Page 14 RAIN April 1978 Marie McAuliffe not simply more windspeed data and windpower availability studies. I lowell & Todd of the Bureau of Reclamation in Dcnver, Colorado, in thcir Feb. 24, 1978, paper, "What Size of Wind Machine [s Best for a National Electric Power Mission?", support a number of these points: Il/ the present time, the number ofcompanies actively engaged in development of windpowered generators is very small, and all of those so engaged are industrial giants. An obvious reason is that the very large investment of overhead effort required for responding to the currertt targets ofthe US. Department of Energy in the range from 1.5 to 3 MW effectively bars smaller companies from participation. One important consequence is that the number ofpeople involved in innovative thinking and experimentation on the subject ofwindpower is very limited, and access to the field on the part ofoutside inventors with perhaps radical ideas is very difficult. If the unit size of machines were small enough, and production targets were large enough, the rate of innovation and development in the field ofwindpower might he correspondingly greater. and ... We have the example of the first major prototype windpowered generator, the N/1SA Mod-O Machine installed at Plum Brook, Ohio. First erected in 1973, it encourltered and overcame one difficulty after another irl sequential order, finally achieving operational capability late in 1977. Each problem was discovered and tuckled after the previous one had been solved. The entire national windpower effort was like a train traveling a single-track line from A to B and being forced to stop dead every time a hotbox occurred. In retrospect, it appears that much faster progress would have been made if the national effort had been planned to progress along several parallel tracks simultaneously, with alternate routes to reach important goals. It would he perhaps wise to review windpower strategy at the present time to see whether procurement oflarger numbers ofsmaller machines would not recruit more innovators, more inventors, and more cost-conscious producers into tbe national program, and thus follow the trail blazed by the automotive and aviation industries toward early commercialization. In fact, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has developed an entire shopping list of what needs to be done in the federal wind energy program and the budget needed to do it all, with a focus on widespread, publicly visible demonstrations of all sizes and kinds of wind-turbines and on getting them out into the energy marketplace for sale. Copies of The Federal Wind Program. A Proposal for FY 1979 Budget, February 18, 1978, prepared for the Dept. of Energy, are available for $3.00 per copy from the American Wind Energy Association, 54468 CR 31, Bristol, IN 46507. It's the best update available of what's going on now in wind across the country, as well as a clear guide to our most sensible next steps. A.T. at DOE: the Office of Small-Scale Technology (OSST) The a. t. energy grants pilot program has so far been very well ru n in federal region IX, the exemplary effort being that of the California OAT, where three obvious gold stars (like Sunday school, remember?) should go to Barbara Burd, Alison McKenzie and Bob Judd, the new OAT director. However, the most unsung hero of all is Web Otis, in DOE's San Francisco Operations Office, who knew absolutely nothing about a. t. when he was given the job of running this weird new program for California, Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii and the Pacific Trust Territories. But rather than sit at his desk and hire a high-priced consultant to come in to explain it all to him, like most federal bureaucrats do, Web simply said, "Hey, everybody, I'm going to be gone a few days. I'm going to go check this out." And so he visited a.t. people all ovcr, listening a lot and asking each of them who he should talk to next about what a. t. is and how they'd run a small grants program. It's called "networking," or maybe just "getting out to meet the folks." And with what he learned, Web put together a fine program which other federal regions have only to fine-tune. Tentative dates planned for the announcement of a. t. grant winners are as follows: Hawaii Mareh 31, 1978 Arizona April 3, 1978 California AprilS, 1978 Nevada April 7,1978 Yet, despite all this hard work in the region and the overwhelming number of fine proposals, DOE-OSST in D.C. has continually turned a deaf ear to requests, backed up by ample written justification in a continual stream of data, letters and reports, to release the rest of the money budgeted by the Congress so all the good ideas could be funded ... all $8 million. Again, as with the wind energy program, we can follow what happens when a solitary D.C. bureaucrat lacks the experience and enthusiasm to want to run an effective program. It's official obtuseness like this that makes me feel sometimes that Steve Baer is right: And turns me into an anti-government right-winger! Jerry Duane Has to Go The present OSST director, Jerry Duane, should be removed, or given a small part of a larger, IS-person OSST to run, as he seems to have reached his level of competence ala "the Peter Principle." For when Congress said "you can spend $8 million in FY '78 on a.t.," DOE-OSST only asked for $5 million in its budget request and, when the Office of Management and Budget asks, "Say, how about taking $3 million?" Duane whimpers and says "OK." That's what must be seen as a lack of managerial enthusiasm for one's own program, which comes from either a "who cares" or a spineless, "I hope I can handle it" attitude.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz