4 demand from peak to off-peak hours. The building industry can better justify investments to develop new products: glazings, lighting systems and controls. The general public can enjoy better indoor working environments. Society conserves energy and reduces pressure on supplies of non-renewable resources. The Windows and Daylighting Group has also created and operates the only scientific daylighting test facility in the U.S. available to test proposed building designs: a large 24-foot-diameter Sky Simulator. The complexity of daylit environments and the limited available analytical understanding of how to model such environments has made the simulation of daylighting performance with mathematical models satisfactory only in simple situations. For complex building designs, daylighting performance can be reliably predicted only through photometric measurements in scale models of buildings. Such studies require the controlled simulation of the changing illuminance of the sky, which can only be achieved in a sky simulator. In my experience, many energy saving designs, featuring innovative use of glazing, cannot be justified without such photometric studies. The LBL Sky Simulator has made such studies possible. The facility is used by LBL staff in research studies but it is also available to practitioners such as myself. The designs of several large commercial buildings I have been involved with were justified and accepted only after tests in the Sky Simulator. It is the only facility in the United States which has the ability to simulate the full range of sky conditions, has the instrumentation to take the necessary detailed measurements and the trained staff to help interpret test results. The architectural profession has recognized the value and importance of this unique facility, developed as part of the LBL/DOE building research program, with a Research Citation in the Progressive Architecture Annual Awards program in 1985. Both of the research groups at LBL I have mentioned are doing work that even the largest firms in the country cannot undertake by themselves, because of the complexity of the tasks and the cost involved. For example, no design firm in the country, not even firms with the largest volume of work, can afford to develop and operate its own sky simulator. The results of the Groups' work are available to everybody; big and small firms benefit alike. The Groups' researchers actively participate in the activities of all major professional societies that influence the design community: ASHRAE, AIA, IES, and others. They continuously contribute basic 5 technical information; for example, the Windows and Daylighting Group alone has released over 100 publications just on fenestration performance. Finally, I want to emphasize that those of us who extensively use computer-based models in our consulting work must have confidence that cur simulations are reliable representations of performance after a building is built and occupied. We often have to discount information on product performance published by industry groups that stand to benefit from it. It is particularly important that performance studies be done by a technically competent but "disinterested", objective party. Thus we must rely on results of DOE-supported research for field measurements and validation. DOE has supported the development of a unique field test facility, the Mobile Window Thermal Test Facility (MoWiTT), to measure the performance of windows under actual operating conditions in the field. The glass and window industry serve in an advisory role to the LBL team conducting the research. This coordinated DOE/industry effort assures me that the results will be useful, relevant and objective. This helps build my I confidence in the use of new glazing technology and in the validity of the simulations I use in my consulting work. understand that much of the work supported by the Department of Energy may be phased out because of the proposed reductions to the federal budget for Energy Conservation R&D. I am deeply concerned about the ture of the work done by the Windows and Daylighting Group and the Building Simulation Group. The private sector (architectural and engineering firms and the building industry) needs the results of this work. Yet, it does not have the concentration of skills and facilities, nor The individual or collective resources necessary to do the work itself. who else is going to do this work if support for this research is eminated? i share the Administration's concern for reducing the federal deficit, but I think it is a false economy to slash support for a unique and very productive research program which provides vital and otherwise nobtainable information that is essential for the economic health of the building sector. Abandoning support for programs as effective as these is Counter-productive and clearly not in the best national interest. appreciate the opportunity to speak before you today and I would be Ceased to answer any questions you might have. Senator EVANS. Thank you very much. First, Mr. Ridgeway, you mentioned that Mist Lift powerplants will cost about $1,500 per kilowatt. What is that based on and what does that relate to? Is that construction cost, life cycle cost? Is it in some years standard dollars? Can you tell me? Dr. RIDGEWAY. The cost was constructed out of a design based on a modest extrapolation of the data we had gotten in the laboratory scale experiments. We assumed that it would work in the large scale that we did in the small scale. And in particular we put the components in, we added them up, we got bids on some of the components, and then added about 20 or 30 percent for contingencies. In particular it was based on mining the flasks in which the lift takes place out of the face frock of the island on which it would be prepared and the size of the power plant was 40 megawatts. Senator EVANS. That is not really life cycle cost; that's initial construction? Dr. RIDGEWAY. That's what it would cost you to buy the plant That is when they quote other powerplants, again; when they quote a nuclear plant, that is what it costs to buy it. Senator EVANS. But it is a considerably different life cycle cost you do not have an estimate of your life cycle cost in kilowat hour! Dr. RIDGEWAY. I suspect it is not going to wear out any faste than any other conventional piece of large-scale equipment, and probably it will wear out slower because it uses materials and con cepts derived from the hydroelectric power industry and hydroelec tric turbines and flow passages and channels are of great durabili ty. Senator EVANS. As far as I understand it, you have conclude that essentially laboratory scale model and funding has been cu off at that point? Dr. RIDGEWAY. Yes. Senator EVANS. Is there any interest in any other resource t continue that beyond the laboratory