pendent for-profit group who sold services to various architectural and engineering firms? Mr. BAZJANAC. I think that would be really difficult. Let me explain 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 that 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 opportunity to do the fundamental measurements and the analysis of the measurements, and also has the staff which can interpret competently the results of the measurements. If that facility were to be dropped from the budget, I think the following would happen: The Department of Architecture on the campus of the University of California at Berkeley would probably take over the facility. It would probably use it in instruction for a year or two while the previouly trained graduate students stuck around. After that it would simply stop from being used, and it would eventually be dismantled. And speaking from experience of similar things, personal experience with similar facilities in the past where the support was stopped for fiscal reasons and the facility eventually was dismantled. Senator EVANS. If you had the same facility, the same people, the same place and the support stopped in one area, but if it was sufficiently good for those who would want to pay-in other words, when an architectural firm comes and uses it and now do they pay for the service? Mr. BAZJANAC. They essentially do not. Mr. BAZJANAC. What they do is they may pay the lowest level staff for their overtime or something like that. But essentially the 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 whether you are aware of the financial status of the architectural profession. The profit margins in architecture are so minimal that architects simply cannot afford this. Unlike some other professions where all extra work is typically funded with extra budgetary items, architectural contracts do not allow people to do anything for energy conserving, design, building, testing, or anything like that. Clients typically presume that architects can do all of that, and it is a very unfortunate situation. It is analogous to a situation in the medical profession where you went for surgery and you expected one M.D. to do all the tasks that are done in surgery. Senator EVANS. I agree. I always thought in the engineering profession that that was our story and it was the architects who had all the money. [Laughter.] OK. We thank you all both very much for this contribution and I am particularly struck by some of the details here of the real potential that does lie in good design and potential energy conservation. Mr. BAZJANAC. There is tremendous opportunity for energy conservation in buildings. [Subsequent to the hearing Mr. Bazjanac submitted the following:] 25 March 1986 Mr. K. P. Lau Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Dirksen Senate Office Building Vladimir Bazjanac, Ph.D. PO Box 4158. Berkeley. Ca 94704 (415) 548-4440 Dear Mr. Lau: Thank you for your help on the day of my testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development (March 17th). When you asked after my testimony, I was not certain under which DOE programs the Windows and Daylighting, and the Building Energy Simulation Groups are funded. I have that information now. Both groups get their funding from the Office of Buildings and Community Systems (John Millhone, Director), Building Systems Division, Building Energy Systems. The Windows and Daylighting Group is funded through Wall and Fenestration Subsystems; the Building Energy Simulation Group is funded through Performance Calculations. I found a serious typographical error in the text I read before the Subcommittee. (At the bottom of page 3 word "extensive" was incorrectly spelled "expensive.") Please find enclosed a corrected copy of my testimony. I hope it is not too late to include the corrected text in the Record. I would again like to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify. Please do not hesitate to call me if I can be of any further assist ance. Sincerely yours, Vladimir Baz janac VB: ja encl. Senator EVANS. Thank you very much. The next panel is-if they will come forward-is Mr. Frank Schora, president of Hycrude from Chicago, IL; Mr. David O. Webb, senior vice president for policy and regulatory affairs of the Gas Research Institute; Dr. Bernard Lee, president, Institute of Gas Technology; Dr. John W. Larsen, chairman, American Chemical Society, Division of Fuel Chemistry; Mr. George Lawrence, president of the American Gas Association; Dr. J. Read Holland, director, school of mines and energy development, University of Alabama. Gentlemen, if you will all take your places. All of the written testimony for each of you will be placed in the record in full. And if you would attempt to summarize your remarks in a relatively few minutes each, it gives us a chance to get to the questions which may be of benefit to the full committee. With all that, let us start with Mr. Frank Schora. STATEMENT OF FRANK C. SCHORA, PRESIDENT, HYCRUDE CORP. Mr. SCHORA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Frank Schora, president of Hycrude Corp., which was formed in 1980 specifically to further efforts for production of synthetic oil from Eastern U.S. oil shales. Eastern oil shale is a vast resource which will one day provide our Nation with an indigenous supply of synthetic oil, upon which our transportation and defense systems depend. The decline of oil prices to below $15 per barrel does not encourage the immediate development of an eastern oil shale industry by the private sector. It is imperative, however, to provide a modest level of Federal funding for eastern oil shale research programs so that in the future we will have the ability to respond to inevitable oil price in creases. Eastern oil shale has previously been considered a secondary resource. This is not so. It is a major resource. However, the eastern and western oil shale deposits are totally different, both geologically and chemically, as pointed out in DOE's own oil shale program plan. The western oil shale deposits are in general deep mined, yield 25 to 30 gallons of oil per ton when retorted by conventional technologies and are located in sparsely populated areas. In contrast, the eastern oil shale deposits are surface mineable, require specialized retorting technologies and give oil in excess of 25 gallons per ton and are located in a region of the country which is in close proximity to process water, skilled work forces, oil refining capacity, distribution systems and, in fact, the market. These drastic differences in the nature of the two resources and the environment which surrounds them invalidate a generic research program. In fact, work sponsored by DOE supports the concusion that little generic work can be performed in either the technology base or environmental mitigation areas. A study performed by Los Alamos concludes that eastern oil shale requires substantially different retorting technologies than the western oil shale resource in order to obtain the most economical recovery of oil. The study shows that moving-bed hydroretorting, which was developed specifically for the eastern shale, produces oil from that shale at a substantial cost savings compared to the processes developed for operations involving western shale. Also, the two resources are located in entirely different ecosystems. The differences in shale chemistry and the environment in which the resources are located dictate that separate environmental research activities be conducted for the eastern oil shale re source. In recognition of the unique research needs of eastern oil shale, your subcommittee participated in the establishment of an eastern oil shale research program in fiscal year 1985 and its continuation in fiscal year 1986. As a result of the establishment of this program, several important research efforts have been initiated including: Expansion of the data base for moving-bed hydroretorting, a process which gives oil yields for eastern shales approximately twice as high as would be obtained if conventional retorting methods were utilized; research on the beneficiation of various eastern oil shales; and the establishment of a program research and development announcement for novel concepts. It is important to maintain an eastern oil shale research program to complete these projects and make efficient use of the results obtained. Hycrude Corp. recommends $1.5 million in fiscal year 1987 to continue the research program on expanding the data base for moving-bed hydroretorting of eastern oil shales, for investigation of fluidized-bed hydroretorting of both raw and beneficiated eastern oil shales, and for investigating the recovery of strategic metals from spent shales. We also recommend $1.5 million to continue the Eastern Shale Beneficiation Program and to investigate the recovery of strategic metals from beneficiation effluent streams, the removal of pyritic sulfur from shale during beneficiation and subsequent microbial removal of organic sulfur, and lastly the effects of water recycling on the beneficiation process. We recommend $2 million for the continuation and expansion of the novel concepts research program; $1 million for support research activities such as gathering thermodynamic, chemical and physical properties' data for all researchers in the area; and $1 million for environmental studies. In conclusion, exact duplication of all western shale research in the DOE program on an eastern shale will not contribute useful data for eastern shale development. The requirements for development of eastern shale from both a retorting technology and environmental standpoint are unique. A specific program to address the research needs for eastern oil shale is mandatory. Eastern shale is a major resource. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Mr. Schora follows:] |