The Gila Bend water pump and the Fort Hood projects already have been abandoned, one after being completed and one before it really got going. We may see many of the early demonstrations that had been made simply fade away and leave a residue of disappointment that can affect the support of solar energy in the future.

Disillusionment is being set up by overoptimism on the part of the public, on the part of Congress, and on the part of solar researchers thinking that the problem is relatively easy.

Mr. ÖTTINGER. Dr. Meinel, allow me to interrupt you a second. Mr. Ritter, who is a physicist and a very knowledgeable person in this area, is going to have to leave. He would like, if it would be possible, to ask you a few questions. Then he will have to leave, and I will be glad to hear the rest of your testimony, if that is agreeable

to you.

Ďr. MEINEL. Certainly.

Mr. RITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you know, there is a vote coming up on the floor of the House. There is some debate during which I would like to be present.

Your conclusions in the report take into account some very disturbing reflections on the details of the country's solar program and how it is evolving presently. I do not think there is any letup on the sexiness of solar, and I think we are seeing more of it today as the Iranian situation looms and as the $2.5 billion figure is bandied about by Schlesinger.

We now know there is about $600 million in the DOE budget alone this year for solar.

Yet your conclusion to this report is, just let us keep things as they are and, somehow, cut back on the big demonstrations.

The solar program needs a large-scale overhaul from top to bottom would be the conclusion that I would draw from your report, and yet your report, while concluding these things are really grim, recommends not doing too much about it. I am going to read your conclusion here:

The large expenditures for solar are appropriate in order quickly to get enough experience either to launch solar energy use on a large scale, with the fullest federal supports, or the expenditures are necessary to scale back the effort to a continuing research and prototype level.

The second would mean a massive overhaul to stick with more basic research, to stick with more applied research, to stick with more prototype level. That would be a massive overhaul.

We do not seem to be getting the kind of experience to lauch solar energies on a large scale because we seem to be going in some of the wrong directions. There is pressure by the solar industry to go ahead with the massive public relations efforts and massive marketing efforts. They are asking this subcommittee to spend $116 million on selling solar energy to the public in its present technological state of development.

I am just curious about how you got the report and the conclusions in the same document.

Dr. MEINEL. The point was simply being made that the large expenditures are necessary to answer the questions early, and some of the answers that are coming are not particularly nice to see.

True. Solar energy has a popular misconception of being free energy and the realization that it is not that cheap is one that is slow to come about.

One thing we fear is that we are now about 5 years along on the solar kick, and the public's optimism for new technology seems to have about a 10-year lifetime. We are halfway through that lifetime.

The disillusionment that could come in the next few years, if solar does not live up to its great expectations, could be damaging in the long run. Solar has too great a potential in the long run to be damaged in this short term manner. Part of what I am trying to say is that the public and Congress has to be patient with some of the development because it has taken a while with these demonstrations to learn how difficult it is for some of these technologies to be applied.

We have done a rough census in Japan with regard to the number of solar collectors that are still operating for hot water heating. It is quite different from the numbers you hear bandied about. They have had problems, too.

Almost all historic solar projects have had problems, but they do not write about problems. They just fade away.

Mr. RITTER. Excuse me. What is your opinion of that massive marketing effort that the solar manufacturers are requesting from the Federal Government.

Dr. MEINEL. It is necessary to keep the fledgling industry together. Mr. RITTER. I will tell you that if some of your recommendations are accepted, if we did mount those marketing efforts, there would be a lot of disappointed customers out there.

Dr. MEINEL. I think there already are.

Mr. RITTER. If there is $116 million worth of sales effort buying $1 billion worth of bad goods, that would do some damage, according to your report.

Dr. MEINEL. You would have to face up to the problem of prematurely expanding an industry, and I guess you are going to hear something about that when Ehrenreich is going to appear here, because similar recommendations came out of that report about prematurely turning on too large an effort to boost the manufacturing output in solar photovoltaics.

I think, at this point, solar needs more. I know there have been loud screams of pain from down at DOE at the Ehrenreich report. I think that is a very good sign. They are all alive down there.

Mr. RITTER. Is that Ehrenreich report critical of the Btu plan or is it massive solar photovoltaic

Dr. MEINEL. I do not want to take away Henry's discussions tomorrow with you on that. But it does bring out an important point. Between Marjorie and myself, we have participated in the CONAES study and the OTA study of the distributed power systems. These have all been what we would characterize as "sweetheart reviews," by enthusiasts or people with interest in the outcome.

The Ehrenreich study is one of the first of what we would call an adversary review, and we think adversary reviews are important because they take a different viewpoint, a hard viewpoint, without any interest in the outcome of it, and can raise very penetrating questions that challenge both the Department of Energy and the industry to

answer.

I think a number of things. I am not saying we need a big overhaul of anything. I think thinking in DOE, at below official levels, is beginning to recognize a lot of problems, and they need your forebearance of what they are doing.

I think the adversary review mechanism needs more attention in these areas to winnow out both the problems and the advantages or the achievements.

That graph scared a lot of people associated with DOE, but I told them not to worry about the fact that that slope is far from it. That is your challenge. When the contract prices come in, for example, on the 10 megawatt, and we plot that point on there, if it drops significantly below that, you are making good progress.

Mr. OTTINGER. We are going to have to break. It is only now about 4 minutes until we have to be on the floor. How much longer do you have, in your presentation?

Dr. MEINEL. Well, I have essentially covered the point here. I have summarized our viewpoint of a number of fields, with some good comments on bioconversion, which is an important thing which needs, and is getting, more support. This is a quick summary of some of our viewpoints, but it basically summarizes that solar is too important to be sacrificed prematurely to adverse swings of opinion. Contrarywise, solar is not imminent enough that we can turn our backs on what we already have. Some solar enthusiasts already are beginning to say, "We can get rid of the other things we have." We say we cannot.

That summarizes essentially what we had. We have some details in here. We are involved very intimately in some searching reexaminations at some of the centers on the present cost, and the future prospects, and what has to be done.

I think there is very careful attention to the points that we have raised here that you may feel are disturbing. They are disturbing to everybody, and we want to find answers.

Mr. OTTINGER. I share your concern. I also share your feeling that we ought to give the same kind of critical examination of this and not just run away with popular enthusiasm.

Dr. MEINEL. But it does not make the reviewers popular with the solar community; I can say that.

Mr. OTTINGER. I do understand.

Mr. RITTER. I have one comment on these kinds of graphs. I think that these graphs can be markedly simplified for presentation to a congressional hearing. I understand the depth of the information. I really could not understand it until I looked at my own product in the report.

Dr. MEINEL. We had 3-days' notice to come here. So we just pulled the graphs. Some are from our seminars that we have at the university. Mr. RITTER. We agree on that. Thank you very much, Professor. Mr. OTTINGER. We are going to have to recess for today. Thank you very much, Dr. Meinel.

[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m. the hearing was adjourned to reconvene on Thursday, March 1, 1979, at 2 p.m.]

1980 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUTHORIZATION

THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 1979

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATIONS,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Richard L. Ottinger (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. OTTINGER. The Subcommittee on Energy Development and Applications is continuing its hearings on the fiscal year 1980 Department of Energy budget request.

We are going to focus this afternoon on the solar photovoltaic program, both the research and development program and the very difficult question as to whether or not there should be a substantial federal purchase in order to create a market for production advances in accordance with legislation that was passed by Congress last year, the National Energy Act, and the Photovoltaic Act.

Judging from my own examination of Photovoltaics, there are a lot of very difficult decisions that we have to reach at a rather critical stage of technology development, and there are divergent views as to how best to advance these technologies.

I understand that the scientific community, as a whole, is in agreement that photovoltaics offers considerable promise as a major contributor to energy in the next century.

The problem that we have to address is-can it be accelerated? If we do accelerate, do we run dangers of freezing existing technology at too early a stage, or will we advance the opportunities to focus research on the areas which are most needed?

We have, very fortunately, some of the people who are leaders in the effort with us this afternoon: Dr. Henry Ehrenreich is Chairman of the American Physical Society study on Solar Photovoltaic Energy Conversion at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. He is accompanied by Dr. John H. Martin, executive and technical assistant for the APS photovoltaic study group at Harvard, and Dr. Robert N. Hall, member of the APS photovoltaic study group from General Electric research and development at Schenectady, N.Y.

We are also going to have Mr. H. M. Schurmeier, assistant laboratory director for energy and technology applications at the Jet Propulsion Lab, California Institute of Technology.

Is Mr. Schurmeier here?

[Hand in the audience indicates "yes."]

Mr. OTTINGER. All right. Would you join us at the table at this time?

(427)