experiment into what I expec next would be somewhere between that and a prototype full scale Dr. RIDGEWAY. We have been under sort of continuous discus sions with Solar Energy Institute to pick up and go forward with it The apparatus is now sitting over there on the beach in Hawa waiting for money to go forward and expand the data base and pre pare the design of a larger system. But it competes with your other requirements for carrying thei ongoing program, which got started long ago and when you are re ducing the budget, you can scarcely keep your own organizatio going, let alone spend a little money on a new idea. So they want to do it, but they cannot do it. Senator EVANS. How was SERI funded? Senator EVANS. How were they funded? Dr. RIDGEWAY. They were funded in this area from conservatio renewable energy. It is an item in there in the budget that Donn Fitzpatrick Senator EVANS. They are funded by the Federal Government? Dr. RIDGEWAY. Yes. Senator EVANS. Mr. Bazjanac, the window systems you menoned-I came to this job from many, many years ago as a structural engineer, so I have some idea of what you are talking about, and then serving on the Pacific Northwest Regional Power Council, found the opportunities for conservation and better efficiency ere astronomical with a lot of them in the commercial side of hings. To what degree have the activities that you have been talking about here and the really striking energy consumption requirements on new buildings, how much of that in your view could be ranslated to existing or retrofitted commercial buildings? Mr. BAZJANAC. Retrofitting is a difficult proposition because it bequires first cost and expenditure right away, and unless there is lot of money available for the particular building, it is a little difcult to convince the owner; it is typically simpler to reuse the uilding in a different way, sell it something like that. Unfortunately, we are still stuck with a large percentage of old alding stock; but we are basically changing our building stock to ewer buildings and there is no reason why our future buildings hould not be even much more energy efficient than they are now. Congresswoman Schneider mentioned 150 billion dollars' worth of savings from conservation. Whatever proportion, I understand That the building sector itself accounts for about 40 percent of the national energy consumption. I would think that the energy consumption of buildings that has now been saved from the effect, hatever it is, proportion of the $150 billion could be twice as Duch. I really do not see any reason why we could not conserve twice much money than we are doing now. We are still wasting an Ewful lot. That is the tip of the iceberg. Senator EVANS. I would guess that interest in retrofit would rise bstantially if energy costs rose. Mr. BAZJANAC. We are in a situation now where everybody says, Oh, let us not worry about energy anymore because it is cheap ace again." I really question the wisdom of the reasoning like Lat. It seems to me that no matter how long we can stretch this cost of energy of today, eventually it will catch up with us, #ether it be 2 years, 20, or 200 years, we are going to run out of Mewable resources. So it is just-really, it is Senator EVANS. Well, that is right. I had a personal experience teng from the Pacific Northwest back to our home in Washinglon, DC. That was an OPEC shock and a half to find out what the lectric rates were here compared to there; I got considerably more Interested in retrofit. You mentioned the sky simulator. I would guess that that is Rally typical in a lot of professions. Now the development of large And maybe quite expensive, but nonetheless exceptionally useful snulators of one kind or another to aid in the design or carrying broard of the profession. is this case I know it happens in the medical profession and certainly in the architectural and engineering profession. Is it not feable that something like a sky simulator could be run by an inde pendent for-profit group who sold services to various architectural and engineering firms? Mr. BAZJANAC. I think that would be really difficult. Let me ex plain why I think so. The sky simulator does not really cost that much to build but it requires very high skill and it requires skill to operate and tha skill exists at LBR right now. There are several sort of small scale sky simulators or partial sky simulators, if you want to, in the country now. But the one at Berkeley is the only one which offers you the op portunity to do the fundamental measurements and the analysis o the measurements, and also has the staff which can interpret com petently the results of the measurements. If that facility were to be dropped from the budget, I think th following would happen: The Department of Architecture on th campus of the University of California at Berkeley would probabl take over the facility. It would probably use it in instruction for year or two while the previouly trained graduate students stuc around. After that it would simply stop from being used, and i would eventually be dismantled. And speaking from experience o similar things, personal experience with similar facilities in the past where the support was stopped for fiscal reasons and the facil ity eventually was dismantled. Senator EVANS. If you had the same facility, the same people, th same place and the support stopped in one area, but if it was suff ciently good for those who would want to pay-in other words when an architectural firm comes and uses it and now do they pa for the service? Mr. BAZJANAC. They essentially do not. Mr. BAZJANAC. What they do is they may pay the lowest leve staff for their overtime or something like that. But essentially th use of the facility is free. Senator EVANS. Is it worth something to the designer? Mr. BAZJANAC. I think it is worth a lot. But I do not know wheth er you are aware of the financial status of the architectural profes sion. The profit margins in architecture are so minimal that arch tects simply cannot afford this. Unlike some other profession where all extra work is typically funded with extra budgetar items, architectural contracts do not allow people to do anythin for energy conserving, design, building, testing, or anything lik that. Clients typically presume that architects can do all of that, an it is a very unfortunate situation. It is analogous to a situation i the medical profession where you went for surgery and you expec ed one M.D. to do all the tasks that are done in surgery. Senator EVANS. I agree. I always thought in the engineering pr fession that that was our story and it was the architects who ha all the money. [Laughter.] OK. We thank you all both very much for this contribution and am particularly struck by some of the details here of the real p tential that does lie in good design and potential energy conserv |