An Assessment of Technology for Local

Development

January 1981

NTIS order #PB81-189979
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 81-600026

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents,

U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402
Foreword

The late Dr. Pearly F. Ayre, a sociologist who spent several decades working with people in Appalachia, finally became disenchanted with the long-term effectiveness of many of

the Federal development programs aimed at that region. He is remembered for his memorable observation in praise of local initiative: “We must do for ourselves, or be done for.”

This OTA study addresses the question of local development and the opportunities

for–and appropriateness of–various technologies that can help local people to take advantage of local resources in meeting the needs of their own communities. In many instances there are also close connections between local and national needs; as a result, these

local solutions can sometimes add up to national solutions.

OTA has made extensive use of case studies to assess a variety of community projects.

One clear conclusion that emerges from these cases is that individuality, ingenuity, and initiative are far from lacking in the United States. It is also evident that many communities

are strongly attracted to the principles of local reliance and self-sufficiency. When a community evaluates and chooses a technology for local development, it should take into account nonmarket goals and priorities, as well as purely market factors. In many cases this

broader perspective–the attempt to find and develop an “appropriate technology” (AT)–

can greatly influence the overall utility of the project.

OTA found that neither “big” nor “small” technologies are consistently more attractive or effective. The historic progression toward larger scale is not universally optimal; indeed, some large-scale projects can result in a diseconomy of scale. Recent developments in

science and technology have created an increasing number of opportunities for economic

activities on a smaller scale, as well as on a decentralized basis.

Because AT by definition reflects local goals and values, as well as local resources and

conditions, the broader adoption of AT may well lead not only to a more diverse and resilient economic system, but also to one that better serves the social and human needs of

communities throughout the Nation.

#

/yd~

.

.

JOHN H. GIBBONS

Director

iii
Technology for Local Development Assessment Advisors

Roger Blobaum

President

Roger Blobaum and Associates

George Burrill

Co-Director

Center for Studies in Food Self-Sufficiency

Patricia Cloherty

President

Tessler & Cloherty, Inc.

John Hammock

Executive Director

ACCION International

Mary Houghton

Executive Vice President

South Shore National Bank

Executive Committee

Lola Redford

President

Consumer Action Now

Constantine Safilios-Rothschild

Professor of Human Development

Pennsylvania State University

Steve Serfling

President

Solar AquaSystems, Inc.

Martha Stuart

President

Martha Stuart Communications, Inc.

Byron Kennard Richard P. Taub

Community Organizer Associate Professor & Chairman of Public Affairs

University of Chicago

David Lawrence

Chairman of the

Boettcher & Co. Dan Tessler

William Nicoson

Counsel

Lynn Preston

Acting Head, Problem Analysis Group Assistant Professor

National Science Foundation Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Chairman

Tessler & Cloherty, Inc.

Sean Wellesley-Miller
Assessment of Technology for Local Development Project Staff

John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTA

Science, Information, and Natural Resources Division

William Mills,* Acting Program Manager, National R&D Priorities & Policies

Michaela Walsh,** Project Director

Paul B. Phelps,† Editor and Writer

Marsha Mistretta, Administrative Assistant

Leslie Sederlund, Research Assistant

Jeffrey Magnin, Research Assistant

Babette Racca,† Analyst

Michael Fischer,† Analyst

Other Staff Contributors

Christopher Ansell† Junior Bridge Geraldine Duskie

Robert Friedman Robert Olson†

Contractors and Consultants

Caroline Edwards James Sullivan

Peter Harnik Richard Taub

Paul Hoover Sean Wellesley-Miller

Claudia Lorge ACCION International

William Nicoson Roger Blobaum & Associates

Bruce Porter Center for Community Change

Constantine Safilios-Rothschild Counsel for Community Development

Marsha Steinberg

OTA Publishing Staff

John C. Holmes, Publishing Officer

John Bergling† Kathie S. Boss Debra M. Datcher

Patricia A. Dyson† Mary Harvey† Joe Henson

*Acting Project Director after June 1980.

**Project Director through May 1980; continuing as contractor through December 1980.

†OTA contract personnel.
Contents

chapter Page

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Resource-Efficient Residential Architect

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

ure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Food-Producing Solar Greenhouses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Small Farm Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Farmers’ Markets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................123

Resource Recovery From Municipal Solid Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Community Wastewater Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

Community Energy Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Health CareSystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................217

Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........233

Appendix.–Members of the Appropriate Technology Workshop, Study Teams,

and Task Force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
Chapter 1
Contents

Page

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

The Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Resource-Efficient Residential Architecture . . . . . . 5

Food-Producing Solar Greenhouses . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Small Farm Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Farmers’ Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Resource Recovery From Municipal Solid Waste. . . 7

Community Wastewater Treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Community Energy Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Community Health Care Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Critical Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Page

Public Perception and Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Technical Information and Expertise. . . . . . . . . . . 10

Essential Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Financing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Institutional Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Options for Federal Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Data Gathering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Information Dissemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Financial Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
CHAPTER 1

Executive Summary

Appropriate technology (AT) involves an attempt to tailor the scale and complexity of a technology to the job it needs to do. AT has been proposed by some of its advocates as an answer to

many of the social and economic problems created

by large-scale, centralized technology in both the

industrialized countries and the Third World.

Through greater diversity and decentralization,

they argue, it is possible to achieve a “technology

mix” that makes more effective use of limited

capital and is better adapted to, and less disruptive

of, the social and natural environment. Largescale approaches may be necessary for some tasks,

but for others it is possible to scale down existing

technology or, in some cases, to replace it with

more traditional methods that have been improved on through the application of advanced

materials, designs, or techniques. Ideally, AT emphasizes resource efficiency, environmental soundness, community control, and labor rather than

capital intensiveness.

AT proponents cannot always agree on exactly

what the concept entails, however, and its emphasis has changed and broadened over the last 10

years, depending on where and when it was applied. In one of its earliest forms, AT was proposed

as an alternative approach to economic development in the Third World. Observers like British

economist E. F. Schumacher noted that when an

advanced, capital-intensive technology is introduced into a developing nation, it sometimes crates as many social and economic problems as it

solves. What is needed, Schumacher suggested, is

an “intermediate technology” that is far more productive than traditional methods but is still more

labor intensive (and less capital intensive) than the

sophisticated, large-scale technologies of the industrialized nations.

In the past few years, on the other hand, a growing number of appropriate technologists have

come to view themselves as pioneers, operating “at

the frontier” in several areas of applied science.

They argue that much of what is called AT is in

fact a particular kind of advanced technology, one

designed for changing resource conditions. In response to the current economic environment, for

instance, a number of relatively sophisticated

technologies have been de~’eloped that are efficient users of energy and material resources. In

this view’, the main challenge is to integrate

numerous applications of AT in efficient, sustainable systems in the local community.

OTA’s exploratory study is not intended to be

comprehensive. Nevertheless, the AT projects examined in this study exhibit a great diversity in

size, complexity, and location. They range from

attached solar heating greenhouses built by individual homeowners in New Mexico to a plant that

converts municipal waste to steam heat for downtown Akron, Ohio; from a heat-retentive house

designed for low-income families in Alaska to a

cooperative market for small-scale farmers in Louisiana; and from an innovative sewage treatment

plant in California to a pair of recommissioned

hydroelectric projects in New England.

Congress has frequently taken the lead in promoting the development of AT. This interest was

demonstrated by the creation of the National

Center for Appropriate Technology by the 94th

Congress and the Office of Small Scale Technology within the Department of Energy (DOE) by

the 95th Congress. In June 1978, OTA was asked

to conduct an exploratory study to:

assess the conceptual base for AT;

assess technologies which are appropriate for

local community development; and

collect information on promising new tech- —

nologies now being innovated in energy,

waste disposal, housing, agriculture, and

health that may provide an alternative and

possibly more effective approach to community and regional development.

The request for the OTA study came from Senators Ribicoff, Percy, Javits, Humphrey, Leahy,

Brooke, McIntrye, McGovern, and Hart, as well

as Representatives George Brown, Scheuer, and

Udall.

3
4 ● Assessment o/ Technology for Local Development

Findings

The projects examined in this study had widely

varying objectives, and their significance can be

quite different when viewed from the national perspective instead of the local. Thus, no simple judgment of “success” or “failure” can be applied: each

case must be examined from both points of view.

Viewed broadly, local development is not always simply a question of economic growth as conventionally measured. Efficient and cost-effective

municipal services—the goal of several of the

projects—are a necessary underpinning to local

development, as is the availability of health care

and the affordability of housing.

Creating employment and new industry was not

the principal objective of the projects examined.

Nevertheless, one project saved local jobs that

otherwise would have been lost, and other projects

provided help in severely depressed areas by creating temporary jobs and by providing marketable

training and work experience. Some of the projects helped to improve the viability of existing

enterprises (small farms), and others could create

significant opportunities for small business

(notably in the construction and home-improvement sector).

From the local perspective, the primary significance

of these projects is their potential for reducing—or at

least stabilizing—the real costs of community services.

The following are some examples taken from the

case studies:

1. Waste management and resource recovery.—

●

●

●

●

●

reduce the operating costs of secondary

wastewater treatment;

use municipal solid waste as a fuel to generate steam for use in the downtown area;

recover materials from municipal wastes,

including compost and water as well as aluminum, glass, iron, and steel;

reduce the volume of sludge and other residues that must be disposed of; and

reduce the air, water, and land pollution

associated with waste management.

2. Energy.–

. reduce the energy consumption of wastewater treatment facilities;

s develop new sources of energy for municipal services and local industrial use; and

. recommission abandoned or underutilized

energy-generating facilities for local use.

3. Health care and social services.—

. increase the availabilit y of primary health

care;

. reduce the cost of medical services; and

● provide community activities for the elderly and the handicapped.

On the national level, projects also address several

important and vexing problems that will face the

United States during the next 20 years. If these and

similar efforts are replicated on a nationwide basis,

the results could be significant in the following

areas:

●

●

●

●

●

greater energy conservation in the residential sector—which currently accounts for over 20 percent of U.S. energy consumption—could

make an important contribution to achieving

the national goal of independence from imported oil;

new Production and marketing techniques for

small-scale farmers may contribute to the retention of the Nation’s farmland-which is being

converted to nonagricultural use at the rate of

1 million acre/yr;

alternative wastewater treatment technologies

could reduce the cost of expanding and upgrading the Nation’s sewage treatment facilities—an

enormously costly process that might otherwise be beyond the available resources of Federal, State, and local governments;

installing new generating capacity at existing

damsites--many of which are abandoned or

underutilized, could greatly increase the Nation’s supply of hydroelectric power; and

community health centers and prepaid health

plans could lead to significant savings in the cost

of health care—which now consumes almost

10 percent of U.S. gross national product.

Given these potential national benefits, the

process by which the technologies were adopted

and the potential barriers to their replication by

other communities become important considera-
Ch. 1–ExecutIw Summary ● 5

tions. Close attention to local needs, goals, and resources was found to be an essential factor in most

of the successful projects. In some cases, a significant barrier to transferability was the availability

of reliable information on the design, cost, and

performance of the technologies themselves. In

other cases, the barriers were institutional: opposition from commercial interests; reluctance on the

part of engineers, builders, or lending institutions

to accept innovative designs; and insensitivity in

the application of building codes, waste management guidelines, medical practice laws, and other

regulations by various levels of government.

Existing Federal policies and programs have been

relatively effective in encouraging the development and

adoption of AT projects like those examined in the

case studies. Based on these case studies, there appears to be no justification for a new, centralized Federal effort to promote such projects; existing programs

could, however, be improved in four specific areas:

●

●

●

●

gathering reliable data on the design, cost, and

performance of the technologies, either

through modified project design, redirected

research, or expanded Federal monitoring efforts;

information dissemination, both through regional “demonstration projects and through

the encouragement of networking and other

informal, local mechanisms for information

exchange;

technical assistance, including both community workshops for individuals and planning

aids for municipalities; and

financial assistance, such as tax credits or cost

sharing for individuals and risk sharing for

municipalities.

The Case Studies

Resource-Efficient Residential

Architecture

In 1977, energy consumption for heating and

cooling in the residential sector totaled 17 quadrillion Btu, or almost one-quarter of total U.S.

energy consumption. Rising energy prices and potential supply shortages have forced architects and

builders to develop residential housing designs

that are less dependent on fossil fuels. Some

houses being built today require less than one-fifth

as much energy to maintain acceptable inside temperatures as typical housing stock built in the

1970’s. A few new heat-retentive designs promise

to all but eliminate the need for backup heating.

Several alternatives are discussed in five case

studies:

●

●

solar heating greenhouses in New Mexico,

which collect heat from the sun for use in

both the greenhouse and the house to which

it is attached, and which can be built by individual homeowners at a low cost, often with

scrap or salvaged materials;

the “Ark II, ” a passive solar-heated house

designed by Solsearch Architects for the

Cooley family of Washington, Corm., and

built by the Cooleys, which incorporates the

●

●

●

patented “solar staircase” roof and a number

of advanced building materials;

the “Conserver Home” on Prince Edward

Island, Canada, also designed by Solsearch

Architects, a low-cost house that uses “Arkansas framing,” thick insulation, and other

design features to retain the heat given off by

the occupants and their activities, thereby

greatly reducing the need for supplemental

heating;

the “Bethel House,” designed and built by the

faculty and students of Kuskokwim Community College in Bethel, Alaska, another lowcost heat-retentive design that uses superinsulation and a number of innovative design

features that conserve building materials as

well as energy in a demanding climate; and

the “thermal envelope” house, built by Tom

Smith near Lake Tahoe, Calif., which consists of a “house within a house” that combines a solar greenhouse, convection currents, and a buffer space to produce a house

that is less expensive to heat in the winter and

cool in the summer.

These and similar designs promise considerable

energy savings for individual families, but the costs

of the solar and thermal-envelope houses are such
6 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

Photo credit: OffIce of Technology Assessment

Bethel House, Bethel, Alaska

that they are being built primarily for the middleand high-income custom housing market. The attached solar greenhouse offers a low-cost retrofit

that can be applied to existing homes in many locations, and the Conserver, Bethel, and other

heat-retentive designs show considerable promise

for new low-income housing. At present, however,

there is a lack of reliable data on the cost and performance of some of the designs, and no “preferred” solutions have gained general acceptance

from financial institutions or the building industry.

Food-Producing Solar Greenhouses

Solar greenhouses have two features of special

interest: they can provide a year-round source of

fresh, locally grown produce, even in the coldest

climates; and, unlike conventional greenhouse

production or the mass distribution of remotely

grown winter vegetables, they do not require large

quantities of oil or other fossil fuels. By combining

these two benefits, solar greenhouses may be able

to reduce the food budgets as well as the energy

budgets of individual families, community groups,

and the Nation as a whole.

The 5,000-ft2 Cheyenne (Wyoming) Community Solar Greenhouse is the largest freestanding

solar greenhouse in the United States. Funded by

grants from the Community Services Administration, the project was notable for the degree of community participation in the planning, construction, operation, and management of the greenhouse. It has also provided job training for students, alternative service for youth offenders, educational opportunities for children, and activities

for elderly and handicapped members of the community. Produce grown in the greenhouse is distributed to low-income and elderly volunteers who

work there and through local meals programs.

The project has been less than successful when

evaluated strictly as a food-producing enterprise. It

has encountered a number of design and operation problems, crop yields have been low, and it

has yet to become self supporting. Although the

project was successful in delivering social services,

there has been no study of whether this kind of

project is the most cost-effective way to deliver

those services.

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

Cheyenne Community Solar Greenhouse, Cheyenne, Wyo.

Small Farm Systems

The three major operating costs associated with

farming–feed for livestock, fertilizer for fields, and

fuel for machinery and buildings–have all been

affected by rising petroleum prices. These factors

have endangered the economic viability of the

small family farm. The New Life Farm (NLF) and

Small Farm Energy Project (SFEP) are two attempts to reduce the energy costs and increase the

self-sufficienc y of small-scale agriculture in their

regions.
Ch. 1–Executive Summary ● 7

NLF is developing a “system” of alternative

energy sources and energy-conserving farming

techniques suited to the needs of low-income

farmers in the Ozark Mountains of Missouri, a

region of thin and badly eroded topsoil. Their

principal innovation has been the biogas digester,

in which the anaerobic decomposition of manure

or plant wastes produces a gas that is 60 percent

methane. This gas can then be burned to heat the

farmhouse, to generate electricity, or to distill

alcohol as a fuel for farm machinery.

Photo credit. New Life Farm

Digester building, New Life Farm, Drury, Mo.

SFEP, in Cedar County, Nebr., is a 3-year program to demonstrate how far a group of low-income farmers can progress toward energy self-sufficiency when provided with technical and costsharing assistance. The farmers were introduced to

proven, primarily solar technologies through a

series of seminars, hands-on workshops, and lectures by farmers from other areas who had undertaken similar projects. They were then allowed to

select the projects that would best suit their farming operations. About half of the projects involved

conservation measures, a few involved improved

farming methods, and a third involved applications of renewable energy sources, including a

wind generator, a portable solar collector, two

solar grain dryers, and a solar-heated farrowing

barn.

Both of these projects promise considerable

benefits to the small-scale farmer, but SFEP had a

far greater impact on the local community, largely

because it made a greater attempt to involve the

community in the planning and execution of its

programs. Self-selection by the innovating farmers

was a particularly valuable feature, and the project

seems to have had a considerable effect on nonparticipating members of the community, many of

whom undertook similar conservation steps.

Farmers’ Markets

Cutting production costs is one way to improve

the profitability of small-scale agriculture; another

is the time-honored practice of marketing produce

directly to the consumer. Case studies of six

farmers’ markets–in Rutland, Vt., Morehouse

Parish, La., Ravinia, Ill., Boston, Mass., Baltimore, Md., and Seattle, Wash.—show that this

food-marketing technology can still benefit farmer

and consumer alike. The markets were organized

by a variety of local groups, including farmers,

consumers, businessmen, municipal governments,

and local extension agents. All of them, however,

depend vitally on the participation of farmers and

local consumers, and when the needs and convenience of these groups were given greater attention

the success of the market was more assured.

Most of the farmers’ markets contributed to

local development, primarily by expanding the

local market for fresh produce or creating markets

where none had existed before. The profitability

of direct marketing led local farmers to diversify

their crops and improve their farming methods,

and several of them said that the farmers’ market

had influenced their decision to keep their land in

production. Nationwide, the availability of similar

local markets may help to prevent the further

“paving over” of farmland near urban centers.

Resource Recovery From

Municipal Solid Waste

The United States generates over 135 million

tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) each year,

and its disposal is a rapidly growing problem in

many areas. Conventional methods, such as open

dumping, landfill, incineration, and ocean burial,

are either too expensive or environmentally unacceptable. Interest is also growing in methods of

recovering valuable resources of MSW, which contains two-thirds of the national consumption of
8 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

paper and glass, one-fifth of the aluminum, and

over one-eighth of the iron and steel. In addition,

the combustible portion of this waste could, if

burned, provide almost 2 percent of the Nation’s

annual energy consumption. Improved resource

recovery technologies could, therefore, contribute

not only to inexpensive and environmentally

sound waste management but also to energy conservation and the more efficient use of material

resources.

In Akron, Ohio, the steam that heats many of

the downtown buildings is now being provided by

the Recycle Energy System (RES), a centralized

recovery facility that uses combustible MSW as

fuel and also recovers ferrous materials for sale.

The project has contributed to the revitalization of

the previously deteriorating central business district. To assure itself of an adequate supply of

MSW, however, the city was forced to pass a controversial ordinance requiring private haulers to

dump at the RES site. The ordinance is currently

under legal challenge, and if the decision goes

against the city it may jeopardize the future of the

project.

In New York City’s South Bronx, the Bronx

Frontier Development Corp. has established a

comporting operation that converts vegetable

wastes from a nearby produce market into humus,

an essential soil conditioner. Some of the humus is

sold commercially, but most of it is donated to

various community groups that are turning rubble-strewn lots into parks and gardens. The project

has encountered some difficulties with State sanitary codes and with funding; it may, however, be

able to become self-supporting if it increases its tipping fees and its commercial sales.

Both projects demonstrate promising alternatives for resource recovery from MSW, but they

also demonstrate the problems associated with the

control of the “waste stream’ ’—RES with an adequate quantity of waste and the Bronx project

with waste quality. Federal initiatives may be required to resolve this issue.

Community Wastewater Treatment

The General Accounting Office has recently

concluded that, due to the scope and enormous

costs of upgrading the Nation’s sewage treatment

system, it is imperative that lower cost approaches

be found for providing this community service.

The Solar AquaCell treatment facility in Hercules, Calif., is one such alternative. The facility

consists of a series of lagoons, enclosed in a

greenhouse cover, in which wastes are consumed

by water hyacinths, duckweed, small marine animals, and bacteria. The system is still too new to

make a definitive evaluation, but it promises to use

less energy and chemicals than conventional systems. The biological components of the system are

fairly hardy, which may also give the facility increased flexibility in adapting to varying types and

concentrations of wastes.

The AquaCell facility was a municipal undertaking with relatively little community input, but

,.

,,

;. ~! > , “.

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

Solar AquaCell Treatment Facility, Hercules, Cal if.
Ch. 1–Executive Summary ● 9

it has subsequently received widespread support

from local citizens, many of whom have taken

steps to reduce their water consumption. The

city’s unique revenue base made development possible without Federal funds, and this has freed

Hercules from the constraints on its growth that

might otherwise have been imposed by regional

sewage planning. However, it also raises questions

about the transferability of the technology to communities that lack similar financial resources,

although the Environmental Protection Agency’s

(EPA) Innovative and Alternative Technologies

Program has made some funds available for this

purpose.

Community Energy Generation

Hydropower, which represents 13 to 15 percent

of U.S. electrical generation, is currently the most

widely used renewable source of energy in the

United States. Price increases for fossil fuels, as

well as environmental considerations, have made

hydroelectricity increasingly attractive over the

last 10 years and have stimulated interest in

developing the Nation’s hydropower potential. A

recent survey by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers suggests that current capacity could be greatly increased simply by upgrading current facilities

or by installing generators at existing damsites

that do not currently produce electricity. Smallscale dams, with their lower capital costs, are particularly attractive for this purpose; about twothirds of these dams are located in New England.

Woonsocket, R. I., is converting an existing dam

to generate electricity. The project was undertaken

at the encouragement of the State Energy Office

and was initially supported by a feasibility study

grant from DOE; the voters subsequently approved a municipal bond issue to fund the major

part of the construction. Electricity from the dam

will be used to run the regional sewage treatment

plant and the city waterworks, surplus power will

be sold to the local utility company. A similar

project in Wareham, Mass., has run into trouble

because of the city’s insistence on funding the project entirely through grants, Wareham plans to sell

all of its power to the local utility company.

The Wareham project demonstrates the difficulties that can arise from dependence on the grant’s

economy, but both projects illustrate the benefits

Photo credit: Elizabeth Pezzoli

Tremont Dam, Wareham, Mass.

of developing underutilized local resources. Power

from these and similar projects elsewhere can be

applied to local energy needs, either for cutting the

costs of municipal services, for sale to the local

utility company, or for attracting industry to the

area. Both projects received general support from

local residents, although widespread misconceptions about the size and uses of the projects existed

in both communities.

Community Health Care Systems

The Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Health

Center was organized by local residents as an alternative to the fragmented and often inadequate

health services on Chicago’s South Side. Initial

funding was provided by a Federal grant and the

sale of $110,000 in debentures to members of the

community. The center is currently operating in

the black. Located on the second floor of a rehabilitated building, it provides primary health care

for three types of patients: private patients who

pay on a fee-for-service basis; those who are

covered by medicare and medicaid; and those who

belong to prepaid health plans through their employers or unions.

The center is managed by a board of directors

elected by its dues-paying members, but Illinois

law requires a separate medical group; as a result,

the issue of community control is still unresolved.

The center has increased the availability of primary health care and reduced its costs, however,

and its programs of preventive medicine and

health education could help to improve the gener74-435 0 - 81 - 2
10 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

al health of the community. Widespread creation sources found in Hyde Park-Kenwood would not

of similar health maintenance organizations in be available in most inner-city areas, and entirely

other communities could have a significant impact different approaches will probably be required in

on the enormous cost of health care in the United rural areas.

States. However, the human and financial reCritical Factors

The uniqueness of some of the projects, which

might limit the transferability of the technologies

to other communities, was largely the result of

special conditions or resources—human, financial,

or material. Nevertheless, a number of lessons

were learned about those factors most likely to affect the success or failure of individual projects and

their transferability to other communities.

Public Perception and Participation

Public participation was not a major factor in

the municipal projects, although greater citizen involvement might have encouraged the consideration of alternative approaches in the planning

stages. Participation by local residents was more

important in projects undertaken by community

groups, such as the health center and the various

farmers’ markets. A high degree of public interest

and involvement was essential—almost by definition—in individual projects like the small farm systems and passive solar houses.

Technical Information and Expertise

The availability of technical information and

expertise was found to be essential for the successful planning, construction, and operation of

all of the projects. In the larger projects, city planners and engineers demanded reliable data on the

capital costs and technical performance of the

technology; where this information is lacking, professional resistance and financial difficulties can be

expected. In the less complicated community undertakings, the need for information can often be

met through “networking” among groups that

have similar interests. In the individual undertaking, on the other hand, the greatest need is for personal hands-on experience in design and construction; community workshops and individualized technical assistance were successful in transferring these skills and information.

Essential Resources

The availability of essential resources–material,

capital, and institutional—was most commonly

found to be unique to the community and therefore most likely to affect the transferability. An apparent lack of resources was often overcome by

determined and imaginative organizers working

from within the community. Some of the most

promising technologies—the manure digester, for

instance—were based on what might to outsiders

seem to be the least promising resource base.

Financing

The forms of financing used by the projects were

almost as varied as their financial needs. Grants

were most effective as initial seed money, either to

attract conventional financing or to allow the

projects to become self-supporting; projects that

continued to depend on grants, contracts, or subsidies were less successful. Cost-sharing assistance

and grants for community workshops were effective mechanisms for encouraging widespread

adoption of some of the small-scale technologies,

such as farm energy systems, solar greenhouse

retrofits, and residential conservation strategies.

Large-scale municipal projects, on the other hand,

may require Federal intervention to reduce financial risks and attract conventional financing.

Institutional Factors

Some of the projects encountered resistance

from commercial interests, who feared competition, or professional interests, who were leery of

innovative but unproven approaches. The development of the AquaCell was impeded by the current state of the venture capital market. Financial

institutions generally were hesitant to underwrite

innovative projects. Some of the projects also ex-
Ch. l–Executive Summary ● 11

perienced opposition or insensitivity from regula- codes, waste management guidelines, and medical

tory and other government agencies. Building practice laws were a particular source of difficulty.

Options for Federal Policy

A variety of Federal policies have contributed,

directly or indirectly, to the development and

adoption of these technologies, and existing Federal programs, for the most part, have seemed effective. However, a number of criticisms have

been raised concerning their extent, coordination,

and management. There appear to be four principal areas in which Federal programs for local

development might be modified and improved:

● data gathering;

. information dissemination;

● technical assistance; and

● financial assistance.

Data Gathering

The technologies examined in the case studies

were at varying stages of development, but most of

the projects would have profited from more reliable data on the design, cost, performance, and/or

reliability of the technology itself, as well as on the

experience of other communities in applying it.

Some of the case studies, however, involved technologies that were being applied for the first time

in a full commercial- or municipal-scale facility; in

other cases, the local development project involved an innovative application of a proven technology. The future dissemination of both types of

technologies could be assisted by comprehensive

evaluation and comparison with more conventional approaches.

There are a number of steps that can be taken

by Federal funding agencies and local project organizers to ensure that adequate data-gathering is in

fact carried out. These steps include, but are not

limited to, the following:

●

●

modify project design to include a strong datagathering component, where possible, by providing additional funding or earmarking a

portion of the project’s funds specifically for

data gathering;

redirect existing research to gather not more

data but a different kind of data, particularly

where human behavior is a significant variable (e.g., solar-heated houses and resource

recovery); and

support and expand cur-rent Federal monitoring

programs, like ‘those undertaken by the National Center for Appropriate Technology, to

provide assistance in assessing the performance of existing projects for energy-efficient

housing and agriculture.

Information Dissemination

Even when a technology is fairly well developed

in one project, its diffusion can be impeded if other

potential developers are unaware of the project or

unable to obtain detailed data on design, costs,

and performance. In some cases this will cause

communities to overlook a promising alternative,

in other cases it will result in resistance from engineers and financial sources who consider the project too risky, and in a few cases it might cause the

failure of a project because its organizers were unaware of the problems, and solutions, that have

been discovered in similar projects elsewhere. This

problem can be compounded if Federal activities

in the field of AT are not explicitly identified as

such.

The problem of information dissemination can

be addressed through a number of measures—

local, regional, and national–including but not

limited to the following:

● encourage networking between local and regional groups with related interests. This was

effective in organizing farmers’ markets in

Boston and disseminating information on

small farm systems in Nebraska. Federal agencies, particularly those like the Agricultural

Extension Service and the Community Services Administration that have extensive local

representation, are in a good position to encourage the establishment of such networks

throughout the Nation;
12 . Assessment of Technology for Local Development

establish regional demonstration projects, which

were particularly effective in stimulating public interest and promoting further adoption of

proven, cost-effective technologies by local

residents in Nebraska, Wyoming, and New

Mexico; and

encourage information exchange between different levels of government, and between government and private industry, by creating

and funding a more extensive program of regional panels, seminars, and workshops at

which interested parties could be exposed to

recent developments in their fields; both EPA

and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board

have established such programs.

Technical Assistance

Even when reliable design and performance

data are available, the development of a particular

project will not be possible unless an adequate skill

base exists, or can be developed, in the local community. This can be a problem even with the simplest of the projects, although the skills needed for

planning and building an attached solar greenhouse, for instance, can be taught rather easily. In

the case of the larger municipal projects, even the

expertise needed for planning the project or determining its feasibility may be beyond the means of

a given community.

There are a number of approaches to this problem. Direct, project-related technical assistance

usually involves greater Federal involvement and

greater expense; skill transfer and other indirect

assistance usually cost less and benefit the community more, since the skill base they develop will

remain in the community after the completion of

the project. The following represent a range of options for technical assistance:

●

●

workshops were highly effective for the simplest of the projects, particularly those that

are to be built by individual homeowners or

farmers, and were also successful in demonstrating the technology in the local community and stimulating additional installations;

training programs and seminars, like those of

the Small Farm Energy Project, can expose

local residents to a wide variety of potential

applications and provide valuable skills;

●

●

●

one-on-one technical assistance from organizers

and outside experts was useful in helping

farmers to build solar installations in Nebraska and organize a farmers’ market in Louisiana; the existing extension program of DOE

and the U.S. Department of Agriculture

could be used as a mechanism for this form of

assistance;

computer models and other planning aids allow

small communities to conduct low-cost site

evaluations and feasibility studies for smallscale hydropower projects, farmers’ markets,

and community health care centers; similar

technical and organizational guides for energy-efficient housing and farm systems, resource-recovery systems, and wastewater

treatment facilities would allow other communities to conduct their own evaluations

and planning, without the need for extensive

Federal involvement or funding; and

expert assistance panels, like the teams of technical, financial, -marketing, and institutional

specialists provided to State and local governments through EPA’s Technical Assistance

Panels Program, might be useful in promoting

the consideration, adoption, and construction of local projects for wastewater treatment, energy generation, and health care.

Financial Assistance

Some of the technologies had the virtue of low

cost, which allowed them to be developed by local

communities. In several of the case studies the

costs of the project were minimal and the project

rapidly became self-supporting. This was particularly true of the farmers’ markets and some of the

energy-saving retrofits for residential and farm

buildings. Some of the large projects, however, involved initial investments or economic risks that

could be too great for some communities to bear

without governmental assistance. Given the potential expense of these municipal services and the

potential benefits to the Nation of developing

innovative methods of delivering them, it might

be appropriate that the Federal Government intervene to reduce the financial risks and burdens

they might impose on local communities.

Several of the projects examined in the case

studies could be replicated by other communities
Ch. l–Executive Summary ● 13

without Federal financial assistance. However,

where assistance is necessary there are several

ways in which the Federal Government can help

hold down the cost to the local community and

encourage adoption. These measures include, but

are not limited to, the following:

●

●

●

technical risk reduction, through efforts to

gather and disseminate reliable information

on the technologies (particularly cost-benefit

and lifecycle cost data), can reduce the financial risks of the projects and prevent costly

planning errors;

financial risk sharing, including risk guarantees

for the correction of facilities that do not

work properly (available under EPA’s Innovative and Alternative Technology Program)

or tax-free bonding for municipal projects,

might encourage the consideration of alternative technologies;

tax credits and other incentives, such as the Residential Energy Credit, might encourage the

adoption of several of the smaller technologies (current Internal Revenue Service

guidelines do not allow credits for attached

solar greenhouses; extension of credits to include farm installations might also promote

the more rapid adoption of biogas digesters

and onfarm solar installations);

. investment tax credits and accelerated depreciation might encourage the commercialization

of some of the technologies and the creation

of small local businesses to produce and/or

install necessary equipment; and

● stimulating markets through Federal procurement guidelines, like those for recycled steel,

might ensure a market for locally grown produce or for materials recovered from municipal waste.

