Page images
PDF
EPUB

in the year 2000." Their estimate is three times "our current annual oil imports from all the OPEC countries."

One trouble with the estimate is that the senator was wise enough not to offer a cost estimate. Yes, solar energy is here today. But the cost is no bargain. In fact, it is a big obstacle. How about the "most pessimistic" estimates?

A recent UW-Madison release indicated a farm home could be built with a solar energy system which would provide two-thirds of the heat requirements for the house. The cost: $6,000. The cost of the modest home: $54,000.

The senator's sales pitch does include this statement: "Even in Maine, it is possible to make significant reductions in home heating bills through the use of solar heating technology."

We would like to see the senator report on the cost.

Sen. Nelson wonders why nuclear power has had great stress and solar power has not. He overlooks the fact completely that nuclear power now is more than competitive with power generated from fossil fuels. Solar power is not.

We haven't heard anything about the environmental impact of solar power. For example, the senator says, "If we were now able to collect and convert to human use just one-half of one per cent of all the energy that reaches the surface of the continental United States from the sun in a year, we would have 31⁄2 times our total national energy consumption of 1974, from all sources."

Well, if our "solar collectors" were 100 per cent efficient, which is unlikely if not impossible, we'd have to have one-half of one per cent of all the land and water in the U.S. covered with "collectors." If they were 25 per cent efficient, we' would need two per cent of all our area. We would probably have to cover the Town of Rudolph in Wood County with solar collectors to provide energy for Wausau, and they might object.

The sun causes skin cancer. No doubt Sen. Nelson's friends in the environmental movement would therefore ask a delay in the program. Nuclear power plants have caused no direct damage that can be assessed, yet a delay is being asked.

Why don't we have solar energy? The senator blames Westinghouse and General Electric because solar energy would "possibly threaten existing investment in older technologies." He is worried about 25 years from now, and most of today's equipment would be depreciated by then.

We think solar energy is on the way. But its cost is high and much research remains. Sen. Nelson rightfully points out most government R&D funds have gone for nuclear power research, not solar research. Whose fault is that? Sen. Nelson and his party have controlled Congress during the years when these priorities were set.

If you're building a house, don't buy your heating system from Sen. Nelson.

f. Editorial by Robert H. Spiegel, "Nelson Boosts Solar Energy," Wisconsin State Journal, June 5, 1975

NELSON BOOSTS SOLAR ENERGY

The energy crisis enters into most conversations with members of Congress; it dominates many such visits.

There is a massive uncertainty in the minds of many members when confronted with the major decision over where to allocate billions of dollars in energy research.

No such doubts are entertained by Sen. Gaylord Nelson, the Wisconsin Democrat.

The shirt-sleeved senator leaned forward across his desk in the handsome corner office of the old Senate Office Building and stated his beliefs concisely:

"I've great concern over nuclear power. There are experts on both sides, but too many questions remain concerning safety and efficiency.

"I'd rather use coal now and move hard on solar development than plunge forward with nuclear power."

Nelson, the longtime environmentalist, acknowledges that "we may not prefer to increase the use of coal but we need energy and there may have to be temporary tradeoffs without losing concern for the environment.

"Surely we can develop scrubbers so coal won't have such an adverse effect and surely any good law on its usage would include requirement to restore the land."

Wouldn't that mean more costly energy?

Nelson agreed that it might, adding: "There are some objections to everything (in this area)."

Nelson may question increased use of coal, but he is filled with doubts about nuclear power.

“When we have a thousand nuclear plants, how do we protect them from someone who wants to blow them up? How do you protect them against sabotage on the ground or dropping a bomb from the sky?

"And what do we do with plutonium from breeder-reactors (still in the process of development) when the fuel is produced by tens of thousands of pounds with a fantastically long life?

“Where do we put it? Where do we put other wastes?"

it."

Nelson shrugged: "The fact is nobody has told us yet what the hell to do with

It's solar power that intrigues Nelson.

His Small Business Committee is holding hearings on its potential, including, "the very early potential for solar home heating and cooling."

In a summary of his position, Nelson noted that solar energy is our most abundant energy resource.

This knowledge certainly isn't new, Nelson added, noting that President Truman's Materials Policy Commission in 1952 found that sunlight falls on the U.S. with an energy content equal to that "of about 1,900 billion tons of bituminous coal."

The input of the U.S. energy system in 1947 equaled about 1,300 million tons "so the U.S. supply of solar energy is about 1,500 times the present requirement." Even at today's massive level of energy usage, Nelson has been provided information that "if only one-half of 1 per cent of the total solar energy that reaches the surface of the U.S. each year were converted to human use, we could provide 31⁄2 times today's total U.S. energy requirements and more than 100 per cent of the higher estimates of national energy requirements by year 2000."

Furthermore, that 1952 report predicted the nation's oil supply would be depleted in time and recommended that nuclear and solar energy sources be "vigorously pursued."

Nelson believes nuclear power has been pursued with vigor.

". . . in the fiscal years 1954 through 1974, approximately $5-billion in public funds plus vast private investment, were spent . . . on the nuclear option and virtually nothing on the solar option," said Nelson.

But the nuclear expenditure, Nelson says wryly, has resulted in production of "only 1 per cent of our power."

Acknowledging the imperfect distribution of solar power across this nation and the technical problems involved in its efficient use, Nelson still wonders aloud: "What if we had put that much money into solar power with its fantastic potential."

He hopes that question won't go unanswered. It is the point of the current Senate hearings he's conducting.

G. SELECTED TECHNICAL MATERIALS CONCERNING SOLAR ENERGY

1. Conversion factors: An excerpt from a book by Farrington Daniels, "Direct Use of the Sun's Energy," New Haven, Conn., Yale University Press, 1964

[graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

2. Interim Reports by the National Bureau of Standards

a. Reprint: "Method of Testing for Rating Solar Collectors Based on Thermal Performance," prepared for the National Science Foundation, December 1974

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Frederick B. Dent, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Richard W. Roberts. Director

« PreviousContinue »