Images de page
PDF
ePub

factors, can you advise as to how the design selection process should be administered?

Answer. We believe that viable solar units will have to meet appropriate technical performance, economic, esthetic and social/legal requirements and that the selection process should aim at identifying designs that meet these requirements. In soliciting proposals for design of solar units, the specifications in the Requests For Proposals should spell out detailed constraints in the cited respects; and for evaluation of proposed designs, the review board should consist of members who, together, are capable of judging the degree to which all the requirements are met. After the designs have been selected, the demonstration units should be open for inspection and selection by the public, in the same way as "model homes" are open to the public in new housing developments.

Question 3. Large numbers of demonstration units on a few sites may lower the per unit cost, while smaller numbers on many sites may provide greater visibility, and increased diversity of design and utilize more climatic regions. Which of these approaches would you prefer and why?

Answer. We believe that soundness of design, diversity, and visibility are important, particularly in the demonstration phase, and therefore would prefer the latter approach. In achieving sound designs the climatic/geographic factors require recognition because they affect the technical performance, economic, stylistic and social/legal requirements that a viable solar unit must satisfy. We believe it would be desirable to assemble a representative group of a small number of diverse, well designed units for each major climatic/geographic region of the country, and to demonstrate each group of units in an appropriate number of places within the respective climatic/geographic area. We believe it is probable that soundness and diversity of design, and also visibility, could be achieved in this manner.

Question 4. Residential units have widespread public visibility, while different types of commercial units are reported to have greater near-term economic potential. How would you allocate the proposed funding between these two parts of the bill and why?

Answer. It is our understanding that the technical performance, economic, esthetic and social requirements that solar units must satisfy can be met more easily in large commercial buildings than in private residences; and that successful solar energy demonstrations with the large buildings would have beneficial effects on the design and popular acceptance of solar conditioning in private houses. It seems appropriate, therefore, to fund development and demonstration of solar conditioning of commercial buildings at a sufficient level to provide a high probability of success within a relatively early time frame, and to allocate the remainder of the proposed funding to a parallel development of the capability to demonstrate solar heating and cooling of residences. We believe it very important to assure that the funding for the residential demonstrations is also adequate. In attempting to assess actual magnitudes of funds we would consider it appropriate to consult with architect/engineer and construction organizations, in addition to the solar energy R&D groups.

Question 5. Promoting retrofitting will greatly expand the market potential for manufacturers, but will presumably be less aesthetically pleasing; new construction would be more economical and trouble free. Would you recommend pursuing both approaches in this demonstration phase? Why?

Answer. We would recommend pursuing both approaches in the demonstration phase, for the reasons stated in the Question. In addition, retrofitting has a very substantial energy saving potential and we believe it should be actively pursued for this reason as well. Innovative concepts may provide satisfactory solutions to the esthetic aspects of retrofitting. New construction offers near, intermediate and long term energy saving potential and vigorous pursuit of such construction is strongly recommended.

Question 6. What recommendations can you make to insure that high standards of performance and quality are met by manufacturers of solar heating and cooling units?

Answer. Simplicity and soundness of design; readily available, reasonably priced, high performance materials; adequately skilled labor; quality control during manufacture; and a reasonable profit margin would promote high standards of performance and quality in solar units. In addition, conventional techniques for promoting high quality are available; for example, a "seal of approval" by an authorized testing agency, requirement of a warranty on per

formance and parts, and legal enforcement of standards on the basis of health and safety.

Question 7. How can professional organizations (architects, engineers, etc.) and other groups (lenders, realtors, etc.) provide assistance in meeting the objectives of this legislation?

Answer. Professional organizations can raise the visibility of solar energy for heating and cooling and disseminate design data through technical conferences, seminars and workshops; can carry out voluntary community action projects of the kind sponsored by the National Society of Professional Engineers (e.g., the study of solar heating and cooling for Arizona by the southern chapter in Tucson); can cooperate with educational organizations in the preparation of chapters on solar heating and cooling for engineering textbooks; can help in the preparation of design manuals and in maintenance of up-to-date data banks for practicing professionals; and can cooperate with the Congress by presenting testimony and providing consultation on aspects of solar heating and cooling requiring legislative support.

Lenders can base decisions on loans and can structure the payment schedules on the basis of life-cycle cost accounting rather than on initial investment. Builders, proceeding with the understanding that life cycle cost accounting will be used and that solar systems become more cost competitive as fossil fuel prices rise, can build solar heated and cooled homes in substantial numbers for sale to the public.

Question 8. What specific recommendations can you make regarding patents and protection of proprietary rights to ensure maximum industrial participation in this demonstration project?

Answer. We would recommend that the program be carried out under a patent policy which is sufficiently flexible to permit protection of the public's interest and, at the same time, ensures maximum industrial participation. We believe that the National Aeronautics and Space Act has provided NASA with a policy of this scope in that under our patent program we are able to protect inventions resulting from our activities and encourage their early utilization in the commercial sector and, in addition, to assure industry's cooperation by appropriately recognizing and protecting their proprietary rights.

Question 9. Can you suggest any additional incentives or marketing strategies which will ensure widespread and continued acceptance of solar heating and cooling technology by designers, builders, lenders, and buyers?

Answer. We believe that buyers will accept solar heating and cooling on a continuing basis if the technical performance, economic, esthetic and social/legal requirements are met. We think it is essential, therefore, that demonstration units and early installations in buildings be satisfactory in these respects. Announcement of government supported development of technology and of suitable demonstration units would provide a substantial incentive for initial interest in solar heated and cooled homes; public awareness of government sponsorship and support would influence buyers, builders and lenders.

An economic incentive to use solar heating and cooling exists in the rising costs of fossil fuels and electricity. An educational campaign would be valuable, if aimed at alerting builders, lenders and buyers of the continually increasing competitiveness of solar heating and cooling, and especially when costed on a life cycle basis.

An additional incentive to the buyer would be a payment schedule based on life cycle cost accounting. Economic assistance by the government in the retrofitting of buildings would be of substantial value. For commercial buildings, provision for accelerated depreciation allowance would help promote installation of solar heating and cooling.

For builders, low interest loans and subsidies for application to the building of large numbers of units would be additional incentives.

For designers, the awareness that sound technology is being developed and successfully applied to residential and commercial buildings would be justification for continued proposal and improvement of solar heated and cooled buildings.

Mr. McCORMACK. I would like at this point to mention we received a written statement from the Honorable Harold Johnson of California to be submitted in the record at this time. Congressman Johnson's testimony will be submitted at this point in the record. [The statement of Congressman Johnson is as follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD T. (Bizz) JOHNSON, A CONGRESSMAN FROM

CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman: I salute you and the members of your committee on your outstanding efforts to encourage the development of solar energy. I am pleased to appear here today as a co-sponsor of this legislation.

America unquestionably is deep in the throes of a serious energy crisis. The President has called on the Congress to take action to alleviate some of the more serious problems. I for one believe that the Congress is and has taken positive steps to counteract the effects of the crisis and insure better use of the available sources of energy.

You yourself Mr. Chairman have captioned solar energy as "one of the most exciting options available." Solar energy is technologically feasible, financially viable, environmentally clean, available in limitless quantity-no one can cut off our sunshine imports-and readily available to each consumer.

With the energy crisis as it is, we can no longer afford to ignore the benefits of solar energy. Our real problem with solar energy is that we are not prepared for its use. Research and development in this field is far behind the schedule that this country will be demanding of it in the very near future. Therefore, it is the duty of the Congress to foresee this situation and take action now to advance the incentives for development and production of solar energy. The technology exists today; we just have to make use of it.

Much of the problem deals with education of the general public. Solar energy has not been demonstrated as a feasible solution to the problem. Granted, it is not the sole answer to our energy needs, but is an important contributor. It is a fuel of the future.

Large scale demonstration projects are needed. Federal agencies must work together to advise consumers of the possibilities of solar energy. People must learn that solar energy can work.

Research and development in solar heating and cooling is a relatively new item in the Federal budget. In the past few years the Federal allocation was $1 million. By 1973 it was up to $4 million, with budget requests for fiscal year 1974 at $12.2 million. This is an improvement, but widespread acceptance of the idea will not increase at this rate of expenditure.

There are many problems to be worked out before solar energy can become a main source of energy for such things as power plants, but the ability to heat and cool houses with solar energy is available now.

This legislation, the Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Act of 1973, provides for the early commercial demonstration of the technology of solar heating and cooling. Many of our Federal agencies would participate in this effort over a five-year period. This legislation can lead the way to a better use of our resources and a more realistic use of solar energy and its capabilities as available to us today.

I call on this committee to give serious consideration to recommending this legislation for enactment. This can be another concrete step by the Congress to seek alternative ways of easing the energy crisis confronting this nation today.

Our next witness is Dr. Guy Stever. Dr. Stever as you know is Director of the National Science Foundation and the President's science adviser. Dr. Stever has with him Dr. Al Eggers, the Director of RANN, and Mr. Richard Green.

I think we all know you well enough, Dr. Stever, you don't need any further introduction, if you would go ahead with your statement we would appreciate it.

[A biographical sketch of Dr. Stever follows:]

DR. H. GUYFORD STEVER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Dr. H. Guyford Stever assumed the post of Director of the National Science Foundation on February 1, 1972, following his nomination by the President to a six-year term and his unanimous confirmation by the Senate.

In addition to his duties as Director of the Foundation, Dr. Stever has been named Science Adviser and Chairman of the Federal Council for Science and Technology by the President.

He is also the U.S. Chairman of the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Joint Commission on Scientific and Technical Cooperation; Chairman of the Technical Advisory Com

mittee on Research and Development, National Power Survey, Federal Power Commission; and Chairman of the Board of Governors of the U.S.-Israel Binational Science Foundation.

Dr. Stever is a member of the National Science Board and Chairman of the Board's Executive Committee. He is also a member of the President's Committee on the National Medal of Science; Executive Advisory Committee, National Power Survey, Federal Power Commission; National Council on Educational Research; National Cancer Advisory Board, National Cancer Institute; U.S.Japan Committee on Scientific Cooperation; Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities; and the Senior Executives Council of The Conference Board.

Prior to his appointment to head NSF, Dr. Stever had served as President of Carnegie Mellon University (and one of its predecessors, Carnegie Institute of Technology) since February, 1965. His presidency was marked by significant change and growth in the university.

In 1967, Carnegie Tech merged with Mellon Institute to form Carnegie-Mellon University, with a total endowment of almost $120,000,000. During his tenure, a new School of Urban and Public Affairs was created to meet the demand for persons capable of dealing with our growing urban problems. A College of Humanities and Social Sciences was also established. Significant changes in engineering and science curricula were made, and a major science building erected.

Before his appointment to the presidency of CMU, Dr. Stever served on the faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for more than 20 years. He held positions which included Head of the Departments of Mechanical Engineering, Naval Architecture, and Marine Engineering (1961-1965); Professor of Aeronautical Engineering (1956-1965); and Associate Dean of Engineering (19561959). He was Science Liaison Officer at the London Mission of the Office of Scientific Research and Development from 1942 to 1945.

During the time he was at MIT, Dr. Stever achieved prominence as an educator and in his service to the Federal government. He was Chief Scientist of the U.S. Air Force from 1955 to 1956 and was a member of the Advisory Panel to the House of Representatives, Committee on Science and Astronautics from 1959 until 1972. He was a member of the President's Commission on the Patent System from 1965 to 1967 and Chairman of the Commission's Ad Hoc Science Panel. Dr. Stever also has headed many other aeronautical and scientific advisory committees at the Federal level.

Professionally, Dr. Stever has specialized in aeronautical, missile, and spacecraft engineering, design, and performance, particularly aerodynamics; radiation physics; scientific and engineering education; university administration; and science policy, with principal contributions in the fields of high speed flows of compressible fluids and control and guidance of flight vehicles. He is best known for his work on condensation phenomena in high speed flows and the growth of the boundary layer behind a shockwave. He has pioneered in missile guidance and increased our understanding of the stability and control of transonic aircraft.

As an internationally-known expert on aeronautical engineering and space technology, Dr. Stever has often been honored for his work in both fields and for his service to the government. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering (Chairman, Aeronautical and Space Engineering Board, 1967-1969), Institute of Aeronautical Sciences (Vice-President, 19581959; President, 1960-1962), American Physical Society, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (Fellow), American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Royal Aeronautical Association, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Phi Beta Kappa, and other organizations.

Dr. Stever has also done extensive consulting and has served on a number of boards of directors in private industry. Among these, he has been a director of United Aircraft Corporation, Koppers Company, Inc., and Fisher Scientific Company.

Born in Corning, New York on October 24, 1916, Dr. Stever received his A.B. from Colgate University in 1938 and his Ph. D. in physics from California Institute of Technology in 1941. He has received 12 honorary degrees and other honors, including the President's Certificate of Merit, 1948; Exceptional Civilian Service Award, U.S. Air Force, 1956; Scott Gold Medal, American Ordnance Association, 1960; Distinguished Public Service Medal, Department of Defense, 1968; and was named Pittsburgh's "Man of the Year" by the Junior Chamber of Commerce in 1966.

He is the author of more than 45 published articles, papers, or chapters on scientific, technical, educational, and science policy matters.

Dr. Stever is married to the former Louise Risley Floyd. They have two daughters, Sarah Newell (Mrs. Douglas W. Marshall) and Margarette Risley; and two sons, Horton Guyford, Jr. and Roy Risley.

STATEMENT OF DR. H. GUYFORD STEVER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, ACCOMPANIED BY DR. ALFRED J. EGGERS, JR., AND RICHARD GREEN

Dr. STEVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today to comment on the provisions of H.R. 10952, the "Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Act of 1973." I might note that in our authorization bill we were directed to establish a division-the Division of Advanced Energy Research and Technology-on energy and we have so done, and Richard Green is its first head.

First, I wish to express my profound respect for the efforts of this committee in taking initiative in the energy area. Beginning with the earlier work of the energy task force, you have played a major role in sharpening the Nation's awareness of the serious nature of the problems we face and in mobilizing its determination to find solutions. Of particular significance have been the efforts of this committee and you, Mr. Chairman, to call attention to the possibilities of using solar energy in both the near and more distant future, as a significant source of energy to help meet the Nation's needs. That we may actually be reaching the stage where we can begin to harness this power on Earth in a widespread and effective way-that we may, in fact, be on the threshold of the Sun age-is both exciting and challenging.

COMMENT ON H.R. 10952

Specifically with regard to H.R. 10952, the National Science Foundation shares with the committee the goal of developing the technology for combined solar heating and cooling of buildings as soon as practicably possible. It is gratifying that some 164 Congressmen agree with the importance of utilizing solar energy. I think my testimony will show that NSF is already moving in this direction with a carefully planned and well-paced program.

We agree with the principle stated in section 8 of H.R. 10952, that the role of NSF should be to initiate and support basic and applied research in relation to solar energy. This principle was reaffirmed in your letter to me of November 1, Mr. Chairman, in which you state, "H.R. 10952 has directed NASA to undertake the actual procurement of the hardware. At the same time we are sure that NSF will play a most important research role." The NSF position is that it should carry some research programs through proof-of-concept experiments, thereby establishing that a system design is feasible in its technological, economic, and social aspects. At that point we believe the appropriate agency to assume responsibility for demonstration on a large scale would be the Energy Research and Development Administration. Accordingly, we support the administration's proposal to establish this agency as contained in H.R. 9090, which was reemphasized in the President's November 7 energy message.

« PrécédentContinuer »