Mobil is a participant in the Joint Industry Hydrogen Fluoride Mitigation Program which is addressing the impact assessment of accidental releases of hyrdogen fluoride. On behalf of the participants (Amoco, Exxon, Marathon and Allied Signal, Inc.), Mobil is planning to conduct, during calendar year 1988, a series of releases which will test the effect of major variables on the mitigation efficiency of

water-spray systems.

Also being negotiated for the 1988 test season are efforts to be sponsored by National Foam System, Inc., which will evaluate the efficacy of various foams in suppressing vapor releases from a variety of hazardous materials. These tests involving materials such as sulfur dioxide, bromine, phosgene and chlorine will be conducted in cooperation with their respective manufacturers.

During 1987 in response to the requirements of Section 118(n) of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 and the legislative guidance contained in House Report 99-670, accompanying the Continuing Appropriations, Fiscal Year 1987, the Department entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation in support of a collaborative research and development program involving

hazardous substance spills to be conducted at the Spill Test Facility. The agreement allows the agencies, in collaboration with the private sector and other government organizations, to develop, structure and prioritize the establishment of a generic national research and development program germane to heavier-than-air gas dispersion, hazardous substance releases and related mitigating technologies. An action plan is in its final stages of formulation and is planned for implementation during calendar year 1988. As the program unfolds, it is

planned that the Western Research Institute will be utilized to provide technical and analytical support to the collaborative effort.

FY 1989 BUDGET PROPOSAL:

The $0.766 million requested for fiscal year 1989 will provide for program continuity, stability and administration and allow for the fiscal flexibility required to supply the necessary responsiveness to prospective facility users in areas of cost estimates, environment, safety and health issues and approvals, pre-test documentation and scientific support.

Also, the requested funding will be used to provide for the management and maintenance of the Spill Test Facility, including the continuation of facility baseline operations support and continued technical interaction with potential sponsors of research. Appropriated funds for the Spill Test Facility have been supplemented by user fees.

There is a growing public awareness that the storage and transportation of pressurized, liquefied gaseous fuels and high vapor pressure chemicals are major commercial activities and that there are risks associated with these activities. Moreover, this heightened awareness appears to be part of an overall national trend that recognizes the dangers associated with hazardous substances. The need for further knowledge on releases of liquefied gases relates the activities of a number of Federal agencies, especially the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Transportation, Department of Defense agencies, and the Department of Energy. In addition, the concern of private industry is shown by those tests that have been conducted at the Spill Test Facility and those that are being planned.

The Liquefied Gaseous Fuels Spill Test Facility program has responded to these concerns by extending the capability breadth of the original facility design to include a broader range of substances that can be tested. Given its design capability for handling high vapor pressure and other potentially hazardous fluids, the facility is a national asset that is making an important "critical initiative" type of contribution for equipment standards, safety and control issues, and industrial regulations to help facilitate the growing attention that is rapidly focusing around the liquefied gaseous fuels and hazardous substances

arena.

PHOTOVOLTAIC ENERGY RESEARCH

Senator JOHNSTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Gibbs.

Miss Fitzpatrick, your statement says that three photovoltaic options could be positioned for industry consideration of production scale up by the early 1990's. What kind of industrial application are you referring to?

Miss FITZPATRICK. This would be that the PV industry would be able to begin marketing products using advanced materials and cell designs by that time.

Senator JOHNSTON. The industrial application, is that for production of electricity?

Miss FITZPATRICK. Yes.

Senator JOHNSTON. For the plant, not central station production.

Miss FITZPATRICK. For both, for central station, grid-connected, or for local applications, and off-grid applications.

Senator JOHNSTON. What do you figure is the cost per installed kilowatt-hour?

Miss FITZPATRICK. Our goal is to get down under $2 a watt, so that would be under $2,000 a kilowatt.

Senator JOHNSTON. How far are you from that now?

Miss FITZPATRICK. We are now under $4 a watt.

Senator JOHNSTON. You are under $4 a watt?

Miss FITZPATRICK. That is right.

Senator JOHNSTON. What makes you think that you would get to under $2 by the early 1990's?

Miss FITZPATRICK. Because of improved efficiencies, so that the same area cell would give you a greater energy output, and also because of improved production techniques which will reduce the manufacturing cost for the cells. Those are the two main areas.

Senator JOHNSTON. But what is your degree of confidence that you can do that?

Miss FITZPATRICK. I am confident, talking to our researchers and also talking to people in the industry who are in the process of designing improved production facilities, they are confident that they can do it.

Senator JOHNSTON. What is the competitive cost of, say, a coal-fired plant by the early 1990's?

Miss FITZPATRICK. It is now, I believe, in the area of about $800 to $1,000 per kilowatt. So we are talking about something that is about twice what a coal-fired plant is for initial capacity. But, of course, the major cost of running a coal-fired plant is fueling it over the life of the plant, and photovoltaics, once you put the plant up, it has very, very low maintenance and operation costs, and no fuel.

Senator JOHNSTON. OK, but say a kilowatt of coal-fired electricity with a scrubber, what is that cost in the early 1990's?

Miss FITZPATRICK. I believe that it is around $1,000, or close to $1,000 a kilowatt.

Senator JOHNSTON. With a scrubber and everything.

Miss FITZPATRICK. I understand. I am prepared to be corrected by the fossil experts, but that is my understanding of approximately what it is.

SOLAR THERMAL ENERGY

Senator JOHNSTON. What is the cost of the electricity from that solar thermal out there, the LUZ plants, for example?

Miss FITZPATRICK. The solar energy generating stations?

Senator JOHNSTON. Yes.

Miss FITZPATRICK. Those generating stations are supplying electricity, mostly for peaking power, to the southern California grid. I will get it for the record, but the general market price for peaking power is around 12 cents a kilowatt-hour in that area.

Their contract price must be public information, since it is a public utility contract, and we will try to get that for you.

[The information follows:]

MARKET PRICE FOR PEAK-HOUR POWER

The market price of peak power depends on a wide variety of factors including the generation mix and capital costs of generating units of the local utility; the demands for power at various times of the day, the week, and the year; fuel prices; cost and availability of power and other utility interties in the power grid; and other regional and financial variables. Because of the variations in these factors, the market price can have a wide range. Utility practice is to use the new large units coming on line for baseload, and to use older less efficient plants or combustion turbines for peak capacity. Older plants typically have lower capital costs, but higher operating and fuel costs than a new base load plant. The cost of generation will also be heavily dependent on the load factor of the unit. A unit running 10 percent of the time would have four times as much capital cost recovery as a unit running 40 percent of the time. The total cost of generation of a typical combustion turbine peaking unit would be about 5 to 15 cents per kilowatt-hour, of which the cost of an oil or gas fuel at today's prices would be about 2 to 5 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Senator JOHNSTON. Does solar thermal promise the same cost reductions as photovoltaics does?

Miss FITZPATRICK. Solar thermal can now deliver electricity at a lower cost than photovoltaics can, rather substantially lower, but we have high

hopes that photovoltaics will catch up to that in the foreseeable future, because photovoltaics now can deliver power for about 70 cents a kilowatt-hour.

PROBLEMS RELATED TO PHOTOVOLTAIC ENERGY SYSTEMS

Senator JOHNSTON. What do you see as your problems with photovoltaics? There is a problem with dust collection, you have to clean them.

Miss FITZPATRICK. Yes; it was thought that this was going to be a problem. It turns out to be not such a great problem. They tend to get washed by the rain or they can be fairly easily and cheaply cleaned. About once a month, just go out and spray them off.

You do degrade the efficiency of the array if you allow it to get dirty, that is true.

Senator JOHNSTON. When you talk about trying to get from $4 to $2 as a price, does that take into consideration storage, where you might have to store during the daytime, or do you figure that you won't have to store photovoltaics because it will be during the peak use, during the daytime?

Miss FITZPATRICK. I don't believe that figure includes storage. It does not. It all depends on how you want to use the system. If you want it as a peaking power system connected to your grid, then you are not particularly concerned about storage.

If you have an off-grid application, such as a navigation post or a communications relay station, and you want 24-hour operation or nondaylight operation, then you would have to have a storage battery, and that does, it is true, add to the cost of the system.

However, for off-grid, remote applications, photovoltaics is already on a life cycle cost basis, competitive with and can beat the alternatives, which are usually diesel-powered generators, and they have much lower maintenance costs.

The Coast Guard, for example, is currently converting 17,000 navigation aids to photovoltaic power, and they expect to save a great deal, especially on maintenance.

Senator JOHNSTON. They would have to have batteries, though, wouldn't they?

Miss FITZPATRICK. Yes; they do have batteries.

Senator JOHNSTON. What is the reliability of the batteries?
Miss FITZPATRICK. Very high.

RENEWABLE ENERGY POTENTIALS

Senator JOHNSTON. What do you see the future of all of this photovoltaic, as well as the LUZ-type projects, say, in the early next century? Miss FITZPATRICK. We expect to see these sources grow, both in absolute generating capacity and in their share in contributing to the nation's energy needs. Renewables overall contribute 8 to 9 percent of our energy demand today. We expect that to go up to about 12 percent in the early part of the 21st century, and that is 12 percent of demand. Since demand will be growing, it will be much more energy than would be requested by 12 percent of today's demand.