM, NTIS No. LA-6637-C, $10.50 per copy, $ 3 . way back to the late '60s coi,rnterculture young Turks have microfiche; see also OTA, Science, below) . . - been saying for at least a decade. OTA's main conclusion is _First, and unfortunately for Turnipseed, I know Jeffrey •that ERDA has consistently over-emphasized large centralized Reiss personally, and his earlier efforts with fellQw students. solar facilities (i.e. big business, 'utility, aerospace) at the exon various solar projects in the urban planning department of pense of smaller equipment. the University of Oregon. He does good conscientious work, But the best overviews yet of ERDA's money mis-direction t~king tin;ie -to get it critiqued before publishing; as I did at is a series in Science magazine, listed at the end of this article. times. If he'-s a "rebellious, etc.," so are thousands of others It covers each renewable energy area in turn after an initial these days, including me. But, as mentioned earlier, now we're analysis suggesting ERDA is inappropriately running its solar pretty much working rationally and effectively'for needed R&D program on the nuclear model they (_after all, they're changes and have perceptions and experience needed by our mostly former AEC, NSF or corporate types) are most familiar country. But people like Turnipseed could change that! \Yith. No citizen writing his/her congressional representative Secon1, no o_ne in 'this country would find it very difficult on ERDA should fail to read and include a copy of the relet<? recogmz~ a high-tech, pro-engineer, pro-active solar system vant critique, and nuclear intervenors,·consumer advocates, bias and attitude when he/she sees it in TSL exhibits and will find them useful and enlightening. wo~kshop materials. Solar heating meth,ods are too simple and• But finally,_thanks to much lobbying by a.t. advocates, e_asiir u~,derstood for the usual "technological awe an,d mysti- • E~DA is doing something praiseworthy. A $500,000 "Appro- • fication purveyed by engineers to work on anyone, let alone pnate Energy Technology''. Pilot Program, a regional effort Jeffrey Reiss, who is more knowledgeable on solar than many . conducted in Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, American ERDA bureaucrats I have met. But the main point is that one . Samoa, Guam and the Pacific Trust Territory, is being run needs no academic credentials to recognize the I.a.ck of en- from the San Francisco Operations Office, ERDA, 13 33 thusiasm for passive systems displayed by ERDA's anti-small Broadway, Oakland, CA 94612. Program announcements are systems, anti-small business approach to solar energy. Even available and will tell you how to prepare an application. The the U.S. Congress says so (see below). ,,,. deadline for receipt of applica~ions is 5 p.m., Nov. 21, 1977, Third, ii: is insufficient and an obvious conflict of interest for Dr. Lof to call Reiss "technically incorrect" and do the revision of his own TSL workshop material. Lof is an expert, but only in expensive, complicated, active systems such as one finds in the Colorado State Univ. ERDA-funded houses. Only now is he discovering passive solar, according to the solar grapevine. It would be more appropriate to have an enthusiastic _and experienced proponent and builder of passive solar review the workshop materials. Only a naive fool would expect a useful and unstinting revision ot them by those only very recently and tentatively interested in passive solar. ERDA/ DOE should have Steve Baer at Zomeworks or Ken Haggard at the New Mexico Solar Energy Association do the work. In any case, we'd like to watchdog this further, using the . ~AIN reader network Please let me know i\ the TSL continues to debunk small business and passive solar when it hits your town. Stubborn federal mules need 2x4 traini,ng, you know! so ~urry! Funding is up to $10,000 for "idea development projects, and up to $50,000 for "concept testing projects" and "demonstration projects." The application is straightforward and short. Looks good. -L~e Johnson Resources: "Application of ?olar Technology to Today's Needs," June 1977 Charles W. Wixom Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) U.S. Congress ·washington, DC 20510 Science: 15 July, Solar R&D on Nuclear Model? 22 July, Solar Thermal Electric 29 July, Photovoltaics 12 August, Solar Thermal 19 August, Biomass Fuels & editorial 2 September, Large & Small Wind Systems 1515 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20005
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz