| Harold L. (Hal) Mansfield, Ph.D. | |
| 7366 North County Road 27, Loveland, CO 80538 | |
| Phone: 970.667.3878 | E-mail: hal.mansfield3@gmail.com |
There is an energy crisis, and it is a world problem. Since energy is a necessary fact of daily living the energy crisis must be met and solved in a comprehensive, sensible and final way. No solution to the problem will emerge, however, unless the crucial variables that have led to the development of the energy crisis are recognized, weighed and controlled.
First, there is an energy crisis because of energy use growth. This growth has a long history, but has accelerated over the past 120 years. For the past several decades, energy use growth has been exponential, with a doubling time of roughly 10-years for several decades prior to the 1970's. No energy plan will ever be successful unless the matter of growth is given full consideration.
Second, too much of the world energy mix has included non-renewable energy sources, such as oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear. The finite nature of these resources, under conditions of rapid usage growth, is folly of the greatest magnitude.
No energy plan will ever be successful which is based primarily on non-renewable energy sources.
Third, a combination of factors, including limited supplies, has resulted in a rapid escalation of energy prices. These price increases have had very detrimental effects on world, national and individual economic and financial conditions. At the individual level, price increases represent the most evident aspect of the energy crisis.
No energy plan can succeed unless adequate attention is paid to the energy price aspect of the energy crisis.
Fourth, a very complex mix of entities including OPEC and the energy companies, have vested interests in seeing to it that energy prices continue to rise. These interests are often focused on rather narrow perspectives, such as yearly profit figures. Profits are certainly crucial, but should not be the only consideration. An energy plan which fails to take into account and which fails to balance the special interest roles in the energy problem cannot be successful.
Fifth, at least in the U.S., government interference with and meddling in the free enterprise system has created a series of "false" economic and psychological systems that have both helped to create, to maintain and to worsen the energy crisis.
An energy plan which fails to recognize the government role in the energy crisis and which does not provide for a creative, realistic government role in solving the energy crisis cannot hope to succeed. But, of course, government must itself recognize past sins and work to avoid — in so far as possible — future sins of equal or greater magnitude.
Sixth, lack of foresight at all levels has been a crucial factor in the development of the world energy crisis. Nations, energy companies, "experts", individuals, all have erred by not looking ahead or by ignoring what was seen. As early as 1920, a few responsible people were writing of a coming energy crisis; these prescient ones were called "Cassandras" and their warnings were cast aside.
An energy plan that fails to be realistically based on the best information from the past and present and which fails to construct meaningful scenarios for the future is doomed.
Other dimensions and dynamics could be reviewed. But, the above list contains some of the key factors that must be considered, both in realizing how the energy crisis developed and in beginning to evolve those policies and procedures from which solutions can come.
As with all problems, the right questions must be asked if the right answers are to be found. With regard to the energy problem, few people are asking the right questions; it is not surprising to find that the solutions suggested up to now have been so poorly directed.
A number of courses of action are open for discussion. I will present four of these with the view of providing a framework for policy guideline statements:
First, we can do essentially nothing.
Second, we can proceed with the development of non-renewable energies (oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear fission, synfuels) and use these up to the extent possible, hoping that some technological "miracle" will come along to save us in the nick of time.
Third, we can recognize the real (and up to now largely hidden, ignored or glossed-over) fundamentals of the energy crisis, look at these squarely, honestly and objectively, with a balanced view of near term needs and long term goals, and derive full, effective solutions.
Fourth, we can mix B and C in a reasonable, effective way, which seems to be the most sensible alternative.
Accepting D (above) leads to the following list of policy guidelines. These represent the first step in the evolution of a global energy plan, on the one hand, and a National energy plan, on the other.
The energy problem is a world wide problem and must be dealt with as such; the problem will be solved by people, not governments, though leadership should derive from governments.
Energy use growth is one of the fundamental variables in the energy problem; the world must achieve a state of "dynamic equilibrium" with regard to growth, in terms of population, energy use, and other factors.
Renewable energy sources and energy conservation offer the best near and far term hope for a dynamic equilibrium solution to the energy crisis; but, non-renewable energies must play a crucial transition role. Each energy form should be applied where it sensibly fits. For example, it is ridiculous to use precious, exhaustible, high energy sources for low energy jobs. A system of Energy Merit Matrix Analysis, such as that suggested by this writer in an appendix to this testimony, needs to be applied to energy sources, forms and applications.
Government's role is one of leadership; that is, of providing a set of sound, realistic policy statements and program guidelines (from input by the people) from which the people can move to solve the energy crisis. Religious, economic, financial, political (including national security), environmental, psychological and other factors should be given appropriate consideration when policies and programs are evolved. Though this is now done, to some extent, or we would not be here today, public impact on government plans should be more evident and continuing. Further, it is difficult to discern in the present Administration's budget priorities evidence of concern for the results of carefully documented studies such as the Domestic Policy Review study and the book, Energy Future, to name but two.
Energy economic policies and programs must not be used as an income transfer mechanism to the poor, the wealthy or to special interest individuals, groups or institutions.
Government spending for energy purposes should be directed primarily toward the establishment of a dynamic equilibrium, renewable energy/conservation future. Public spending should not subsidize highly speculative, long lead time technologies, whether or not these offer prospects for high payoffs and/or renewable or non-renewable in nature; nor towards capital intensive, labor detensive, centralist energy technologies of any sort. Capital detensive, labor intensive, decentralized, renewable, long-term energy research should be stressed and small business should get the bulk of research monies.
The welfare of the people of the United States cannot be attained or maintained at the expense of people in other nations; policies and programs should reflect this. However, energy self-sufficiency is a goal which must be strived for by the United States.
The ensuing list of specific suggestions follows from the above policy guidelines and is intended to be representative rather than exhaustive. It is recommended that:
A nation-wide program directed toward decreasing per capita energy consumption be launched. Such a program would focus on a variety of energy conservation technologies (i.e., weatherizing all structures to recommended levels) and toward energy efficiency programs such as cogeneration, improved mass transit, fuel-efficient automobiles, and rejuvenated cities.
Governmental involvement would be one of establishing a leadership climate, an educational vanguard, temporary incentives such as accelerated depreciation schedules for energy efficient improvements, and other symbolic and substantive measures. All government programs would have "sunset" provisions.
A nation-wide renewable energy application program be launched. Such a program would focus on established sources and technologies, and would be voluntary; the government's role would be one of leadership. Temporary incentives would be included as part of the program, but such incentives would have "sunset" provisions. No new Federal agencies or bureaucracies would be established.
Local initiative would be stressed in both the conservation and renewable programs. Such initiatives would be in terms of human financial and organizational components, with Federal funds playing a secondary role. A model for such a program can be found in the Solar Action Program conducted by AS of ISES and the Center for Renewable Resources. An overview of this program is attached.
The synfuel program, traditional nuclear fission development, the breeder reactor program, and solar satellite and solar tower power research and development would all be halted, except for those nuclear programs directly related to national defense (these would be transferred to the Department of Defense, where they rightfully belong).
A program of analyzing and assigning energy development and end use applications should be developed and implemented using a comprehensive, objective analytical model such as that developed by Mansfield. A brief description of Mansfield's "Energy Merit Matrix Analysis (EMMA)" is attached.
A world-program designed to fully understand the dynamics and consequences of all forms of growth needs to be evolved and instituted, leading to comprehensive programs which will bring all cultures into dynamic equilibrium. Dynamic equilibrium does not mean stagnation; it does mean that increases and decreases — on the whole — sum to a balance.
The energy problem is a "world" problem and must be dealt with as such. The United States does not have a realistic, effective National energy plan. Guidelines for the development of "world" and "national" plans have been set forth; several program suggestions were made.
Energy is a fundamental component of our culture. Unless we solve the near term and the long term energy needs of our culture, catastrophic consequences can be expected. Only a renewable energy mix combined with a dynamic equilibrium world will solve the energy crisis, and keep it solved.
Because the AS of ISES is a broad-based, umbrella organization, with a rather heterogeneous membership, my remarks should not be construed as representing the official view of AS of ISES, its members, officers or Board of Directors. Please recognize that these are my views, but that they were fashioned with input from the President of the AS of ISES Board and the Executive Director of AS of ISES.
Harold L. "Hal" Mansfield is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Fort Lewis College in-Durango, Colorado. He is a member of the Colorado Solar Advisory Committee and a co-founder and past chairman of the San Juan Solar Energy Association.
Dr. Mansfield is on leave from his teaching post this year and is serving as Deputy Director of the American Section of the International Solar Energy Society, headquartered at the Research Institute for Advanced Technology, U.S. Highway 190 West, Killeen, Texas 76541, (817) 526-1300.
Dr. Mansfield has been actively engaged in the study of world and national energy problems since the late 1960's, and has been a solarist since 1971. The Mansfields built a successful solar home in 1977; it has been featured in several articles and solar books, which have gained wide attention.
The American Section of the International Solar Energy Society is part of a worldwide network of professional -and lay people who are devoted to seeing solar energy — in all of its diverse forms — attain widespread usage.
The parent organization, the International Solar Energy Society (ISES), is a multinational group with 18 Sections and with members in nearly 100 countries. AS of ISES is by far the largest of the 18 ISES Sections. ISES has been in existence since 1954, AS of ISES since 1971.
Since its founding, AS of ISES has grown from a few hundred to over 6,500 members. In addition, AS of ISES has 29 chapters located throughout the U.S. A. the membership in these groups is approximately 15,000.
Membership continues to grow, as the cost of conventional energy climbs and as knowledge about solar energy — its many forms, uses, benefits and comparative savings — spreads. AS of ISES members include architects, bankers, builders, designers, engineers, teachers (to name but some of the professions), as well as lay people (housewives, homeowners, retirees and students).
It should be noted here that in using the term "solar energy" reference is made to all aspects of solar energy: wind, water power, waves, ocean thermal, biomass, biologic, etc., as well as direct sunlight. This definition is consistent with accepted scientific practice. Energy conservation is generally considered part of the solar field's purview because the two — solar energy and energy conservation — are very much intertwined; energy conservation should nearly always be the first order of consideration.
AS of ISES promotes solar use in a variety of ways. These include, but are not limited to: 1) fostering the use of science and technology in the applications of solar energy; 2) encouraging basic and applied research and development in solar energy; 3) promoting education in the solar energy area and in related fields; and, 4) gathering, compiling and disseminating information relating to all aspects of solar energy.
In promoting solar energy use, AS of ISES holds conferences, issues publications, sponsors meetings, conducts workshops, assists in educational programs, initiates and fulfills grant programs, to mention but some of its activities and functions. Conferences play a pivotal role and AS of ISES holds two major conferences each year. One is the Society's Annual Conference; the second is the Annual Passive Solar Conference. These conferences are widely hailed as the most important solar energy functions of their kind in the world.
Too often, the thinking regarding energy tends to be fragmented and directed toward specific sources or solutions. What is needed is a comprehensive view, one which incorporates a11 sources of energy into an ENERGY MERIT MATRIX. With the energy matrix concept, each energy would be developed and used in relation to every other energy. Oil, natural gas, coal, synthetic fuels, nuclear, wind, water, biomass and solar energies would all be developed in concert. Conservation would also be viewed as an important energy "source".
The so-called National Energy Plan does not do this. Its principle thrust is toward the development of synthetic fuels. The renewable energies are given a low order of priority.
The ENERGY MERIT MATRIX approach would take into consideration that certain energy sources have appropriate applications. For example, solar energy is appropriate for relatively low energy use requirements, such as heating buildings; it is not presently directly viable as a jet fuel source.
The ENERGY MERIT MATRIX approach would further balance energy development costs against applications, time factors, labor impact considerations, and other similar factors, particularly net usable energy.
In this regard, CONSERVATION becomes the salient "energy source". It has the lowest cost per Btu "produced"; it has the widest range of applications; it can be brought on line in the shortest time span; it produces more jobs (and jobs requiring lesser skill development and training costs) per energy unit; and, it is very low in terms of "negative residuals", such as ecological impact.
CONSERVATION: should become the cornerstone of our energy policy; National energy legislation should be rewritten to reflect this. The various Federal programs should all be redirected to reflect this. It makes political sense: the broadest constituency would be served. It makes economic sense: the economy would receive the broadest and most sustained stimulation. It makes "special interest" sense: large corporations and labor unions would benefit greatly, as would small businesses. It is responsible: the existing fossil fuel reserves can be "stretched" to last longer, to last until new developments in energy -- such as hydrogen production --can. be brought into the future ENERGY MATRIX.
Synfuels: would play a much smaller role simply because they would cost so very much to develop; would take a relatively long time to bring on line; would require fewer workers, and higher skilled workers; and would create a great many negative residuals, ranging from the ecological impacts associated with mining and processing of the fuel base materials, to the social consequences on "impacted" areas and communities.
Nuclear: energy would likewise play a smaller and a transitory role because it is expensive (per unit of energy) to produce; it results in the creation of dangerous by-products; it is not relatively labor intensive; it takes a long time to bring a nuclear plant on-line; and, nuclear fuels, as presently defined, are very finite.
Fusion research could certainly continue under an energy matrix approach to solving the energy crisis. However, it would be given a relatively low priority because -- even if it were to prove feasible, a very big "if" at this time --it would be highly politically and financially centralized, relatively labor detensive (requiring fewer, highly trained people), and is certainly a long way off, even when the most optimistic view of its development is accepted.
Solar: Solar in all of its broad aspects (wind, water, waves, wood, rays, etc.) would become a very high priority energy source -- perhaps ranking close to conservation -- because it is renewable; it can be brought on line relatively quickly and in a decentralized fashion; it will result in the creation of a great many more jobs per energy unit than synfuels and nuclear; it is less ecologically negative; it is very financially sensible per energy unit; and, it is the nearly unanimous choice of the American people, according to national polls, as THE energy resource for the future.
Several of the key thrusts of solar research and development which have received the bulk of the solar funding would be relegated to less prominent roles, if the matrix analysis criteria are strictly applied. For example, tower powers funding and other high technology, capital intensive and labor detensive approaches to solar utilization, would be scaled back. The solar satellite power system would be treated as a far-out solar "joke", a status it should have gained at the outset, and would never again be the object of funding.
Other considerations: One key factor in considering an ENERGY MERIT MATRIX is the matter of National defense. A number of key defense figures, including the Head of the Department of Defense, has cited our dependence on imported oil as the weakest link in our military preparedness posture. This suggests that we must hasten the day of energy independency as quickly as we can. The ENERGY MATRIX concept and the energy analyses it entails, as I have outlined these, would bring us to energy independence in the shortest possible time. Evidence for this is the recently observed trend toward reduced imports, a good deal of which is due solely to energy conservation measures.
Some actually view the world energy situation as a definite threat to world peace. This view is not necessarily a wrong one. The modern world has become so energy dependent that whole cultures could begin to crumble in the face of energy shortages. Desperate times might lead to desperate means; and, war could easily follow.
Energy Merit Matrix Analysis (EMMA) could thus be seen, if applied rapidly and on a worldwide scale, as one means of reducing the prospect of war -- perhaps global war.
In closing: New legislation, legislation with a different thrust, is needed. The syhfuel (SINFUEL) emphasis should be set aside in favor of a more rational, better balanced ENERGY MERIT MATRIX legislative package.
But all of the above is not enough. Finally, there is the need for education. The public is already ahead of many government, business and industry leaders in this regard. The majority of the "common people" want us to achieve energy independence and energy stability. Both can be accomplished. They can be accomplished within the framework of an expanding economy and a better life for every American. The ENERGY MERIT MATRIX plan provides the very best way to begin to solve the energy crisis.
EMMA seems to me to make good sense. Perhaps that will be one of the major barriers to bringing it into common use. Sensible solutions to problems seldom are the solutions of first choice.
ENERGY MERIT MATRIX thinking, analysis, synthesis, education and legislation are needed. Let's hope that the ENERGY MERIT MATRIX idea becomes a practiced reality.
The Solar Action Program is a collaborative effort of the American Section of the International Solar Energy Society and the Center for Renewable Resources. It was designed to stimulate and support community-based solar commercialization efforts. With funds provided by the Department of Energy, CRR and AS/ISES have awarded grants of up to $15,000 to 22 solar-interest groups throughout the country. The Northeast Solar Energy Center (NESEC), also with funds from DOE, has awarded small grants to 11 groups in their region, four of whom also received funding from CRR and AS/ISES.
The grantees are conducting demonstrations, seminars and courses, tours of solar buildings, planning and assessment activities related to community renewable energy options, media events and other projects. All have been devised to hasten the adoption of cost-effective conservation measures and solar heating and cooling systems for buildings.
All of the 16 originally funded local projects were initiated, highlighted or conducted during October 4-11, 1980, Solar Action Week. This week was designated as a focus for publicity for the projects and as a complement to the AS/ISES at the Fifth National Passive Conference and the CRR Taking Charge Conference, both held in Amherst, Massachusetts in October.
An initial grant of $300,000 was given to AS/ISES and CRR in June of 1980. NESEC received a grant of $50,000 in early August. An additional $180,000 was awarded to AS/ISES and CRR in October, for a total of $480,000. Of these funds, $306,000 has been allocated for grants to community groups, and $20,000 for training, materials and travel support for grantees. The remaining $204,000 has been allotted to Administration, consultants, and travel for Steering Committee members. To date local grantees working with CRR and AS/ISES have been able to raise $56,000 in matching funds, an estimated $100,000 in in-kind support and $75,000 in donated volunteer time. The total outside support leveraged by the Solar Action Program grants is estimated to be over $231,000.
The belief that community-based organizations are best able to design and carry out effective commercialization is at the heart of the Solar Action Program. Cooperation is also key. GRR and AS/ISES established a Board of Sponsors with representatives from the solar industry, professional associations, civic organizations, Regional Solar Energy Centers, and a variety of public and special interest groups.
This Board is providing support and assistance for grantees through local affiliates and by other means, such as publicity, in-kind support and technical assistance. At the local level, grantees garnered support of a wide range of individuals and organizations such as government officials, civic organizations, businesses, lenders and others who comprise the infrastructure necessary to enable widespread use of solar energy.
The principles upon which this program is based have proven to be a solid foundation. With a modest amount of money and little time, virtually every project has been able to raise additional capital and in-kind support from state and local sources. The volunteer force marshaled for these projects is in itself testimony to the cost-effectiveness of the Program.
Each grantee has been required to formulate an evaluation plan for assessing project results. These plans were developed with the help of grant monitors at a training and orientation session in August. In addition, Market Facts, a market research firm retained by DOE, is evaluating six of the projects—those located in New York, Nebraska, Oregon, Georgia, Colorado, and New Mexico. Initial test results from five of these sites are now being processed. Further testing will take place in about two months at a few of the sites, to be selected by Market Facts. In addition, AS/ISES and CRR will be contracting with professional evaluators to assess the results of projects funded with the additional money received in October.
Given that local projects have been under way for less than three months and that many are not designed to yield immediate results, surprisingly numerous tangible accomplishments are evident.
Both Portland SUN and the Georgia Solar Coalition have received enthusiastic response to their programs. For example, the demand and interest in Atlanta has been enormous; the first builders course was filled before most publicity reached the streets. A second course scheduled for January is also filled, and the local homebuilders association has asked GSC to conduct another course just for association members. In Portland, nearly 100 builders attended a one-day workshop. Written evaluations are now being processed, but testimonial results indicate that a majority of builders that participated intend to incorporate solar features in future projects, and that they want more workshops, which are longer, in-depth programs.
The Solar Action Program has engendered formation of a number of special community task forces or committees at project sites, committed to addressing the energy needs of the community, with special emphasis on renewable energy. Community energy planning groups have formed in New Jersey and Santa Fe; in Philadelphia, two neighborhood associations now have energy committees and several other associations in the city have learned of their activities; and in Minnesota, a special task force has formed a "Non-Profit Energy Service” to address the needs of non-profit, human service organizations impacted by rising energy costs. These examples all involve key community leaders and illustrate that Solar Action funds served as a catalyst for continued action at the local level.
Many projects involving retail merchants boosted sales while informing customers. In Nebraska, a building supply dealer offered a special discount on solar collector materials and another sponsored construction workshops. In Massachusetts, several stores housed the USEA exhibits on solar installations in Boston. And, most notably, in New York, Consumer Action Now conducted a series of solar and energy conservation seminars for the public at Macy's department stores. These well-attended meetings increased sales of energy-related products, and evaluation surveys show that participants’ knowledge of solar and conservation increased, as well as their intent to buy related products.
A multitude of other projects are also being conducted. Construction and demonstration projects in Maine, Alabama, New Mexico, and Kentucky have received considerable attention. Efforts to remove institutional barriers and to implement incentives and financing strategies are also underway (e.g. Minnesota and Pennsylvania). Preliminary results on all projects are enumerated in individual project descriptions.
Other important attributes of this Program should also be pointed out. Through the training and materials given to project organizers, for the most part provided at the orientation and evaluation sessions, a valuable investment has been made to ensure that contacts and experience do not dry up when grant funds do. In addition, this program has enabled AS/ISES and CRR to strengthen ties with its affiliates, key groups and new local organizations.
However, there is always room for improvement, and this effort poses no exception to the rule. More time to conduct the Program has been the greatest need. A proposed starting date in April was delayed until receipt of funds in June, which permitted only six-weeks to elapse between the date the request for proposals was issued and the application deadline. Other elements of the Program were similarly compressed. With inflexible deadlines such as Solar Action Week and the conferences in Amherst, staff and grantees alike were under considerable pressure. Virtually all the problems that arose during the course of the Program could have been prevented or cut down to size had more time been available.
A case in point is the participation of Carl Byoir and Associates and Market Facts. Both DOE contracting firms became actively involved with the Program only recently, a difficult proposition when dealing with a program so complex in nature. Both of these firms would have had an easier job had they been more familiar with the project, which can only happen if sufficient time is invested.
In addition, more time would have afforded AS/ISES and CRR an opportunity to review material that the firms produced, which in several cases turned out to be inappropriate or riddled with factual errors. Nevertheless, grantees were able to secure 190 newspaper articles, 32 television appearances and 82 radio interviews. We estimate that national and local media coverage, reached over 20 million people.
Another improvement would be greater involvement of the solar industry and the Regional Solar Energy Centers. These groups did participate and contribute significantly to the Program, but an even larger role, particularly on the Steering Committee, would have been advantageous and is recommended if a similar program is conducted in the future.
While a few adjustments would improve the program, the interim reports received from the sixteen original AS/ISES and CRR grantees, plus evaluations from NESEC staff on their projects, strongly indicate that the 1980 Solar Action Program has been an overwhelming success.
The program offered local organizations the flexibility to respond to local needs and resources, leading to many creatively designed projects. With limited time and monetary constraints, many of the projects have impacted their communities in very significant ways. This, coupled with the on-going collaboration between AS/ISES and CRR that has resulted from the program, has clearly led to broadening the base of support for renewable energy -- a critical element in accelerating solar commercialization.