WE ALL LIVE in solar homes. We think we heat our houses with oil, natural gas or electricity, but 95 per cent of their warmth comes from sunbeams. In a sunless world, orr dwellings would be 400 degrees Fahrenheit below zero when we turned on our furnaces. The houses of solar pioneers simply squeeze a few more degrees from the sun than do the conventional homes of their neighbors.
Twenty years ago, virtually all Americans hung up their weekly wash on "solar clothes driers." Today, few do. If I hang my wash on a line and you put yours into an electric drier, the solar energy I use will be ignored by statisticians while the electricity you use will be tabulated in next year's almanacs.
We ignore the sun for the same reasons that fish ignore water: It is abundant, free and dependable.
The solar influx is so large that it defies easy comprehension by students of conventional energy sources. Every day, the world receives 10,000 times more energy from the sun than humankind derives from all conventional fuels combined. But the official 825-page United Nations Survey of Wolrd Energy Supplies does not even mention the sun.
We know how to harness this solar influx directly as sunlight and indirectly through wind, green plants and running streams. Every essential technological ingredient for a commercial solar energy system has existed for more than a decade, although most of these devices have not yet benefited from mass production. The issue today is whether we will make the necessary policy decisions to develop these resources, or whether vested interests will coerce our continued reliance on sources that are dangerous, vulnerable to disruption and ultimately unsustainable.
Unlike fossil and fissile fuels, sunlight is a flow and not a stock. Once a gallon of oil is burned, it is gone forever; but the sun will cast its rays earthward billions of years from now, whether sunshine is harnessed for human needs or not. Technical improvements in the use of sunlight could lower prices permanently; similar improvements in the extraction of finite fuels could hasten their exhaustion. Solar Heating and Cooling
HEATING WATER with sunlight is simple. The collector is, in essence, a box with a black bottom and a glass top. Glass is transparent to sunlight but not to the radiation of longer wavelengths given off by the hot collector itself. Hence, heat is trapped inside. When water is pumped through the hot collector, its temperature rises. the hot water is then piped to a very well insulated storage tank where it is kept until needed.
Other countries are outpacing the United States in this field. About 30,000 American homes heat their water with sunlight. In tiny Israel, 200,000 homes have solar water heaters, and in Japan the figure is over 2 million. In remote northern Australia, where fuels are expensive, the law requires solar water heaters on all new buildings.
There is some controversy over how rapidly we will catch up. The original goal of the Carter administration's energy plan was 2.5 million solar heaters by 1985. In subsequent congressional testimony, Energy Secretary James Schlesinger trimmed this target to 1.3 million.
Wilson Clark, energy adviser to Gov. Jerry Brown of California, finds the federal figures amusing. "We will, beyond a doubt, have more solar collectors installed in California by 1985 than those guys are forecasting for the whole country," says Clark. The Solar Energy Industries Association, which represents most major solar manufacturers, considers 11 million installations a reasonable 1985 goal.
Sunshine can also be used to heat buildings. "Passive" systems store energy right where sunlight strikes the building's walls and floor. Such systems are designed to shield the structure from unwanted summer heat while capturing and retaining the sun's warmth during the colder months. Passive solar architecture is, beyond doubt, the most efficient and cost-effective way to heat and cool new buildings. Modest investments will often provide 80 to 100 per cent of a building's space conditioning requirements. But passive features cannot easily be added to existing structures.
"Active" solar heating systems are more expensive, but they can be bolted onto the roofs or southern walls of existing buildings as a substitute for -- or supplement to -- conventional furnaces. In active systems, fans or pumps move supplement to -- conventional furnaces. In active systems, fans or pumps move solar-heated air or liquid from collectors to storage areas, from which heat is withdrawn as needed. Solar self-sufficiency will usually dictate a combination of active and passive features in all but the southern rim of the United States.
Buildings can be cooled as well as heated by sunlight. Again, passive solar design is the most important first step, but active solar air conditioners are also now being marketed. Absorption solar air conditioners, which operate on the same principle as gas refrigerators, reach peak cooling capacity when the sun burns brightest, which is when they are most needed. They therefore could reduce peak demands on many electrical power grids. As solar air conditioners penetrate the housing market, the overall economics of active solar heating systems will improve, because solar collectors will begin providing a year-round benefit.
Solar technologies have industrial applications as well. A study of the Australian food processing industry, for example, found that heat comprised 90 per cent of the industry's energy needs. Almost all this heat was at under 150 degrees Centigrade and 80 per cent was below the boiling point of water. Such low-temperature heat can be easily produced and stored using simple solar devices. In the United States, solar heating is now being applied to a soup-canning plant in California, a fabric-drying facility in alabama and a concrete block factory in Pennsylvania. Solar-powered laundries and car washes are now operating in California, and a St. Louis brewery has turned to solar pasteurization. Solar Cells
THE MOST EXCITING solar electric prospect is the photovoltaic cell -- now the principal power source of space satellites and the main element in photographic light meters. Such cells generate electricity directly when sunlight falls on them. They have no moving parts, consume no fuel, produce no pollution, operate at environmental temperatures, have long lifetimes, require little maintenance and can be fashioned from silicon, the second most abundant element in the earth's crust.
Photovoltaic cells are modular by nature, and little is to be gained by grouping large masses of cells at a single collection site. On the contrary, the technology is most sensibly applied in a decentralized fashion -- perhaps incorporated in the roofs of buildings -- to minimize transmission and storage problems. With decentralized use, solar cells can be combined with compatible technologies to use waste heat for space heating and cooling, water heating, and refrigeration. Last summer a photovoltaic array in Mead. Neb., irrigated 80 acres of corn at a thousand gallons per minute.
The manufacture of photovoltaic cells is currently a low-volume business --only 750 kilowatts of photovoltaic capacity were produced in 1977 -- and the products are consequently rather expensive. But a recent U.N. report concluded that solar cells would become cheaper than nuclear power if they received a total investment of $1 billion -- less than the cost of just one large nuclear power plant. Storing Sunlight
SOLAR ENERGY is too diffuse, intermittent and seasonally variable to harness directly to serve some human needs. Interruptions plague all energy systems, however. Electrical power lines snap, gas and oil pipelines crack, dams run low during droughts and nuclear power plants frequently need repairs, refueling and maintenance.
Sometimes the intermittent nature of an energy source causes no problems. For example, solar electric facilities with no storage capacity can be used to meet peak demands, since virtually all areas have their highest electrical demands during daylight hours.
Low-temperature heat can be temporarily stored in such substances as water or gravel; in fact, substantial short-term heat storage capacity can be economically designed into the structural mass of new buildings. The larger the storage container, the less surface area ((through which heat can leak) it has per unit of volume. Large storage tanks serving clusters of houses can be designed to have such low leakage rates that seasonal storage becomes economically possible. Princeton physicist Theodore Taylor advocates solar "ponds" serving as many as 100 houses -- collecting heat in July for use in February, and producing ice in February for air conditioning in July.
Eutectic salts, which melt at about 90 degrees Fahrenheit, provide a much more compact storage medium than water. These cheap, plentiful salts can hold prodigious amounts of heat. In the past, salt caked on the interior walls of the storage container, interfering with efficient heat transfer. General Electric has overcome this problem by rotating the storage cylinder at 3 revolutions per minute.
Electricity can be stored directly in batteries. Existing batteries are expensive, but new types may soon enter the market. For example, the "iron redox" batteries that will store 2,200 kilowatt hours of photovoltaic-generated electricity for an Arkansas community college are expected to cost less than one-fifth as much as standard lead-acid batteries when mass produced.
But nuclear reactors and large coal plants also require energy storage. These facilities cannot be geared up and down to follow the peaks and valleys of electrical demand; they produce power at a steady rate, and surplus power from non-peak hours must be stored for the periods of heaviest demand. Because more energy is used during the day than at night, the overall storage requirements for a society based on renewable energy sources may prove no greater than those of an all-nuclear society. Solar Costs
CONVENTIONAL WISDOM holds that while solar energy has many attractive characteristics, it is too expensive today to see widespread application. As is so often the case with conventional wisdom, yesterday's truth has become today's misapprehension.
Five years ago, solar energy could not compete economically with low-priced fuels. Most solar homes used materials that were handcrafted in small workships. But since 1973, the cost of solar equipment has dropped steadily while the costs of all competing energy sources have skyrocketed. Today, with factory production, a typical solar collector costs about $25 a square foot; by 1981, mass production could bring average costs under $10. solar technologies already can provide energy for many purposes at no higher cost than conventional energy sources.
Take, for example, solar heating. Throughout the lower 48 United States, solar house heating now makes economic sense at the margin. That is to say, if the energy is to come from a new solar unit or a new nuclear power plant the solar investment will be cheapest. The homeowner, of course, will not be buying electricity just from the expensive new power plant; the utility will average the expensive new energy in with cheap energy from existing sources, so that the true cost of new power is hidden from the individual consumer (and borne, through rising utility bills, by all consumers). But for society as a whole, the new energy could be most cheaply harnessed with solar equipment.
Even where the homeowner must compare the marginal costs of new solar equipment with the average cost of competing energy sources, solar investments will generally make sense over the lifetime of the building. The most important first step is to incorporate passive solar design into the building's blueprints. Often this costs little or nothing. For example, it costs no more to place most windows in the southern wall than to place them facing north, but southern windows capture the sun's warmth while northern windows merely leak the building's internal heat. Roof overhangs, masonry floors and working shutters are not expensive. Yet, combined with tight construction and good insulation, they can lower the heating load of the building by 75 per cent and more. In Arkansas, 200 well-designed houses constructed under a grant from HUD cost no more than neighboring houses built using conventional construction standards, but their fuel bills are only one-fourth as high.
More elaborate designs can lead to greater savings. In the relatively mild climate of Atascadero, Calif., Harold HAY'S passive solar house was constructed with bags of water incorporated in its roof. These act like "thermal flywheels," capturing energy on winter days and storing it to meet nightime heating requirements. In the summer, the system collects heat from the interior during the day and radiates it outward at night. The cost of the solar features was about $5,000. The solar system has provided 100 per cent of the home's heating and cooling needs for several years.
In climates where passive solar design will not provide 100 per cent of heating requirements, back-up fuels or active solar systems are needed. In Princeton, N.J., architect Douglas Kelbaugh's passive solar home captures energy through a huge southern window wall during the day and stores it in a concrete interior wall to meet nightime heating requirements. Like other passive solar homes, the Kelbaugh residence employs no pumps or fans -- just careful design. The solar features cost around $9,000, and they provide virtually all of the home's requirements. In the unusually cold winter of 1976-77, the year's heating bill was just $75. Financed with a conventional home mortgage, Kelbaugh's solar energy system would require $1,800 cash at construction with monthly payments of $60 -- far less than his neighbors' fuel bills.
Many different solar collectors, pumps, fans and storage systems are now on the market. Prices frequently fluctuate severalfold. For example, solar collectors can be built and installed for a materials cost of about $2 per square foot.Prices of professionally installed solar collectors can range from under $10 per square foot to more than $70. The prices of thermal storage containers range from about $10 per cubic meter for hand-built systems to as much as $35 per cubic meter for commercial products. Hand-built solar systems can hold marked advantages over all competing energy sources. At the lower end of the price range, commercial solar systems also make economic sense.
Skeptics often point to the high-cost solar equipment used in some federal solar demonstration projects and claim that the buildings could have been heated with oil for a fraction of the cost. But such buildings incorporate no cheaps passive solar features and they generally employ the most expensive solar hardware on the market. Moreover, the price of oil is an average price -- not the price of new oil -- and even this average price is kept artificially low through oil depletion allowances, intangible drilling cost write-offs, foreign tax credits, unsafe tankers built for accelerated depreciation, polluting refineries in the Caribbean and direct governmental price controls. Even in this loaded contest, solar energy compares fairly well. The cost of Solar Cells
EVEN PHOTOVOLTAIC cells -- the most expensive technology now being used to harness solar energy --are much less expensive than is commonly believed.For example, a panel of distinguished scientists assembled by the Ford Foundation incorrectly reported in 1977 that "current (photovoltaic) collector costs are about $200,000 per kilowatt of peak electrical capacity."
The most charitable thing to be said for this figure is that it is 20 years out of date. Solar cells did cost about $200,000 a peak kilowatt in the late 1950s, but by early 1975, the costs had dropped to $31,000. By September, 1976 -- eight months before the Ford report was issued -- the costs had dropped to $15,500.
Within months of the Ford report's release, the cost of solar cells fell to $11,750 a peak watt. And last December, the Department of Energy awarded a grant for a solar cell array that "tracks" the sun across the sky and concentrates its rays into comparatively small photovoltaic cells. This system, which will be installed at the Arkans community college, will generate 362 kilowatts at a total installed cost of $6,000 per peak kilowatt.
Making allowances for the average availability of sunshine versus the average capacity factors of large nuclear power plants and considering demand patterns, transmission and storage, solar cells are now probably about 10 times as expensive as nuclear power in the most favorable regions of the United States. Solar cells now cost about one-tenth what they cost 5 years ago; nuclear power now costs about twice as much as it cost 5 years ago.
The United States now has about 48,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity and less than 1 megawatt of terrestial photovoltaic capacity. With mass production, solar cell costs are expected to continue falling dramatically. A 1977 report by the Federal Energy Administration contends that a $240 million purchase of 150 megawatts of solar cells, staggered over three years, would lead to a cost of just $500 per kilowatt for the 70 megawatts produced the third year.
Both solar-electric and wind-electric devices produce direct current -- not the alternating current we are used to. Hence, one occasionally hears the comment that the cost of a solar society should include the cost of replacing all our appliances with devices that run on direct current (as do appliances in many motor homes today). Ignoring the possible merits of converting to direct current. the issue is trifling. Many things -- from incandescent light bulbs to stoves --can perform well on direct current. Devices to convert direct current into alternating current are on the market for $180 per kilowatt for home-size units. For large orders, the price can fall to $50 per kilowatt. What Next?
AFTER FOUR YEARS of fumbling, the federal government appears to be on the verge of passing a National Energy Act. This legislative "cornerstone" of the Carter administration is -- in essence -- an attempt to squeak through 1985 without having to grant Saudi Arabia the mineral rights to Ft. Knox. What it lacks is what America most desperately wants: a vision of where we are going.
The transition to a sustainable, post-petroleum world will require some decades to complete. The National Energy Act --tional, centralized energy sources -- is not even a step in the right direction. If solar energy is to play an important role in the future, several actions must be taken immediately.
First, there is no substitute for money. While competing energy sources have financially benefited from the diligent efforts of scores of high-paid lobbyists, solar energy has not. Since 1952, when the Paley Commission recommended to President Truman that solar energy be aggressively developed, solar technology has received less than 1 five-hundredth of federal energy funding. Although solar funding increased rapidly after the Arab oil embargo of 1973, it has now remained stalled for two years with less than 4 per cent of the federal energy budget.
For solar enthusiasts, the new Carter budget is a great disappointment. Solar, wind and biological energy sources combined will receive less than one-fifth as much as is directly spent on nuclear fission. Renewable energy resources will receive $200 million less than breeder reactors alone. In fact, after adjusting for inflation, the federal solar budget is $40 million lower this year than it was last year.
The current state of solar technology would justify a budget in the $1 billion range. There would be little public opposition to this $5 per capita investment in our most promising energy source. If our current energy crisis requires "the moral equivalent of war," surely the solar, wind and biological answers to that crisis deserve at least the financial equivalent of one small weapons system.
Of course, no one wants to see tax dollars shoveled out stupidly. A good solar program will require clear-eyed managers and sufficient staff to handle the load. The current solar effort is deficient in both respects. Consequently, research has emphasized small numbers of huge projects. It is far easier for an understaffed office to manage a few big projects than many small ones.
In addition to performing research and development, the federal government should actively encourage the commercialization of solar technologies. Such proposals always stick in the craw of people who would prefer to see commercialization handled in the free marketplace. Alas, the free marketplace for energy disappeared long ago, when mineral depletion allowances, investment tax credits, accelerated depreciation schedules, federal assumption of nuclear liability, federal ownership and subsidization of uranium enrichment facilities, federal underwriting of synthetic fuel development, oil and gas price controls, the rural electrification program, and dozens of other financial and regulatory actions were instituted. Without exception, these discriminated against decentralized technologies. Today's need is for policies that will put solar energy on an even footing with its competitors. Helping the Buyer
BECAUSE THE initial investment is the principal cost for solar technology, prospective consumers must have access to up-front money.Different residential solar tax credits have now passed both houses of congress; the likeliest compromise will provide a credit of 30 per cent on the first $2,500 investment and 20 per cent on the next $7,500. Businesses that install solar equipment will receive a 10 per cent credit above the existing investment tax credit.
Unfortunately, this will not begin to counterbalance the higher tax credit allowed for investments in nuclear and synthetic fuels facilities in the Senate version of the National Energy Act. Moreover, tax credits are of limited usefulness for millions on fixed incomes who are being ravaged by rising fuel prices. Poor people will require something like a Treasury rebate as a down payment before they will be able to afford solar investments.
A financing authority should be established to give the homeowner and small businessman access to investment capital on terms at least as attractive as those available to utilities to invest in centralized energy sources. This might take the form of the national solar Development Bank proposed by Rep. Stephen Neal (D-N.C.), making 30-year loans at very low rates of interest. States could supplement such a federal effort with state institutions funded with revenues from tax-free bonds; several such proposals are now before the California legislature.
Many homeowners are reluctant to purchase solar equipment because such merchandise often carries an inadequate warranty. Warranties are considered important because the initial cost of solar technologies is generally high. Solar investments make economic sense only because they have no fuel costs and low maintenance costs in future years. But if the performance of the equipment is not guaranteed for several years, the economics of solar technologies become more questionable.
However, a warranty system can discriminate against small manufacturers. In a nascent industry, warranties are meaningful only if they are backed by performance bonds. Otherwise, businesses can simply disappear, leaving the consumer holding the bag. But setting aside scarce capital to guarantee the performance of equipment for a decade can pose an unbearable burden on small entrepreneurs.
California Energy Commissioner Ronal Doctor has suggested a solar warranty fund, analogous to the oil spill liability fund. All solar manufacturers meeting certain standards would be allowed to contribute to the fund; if anyone's equipment proved faulty, the fund would guarantee remuneration. The state would be the warrantor of last resort.
The construction of a house or other building involves a 30-to-50-year commitment to energy usage levels. By 1981, it would be reasonable to require at least passive solar design features in all new buildings. At the very least, new buildings should be required to meet vigorous regional weatherization standards, and to be built and oriented in ways that facilitate eventual retrofitting with solar equipment.
A more direct role can be played by the federal government -- the largest single purchaser of almost everything in the American economy -- through its procurement policies. If, for example, the Defense Department were to make a concerted effort to provide solar heat where possible to its existing residences, a market in excess of 50 million square feet would open up. The total U.S. market for solar collectors in 1977 was about 5 million square feet.
If Defense were to purchase 150 megawatts of photovoltaic capacity for $450 million (including storage batteries and power conditioning equipment), it would save $1.5 billion net over the next 25 years in fuel and maintenance costs for displaced gasoline generators. A 1977 FEA report found that such a Pentagon purchase would reduce the cost of commercial photovoltaics to $500 kilowatt -- a price that is competitive for many purposes with conventionally generated electricity. Helping the Third World
ONE OF THE MOST dramatic solar efforts the federal government could undertake would be in the realm of foreign assistance. Solar energy makes even more sense today in the Third World than it does domestically. Developing countries tend to be richly endowed with sunlight. Their population patterns lend themselves to decentralized energy sources: half the people in Latin America, 70 per cent in south Asia and 85 per cent in Africa still live in rural areas. And in remote Third world villages, the current high cost of conventional energy, especially electricity, makes virtually all solar options economically competitive today.
Last May, President Carter eloquently proclaimed our national interest in improving the prospects of the world's poor. Energy is vital to economic development. since Carter is understandably cautious about the proliferation of nuclear power around the world, solar energy poses an obvious answer.
What would it cost to provide a minimum decent supply of energy to each of the world's 1 million rural villages before the end of the century? Quite a bit. If the United States were to shoulder the entire burden, it might amount to onehalf of 1 per cent of our gross national product annually.
That would be a very substantial pledge, but it must be placed in perspective. American aid to Europe under the post-World War II Marshall Plan amounted to 2.8 per cent of GNP. By comparison, 0.5 per cent for solar assistance is a pittance. Next year, it would amount to over $5 billion -- a large figure, but not too intimidating when compared to annual Third World arms receipts of nearly $28 billion.
Much of this foreign assistance would be spent here at home. As American manufacturers begin to mass produce photovoltaic arrays, small wind turbines, etc., the domestic prices of these items should plummet. This would be a boon to U.S. consumers, and it would help American solar companies in the world solar market. As a way to incorporate his concern for poverty, human rights and nuclear proliferation in one package, a "Carter Plan" to bring solar technology to the poor villages of the world may represent the President's most attractive opportunity.
A final area where federal assistance should aggressively harness renewable energy sources is on the farm. U.S. farmers are upset with the low prices their crops are now bringing. U.S. consumers are unwilling to see their food bills rise. One answer would be a major national effort to make America's firms independent of high-priced fuels --thus separating food prices from fuel-induced inflation. Solar, wind and biological sources can be easily tapped to meet the energy demands of American agriculture. A solar equivalent of President Roosevelt's rural electrification program, which provided subsidized loans at 2 per cent interest to extend the nation's electrical lines to the farm, could lead to energy self-sufficiency for the nation's farms by 1990. The Solar Society
ENERGY TRANSITIONS always bring fundamental social change. In the 18th century, the substitution of coal for wood and for draft animals made possible the Industrial Revolution. The later shift to petroleum made possible the jet plane and the automobile, shrinking the world and reshaping its cities. The coming energy transition, whatever direction we take, will bring similarly far-reaching changes.
Tapping some energy sources demands ever-increasing centralization; solar resources are best used at dispersed locations. some dangerous sources can be permitted widespread growth only under authoritarian regimes; solar energy can lead to nothing more dangerous than a leaky roof. Some energy sources invite profiteering cartels; solar sources would tend to narrow the gap between rich and poor --both within and among countries. Some energy sources will tend to reduce the size of the workforce; solar sources promise large numbers of new jobs. some energy sources involve technologies that baffle all but a few specialist; solar energy can be harnessed by individual homeowners with simple devices built of local materials.
Of the possible futures we might choose, a solar-powered one appears most inviting. But the transition will not be smooth and painless. competing energy sources will be vigorously championed by powerful vested interests. Bureaucratic inertia, political timidity, conflicting corporate designs and the simple, understandable reluctance of people to face up to far-reaching change will all discourage a solar transition from occuring spontaneously.
If the solar transition is to be speedily undertaken, the federal government will have to play a strongly promotional role. But thus far the influence of national policy makers has probably been negative. for two years they have caused homeowners to delay solar purchases by promising eventual tax credits -- and then failed to pass the necessary legislation. They have invested the lion's share of federal solar research in elephantine technologies to the detriment of the small-scale, decentralized options best suited to solar equipment. They have spared no pains to involve electric and gas utilities in solar applications, ignoring the fact that solar energy is a textbook case of an anti-monopolistic resource.
While still hoping for leadership from Washington, many Americans are no longer waiting for it. Woth the sure instincts displayed by innumerable inventors, tinkerers and entrepreneurs throughout our history, these citizens are in the vanguard of a nation that, in the years ahead, must increasingly turn toward the sun.