Options for direct Federal financial assistance

include the following:

●

●

●

provide short- and medium-term loans and grants

for long-term planning and front-end costs

(i.e., feasibility and market studies);

provide long-term financing options for community projects with favorable lifecycle costs,

projects that might otherwise have to be financed with short- and medium-term debt:

and

establish financial intermediaries, authorized to

make direct loans to community-based AT

projects, in order to spread risk and reduce information and transaction costs.
Chapter 2
Contents

Page

Concepts of Appropriate Technology. . . . . . 17

Problems Addressed by Appropriate

Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Problems of Economic Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Problems of International Equity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Problems of Domestic Equity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Problems of Participation and Regulation. . . . . . . . 21

Implications for Politics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Congressional Interest in Appropriate

Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Page

93d Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

94th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

95th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

96th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

The Scope and Methods of This Report . . . . . 25

Table

Table No. Page

1. Federal Legislation and Appropriations

Related to Appropriate Technology . . . . . . . . . . 22
CHAPTER 2

Introduction

Concepts of Appropriate Technology

For his different purposes man needs many different structures, both small ones and large ones,

some exclusive and some comprehensive . . .

* * *

What scale is appropriate? It depends on what we are trying to do.

–E. F. Schumacher, Small is Beautifull

Appropriate technology (AT) involves an attempt to tailor the scale and complexity of a

technology to the job that needs to be done on the

basis of human as well as purely economic values;

it tries to be sensitive to the needs, desires, and

resources of the people who will use the technology; and it is sometimes offered as an alternative

or supplement to the centralized technology of the

industrialized West. Any attempt to define AT

precisely is likely to end in frustration, however:

the proponents of AT cannot always agree among

themselves on exactly what the concept entails,

and its emphasis has changed several times in the

last 10 years, depending on where and when it was

applied. What follows, then, is a sample of the

positions held by various AT advocates and

groups at different times. It is not a definitive treatment, but rather a summary illustration of the

many threads that have come together in the AT

movement. This movement’s beliefs are distinctive

but not always strictly coherent—this to some degree may be inevitable, since AT embodies the

principles of diversity and selectivity in its response to varying local conditions and priorities.

In one of its earliest forms, AT was proposed as

an alternative approach to economic development

in the Third World. Observers like British economist E. F. Schumacher noted that, when advanced

technology (particularly the capital-intensive kind

employed by industrialized societies) was introduced into a developing nation, it sometimes created as many social and economic problems as it

solved. What is needed, Schumacher suggested, is

an “intermediate technology” that is far more productive than traditional methods, but still more

labor intensive and less capital intensive than the

sophisticated technologies of the industrialized nations. In the agricultural sector this might be a

metal plow, for instance, as opposed to a hoe at

one extreme and an air-conditioned tractor at the

other. In the Third World, then, AT is usually

associated with small-scale, decentralized industries that make extensive use of an abundant resource—unskilled labor-and are more sparing of

resources that are less abundant-energy, investment capital, and skilled labor. An example in the

manufacturing sector might be a village foundry

that produces and repairs the metal plows: such a

project would provide training and jobs in the

countryside; its product would improve the yields

and lives of local farmers; and multiplied by hundreds of villages, it would lay the foundation for

an advanced but decentralized iron and steel industry. An “intermediate” technology, in short, is

often more appropriate than an advanced technology to the needs and the resources of a developing

nation. AT proponents claim that, if it does the

job better, it represents the economically sensible

choice both for the Third World and for the industrialized nations who are aiding its development.

In the United States, by contrast, AT was originally associated with the environmentalist and

“back to the land” movements of the late 1960’s

and early 1970’s. Its early proponents were influenced by Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962) with

its prophecy of an ecological catastrophe,2 by the

IE. F. Schumacher, Smd is Beautt/u/: Economics as if People Mattered (New York: Harper and Row, 1973), pp. 61-62. ZRachel Carson, Silent Spring (New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 1962).

17
18 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

publication of The Limits to Growth (1972) with its

prediction of the “overshoot and collapse” of

world industrial growth,3 and by a spreading disenchantment with an advanced technology that,

despite its material benefits, was felt to be an overbearing and sometimes destructive presence. Some

of these early advocates concentrated on reviving

traditional techniques like organic farming and log

houses, but for others the emphasis on smallness

and simplicity became what Witold Rybczynski

has called “a cheerless reaction against the excessive optimism that had been prevalent in the

industrial nations.’” For a few of them AT represented a negation of the values of advanced technology and other large-scale social institutions,

and their attacks became so extreme that E. F.

Schumacher came to regret the title of his influential Small is Beautiful, which he feared was becoming a simplistic dogma. Others dismissed the

AT movement at that time as “antitechnology”

and a retreat to more primitive standards of living.

Over the last decade a broader and more pragmatic concept of AT has emerged side by side with

the first. A growing number of observers have

pointed out that, while small may be “beautiful”

in many ways, it is not always sensible. For some

jobs it is possible to scale down or decentralize a

large technology, but impossible or undesirable to

do away with it entirely. In this view, AT embodies the principle of selectivity in assigning (or

developing) a “mix” of large and small technologies to meet specific tasks and conditions:

In the ideological view, AT is an antidote to the

past trends in Western technology, particularly

those of the last twenty-five years . . . .

The alternative view stems from a more pragmatic definition of AT and leads to the conclusion

}D. H. Meadows, et d., l% Limits to Growth: A Report/or the C~U~

oj Rome’s Project on the Predicament oj Mankind (New York: Potomac

Associates/Universe Books, 1972).

4W1told Rybczynski, “After Appropriate Technology,” paper

presented to the American Academy for the Advancement of Science

annual meeting, Washington, D. C., Feb. 15, 1980, See also his Paper

Heroes: A Review of Appropriate Technology (New York: Anchor,

1980),

that the whole AT movement is simply a manifestation of an increasing tendency toward diversity’

and pluralism in today’s world. Thus, it is argued,

AT will occupy an increasing number of ecological

niches in the global technology but only in places

where it is adapted to its environment . . . . [The]

special characteristics of smallness of scale and

susceptibility to community control are less important than the overall measure of adaptation to the

social and natural environment, which may imply

large scale and centralized control in some instances, small scale and decentralized control in

others, or some symbiotic combination of the

twos

This ecological metaphor is apt, since environmental compatibility remains a major criterion in

this selection process. In the past few years, however, a growing number of appropriate technologists have come to view themselves as pioneers

operating “at the frontier” in several areas of ap-

plied science. They argue that much of what is

called AT is in fact a particular kind of advanced

technology designed for changing resource conditions. In adapting to the current economic environment, for instance, AT has led to a number

of relatively sophisticated technologies that are efficient users of energy and material resources. In

this view, the main technical challenge is to integrate AT applications in community systems

that incorporate resource-efficient architecture, integrated aquiculture-agriculture systems, water

conservation and wastewater reclamation, new

domestic applications of computers and communication technologies, and the like,

There appear to be four major areas of concern

in which AT can make a specific, productive contribution:

● problems of economic growth;

● problems of international equity;

● problems of domestic equity; and

• problems of regulation and participation.

sHarvey Brooks, “A Critique of the Concept of Appropriate Technology, ” in Appropriate Technolo~ and Social Values—A Critical Appraisal, edited by F. A. Long and A. Oleson (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1980), pp. 55-56.
Ch. 2–lntroduction ● 1 9

Problems Addressed by Appropriate Technology

Problems of Economic Growth

AT proponents may not be able to agree on just

how much economic growth the world and Nation can sustain, but most of them conclude that

there has to be some middle path between headlong expansion and no growth at all. Continued

indiscriminate growth would contribute to further

pollution of the environment, depletion of energy

resources and other raw materials, inflation and

supply shortages so severe as to threaten the

economic system, and increasing social and political tensions. No growth at all—a position attributed to the AT movement by some people—

would have catastrophic effects on the international and domestic economies and, by betraying

the hopes and expectations of the less fortunate,

might lead to widespread social unrest.

There are a number of positions in the AT dialog over growth: some proponents feel that the

United States is “misdeveloped” and that there

must be a change to more frugal lifestyles and an

end to the ever-increasing consumption of materials; many feel that some growth is possible, but

only in selected sectors or at a slower pace; still

others believe that the wise application of technology (e.g., the careful use of energy, particularly

through conservation measures and the development of renewable sources) could make growth

possible and sustainable, although perhaps not at

the rate of the past 25 years. Most observers, however, see the search for solutions to the problems

of growth as a monumental challenge to human

ingenuity, as well as an opportunity to redress

some of the perceived errors and wrongs of the

past.

Five major themes emerge from this dialog:

1. A human definition of growth .–The quality of

life is as important as the quantity of material

outputs; increased consumption of raw materials is not a satisfactory measure of human

progress.

2. Sustainable growth.—Mature industrial economies must make the transition from production processes that exhaust resources and produce undesirable wastes to processes that use

renewable or recyclable resources and, where

3.

4.

5.

possible, use the wastes of one process as raw

material for another.

Environmentally sound growth.–Attempts to

put “filter tips” on existing industries should

be only a transitional stage in the development of technologies that procure and process

materials with fewer and less harmful wastes.

Decentralized growth. –More care should be

taken to adjust the scale and geographical distribution of technology to the actual distribution of needs; this can also cut costs (e.g.,

transportation) by taking advantage of the

human and material resources available in

the local community or region.

Diversified growth.—There is a need for a

diverse “mix” of technologies from which to

pick those that are (or can be) best tailored to

the job and the location.

Problems of International Equity

The poorest nations, by and large, are staying

poor. The Third World, where 90 percent of new

babies are born, is less able than the industrialized

West to cope with inflation and rising energy

costs, and less able to accumulate needed capital.

Schumacher and others have argued that the indiscriminate development of capital- and energyintensive technology is bound to run into trouble -

under these conditions. It can lead to higher

unemployment, the social and economic destruction of rural areas, and mass migrations to the urban slums. As Congressman Clarence D. Long, a

proponent of AT in U.S. aid programs, has noted:

As I think back on the role of professional economists in foreign aid, as an economist, I simply

have to blush. Economists were ignoring the principles of economics that they taught in their own

classrooms, namely that the factors of production

could be combined in proportions appropriate to

their relative abundance and scarcity . . . .

Anyone who looks at the sidewalks of Bombay

or at the countryside outside the cities in any poor

country can see that heavy capital development

strategies have, if anything, created extreme concentrations of wealth in poor nations while at the

same time disemploying, or failing to employ,

thousands and millions. Our foreign aid, originally
20 ● Assessment of technology for Local Development

thought of as a way of heading off communism,

may well have been a boost to communism by increasing the already glaring disparities between the

rich and the poor.6

Schumacher argued that AT would allow a

“bottom up” form of development. It would

establish more work places for a smaller capital investment, and by creating more jobs it would

benefit more people. These ideas were not universally popular. For years, many economists had

held that developing countries would move up

through the “stages of economic growth” by

adopting the capital-intensive technology of the

West. When the nation would reach a “take off’

point, it would evolve toward modern mass production and consumption patterns, and the benefits would “trickle down” to the vast poorer population. 7 This economic program, however,

seldom came to pass, and the benefits of development have been further delayed or diverted by recent rises in energy costs and by the mounting

costs of caring for rapidly growing populations.

Appropriate technology has also been criticized

as a “second rate” technology, not as “good” as the

technology used by the developed countries. This

attitude is based in part on the notion that AT is

antitechnology and antiprogress. AT advocates

counter that an intermediate technology is a “first

step” technology, one that improves upon traditional methods and lays the foundation for an

equitable form of development by promoting the

skills and expertise that will be required by the advanced technologies that can, if desired, be

developed later.

More recently, AT proponents have introduced

ideas and techniques which might properly be

called “advanced appropriate technologies. ” They

are relatively sophisticated but easy to use, and

they fit into the traditional village way of life. Examples include several renewable energy technologies, small-scale industries, and the use of solidstate communication technologies for education

and village health care. Advocates of these new

technologies think they would help some nations

leapfrog the Industrial Revolution and avoid the

6Hon. Clarence D. Long, Congresslonul Record, Feb. 8, 1977.

7

See W. W. Rostow, The S[uges oj Economtc Growth: A Non-Communist ,Munl/esto, 2d ed. (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 197 1).

problems that currently face the industrialized

West.

Problems of Domestic Equity

The thrust of industrial and technological

growth over the past century has been to substitute energy and capital for labor, thereby increasing worker productivity. Most nations, however,

are now beginning to encounter scarcities of both

capital and cheap energy, making this approach

less satisfactory. AT advocates point to a number

of inequities that seem to be created or exacerbated by highly centralized advanced technology:

●

●

●

●

●

the increasing concentration of wealth in a

few national and multinational corporations;

unemployment, underemployment, and

worker unrest from stultifying or nervewracking jobs;

lack of satisfying social roles for the elderly,

the young, women, and minorities;

disproportionate hardships for low- and fixedincome people coping with rising energy costs

and other effects of inflation; and

undermining of self-respect produced by the

“welfare orientation” toward the unemployed

and the poor.

AT advocates fear that failure to deal decisively

with the problems of growth will make these problems worse, and they offer three basic approaches

to solving the problems of domestic equity:

1.

2.

3.

Replace highly capital- and energy-intensive

technologies with small-scale, decentralized

technologies that will create new jobs in more

numerous locations.

Combine the factors of production in a proportion that responds to changing patterns of

abundance and scarcity: when both unemployment and energy prices are rising, it

might make better sense to substitute labor

for energy–not wheelbarrows instead of

trucks, but better maintenance (and improved efficiency) of existing trucks.

Emphasize a “community development” approach to the problems of poverty by using

appropriate technologies as a basis for public

projects and local enterprises that will develop local skills, provide jobs for the young and
Ch. 2–introduction ● 2 I

productive activities for the elderly, and create opportunities for small local businesses.

Problems of Participation

and Regulation

Most AT advocates believe that increases in

Government regulation have occurred in response

to the increasing size and impact of advanced

technology. They point out that this “Government explosion” has occurred in every industrialized nation, regardless of ideology:

We seem unwilling to come to terms with the

fact that each increase in the order of technological

mastery and managerial control leads to a concomitant order of magnitude of government coordination and control. . . . [Advanced] industrialized

societies . . . generate a bewildering increase in unanticipated social costs: in human maladjustment,

community disruption, and environmental depletion. . . . The cost of cleaning up the mess and caring for the human casualties of unplanned technology . . . mounts ever higher.8

By contrast, the social philosophy of the AT

movement tends to favor a shrinking of Government. The investors and small businessmen who

are attracted to AT complain that Government

regulation inhibits technological innovation and

diversity; social activists complain that growing

technical, organizational, and regulatory complexity leaves the ordinary citizen powerless to understand or influence the choices that will affect him.

AT proponents therefore offer three approaches to

the problems of regulation and participation:

8Hazel Henderson, Creating A/ternatme Futures (New York: 13erkeley, 1978), p. 84.

1.

2.

3.

Develop new ways to foster active citizen participation in evaluating the technological

choices that affect their communities.

Develop technologies that allow individuals

and communities to reduce their dependence

on large, remote institutions, no community

can be totally self-reliant, but a reduction of

scale could result in a reduction in the level of

Federal involvement and regulation.

Develop inherently low-impact technologies,

which will not only ease the problems of

growth but will also require less regulatory

control; a truly advanced technology should

have few unintended side effects.

Implications for Politics

AT appears to offer no specific prescriptions for

action, no hard and fast rules of the road. It does,

however, offer a distinctive way of analyzing the

needs and resources of a community, as well as a

broader context in which to judge the suitability

of the various technologies’ solutions to the community’s problems. It has also drawn greater attention to the issue of how the character of a technology can influence the character of a society.

AT advocates warn that, by continuing singlemindedly along the path of centralized technology, society will be led into worse problems that

will only become more difficult and more expensive to remedy in the future. They argue that we

must instead choose a different path, a technology

more appropriate to human values and goals, one

that treads more softly on nature and leaves more

options (and fewer problems) for future generations.

Congressional Interest in Appropriate Technology

Background

Congress has frequently taken the lead in encouraging the development of AT, but although a

number of bills relating to small-scale solar technologies and energy conservation were introduced

as early as the 1950’s, the specific phrase “appropriate technology” is not found in any action of

any Congress before the 93d (1973-74). Three of

the four major existing Federal programs in appropriate technology were initiated by the 94th Congress (1975-76):

●

●

●

the National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT);

the appropriate technology program of the

National Science Foundation (NSF); and

A.T. International, Inc. (ATI).
22 . Assessment of Technology for Local Development

The fourth major program was initiated by the

95th Congress (1977-78):

• the Appropriate Technology Small Grants

Program of the Office of Small-Scale Technology (OSST) within the Department of Energy

(DOE).

The 95th Congress also passed a number of measures related to AT, including the Energy Extension Service, the Agricultural Solar Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of

1977, and the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977.

Federal funding for these AT programs is growing

but still small. In 1978, when total Federal R&D

funding amounted to approximately $26.3 billion,

of which about $2.8 billion was spent on energy

R&D, only 1 percent ($30 million) was spent on

Federal AT programs. (For a more detailed breakdown of Federal legislation and funding for AT

programs see table 1.)

93d Congress

The 93d Congress passed two major pieces of

solar legislation that prepared the way for the

more extensive work on AT that was to follow.

The Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration

Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-409) established a joint

program in the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA) and the Department of

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to develop solar heating and cooling devices and to encourage their commercialization. The aim of the

program, as implemented, was to promote the development of large-scale, advanced solar systems;

it gave little attention to small-scale, dispersed apTable 1 .—Federal Legislation and Appropriations Related to Appropriate Technology

Total

authorized or AT authorized

Public Law Date AT appropriated or appropriated -

(bill) Title enacted Committees sections (millions) (millions)

Public Law 94-1611 International Development and Dec. 20, 1975 Senate Foreign Relations 306 $1,363

(H.R. 9005) Food Assistance Act of 1975 House International

Relations

Public Law 94-187 Authorized & appropriated— Dec. 31, 1975 Senate Interior &

(H.R. 3474) ERDA (FY 76) Insular Affairs

House Science &

Technology

Public Law 94-439 Depts. of Labor, HEW Sept. 30,1976 Senate Appropriations

(H.R. 14232) Appropriations Act, 1977 House Appropriations

Public Law 95-39 Authorized & appropriated for June 3, 1977 Senate Interior&

(s. 36) ERDA Insular Affairs

House Science &

Technology

Public Law 95-88 International Development & Aug. 3, 1977 Senate Foreign Relations

(H.R. 6714) Food Assistance Act of 1977 House International

Relations

Public Law 95-113 Food & Agricultural Act of 1977 Sept. 29, 1977 Senate Agriculture

(S. 275) House Agriculture

Public Law 95-205 Continuing Appropriations, Dec. 9, 1977 Senate Appropriations

(H.J.Res. 662) 1978 House Appropriations

Public Law 95238 Department of Energy Act of Feb. 25, 1978 Senate Energy & Natural

(s. 1340) 1978—Civil Applications

Public Law 95-424 Foreign Assistance& Related Oct. 6, 1978

(H.R. 1920) Programs Appropriations Act,

1979 (title 1)

Public Law 95-482 Appropriations for FY Oct. 18,1978

(H.J.Res. 1139) 1979—Continuance

Public Law 95-434 National Science Foundation Oct. 10,1978

(H.R. 11400) Authorization Act

Public Law 96-44 National Science Foundation Aug. 2,1979

(H.R. 2729) Authorization Act for FY 1980

Resources

House Science &

Technology

Senate Foreign Relations

House International

Relations

Senate Appropriations

House Appropriations

Senate Human Resources

House Science &

Technology

Senate Labor & Human

Resources

Senate Science &

Technology

101(a)(2) $3,658.7

None; in $511.2

report (for CSA)

language

101(7)(h) $1,640

Title V

Title I $2,502

114 (title 1)

1420

1452

—

Title 1,

101(16)

101(17)

107, 111

—

2 (8)

2(b)(l),

2(c)(3)

$20 (total for fiscal years

1976, 1977, and 1978

$97.1 (for solar energy

development; not all AT

$0.4 (for NCAT)

$7.5 (for DOE AT small

grants program)

$18 (for Energy

Extension Service)

$18 (for FY 78)

Indeterminate $60

$20

Indeterminate $1.5 (for NCAT)

$6,081 $8 (for Energy Extension

Service)

$8 (for AT small grants)

$2,478 Indeterminate

Indeterminate $1.8 (for NCAT)

$930 $0.2

$998 $2.75

SOURCE: Joe Belden of Roger Blobaum & Associates.
Ch. 2–Introduction ● 23

placations of solar technology. The Solar Energy

Research, Development, and Demonstration Act

of 1974 (Public Law 93-473) had a similar emphasis. The Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), created by another Act of

the 93d Congress, eventually became the lead

agency for the solar program, with HUD remaining responsible for residential applications.

94th Congress

Three of the four major Federal programs in appropriate technology were products of the 94th

Congress.

National Center for Appropriate Technology.–Congress urged in report language that

the Community Services Administration (CSA)

fund NCAT. In September of 1976 CSA approved

an initial $400,000 grant to fund the Center,

which is headquartered in Butte, Mont., with a

staff that now numbers about 60. NCAT was organized to make the benefits of AT developments

available to low-income individuals and communities throughout the United States. Its program includes three basic areas:

● a small grants program for low-income groups

to fund field demonstrations in energy, housing, agriculture, and recycling;

● technical research and evaluation; and

. national and regional outreach through publications, conferences, field workers, and an

information service.

Many NCAT projects are closely associated

with CSA’s network of community action agencies, but the Center also publishes bibliographies

and technical research papers and sponsors regional conferences and technical workshops. It has

come under some criticism for poor communications—due, in part, to its location in Butte,

Mont.–and some AT proponents believe that

NCAT is too narrowly focused to serve as a truly

national AT institution, Despite their reservations, however, AT advocates tend to be highly

supportive of NCAT’s work.

National Science Foundation.–The House

Science and Technology Committee, in a report

accompanying the NSF budget authorization bill

for fiscal year 1977, urged NSF to support work in

appropriate technology. NSF’s Research Applied

to National Needs program commissioned an inquiry into the nature and extent of AT activities

in the United States and published three reports

in 1977: Appropriate Technology in the United

States–An Exploratory Study, Appropriate Technology-A Directory of Activities and Projects, and

Appropriate Technology and Agriculture in the

United States. In January 1978, NSF held a national workshop to bring together scientists and

innovators in AT, and the recommendations of

this conference were also published.

Again at Congress’ urging, NSF conducted

seven regional public forums in September and

October of 1978. The resulting recommendations

were incorporated in a program proposal that included the following project areas:

● AT and urban innovation;

• small-scale industrial technology;

● recycling, resource recovery, and conservation;

● AT, rural revitalization, and the small family

farm;

• food and nutrition; and

● AT’s role and impact on society, the

economy, and technological development.

Although NSF sought no funding to implement

the plan in its fiscal year 1980 budget request,

Congress authorized $2.5 million for the

program—$1.8 million for applied research and

$700,000 for education and information.

A. T. International, Inc.—ATI was established as a private, nonprofit corporation by the

International Development and Food Assistance

Act of 1975, which authorized $20 million over a

3-year period for:

. . . activities in the field of intermediate technology, through grants in support of an expanded and

coordinated private effort to promote the development and dissemination of technologies appropriate for developing countries.

Headquartered in Washington, D. C., ATI’s

staff includes specialists on Latin America, Asia,

Africa, and the South Pacific; its basic objectives

emphasize field projects in developing countries

rather than conferences or other activities in the

United States. ATI has deliberately experimented

with new approaches to development assistance,
including support for AT extension, resource centers, and the encouragement of private-sector involvement in AT. Some AT proponents have expressed disappointment that ATI’s initial Board of

Directors contained few actual practitioners of

AT, and an AID review noted a variety of program weaknesses, the most important of which

probably is that ATI’s approach has been poorly

focused. Despite these criticisms, however, ATI remains the principal manifestation of official U.S.

support for private-sector AT efforts in the world

arena; its creation reflects a significant change in

the nature of U.S. development aid.

95th Congress

Interest in AT continued to increase during the

95th Congress, which held the first congressional

hearing to deal exclusively with AT. The 95th

Congress also created DOE, which continued to

work on solar energy and began a very small AT

program under OSST.

Office of Small-Scale Technology.–The

Appropriate Technology Small Grants Program

was initiated in the first year of the new DOE at

the urging of several members of Congress. Administered by OSST within DOE, the program began in 1977 as a pilot effort in the Federal Pacific

Southwest Region; the success of that demonstration led to an expansion of the program to the national level, although the program’s regional basis

has been retained.

The Small Grants Program offers awards of up

to $50,000 for development and demonstration of

ATs and up to $10,000 for concept development.

As of June 22, 1979, 12,876 proposals had been

received nationwide, asking for a total of $343

million; the OSST staff estimates that about 20

percent of proposals are good to excellent. Projects

completed under the program have included efforts in solar thermal, heat recovery, conservation,

biomass, wind, geothermal, hydro, aquiculture,

integrated systems, and education.

The successes or failures of the DOE Small

Grants Program have yet to be measured. Judging

by the large number of applicants, the AT Small

Grants Program is one of DOE’s most popular programs, but enthusiasm at policymaking levels of

the executive branch is less apparent.

The Energy Extension Service (EES) was established by the fiscal year 1978 ERDA authorization

act to encourage smaller consumers of energy to

reduce their energy use and adopt renewable resources. EES began as a 2-year pilot program in 10

States, with projects aimed at homeowners and

small businesses. It is now being expanded to include all of the States, on the model of the Agricultural Extension Service of the U.S. Department

of Agriculture (USDA).

The Agricultural Solar Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Act of 1977, enacted

as a subtitle of the Food and Agriculture Act of

1977 (Public Law 95-1 13), broadened USDA’s involvement in AT as well. The Act recognized the

present agricultural system’s dependence on energy-intensive machinery, fertilizers, pesticides, and

herbicides, and called for the development of an

“alternative farming technology” that uses solar

and renewable energy sources to reduce the

farmer’s vulnerability to fossil-fuel shortages and

price increases.

The Innovative and Alternative Technology

Program, established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in October 1978, provides

risk guarantees and an increased Federal share in

the funding of wastewater treatment projects.

Qualifying projects involve either proven technologies that are not yet in extensive use or developed

but unproven technologies that show potential for

improved reliability and efficiency or for reduced

energy use and lifecycle costs. This program had

funded 212 such projects by the midpoint of its initial 3-year authorization and has also established

an extensive information and training network.

96th Congress

The major AT-related legislation enacted by the

96th Congress was the Energy Security Act (Public Law 96-294), which created the Solar Energy

and Energy Conservation Bank. The Bank is authorized to- provide grants and subsidized loans for

the installation of solar and conservation technologies, with particular attention to conservation in

existing buildings and solar features in new structures. The funding level of this program is tied to

the level of revenues from the windfall oil profits

tax. Also passed was the Technology Innovation
Ch. 2–introduction ● 25

Act (Public Law 96-480), which authorizes Federal Commercialization Act of 1979 (S. 950), which

R&D centers to participate in AT-related activ- would set a national goal (to be achieved by the

ities. year 2000) of at least 20 quadrillion Btu of energy

Other AT bills introduced in the 96th Congress production annually from renewable sources. The

latter bill also calls for the establishment of a Solar include the Energy Productivity Act (an amend- Energy Development Corp., a lending institution ment to S. 388), which would authorize $58 billion

over 10 years for conservation and alternative similar to the Solar Bank.

energy programs, and the Omnibus Solar Energy

The Scope

In June 1978, several Members

and Methods of This Report

of Congress

asked OTA to conduct an exploratory stud-y of

AT, with particular instructions that the study:

●

●

●

assess “the conceptual base for appropriate

technologies;”

assess “technologies which are appropriate for

local community development;” and

“collect data on promising new technologies

now being innovated in energy, waste disposal, housing, agriculture, and health that

may provide an alternative and possibly more

effective approach to community and regional development. ”

In response to this request, OTA surveyed a

wide, representative range of technology projects

undertaken by public and private groups in urban,

suburban, small-town, and rural communities.

Several factors posed methodological problems:

lack of agreement on what constitutes an “appropriate” technology;

variation in the definition of “community”

and “community development;”

the wide range of technologies to be studied;

the focus on AT as a community initiative;

and

the fact that many ATs are still in the early

stages of development and use by the community.

The case study approach, chosen in part to

overcome these difficulties, meshed well with the

nature of the technologies referred to as “appropriate” because it focused on the experience of

specific communities in trying to develop technologies tailored to

and constraints.

particular local

Projects for the

needs, resources,

case studies were

chosen by an ad hoc OTA Task Force on Appropriate Technology (a panel of individuals representing various AT interests) from a list of candidates identified through literature searches,

questionnaires, and interviews. Care was taken

that

●

the case studies would reflect:

the basic needs of human settlements (housing, food, and health care, as well as energy,

resource recovery, and waste management);

different types of “community” and different

regions of the Nation (a farming county in

Nebraska, a village in New England, a small

town in California, an industrial city in the

Midwest, and so on);

the various software and hardware aspects of

AT; and

the different ways of financing community

projects (some were financed by Federal

grants, others by community groups, and a

few by individual families).

Five of the case studies were conducted by community teams made up of 10 to 12 local residents,

eight were conducted by teams from the Harvard

University Workshop on Appropriate Technology; and the remaining case studies were conducted by OTA contractors and staff. This made

it difficult to generalize from the data, since each

case study had to be treated as a separate entity

and there was a wide variation in the study teams

gathering the data. An initial set of guidelines was

developed to demarcate the major areas of inquiry,

and for purposes of comparison the case studies

are presented in the following format:

. Community setting (a profile of the community>

its needs, and its resources);

74-435 0 - 81 - 3
26 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

development (the original initiative, the various groups and institutions involved, and

the process by which the project was selected,

planned, and organized);

technology (a brief discussion of the technology

itself and the ways in which it was applied to

local uses); and

performance (the problems and/or benefits of

the completed facility, but not a full evaluation of its social and economic impacts).

In each chapter, the case study is preceded by an

introduction that establishes the context for the

technology and, in some cases, by a discussion of

the conventional technology it might replace or

supplement.

Several “critical factors” encouraged or impeded

the process of community adoption. Because they

also affect the transferability of the technology to

other communities, these factors are discussed in

each chapter as a way of framing issues for further

analysis:

1. Public perception and participation.—

●

●

●

●

the degree of citizen initiative and access to

decisionmaking bodies;

the extent to which those who will use the

technology are actively involved in its development, construction, and management;

the degree to which the general public accepts and supports the project; and

the extent to which education and outreach activities are able to influence public

perceptions.

2. Essential resources.—

● the ability to utilize available resources and

raw materials, particularly salvage or

“waste” materials;

● the ability to acquire the needed information, tools, hardware, and facilities; and

● the ability to acquire or train labor for construction, operation, and maintenance.

3. Technical information and expertise.—

● the availability of reliable, detailed information on the design, costs, and performance of the technologies;

● the accessibility of this information to

potential users: and

• the ability to locate or develop the needed

managerial know-how and skills in the user

community.

4 Financing.–

●

●

●

●

●

●

the ability of individuals, community

groups, and municipalities to finance their

own projects, either out-of-pocket, through

donations, or through general revenues

and local bond issues;

the availability, size, and effectiveness of

tax credits, cost-sharing, grants, low-cost

loans or loan guarantees, tax-free bonding,

and other incentives;

the stability and flexibility of grants and

subsidies from both public and private

sources;

the availability and costs of conventional

market financing;

the degree to which potential lenders perceive an AT project as a high risk, due to

unfamiliarity with the technology or lack of

confidence in the credit worthiness and

management ability of the borrower; and

the degree to which the decisions of potential investors and/or lenders are distorted

by considering only initial capital costs,

rather than lifecycle costs, in comparing

conventional and innovative options.

5. Institutional factors.—

●

●

the degree of opposition from vested commercial, professional, and political interests

who feel threatened by AT and community

initiatives;

the degree to which regulations, such as

health and building codes, are either out of

date, arbitrarily applied, or prescriptive

rather than performance oriented; and

the extent to which regulatory requirements and permitting procedures require as

much time and money for small-scale projects as for much larger projects.

Because these technologies promise substantial

benefits in areas of major national concern, each

chapter concludes with a discussion of relevant

Federal legislation, existing Federal programs of

technical and financial assistance, and the issues

and options for possible further Federal action.
Chapter 3

Resource-Efficient
Contents

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Residential Housing and Energy

Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

A Case Study of the Solar Heating

Greenhouse, New Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

The Community Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Solar Greenhouse Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Solar Greenhouse Performance and Costs . . . . . . . 35

A Case Study of Solar Architecture—The

Cooley House, Washington, Conn. . . . . . . 40

Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Integrated Solar Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Performance and Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

A Case Study of Heat-Retentive Homes

(I)—The Solsearch ’’Conserver Home,”

Prince Edward Island, Canada . . . . . . . . . . 43

Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Conserver Home Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Performance and Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

A Case Study of Heat-Retentive Homes

(II)–The Bethel House, Bethel, Alaska. . . 45

The Community Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

The Bethel House Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .,, . . . . . . . . . . . 50

A Case Study of Hybrid Resource-Efficient

Homes—The Tom Smith’’ Thermal

Envelope’’ House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Thermal Envelope Technologv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Performance and Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Discussion of Solar” Heated and HeatRetentive Houses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . $ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Potential Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Page

Critical Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Public Perception and Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Essential Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Technical Information and Expertise. . . . . . . . . . . 58

Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Institutional Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Federal Policy . . . . . . . . . . ............+.. 60

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Current Federal Programs for Residential Energy

Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Issues and Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

List of Tables

Table No. Page

2. Chavez Greenhouse Performance . . . . . . . . . . . 36

3. Hinesberg Greenhouse Performance. . . . . . . . . . 38

4. Theoretical Performance and Fuel Reduction

Contributed by an Attached Solar

Greenhouse in 12 U.S. Metropolitan Areas . . . . 40

5. Daily Activity Energy for a Family of Four . . . . . 43

6. Cost and Heating Performance of Selected

Resource-Efficient Houses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

List of Figures

Figure No. Page

l. Two Freestanding New Mexico Solar

Greenhouses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

2. Attached New Mexico Solar Greenhouses . . . . 34

3. Solsearch ’’Ark II’’ Low-Energy House . . . . . . . 42

4. Solar Staircase Roof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

5. The Conserver Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

6. Bethel, Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

7. The’’Mark IV’Bethel House. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

8. Cross-Section of the Bethel House . . . . . . . . . . 48

9. Innovative Structural Details, Bethel House... 49

10. Thermal Envelope House, Heat-Gain Cycle . . . 51

11. Thermal Envelope House, Heat-Loss Cycle. . . . 51

12. Thermal Envelope House, Ventilation and

Cooling Cycle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
CHAPTER 3

Resource-Efficient Residential

Architecture

Introduction

Shelter has always been one of mankind’s most

basic needs, but in the past the relationship between shelter and the local environment was

much closer than it is today. Buildings were

necessarily built with materials that were locally

available, and their designs usually responded to

the local climate. Steeply sloping roofs in northern

New England, for instance, prevented snow from

accumulating; similarly, the flat roofs and open

breezeways of the Southwest made for comfortable

living in a hot, arid climate.

In the last 30 years, however, as climate control

systems became more sophisticated, as energy became cheaper, and as building materials became

standardized and more easily transported, the

need for indigenous styles of architecture declined.

It became possible to build similar homes in Virginia and Vermont, and indeed this was often

done.

Recent developments are changing this trend.

Energy is growing much more expensive, as are

building materials and the cost of transporting

them over long distances. Once again there is both

a need and a demand for architecture that utilizes

resources more efficiently in construction and

minimizes the energy needed to maintain acceptable comfort. As a result, the development of resource-efficient housing has become a significant

movement in U.S. architectural design and construction.

The case studies in this chapter illustrate the

great diversity of this movement and the wide

variety of energy -saving strategies that it has made

available. This progress, which has been achieved

through individual efforts in numerous locations,

has advanced the goal of residential energy conservation by making a wide range of strategies available (singly and in combination) for achieving the

best results in diverse sites and climates. The

diversity and adaptability of these technologies

seem to suggest that conservation is a strategy that

can be successfully pursued in all regions of the

Nation.

This chapter discusses the larger context of

resource-efficient architecture, its potential

benefits and problems, and two major approaches

to resource-efficient design and construction: solar

heating, which uses the energy of the sun to supplement or replace fossil fuels for space heating;

and heat retention, which tightens the “thermal

shell” of a house to reduce the total energy needed

for space heating. The five case histories present

innovative examples of both approaches:

●

●

●

●

●

Solar heating greenhouses in New Mexico,

which are attached to houses and collect heat

from the sun for use in both the greenhouse

and the rest of the house.

The “Ark II,” a solar-heated home designed

by Solsearch Architects for the Cooley family

of Washington, Corm.

The “Conserver Home” on Prince Edward

Island, Canada, also designed by Solsearch

Architects, which requires very little space

heating because of its heavily insulated shell

and many other heat-retaining design features.

An energy-efficient house developed by

students and faculty of Kuskokwim Community College in Bethel, Alaska, which uses a

variety of nonconventional construction

techniques to produce a house that is energy

efficient and uses few imported materials.

A “thermal envelope” house in Lake Tahoe,

Calif., owned by Tom Smith. The house is literally a “house within a house, ” combining

principles of solar heating with those of a

highly heat-retentive structure.

In this and the following chapters, case studies

of individual applications of the technologies will

be followed by a discussion of critical factors that

29
30 . Assessment of Technology for Local Development

may affect their future diffusion and adoption. vant Federal policy and issues and options for furEach chapter will close with a discussion of rele- ther action.

Residential Housing and Energy Conservation

Total energy consumed for residential space

heating and cooling is estimated to be 17 Quads,

or about one-quarter of total U.S. energy consumption in 1977.1 Typical residences constructed

in the 1970’s using standard building technology

and practice require between 10 and 15 Btu per

square foot per heating degree day (Btu/ft2/dd) to

maintain acceptable inside temperatures. Older,

poorly insulated or uninsulated residences may require as much as five times this energy input.

Some housing being constructed today requires

less than 2 Btu/ft2/dd input from fossil fuel

sources. This low energy consumption is being

achieved by a wide range of strategies. At one end

of the spectrum are active solar houses, which

have standard levels of insulation and airtightness,

but to which solar collectors and heat storage have

been added to reduce the need for backup energy.

Next come the passive solar homes, which are

somewhat better insulated and in which the solar

collector and storage are integral parts of the structure. These homes also achieve low backup energy

needs. The Cooley house described in this chapter

is an example of integrated passive design, which

also reduces backup energy needs.

At the other extreme are heat-retentive houses,

superinsulated structures that reduce the heating

load to near the levels of energy released by occupants and their normal activities. The Conserver Home and Bethel House described below

are examples of superinsulated structures. The

“thermal envelope” house described in the final

case study is a hybrid, which combines elements of

both solar heating and heat retention with a number of other energy-conserving design features.

IResldmtla/ Enern conservation (Washington, D. C.: office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, July 1979), vol. 1, p. 4.

As experience is gained, the best aspects of these

various strategies are being incorporated into new

designs for very energy-efficient houses that can be

built and marketed widely by local contractors

and builders. For example, the Tennessee Valley

Authority has designed and built, and is currently

testing 11 different designs for their seven-State

service area.2 The Mid-American Solar Energy

Complex (MASEC) is sponsoring a “Solar 80”

home design program, through which houses

using less than 2.5 Btu/ft2

/dd of fuel energy are

being constructed and demonstrated.3 The program requires that the construction costs of these

houses are not to exceed by more than 5 percent

those of a similar house without any special

energy-conserving features. This cost requirement

is possible because the added costs of high-insulation, low-infiltration, and simple passive solar

features are largely offset by the reduced size and

cost of space-heating equipment, which in some

cases may be eliminated entirely.4

Reducing the fuel requirements for heating and

cooling existing homes present more complex

problems. Adding insulation or reorienting window locations, even in recently constructed

houses, is often not feasible; and weatherizing

older structures, while essential, cannot reduce

space-heating loads to the low levels that can easily be achieved in new construction. However, lowcost solar retrofits offer an additional strategy for

reducing fuel needs in existing housing. Attached

solar heating greenhouses are proving to be a popular and apparently cost-effective solar retrofit.

“’Solar Homes for the Valley Project,” W. C. Adkins, Chief Architect, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Term.

IDavld Pogany and Don Krafi, ‘{Mid-American’s passive Homes, ”

Soiu~&e, vol. 5, No. 4, April 1980, p. 107.

4R. w. ksant, R. S. Dumont, and G. Schoenau, “Saskatchewan

House: 100 Percent Solar in a Severe Climate,” Soku Age, vol. 4, No.

5, May 1979; and E, H. Leger and S. D, Gautam, “An Affordable

Solar House,” Proceedings oj the ~th National Passive SoLm Conference,

Kansas City, Me., Oct. 3-5, 1979, p. 317.
Ch. 3–Resource-Efficient Residential Architecture ● 31

A Case Study of the Solar Heating Greenhouse,

New Mexico5

The Community Setting

New Mexico was particularly well suited for the

initial development of solar greenhouse designs.

The winter in the northern part of the State is

cold but very sunny, with an average January solar

availability of over 70 percent. Under such conditions, the daily heat gain of even a crude greenhouse will often exceed its heating load. But New

Mexico was also suited to greenhouse development because of the human and institutional

resources that were available.

During the late 1960’s, northern New Mexico

was the site of a number of alternative communities. They attracted young people from middleincome backgrounds, many of them college educated, who brought design skills and a sense of adventure to the development of small-scale alternative technologies. One such community was the

Lama Foundation in Taos, N. Mex., which (with

the help of designers Steve Baer and Day Charoudi) developed a pit greenhouse based on the “biosphere concept. ”

The pit greenhouse, often called a “grow hole,”

is simply a hole dug in the south side of a hill and

glazed over; they have been used for centuries to

extend the growing season. The biosphere concept

adds heat storage, in the form of plastic jugs of

water and thermal mass in the walls and floors, to

keep the greenhouse warm at night and during

periods of cloudiness. The result is a freestanding,

integrated passive solar greenhouse in which

plants can be grown year-round. (See ch. 4 for further discussion of freestanding solar greenhouses.)

In 1973, Bill Yanda from Nambe, N. Mex., also

became interested in pit greenhouses. After visiting the Lama Foundation’s solar grow hole, he

built one for his own family. The following winter

was an unusually cold one in northern New Mex5Materlal in this section is based on the working paper, “New Mexico Solar Greenhouse Study, ” prepared by the New Mexico Commumty Study Team (see appendix),

ice, but to their surprise the plants in their pit

greenhouse did not freeze. The design collected

solar heat so effectively, in fact, that despite the

cold weather the Yandas had to vent excess heat

during the day. This led them to the idea of an

attached solar greenhouse that produced heat as

well as food: “Why not help heat your house with

that excess heat, instead of venting it to the

outside?”

Development

Drawing on their personal experience, the Yandas felt that the attached solar greenhouse had sufficiently low cost, in terms of its heat- and foodproducing potential, to be a viable approach to

solar heating for low-income families.

In the spring of 1974, they applied for and

received an initial demonstration grant from the

Four Corners Commission, a regional agency

funded by Federal and State governments. They

built 12 attached solar greenhouses in mountain

villages in northern New Mexico, for houses occupied mostly by low-income families of Spanish,

Indian, and Anglo heritage. In the spring of 1976,

the Yandas received a contract from the State

Energy and Resources Board (now the New Mexico Department of Energy and Minerals) to build

12 more attached solar greenhouses throughout

the State.

This second project was different from the first

because it utilized the workshop process to build

the greenhouses. The greenhouse workshop was

like a barn-raising: homeowners, neighbors, and

friends came together for a long weekend to learn

about and build a solar greenhouse. Usually the

greenhouses were three-quarters completed at the

end of the weekend. According to Bill Yanda, the

process had a multiplier effect: “For every workshop, ten more greenhouses were built in the community.” 6

6Sta t
To date, the Yandas have built 30 solar greenhouses in New Mexico. In 1977, they setup a work

group, the Solar Sustenance Team, which has

helped facilitate the building of solar greenhouses

on a broader scale and by organizing workshops to

train people all over the United States. The team

supplied leaders for workshops that built community greenhouses for the Wooster (Ohio) Food

Cooperative in 1979 and for the Cleveland Hunger Task Force in August 1980.

The workshop concept is now being widely emulated across the country. Although no hard data

is available, evidence for the spread of workshops

can be seen in the number of reports on statewide

greenhouse construction programs. The 1978 National Passive Solar Conference heard only one

such report—from the Yandas—while in 1979

there were reports from 5 States: Colorado, Missouri, Ohio, Wyoming, and Arkansas.7

Solar Greenhouse Technology

A greenhouse is a glazed structure that admits

visible and infrared solar radiation, which is converted to heat by absorption on surfaces within

the greenhouse. This heat is trapped in the structure by the glazing materials, most of which are

opaque to the long-wave infrared radiation

emitted by objects at about room temperature.

Simply stated, it is easier for radiant energy to get

into the structure than it is for it to escape again.

Glazing materials are very poor insulators, however, so heat losses at night and on cold cloudy

days can be considerable. For this reason, the conventional “glass houses” are prodigious users of

energy during winter months.

Solar greenhouses, on the other hand, are designed to provide adequate light for plant growth,

but to limit heat losses and to store sufficient heat

to achieve a net heat gain during the heating season. Several design modifications are needed to

achieve these results:

● glaze only the south-facing surfaces;

• use two layers of glazing in most northern climates;

7procee&ngs of the zd National Passite Solar Conference, Philadelphia,

Pa., Mar. 16-18, 1978; and Proceedings of the 4th National Passive Solar

Conference, Kansas City, Me., Oct. 3-5, 1979.

●

●

●

The

seal the greenhouse shell carefully in order to

prevent unwanted air infiltration;

insulate heavily all nonglazed exterior surfaces; and

provide sufficient heat storage that nighttime

and cloudy day heat losses can be drawn from

storage and not from a backup source burning fossil fuels (adequate storage also moderates temperature swings).

result is a greenhouse that looks quite different from conventional greenhouses, which have

low-pitched roofs and all-around glazing.

Although a solar greenhouse may be freestanding (see figure 1), most residential applications of

this technology are attached to the house: “leantos” built against the south wall of the structure or

extended from the east or west walls but facing

south (see figure 2). This type of construction

reduces costs, permits transfer of excess energy

from the greenhouse to the main structure, usually

allows access to the greenhouse from a heated

space, and often adds an attractive living space to

the dwelling.

Glazing materials include glass, fiberglass, and

various plastic films. Most plastics, including

fiberglass, are damaged by the ultraviolet radiation

in sunlight. The plastic material used in greenhouses is protected by ultraviolet inhibitors and

has an expected lifetime of 10 to 20 years. Plastics

are lightweight, easy to cut, and available in large

sheets; for these reasons, many greenhouse-building groups working with relatively unskilled workshop participants use plastics exclusively. Glass is

also an excellent glazing material, but it is generally more expensive than plastics, heavier, and more

difficult to mount successfully.

Heat storage is usually provided by incorporating thermal mass into the greenhouse structure

(such as a concrete floor slab or a rock or gravel

bed below the floor) or by placing thermal mass in

the greenhouse (such as water-filled 55-gal drums

or plastic milk jugs stacked along the north wall,

or rocks held against a wall by wire mesh). Thermal mass that is in direct sunlight functions more

effectively than mass to which heat must be transferred by air movement or conduction. Because

heat storage mass placed in the greenhouse can be

added or removed quite easily, adjustment and
Figure 1 .—Two Freestanding New Mexico Solar Greenhouses

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment
Figure 2.—Attached New Mexico Solar Greenhouses

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment
Ch. 3–Resource-Efficient Residential Architecture ● 35

“fine tuning” is possible; built-in heat storage requires more precise design and construction.

Existing modeling techniques are not adequate

predictors of greenhouse thermal behavior, because the interaction of solar input, variable

weather, greenhouse heat losses, thermal mass,

and heat exchange with the main structure is so

complex. Fortunately, the solar greenhouse has

turned out to be a rather forgiving and adjustable

technology so that relatively crude design procedures are adequate.

Solar Greenhouse

Performance and Costs

The thermal performance of attached solar

greenhouses as heat producers depends on a number of factors. In areas of high solar availability,

such as New Mexico, adequate sunlight will regularly be captured both to charge the greenhouse

storage and to provide excess heat for an attached

residence. In cloudier areas, such as Ohio, the

average monthly gain will still exceed losses in a

well-designed and well-constructed greenhouse,

but the excess energy available to the residence

during December, January, and February will be

small. The excess energy can be increased by reducing the thermal mass in the greenhouse, but

then freezing is likely on the coldest nights. An insulating “night curtain, ” which reduces nighttime

losses through the glazing, can greatly enhance

performance in poor solar climates.

Thermal behavior has been measured for a

number of existing greenhouses, but reports of

measured net energy production are not yet available. Tables 2 and 3 give the results of limited

measurements of heat delivered by one attached

greenhouse in New Mexico and another in Hinesberg, Vt. Table 4 presents theoretical measurements for the performance of the Hinesberg design, extrapolated to 12 major metropolitan areas.

The out-of-pocket cost of building a solar

greenhouse varies greatly. In many cases the

owner or workshop members volunteer their

labor, and they frequently make use of salvaged

materials, particularly glass. In most areas of the

country, few contractors are prepared to bid on or

undertake the construction of greenhouses. Typical material costs, if new materials are used, range

between $8 and $12/ft2 (1979 dollars) of floor area.

The most important cost variables are the type

and number of layers of glazing, the quantity of

concrete, and the quality of wood used for the

frame.

Only 19 of the 150 New Mexico greenhouse

owners interviewed by OTA’s community study

team had enough data to perform any kind of

economic analysis. Those 19 had average costs, including estimated labor costs, of between $4 and

$17/ft2

, and they estimated their simple payback

periods at between 4 and 8 years, based on fuel

savings alone. However, unlike solar collectors

(whose cost must be justified solely by the value of

the net energy they produce), greenhouses are

multipurpose devices which can pay the owners

back in terms of food production and desirable living space, as well as heat energy production.
Performance data

Location . . . . . . . . . . . .

Latitude. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Elevation. . . . . . . . . . . .

Heating dd . . . . . . . . . .

Percent sun

winter average . . . . . .

Anton Chico,N.

3 5

oN

5,000 ft

3,795

70%

Mex.

Greenhouse

Orientation . . . . . . . . . .

Glazed area. . . . . . . . . .

Floor area . . . . . . . . . . .

Glazing material. . . . . .

Net transmission. . . . .

Thermal storage. . . . . .

cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

House

Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Floor area . . . . . . . . . . .

Annual heating load. . .

Annual internal

sources. . . . . . . . . . . .

Net load. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Performance

Annual greenhouse

load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Solar energy captured

(heating season only).

Net available energy . .

Solar fraction (whole

house, supplied by

greenhouse. . . . . . . . .

15° East of South

420 ft2

65°/0 wall, Slope 75°

35% roof, slope 15°

432 ft2

(36 x 12 (dirt floor)

fiberglass outer

polyethylene inner

0.65 (estimated)

Nine, 55-gal water-filled drums

18” thick adobe (house) wall

36‘ X 9 ‘

$2.50 ft2 materials only (workshop constructed)

Adobe (no insulation)

896 ft2

51 MMBtu (estimated)

13 MMBtu (estimated)

13 MMBtu

62 MMBtu

90 MMBtu

28 MMBtu

0.73

Plan of Chavez House and Greenhouse

Photo credit: Tech Repos, Inc.

Interior of Chavez Greenhouse
Adobe

walls

Exterior view of Chavez Greenhouse DSun

/’1 1%

\

Thermal Flow Diagram
Table 3.— Hinesberg Greenhouse, Vermont

Location . . . . . . . . . . . .

Latitude. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Elevation. . . . . . . . . . . .

Heating dd . . . . . . . . . .

Percent sun

winter average . . . . . .

Greenhouse

Orientation . . . . . . . . . .

Glazed area. . . . . . . . . .

Floor area . . . . . . . . . . .

Glazing material. . . . . .

Thermal storage. . . . . .

cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hinesberg,Vt.

44°N

150ft

8,100

36%

South

96 ft2wall, slope 600

98ft 2

(12’ x8’)

2 layers fiberglass

four 55-gal water-filled drums

$9.10 flt2 (1976)

Performance data

SOURCE: Sandia Laboratories, Passive Solar BuiIdings, report N O . SAND 79-0824.

,,

<1 Sout h

— — . ——— —— —

Upper House Interior Lower ~oo>,

fan fan

kitchen

Plan for the H I nesberg Greenhouse

House

Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Floor area . . . . . . . . . . .

Kitchen . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kitchen load. . . . . . . . .

Performance

Greenhouse load . . . . .

Solar energy captured.

Net available to kitchen

Solar fraction (kitchen

load, supplied by

greenhouse) . . . . . . . . .

Fan

Older, frame

1,800 ft2 (whole house)

360 ft2 (estimated)

26 MMBtu

10 MMBtu

19 MMBtu

9 MMBtu

0.23

Fan

Thermal Flow Diagram of the

Hinesberg Greenhouse

Sunshin e

throug h

glazing

>

South
—

Exterior view of Hinesberg Greenhouse

Photo credits: Office of Technology Assessment

Interior of Hinesberg Greenhouse
40 . Assessment of Technology for Local Development

Table 4.—Theoretical Performance and Fuel Reduction Contributed by

an Attached Solar Greenhouse in 12 U.S. Metropolitan Areas

Solar heat

Annual produced by Heat Iossb of Ratio of heat Dwelling

degree days greenhouses greenhouse gain to fuelc reduction

City (65° base) (kWh) (kWh) heat loss (%) Savings d ($)

New York, N.Y. . . . . . . . . . . .

Boston, Mass. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Burlington, Vt. . . . . . . . . . . .

Philadelphia, Pa. . . . . . . . . .

Baltimore, Md. . . . . . . . . . . .

Chicago, Ill.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Springfield, Ill. . . . . . . . . . . .

Milwaukee, Wis.. . . . . . . . . .

Denver, Colo. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dayton, Ohio. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cincinnati, Ohio. . . . . . . . . .

Duluth, Minn. . . . . . . . . . . . .

4,871

5,634

7,865

5,251

4,654

6,155

4,561

7,205

6,283

5,597

4,870

10,000

5,652

5,592

4,476

5,452

4,818

4,993

5,754

5,965

7,897

4,803

5,003

6,809

2,007

1,856

2,931

1,548

1,414

2,159

1,821

2,735

1,996

2,042

1,356

3,968

2.8

3.0

1.5

3.5

3.4

2.3

3.2

2.2

4.0

2.4

3.7

1.7

32.1

28.5

8.4

32.0

43.5

19.8

37.0

19.2

40.3

21.1

32.1

12.2

$324.85

227.90

77.25

206.91

156.58

130.36

173.05

125.97

224.24

99.40

124.00

—

aEnergy available after transmission and reflection losses subtracted.

bBased on 55° nighttime setback.

CDwelling is assumed to use 2.33 kWh/dd (base 65o). This quantity of heat is typical of an average U.S. home.

dValue of energy is based on available electrical costs during January 1976.

A Case Study of Solar Architecture--

The Cooley House, Washington, Corm.8

Designing and orienting buildings to take advantage of solar energy is an ancient practice. The

Remans used passive solar design to warm their

baths and public buildings. Native Americans

built whole towns in the Southwest based on these

principles.

Interest in passive solar architecture, in which

solar energy is collected and stored through structural design and orientation, is growing rapidly in

the United States. Four national passive solar

energy conferences have been held and attended

by thousands of engineers, architects, builders,

and public officials. Hundreds of passive solar

structures have been built during the past 5 years,

ranging from the airport terminal at Aspen, Colo.,

to entire residential subdivisions in California,

New Mexico, and Ohio. The Cooley house is one

example of this emerging architectural trend.

8Material in this and the following case study is based on the working paper, “Energy-Efficient Architecture,” prepared by Teresa Canfield and James Greenwood for the Harvard Workshop on Appropriate Technology for Community Development, Department of City

and Regional Planning, Harvard University, May 15, 1979.

Development

In 1976, Ruth and Frank Cooley contacted the

New Alchemy Institute of Falmouth, Mass., and

asked how they could go about leading the kind of

energy-conserving self-sufficient life that the New

Alchemists advocate. They were referred to the Institute’s architectural consultants, Solsearch Architects of Cambridge, Mass. Solsearch designed

an integrated solar house for the Cooleys based on

the firm’s “Ark II” house (see figure 3).

The “Ark II” is a scaled-down, single-family version of the Ark, a $354,000 experiment in self-sufficient living funded by the Canadian Government. The original Ark, which opened in 1976, is

intended to house, feed, and provide a livelihood

for a family without dependence on outside energy

sources.

The Cooleys were active participants in all

aspects of the construction of their home. For 6

months they lived in a tent at the building site,

where Ruth Cooley acted as the general contractor. She, four college students, and a retired

carpenter did most of the carpentry, but she hired

subcontractors to perform a number of specialized
tasks, such as plumbing and wiring. A neighbor

with 40 years of experience as a general contractor

helped her to find good subcontractors at competitive prices. The Cooleys moved into their partially finished house in December of 1977, and the

house was largely completed by the spring of 1979.

Integrated Solar Technology

The Cooley House has 2,500 ft2 of living area,

700 ft2 of which is a daylight basement. The rest is

divided among three bedrooms and the main living area. The house is an example of “integrated”

design, employing active as well as passive solar

principles and advanced technological materials.

The entire south roof is glazed by a patented system called the “solar staircase,” which is designed

to admit sunlight in winter and deflect it in summer (see figure 4).9 The system uses multiple layers

of glazing: two outer layers of “Acrylite SDP;” the

“staircase,” which alternates polished aluminium

horizontal steps with transparent vertical risers;

and an inner layer of “Tedlar” film. The downward facing surfaces of the aluminium “steps”

reflect heat and thus help reduce thermal losses

through the roof.

Sunlight passing through the roof in winter

(rays 2 and 3 in figure 4) is absorbed by the interior, and its heat transferred to the air, in the

same manner as in a solar greenhouse (see above).

The heated air rises and collects along the roof

peak, where it is drawn into ducts by two fans and

delivered into a rock bed under the floor of the

main living area. The thermal storage contains

100 yd3 of graded river rock and will store about

65,000 Btu for every 10 F in temperature change.

Heat may be recovered from the storage either by

radiation from the floor slab above the storage

bed, or by fans that draw air through the warmed

rock and into the living space. Backup heat is provided by a wood-burning stove.

In summer, as the altitude of the sun increases,

the majority of the light (ray 1 in figure 4) is

reflected by the aluminum “steps” of the “solar

‘The solar staircase was invented by Norman Saunders of the Circuit Engineers Co., Weston, Mass., who allowed the Cooleys the use

of this design for $15 on condition that they document its performance. See his “The Overall Solution to Solar Heating,” Proceedings of

the Conference on Energy Conserving Solar Heated Greenhouses, Marlboro, Vt., Nov. 19-20, 1977, p. 39.

staircase.” Excess heat can be vented through a

louver along the north end of the roof ridge; a

noticeable breeze fills the house when the louver is

opened.

Performance and Costs

The major source of solar input is the glazed

roof, which has an area of about 1,100 ft2. However, the effective aperture of this “collector” is

equivalent to the sum of the area of the risers, or

only about 600 ft2

. This area is enhanced by double reflection from the steps, as is shown for ray 3

in figure 4. Sunlight directly penetrating the roof

undergoes transmission losses through four layers

of glazing; reflected light has two additional reflection losses. It is expected that an average of 50 to

60 percent of the incident radiation will enter the

house.

The heat resistance of the south roof depends

on the effectiveness of the reflective staircase in

reducing heat losses by radiation. The projected

gross heating load is about 8 Btu/ft2

/dd, of which

solar heat is estimated to provide about 50 percent. Backup heat is provided by a wood stove; the

expected auxiliary winter load is about 45 million

Btu, or approximately 3 cords of firewood. At

$120/cord, these costs would be under $360/yr.

Average winter electricity bills are $24/me,

including lights, cooking, and the heating system

fans.

The Cooley house has already cost almost

$81,000 to build, with the solar features (the roof

and rock storage bed) accounting for about

$7,000, or 9 percent of incremental costs. However, these costs do not include the value of the

labor donated by the owners and other volunteers, which in the case of the Cooleys (as in several other cases studied in this chapter) was significant. The Cooleys were forced to sell about half of

their 5-acre lot to raise the money that will be

needed to complete the house.

Because of a change in Frank Cooley’s job, the

family will soon be moving to Oregon, where they

hope to build a totally passive house that will

allow them to become more fully self-sufficient. As

they prepared to sell their present house, however,

they became aware of three factors that might affect its marketability. First, it may be difficult to

74-435 0 - 81 - 4
42 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

Figure 3.—Solsearch “Ark II” Low-Energy House

Figure 4.-Solar Staircase Roof

Summer sun

~ Winter sun

4’Acrylite SDP”

&/

/

“Tedl;r” \

Section through the “solar staircase” roof

Photo credits: Office of Technology Assessment

Greenhouse interior
Ch. 3–Resource-Efficient Residential Architecture ● 43

find a buyer (or a lender) willing to take a risk on sary operational chores, such as opening and clossuch a new technology and an unconventional ing vents and feeding the wood-burning stove that

house. Second, prospective buyers may not be provides backup heat. If, for these or other reawilling to tolerate the fluctuations in indoor sons, the full value of the additional solar features

temperature that are characteristic of this passive cannot be recovered when the house is resold, the

design. Third, people with enough money to buy difference should properly be considered an addithe house may not be willing to perform the neces- tional cost of the house.

A Case Study of Heat= Retentive Homes (l)–

The Solsearch "Conserver Home,”

Prince Edward Island, Canada

Development

Solsearch Architects, the designers of the Canadian “Ark” and the Cooley house in Connecticut

(see above), feel that passive solar energy systems

work reliably and can be built at a reasonable cost.

However, although they welcome the current interest in passive solar architecture, partner Ole

Hammarlund has written that solar is not the only

way to go. Solar energy may have advantages in

terms of the health of the occupants or the esthetics of the house, he writes, but in terms of economics it rates much lower than insulation and other

conservation measures. Once a house has been designed with heat retention in mind, “there is no

economic justification for [active] solar, since there

is no need for any additional solar heat. ”10

Drawing an analogy to the human body, Hammarlund points out that a person can be warmed

by standing in the sunlight or by putting on a coat

and relying on the retention of body heat. A

house, too, has internal heat sources–people, appliances, lights, and water heater—and Hammarlund contends that with a proper “coat” of insulation the heat from these internal sources can be retained and will provide much of the space-heating

needs of the house.

Solsearch developed its Conserver Home to

demonstrate this principle, and to show that a

design based on heat retention could produce a

low-cost, resource-efficient house that would meet

the needs of home buyers who want to reduce

lool~ Hamrn~rlun~, “Wlrfl Body Heat Who Needs .$dar?” unpublished paper, 1978,

energy consumption but who cannot afford the

relatively high price of more elaborate solar

designs. The first two Conserver Homes were built

during 1977-78 on Prince Edward Island, Canada,

a region of long, cool, and cloudy winters—not an

ideal location for a solar house, but a good one for

a low-cost, heat-retentive house. The population is

largely blue-collar and is primarily employed in

mining and fishing. One Conserver Home has

been occupied by a local family since September

1978; the second remains unoccupied while its interior temperature and heat loss are carefully

monitored by the Canadian Institute of Man and

Resources.

Conserver Home Technology

Table 5 shows the estimated heat energy generated by activities inside a house. “Activity” energy

is released by people, lights, and appliances; a further increment of solar energy is added by southfacing windows and glass doors, even if the total

Table 5.—Daily Activity Energy for a Family of Four

People. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,000 Btu

Cooking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,000 Btu

Motors, appliances, lights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59,500 Btu

Water heater losses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,000 Btu

Activity total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......116,500 Btua

Winter average solar input. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,000 Btub

Winter average total nonauxiliary heat available 136,500 Btu

aEstimates by other workers for “activity” energy range from 50,000 Btu (Illinois

Lo-Cal House) to 90,000 Btu/day (P. S. Lumont’s average internal energy estimate for 13 Saskatoon houses plus 29,000 Btu/day for 4 people).

b402 Btu/day/ft2 for 86 ft2 of south glazing.

SOURCE: Ole Hammarlund.
44 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

glazed area is no more than is commonly expected.

The challenge for Solsearch was to design a costeffective and livable home that would use these

energy sources as the major source of heat without

increasing the complexity or costs of construction.

The Conserver homes use “Arkansas framing,”

a construction technique that has been widely

publicized by Owens/Corning, an insulation manufacturer. 11 This system permits 12 inches of fiberglass batting in the ceilings (R-38), 6 inches of

fiberglass batting in the walls (R-19), and a continuous vapor barrier to prevent moisture and air

infiltration (see figure 5). In addition, headers over

doors and windows are box framed and insulated,

as is the band-board. Doors are foamed-filled

metal, and windows are triple-glazed on the north,

east, and west and double-glazed on the south.

The foundation is treated wood rather than concrete, primarily because of high concrete costs

($50/yd3

) on Prince Edward Island, and is in1 IOWenS.Corning, 1nC.} “Energy Saving Homes: The Arkansas

Story,” 1977. Arkansas framing was developed by Henry Tschumi

(HVAC Engineer), Les Blades (Arkansas Power & Light), and Frank

Holtzclaw (HUD design and construction analyst).

sulated to R-10. The total glazed area in the windows and patio door is 135 ft2

, or about 9 percent

of the 1,540-ft2 floor area. (Window area equaling

10 percent of floor area is at the low end of typical

current tract housing.) Of this glass area, 65 percent faces south and only 4 percent faces north.

The projected gross heating load for this home

is about 5,400 Btu/dd for every 10 F temperature

difference between the inside and outside, or

about 3.5 Btu/ft2/dd. Since an estimated 136,000

Btu would be generated each day by the normal

activities of the residents and by solar input, these

heat sources would support the heating load so

long as the average temperature difference between the inside and outside of the house is less

than 250 F.12 In other words, no additional space

heating will be needed to maintain an average indoor temperature of600 F (650 F day, 500 F night)

until the daily average outside temperature falls

below about 350 F. The feasibility of the system

does not require this low temperature range which

was the basis for the designers’ calculations: aver12( 136,500 &u) ~ (3.5 B[u/ft2/dd) - ( 1,540 f[2) = 25.32 ddo

Figure 5.—The Conserver Home

Photo credit: The Institute of Man and Resources, Charlottetown, P.E.I.
Ch. 3–Resource-Efficient Residential Architecture ● 45

age indoor temperatures of650 F (700 F day, 55” F

night) can be maintained without auxiliary heating when average outdoor temperatures are 400 F

or above.

The house’s low rate of heat loss also means that

temperature variations tend to be damped: surplus

energy generated during high-activity periods

(morning and evening) will be carried over into

low-activity hours. The Conserver Home contains

no separate furnace; instead, backup heat is provided (through a base-board hot-water system) by

a conventional hot water heater. This system,

combined with activity and solar inputs, is adequate to meet design heating load requirements of

15,000 Btu/hr. It will thus keep inside temperatures at 600 F even when average outside temperatures falls to – 50 F. 13

1 J( 1 j,~~~ ~ru/hr) x (~+ hr) - (3.5 Btu/ft2/dd) + ( 1,540 ftz) =

66.7%M.

Performance and Costs

Over the Prince Edward Island heating season

of about 8,300 dd, about 50 percent of the expected space-heating load will be met by “activity”

energy of the occupants and 20 percent by solar

energy. The remaining energy, about 15 million

Btu will be drawn from the hot water heater,

which is gas-fueled in Conserver I and oil-fueled in

Conserver II. At $1/gal for fuel oil, total heating

season costs for the Conserver II are expected to be

about $150.

Conserver I was commercially constructed and

sold for $26,000 in 1978. Conserver II has been

sold for $30,000. These low prices, about $17/ft2

,

apparently reflect very economic design (including

the wood foundation) and the lower labor costs in

the Canadian Maritimes. Current construction

costs for conventional homes in the United States

range from about $30 to $50/ft2

.

A Case Study of Heat-Retentive Homes (II)–

The Bethel House, Bethel, Alaska14

The Community Setting

In contrast to the scenic beauty of much of

Alaska, Bethel is a drab and depressing place.

Many houses are dilapidated and would be considered substandard by the criteria of the lower 48

States. The land is flat, and there is almost no

vegetation. During the s

snow and ice are melting, t

for the two paved streets) is

mud. During the summer,

(see figure 6). There are

ring breakup, when

he entire town (except

6 to 12 inches deep in

he mud turns to dust

no roads to Bethel.

Everything must be flown or barged in, and therefore everything is expensive. Milk is over $5/gal,

propane $16/gal, electricity 37 cents/kWh.

Bethel offers excellent examples of inappropriate

applications of housing technology from the lower

48. In villages which have been electrified, housing

authorities have equipped many homes with eleclqMdr~rla\ in this case study is based on the working paper, “Energy-Efficient House Construction, ” prepared by Steven Klein and

Richard DeSanti for the Harvard Workshop on Appropriate Technology for Community Development, Department of City and Re.

gional Planning, Harvard University, May 15, 1979.

0

Figure 6.- Bethel, Alaska

T,4 -T II I

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

tric stoves and central heating. Many of the

houses, however, are designed for California; the

cost and difficulty of heating them in the Alaska

winter are enormous, and (as one resident reported)”. . . when the power fails, as it often does,

the homes are uninhabitable. ” Heat leakage

through the thin floors of prefab houses melts the
46 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

tundra and causes them to settle. Standard housing is not structurally rigid enough to withstand

the forces imposed by seasonal thawing and freezing of the tundra. Thus houses rapidly become out

of square, with ill-fitting doors and windows and a

dilapidated appearance.

The Bethel House is the result of ongoing efforts

within the local community to develop a housing

technology appropriate to the resources, economy,

and environmental conditions of the area.

Development

Several years ago, the Kuskokwim Community

College (KCC) in Bethel began a Maintenance

Technology Program. KCC’s student body is

largely Eskimo, and is drawn from surrounding

villages as well as Bethel itself. The original purpose of the program was to train students in repair

and construction skills in the context of the hunting and fishing subsistence economy that is still

dominant in the villages. The design for the structure that became known as the “Bethel House”

evolved over the years as the students (as part of

their coursework) built several small prototype

houses, which KCC then sold on the private market to recover their administrative expenses and

cost of materials.

The ultimate goal of the KCC faculty is to influence the design of subsidized public housing

built for Alaska natives by the State Housing

Agency and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. However, they are using the private market to test,

refine, and demonstrate the soundness of their

design. When their latest house, called the “Mark

IV” (see figure 7), is completed, they hope to build

a small subdivision of houses to be sold in the

private market.

In developing appropriate housing for the needs

and conditions of Bethel, therefore, KCC designers have addressed five vital concerns:

1.

2.

Energy conservation.—Sub-zero winter temperatures, combined with the high cost of fuel

oil in this remote location, make well-insulated, energy-conserving homes an economic

and physical necessity.

Structural stability. —Bethel is in a permafrost

tundra area, which means that a conventional foundation is impractical and that

houses need to be engineered for greater solidFigure 7.—The “Mark IV” Bethel House

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment
3.

4.

5.

ity. Typically, heat loss from a poorly insulated house causes the underlying tundra to

melt, which in turn causes the house to shift

and settle. This can cause walls to separate

from floors, windows and doors to fit poorly,

and air infiltration to become a major problem.

Materials cost. –Almost everything in Bethel

has to be shipped in from the outside–either

by plane, or, during the summer months, by

barge from Seattle. This adds substantially to

the cost of all products, especially bulky

building materials. There is thus a need for a

home design that provides improvements

over existing structures without increasing

the already-high cost of materials.

A pleasant living environment.–Another goal

is to create a house that is roomy and pleasant, in order to alleviate some of the psychological and social pressures of life in an isolated community with few amenities and very

long winters.

A regional architectural style.–The traditional

native sod huts have long since disappeared,

and Bethel has no typical architectural style.

Buildings tend to be an assortment of designs,

consisting of whatever was cheapest or easiest

to build, or whatever was available from the

“lower 48” in prefabricated form.

The Bethel House Technology

The three principal features of the Bethel House

design (figure 8) are:

● extensive use of insulation;

. use of structural members made from plywood in many places where a conventional

design would use solid wood timbers; and

. use of glue to reinforce joints and create a

more solid structure than would result from

the use of nails and screws alone.

In addition, KCC designers have developed a

number of innovative structural features.

Foundation.–The house is elevated several

feet above the ground on a “pad and post” assembly (figure 9), which involves placing pilings into

the tundra on pads of sand. This elevated design,

plus extra floor insulation, prevents heat from

seeping through the floor and melting the tundra

underneath the house.

Floor.–In a conventional house, solid 2- by 12-

inch timbers (or “joists”) spaced 16 inches apart

are used to support the floor. These joists account

for up to 15 percent of the floor area and account

for a substantial heat loss, since solid wood is a

relatively poor insulator. The KCC design substitutes a “plywood I-beam” (figure 9) for these solid

wood joists. The I-beam is simply a piece of 5/8-

inch thick plywood, held vertically between horizontal 2- by 4-inch “spacers” to prevent warping or

twisting. Because the plywood sections of the Ibeam are only 5/8-inch thick, heat loss through

the floor framing is reduced. Because of its shape,

the plywood I-beam is stronger than a solid wood

beam; only 7 I-beams are needed, instead of 24

conventional joists. Heat loss through floor framing is reduced from 15 percent to only 2 percent,

and savings are also realized on the cost of

materials.

Similarly, the KCC design replaces solid wood

perimeter timbers with plywood “box beams”

(figure 9). The box-beams are constructed of four

pieces of vertical plywood, 5/8-inch thick, sandwiched between two 2- by 4-inch spacers placed

horizontally across the top and bottom. The hollow space within the box-beams can be stuffed

with insulation. The result is a very strong insulated beam, which reduces the heat loss and can

be constructed with materials costing about onethird as much to ship to Bethel as conventional

solid beams. The system also provides a very rigid

floor, which requires only 10 support posts instead

of nearly 20 for a conventional floor system.

Wall-to-Floor Joint.–In a conventional

house, the walls rest on top of the floor. In the

KCC house, the I-beams and perimeter box-beams

are joined together such that the I-beams project

above the box-beams (figure 9). As a result, the

walls rest on the perimeter box-beams “outside”

the floor, actually extending below it. This design,

which is similar to framing techniques used in the

19th century, allows the builders to anchor the

walls vertically to the box-beam and horizontally

to the I-beams, thereby increasing the rigidity and

strength of the house. Second, it also allows them

to install continuous insulation through the walls
48 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

Figure 8. Cross-Section of the Bethel House

L5/8” sheetrock

L

Ir

10” insulation

~

1“ air space upward reflecting 2-4-1

m~~~~ln[

II II II II

Plywood I beam

4- 20’+

3’minimum

(7

JJ Piling depth 18’ - 20’

Cross-section

and under the floor. In a conventional house, the

wall insulation stops at the point of juncture with

the floor. In the KCC design, where the walls extend below the floor, it is possible to pull the insulation through and continue it across the bottom of the floor in an unbroken blanket.

Walls.–KCC determined that 8-inch thick

wall insulation would repay its cost through reducing heating bills in 5 years under Bethel conditions. In conventional houses, however, wall studs

comprise about 15 percent of the wall area and offer solid heat-loss paths to the outside. KCC

therefore employed a “double wall” construction

technique (figure 9). Studs are 12 inches apart, but

are staggered on either side of a central sheet of

plywood. As a result, a 24-inch wide, 4-inch thick

batt of insulation can be placed between the studs

on the interior and exterior walls, thus achieving a

-l

of KCC house

~

<All headers

insulated

total 8-inch thickness of insulation in the wall. In

addition, since the studs alternate between the interior and exterior walls, there is at least 4 inches

of insulation everywhere in the wall and no solid

heat-loss paths to the outside.

Roof.—There are three distinctive features of

KCC’s roof system design. It has a gambrel, or

barnlike, roofline rather than the more conventional gable. The gambrel design increases the

usable space on the second story of the house in

comparison to a typical gable roof, which may reduce by as much as one-fourth the habitable volume of a structure. The second distinctive feature

of the KCC roof system is that the wall-to-ceiling

joint (like the wall-to-floor joint) is designed so

that an unbroken wrap of insulation continues up

from the walls and across the roof. Third, the

trusses that support the roof are designed to be
Figure 9.— Innovative Structural Details, Bethel House

T 1-1

5/8-inch

5/8-inch sheetrock

2-by 4-inch wall stud

4- by 12-inch insulation

6 mil vapor barrier

R40 II II 11-

1- center core

u II

.

Cutaway view J

Box-beam

I

View of I beam and box beam

showing method of joining the two

T 1-11

2 x 6 nailer

2 x 4 lateral

stabilizer

2 x 8 plate

5/8” bolts

Plywood

box beam

Plywood gusset T

plate, glued and

nailed I 1-l

-4;-.<. % t. @ - “ . . . . - . . . , $ -. . . . . . . , . . ‘ -

. . ‘ . . .. . . . . . . . - .

.* 8. , . . , . ,.

. . .. . .. . c ,. “ . . . . ..

.. . . . . . ,

. . . “ . . . .. . . . .

. . . . .

2’ minimum

. : . . . ,. . . . . . ~ . . . . . . .*

. . . . . . . . . .

. . - , - , t . . - . . - - . .--* . -

- - . . . - . . . .- - . . . . . .-

-. - . . . .

Tundra -

View of pad-and-post assembly

for elevating the house above the tundra
50 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

partially assembled at the building site before installation, which should make them easier to install without machinery or a large number of people.

Windows and Doors.–Bethel is at latitude

60° N, which means that midwinter solar energy

availability is small. However, the climate is fairly

sunny and solar availability is quite good from

January through May. Most of the windows are located on the south side of the Bethel House to take

advantage of solar energy for lighting and heating,

and are double- or triple-glazed and tightly sealed.

costs

KCC estimates that the two-story version of the

Bethel House, built commercially, would cost

$55,000 to $65,000. Construction is more labor

intensive—time is required to fabricate building

elements such as box-beams and floor framing—

but less materials intensive than conventional

construction. And in an economy where general

costs are very high, $40/ft2 (1977 dollars) seems

hardly out of line (current construction costs in

the lower 48 States are between $30 and $50/ft2.

Clearly, however, if the Bethel House is to

penetrate the Government-subsidized housing

market, its costs must be brought down. The onestory Mark IV house is an attempt to do this, and

KCC estimates the cost of this design can eventually be reduced to about $30,000. By comparison, recent public housing units in Bethel cost

only $20,000 to build, but they suffer from all of

the problems that the Bethel House is designed to

avoid. As a result, they incur much higher maintenance, repair, and heating costs than the KCC design. Detailed lifecycle cost estimates would allow

better economic comparison to be made between

the Mark IV and the conventional alternatives.

One local builder is currently building six

houses that include several–but not all–of the

Bethel House principles. His modifications of the

KCC design have often been intended to make it

more acceptable to his native Alaskan customers,

many of whom are skeptical of the kind of technological “fixes” that have been sold to them in the

past. This builder may play an important role in

the ultimate dissemination of the technology,

since he is also the owner of the local lumber yard.

He is already convinced enough of the merits of

gluing joints that he automatically includes the

proper amount of glue with any lumber order from

a bush village, whether his customers have asked

for it or not.

A Case Study of Hybrid Resource= Efficient Homes—

The Tom Smith “Thermal Envelope” House15

.

Development

The original idea for Tom Smith’s “thermal

envelope” house came from a house in Taos,

N. Mex., that was based on passive solar principles. The house was to be built from adobe with

cool rooms on the north side and a heating solar

greenhouse on the south, a design with strong

parallels to the Indian pueblo, the original indigenous architectural style in the area.

In 1977, Smith began making plans to build his

own passive solar home near Lake Tahoe in CalilfMaterial in this case study is based on the working paper, “Energy-Efficient Architecture,” prepared by Teresa Canfield and James

Greenwcod for the Harvard Workshop on Appropriate Technology

for Community Development, Department of City and Regional

Planning, Harvard University, May 15, 1979.

fornia. He designed the house with several goals in

mind: it should use standard construction techniques and conventional, locally available materials; it should also be comfortable to live in, esthetically pleasing to the general homebuyer, and easy

to finance through conventional mortgage borrowing; finally, the design should be adaptable to

other climates. After consulting a number of experts, he arrived at a design that is now frequently

called a double or thermal envelope.

Thermal Envelope Technology

The Smith house (figures 10, 11, and 12) consists of an inner and an outer structure, which

share common east and west walls. The inner

north wall is separated from the outer wall by
Ch. 3–Resource-Efficient Residential Architecture ● 51

Figure 10.—Thermal Envelope House, Heat-Gain Cycle

~

Heat

Heat loss at *

north face of sun at south

envelope helps face drives

●

drive gravity convective loop

convective loop

I Heat absorbed bv earth in crawl sDace I

Figure Il.—Thermal Envelope “House, Heat”Loss Cycle

Heat

I

Max. heat

Greater heat loss

at large glass area

causes loop to flow

in reverse

I

Earth supplies heat to air in conv. loop
52 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Dvelopment

Figure 12.—Thermal Envelope House, Ventilation and Cooling Cycle

b

““’A

Fresh air

Introduction of fresh

air to living space

is by opening

windows or doors

to envelope space

Average air temp.

in envelope is 7 e F

cooler than outside

due to thermal log

mass earth cooling

1/

h I

Pre-conditioning tube supplies 780F at base air steady rate u

. . u

1

-I

about 12 inches This gap is connected to a basement crawl space and the attic plenums, which in

turn are open to the floor and ceiling of an attached greenhouse or solarium. As a result, air can

pass in a large loop around the inner structure.

Both the inner and outer walls of the double

envelope are insulated.

The principles on which the double envelope

house is designed to work are straightforward. On

a sunny day (figure 10) the air in the greenhouse

heats up and rises between the inner and outer

ceilings, losing heat to both the outside and inside

space; as its density increases due to cooling, the

air flows down the north cavity and through the

crawl space—where it gives additional heat to the

earth—and back into the greenhouse through

openings in the greenhouse floor. At night or on

cold cloudy days (figure 11) when the greenhouse

is cooler than the cavity spaces, a reverse cycle occurs: the coldest air gathers at the floor level of the

greenhouse, flows through the crawl space where

it picks up heat from the earth—and then up the

north wall cavity, across the ceiling, and back into

the greenhouse. (It should be noted that the greenhouse can be closed off from the inner house to

limit direct cooling of the living space at night.)

As a result of these air flows, most of the inner

envelope (all except the east and west walls) is buffered from the outside both by the outer shell’s insulation and by the convective flows of air heated
by the greenhouse or the earth storage. Summer

cooling (figure 12) is also enhanced by natural convection: warm air is released through an operable

vent in the ceiling plenum and vented from the attic cavity. In the Smith house, replacement air

enters through open windows, in some other designs, replacement air is drawn through buried

“preconditioning” tubes and the crawl space, to be

cooled by the earth before entering the living

space.

Performance and Costs

Ultimately, heat loss is governed by the heat

resistance of the outer shell and by the temperature difference between the exterior and the air

flowing between the shells. The most interesting

but least understood aspect of the design is the

passive heat exchange between the various elements of the design: greenhouse, living space, and

crawl space thermal storage.

That the convective processes described above

in fact explain the performance of Smith’s or other

envelope houses has been questioned. Whatever

the precise operation, however, those living in the

houses uniformly report very stable temperatures

in the living space and very low auxiliary heat requirements, although none have been monitored

consistently and few have been occupied for more

than one heating season.

Tom Smith built his house in late 1977 with the

least expensive materials available at a cost of approximately $30/ft2

. This figure compares

favorably with the average cost of $35 to $37/ft2

for conventional new housing constructed in the

Lake Tahoe area.

Discussion of Solar-Heated and Heat-Retentive Houses

Performance

Table 6 summarizes performance and cost information for a variety of passive solar, superinsulated, and hybrid houses, including several of

those described in the preceding case studies. The

reader should be cautioned, however, that the extent and reliability of performance data varies

from house to house. The construction of such

resource-efficient houses is a very recent phenomenon, and most of the houses have been occupied

for less than 5 years, many for only one or two

heating seasons. Consequently, although a number of them have been monitored for temperature

behavior, few of them have had the kind of rigorous, detailed study that would be necessary to

draw firm, experimentally verified conclusions

about their precise thermal performance.

In addition, occupied houses are particularly difficult to study, largely because the behavior of the

occupants has a significant effect on the thermal

performance of their house. For instance, many

passive designs require the residents to interact

with the passive system by opening and closing

windows, shutters, vents, etc., at different times in

the daily heating cycle. Some owners find these to

be easy and even satisfying chores, others find

them inconvenient. Similarly, transferring heat

into and out of the thermal storage requires a daily

temperature cycle, often in the range of IO 0 to 200

F. Some people find this temperature cycling acceptable; others may level out the cycle by using

auxiliary heating or by venting excess heat. In

short, occupant behavior—the human factor—is a

significant but largely unmeasured variable in the

performance of many of these resource-efficient

houses.

Column 5 of table 6 gives estimated values for

the gross heating loud of the houses—the amount of

heat required to maintain an average inside temperature of 60° F, assuming no internal “activity

heat” input and no solar input, Many of the

passive solar designs have projected loads of a

magnitude similar to the “standard practice”

house (typical conventional stock built after 1977).

On the other hand, heat-retentive houses have

gross loads around or below the 2.5-Btu/ft2/dd, a

widely accepted standard for energy efficiency.

Column 6 gives estimated seasonal net loads

after solar and activity heat inputs have been

taken into account. Column 7 presents the cost of

the auxiliary fuel-based heat required by each

house, adjusted for size and location. These low
54 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

Table 6.—Cost and Heating Performance of Selected Resource-Efficient Houses

Adjusted

seasonal cost

Gross Net Net cost of of auxiliary

Heating Ioada

Ioadbsolard and heatinge

Size degree- (Btu/ft2 (Btu/ft 2

conservation ($/1,000 ft2

House Location (ft 2

) days /dd) /dd) Total costc

features /1,000 dd)

Conventional

1. “Standard practice”

Passive solar

2. Green Mountain

3. Hunn

4. Cooley

5. Shankland

6. Mobile/Modular

7. Star Tannery

8. Balcomb

9. Kelbaugh

Heat retentive

10. Leger

11. Average of 13

residences

12. Arkansas framing

13. Conserver

Combination

14. MASEC 27008

15. MASEC 27004

16. ZumFelde

17. Saskatchewan

18. Northfield

New York

Royalton, Vt.

Los Alamos, N. Mex.

Washington, Corm.

White Rock, N. Mex.

Los Alamos, N. Mex.

Star Tannery, V.I.

Santa Fe, N. Mex.

Princeton, N.J.

Pepperell, Mass.

Saskatoon, Canada

Arkansas

P. E. I., Canada

Eau Clair, Wis.

Cedar Rapids, la.

Wauseon, Ohio

Regina, Canada

Northfield, Minn.

1,600 6,450

1,264 8,269

1,955 6,300

2,500 5,840

2,000 6,155

1,090 6,000

1,250 4,224

2,300 5,797

1,850 4,980

1,100 6,800

1,100-11,000

3,500

1,200 4,300

1,536 8,300

2,000 8,000

1,200 6,500

3,760 6,000

2,01610,800

1,800 8,250

11.0

7.0

10.0

8.0

11.0

13.0

9.0

7.0

7.0

3.0

4.5

4.0

6.0

3.0

2.7

2.0

2.3

8.0

3.2

3.2

5.0

2.7

1.2

1.1

0.7

2.6

1.7

1.2

1.0

2.5

1.0

0.8

0.2

0.1

$61,000 (79)

40,000 (77)

67,000 (77)

81,000 (78)

65,000 (77)

25,000 (77)

34,000 (77)

80,000 (76)

55,000 (77)

54,000 (79)

—

30,000 (76)

26,000 (78)

80,000 (80)

56,000 (80)

84,000 (79)

NA (77)

55,000 (77)

$ 0

1,350

5,400

7,000

4,000

4,000

NA

12,000

8,000-10,000

400

—

o

0

2,200

1,200

5,000

{

4,000 cons.

15,000 active

{

1,800 cons.

6,000 active }

$94.19

39.03

38.97

36.99

32.17

14.68

13.64

9.90

9.12

30.48

—

13.95

13.18

21.00

12.31

10.11

2.76

0.00

1.62

aExcluding solar and activity heat inputs.

bIncluding solar and activity heat inputs.

cTotal construction costs, excluding donated labor.

dTotal cost of special solar or conservation features, less savings due to size

reduction or elimination of conventional heating system.

SOURCES:

1. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Passive Design Ideas for

the Energy-Conscious Architect,” National Solar Heating and Cooling information Center. The standard-practice home is a two-story frame structure

with R-13 insulation in the walls, R-19 in ceilings, double-glazed windows (21

percent of floor area), and an unheated, uninsulated basement.

2, 3 and 5-9. Sandia Laboratories, “Passive Solar Buildings,” SAND report No.

79-0624, July 1979.

4 and 13. Solsearch Architects.

10. Jim Harding, “Surviving the Massachusetts Winter Without a Furnace,” Soft

Energy Notes, February 1960.

11. R. S. Dumont, H. W. Orr, C. P. Hedlin, and J. T. Makohon, “Measured Energy

Consumption of a Group of Low-Energy Houses,” prepublication copy, National Research Council of Canada, Division of Building Research, May

1960.

eSeasonal heating costs, adjusted for differences in size and climate; assumes

fuel costs at $12/MMBtu, or about $1/gal for oil burned in a 70-percent efficient

furnace, or about $0.04/kWh for electricity used in a resistance system.

12. Owens/Corning Fiberglass, “Energy Saving Homes: The Arkansas Story,”

1977.

14 and 15. Mid-American Solar Energy Complex, “Solar 80 Home Designs,”

1960.

16. Dale and Paul ZumFelde, “A Passive Solar Energy House That Works,” 1960.

An independently designed double-envelope house similar to Tom Smith’s

thermal-envelope design.

17. Ft. W. Besant, R. S. Dumont, and G. Schoenau, “Saskatchewan House: 100

Percent Solar in a Severe Climate,” Solar Age, vol. 4, No. 5, May 1979. A

small (192 ft2

) active solar collector is used to supply auxiliary heat.

18. David A. Robinson, “The Art of the Possible,” Solar Age, vol. 4, No. 10, October 1979.

costs are indeed impressive and tend to confirm

the occupants’ claims that very little auxiliary heat

is needed. If all U.S. housing required these levels

of auxiliary energy, say 2 to 4 Btu/ft2/dd, U.S.

residential heating energy consumption could be

reduced by more than 80 percent, to only about 4

Quads/yr.

costs

Where estimates are available, column 8 of table

6 lists the incremental costs of solar and/or

superinsulation features. Whenever possible, these

are net cost figures: any savings due to reduced size

or elimination of conventional heating systems

have been deducted from the added cost of the
Ch. 3–Resource-Efficient Residential Architecture ● 55

solar system or extra insulation. The incremental

costs are generally small and, in the case of

superinsulated homes, can be almost incidental.

These figures are somewhat speculative, but to the

degree that they prove accurate and typical, incremental costs do not appear to be a barrier to

achieving substantially improved thermal performance in new residential housing.

One of the most important implications of table

6 is that excellent thermal performance can be

achieved by a wide variety of residential designs. It

will not be necessary to demand drab uniformity

in the name of efficiency, nor to vastly change

consumer tastes concerning styles of housing, nor

to plat every subdivision with an eye to protecting

solar access. It would also appear that energyefficient houses can be constructed throughout the

entire price range.

Potential Problems

The following are some of the problems which

have been encountered with resource-efficient

structures.

Air Quality .–Indoor air quality is a matter of

increasing general concern. 16 Very tight houses

like the heat-retentive homes listed in table 6 have

measured infiltration rates as low as 0.05 air

changes per hour under conditions in which conventional houses would have about 1 air change

per hour. Low air-exchange rates allow buildups of

nitric oxides and carbon monoxides from a gas

stove, radon from masonry, formaldehyde from

furniture and plywood products, and carcinogens

from cigarette smoke or other sources. Humidity

can also build up to the point where condensation

becomes a problem. To cope with air quality problems without losing heat, air-to-air heat exchangers are being installed (e.g., in the Leger

house, Saskatchewan house, and Northfield

house) which can recuperate up to 80 percent of

the heat in outgoing air. A small residential heat

exchanger can be built for $150 or bought (from a

Japanese company) for under $250. ’7

“J. L. Repace and A. H. Lowrey, “Indoor Air Pollution, Tobacco

Smoke and Public Health,” Scwnce, vol. 208, May 2, 1980, p. 454.

I TC. C{)n]ey, “clearing the Air: Air to Air Heat Exchangers in Energy Efflclent Houses,” Sojt Energy N’otes, February 1980, p. 25.

Temperature Control.–Passive structures,

particularly direct-gain designs, often exhibit

rather large daily temperature swings, often as

high as 20° F. Because the living space is the solar

collector and often the thermal storage as well,

control is sometimes difficult and may demand

considerable attention from the occupants. Indirect-gain structures (Trombe walls, greenhouses,

etc.) have fewer problems with temperature control. Superinsulated homes have a relatively low

mass and therefore are sensitive to sudden increments of energy. A south window area of only

100 ft2 on the Leger house is large enough to cause

overheating on sunny days. A gathering of people

will rapidly raise room temperatures, and small

operable window areas may not provide adequate

natural ventilation.

Internal Light Levels.—South-facing windows on passive solar houses may make the interior painfully bright on sunny days, particularly in

winter with snow on the ground. Fading of colored furniture and cloth is sometimes a problem.

Direct-gain designs are more often subject to this

problem than other passive designs. Conversely,

reducing total window area to reduce heat losses in

superinsulated homes, or reducing glazed areas on

walls other than south in many solar homes, may

make north rooms dark and unattractive. Good

architectural design is needed to deal with this

problem.

Livability.–Livability is a matter of taste and

lifestyles, so hard and fast statements are not appropriate. However, the open floorplan characteristic of many passive designs, which permits natural air circulation and light penetration, also permits sound and odor diffusion. As mentioned

above, system operation and temperature cycling

are acceptable to some people but not to others.

Maintenance. —Few maintenance problems

have been reported, but most of these homes are

less than 5 years old, and some future problem

areas seem possible. If transparent glazing is used,

the large glazed areas will require cleaning. The

greenhouse in the Zumfelde home, for example, is

glazed with insulated glass panels covering an area

13 ft high by 40 ft long, and additional windows
56 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

separate the greenhouse from the living space. potential problem in thermal envelope designs.

Maintaining a clear view in such a house might re- Some fire codes require fireproof dampers that will

quire a considerable effort. In the longer term, close off the north wall or ceiling cavities in case of

ultraviolet radiation will eventually darken and fire. Large expanses of glass, particularly when

weaken plastic glazing. Accidental breakage and placed high above the living space, can also

vandalism are also potential problems. Very become a hazard to the occupants. Tempered glass

strong glazing materials such as polycarbonates are should be used in these situations.

available but are also quite expensive.

Safety. -In addition to the indoor air quality

problems already mentioned, fire safety may be a

Critical Factors

Public Perception and Participation

The two approaches to improved residential

energy efficiency that have been discussed in this

chapter—solar greenhouse retrofits and the construction of new passive solar or heat-retentive

houses–are both highly decentralized. Most new

home construction is done by small businesses

operating only in their local area, and the average

builder produces fewer than 20 units per year.

Solar greenhouse construction has been accomplished largely by do-it-yourself or by “barn raising” workshops involving neighbors and friends.

Both instances reveal the virtues as well as the

limitations of decentralization, one of the major

criteria of appropriate technology.

Home builders, whether they work under contract with the new owner or work on speculation,

must serve the perceived needs, tastes, and

budgets of the prospective buyers. “Spec” housing

in particular must be as low-risk as possible, and

the current high interest rates make rapid turnover critical. As a result, spec housing (which

represents well over half of all U.S. housing starts)

is not the place to experiment with new designs

and features whose marketability is not yet

proven. The vast majority of resource-efficient

houses are custom-built for their owners.

It is to be expected that innovative energyefficient architecture will penetrate the custom

market first: risks to the builder are reduced, and

the owner tends to be well-educated, aware of the

available technologies, and relatively affluent.

Penetration of the speculative housing market,

depends on three interrelated factors:

●

●

●

public awareness and acceptance of new

resource-efficient designs and construction

practices, insofar as they affect a house’s appearance, thermal behavior, operation, first

costs, financing, and marketability;

builder awareness and acceptance and the

rate at which information about and experience with new designs and practices can be

disseminated (see below); and

the degree of standardization that can be

achieve-d in the designs and materials, which

will reduce or eliminate the need for special

architectural and engineering services.

Public acceptance occurs in two stages: first interest and awareness, then confidence and demand. The first stage has come relatively easily in

the case of solar energy. As one prominent solar

builder has noted, “Anybody who has participated in the early solar demonstration programs

knows the wonder of opening the door . . . and

seeing thousands of visitors heading down the

walk. ” However, he adds, the question is “when

will these lookers become buyers?”18 Marketability

is also a concern for the owner/builders of existing

resource-efficient houses, as demonstrated in the

case study of the Cooley house.

The construction of solar greenhouse retrofits,

on the other hand, has been largely outside the

commercial market and mainly by owners or volunteer workshops. Awareness and interest have

been generated by word of mouth, newspaper and

IsWayne D. Nichols, “Marketing the Passive Solar Home,” Proceedings oj the 2d National Passite Sob Conference, Philadelphia, Pa.,

Mar. 16-18, 1978, p. 704.
Ch. 3—Resource-Efficient Residential Archtecture ● 57

magazine articles, and a few nationally distributed

books. 19 The influence of demonstration projects

on public perception and demand is marked. In

New Mexico, says Bill Yanda, “For every workshop, 10 more greenhouses were built in the community.” In Yellow Springs, Ohio, a community

of about 5,000 people, a greenhouse was constructed by a workshop in the summer of 1978; as

of spring 1980 there were seven other attached

greenhouses in the community, all owner or workshop constructed. Because there is little formal

marketing of the greenhouse idea, the critical factor in public awareness is a sufficient number and

distribution of these local demonstration projects,

so that a large number of people can become aware

of the idea through direct observation and

through the experience of their neighbors. Workshop participation also builds confidence and encourages people to move from “lookers” to “builders. ”

Finally, many people who are aware of the technology are not interested in the do-it-yourself approach. This would appear to create an opportunity for commercial construction, but the home improvement industry does not as yet appear to be

aware of this opportunity—or to be technically

prepared to undertake solar greenhouse retrofits.

In addition, while economic payback may not be

the most important criterion in the eyes of some

do-it-yourself builders, commercial participation

will require better economic and performance

analysis than is currently available.

Essential Resources

The resources required to apply these energyconserving technologies vary widely from house to

house, according to the type and size of the structure. These resources include a building site,

standard building materials, a few special solar

materials, and labor.

Most solar installations work best on a generally

southfacing site with relatively unobstructed

direct sunlight. This does not limit their applicability to low-density suburban and rural

areas, however; many opportunities exist for at19]ame~Mccu]]agh,ed.,The .War Greenhouse Book (Emmaus, pa,:

Rodale Press, 1978); and Rick Fisher and Bill Yanda, The Food and

Heat Producing Solar Greenhouse (Sante Fe, N. Mex.: John Muir Publications, 1976, rev. ed. 1980).

tached solar greenhouses and other retrofits on

high-density urban housing. In addition, solar

designs perform best in areas with high sunlight

availability, which makes them more appropriate

to a location with sunny winters like New Mexico

(average solar availability 70 percent in January)

than to an area with cloudy winters like Prince Edward Island or Ohio (25 to 35 percent availability).20 In the latter locations, the greenhouse or

glazed area would have to be larger (and more expensive) to give the same benefits. On the other

hand, the heat-retentive designs in table 5 could

be cost-effective under these conditions.

Most of the building materials for the houses

described in the case studies were standard supplies, available at the local lumber yard or construction supply store. One of the goals of the

Bethel House designers was to conserve materials

in an area where all supplies are expensive. They

did this by using plywood instead of solid wood

and by making use of scrap wood where possible.

Solar greenhouse builders in New Mexico also

kept materials cost low by using salvaged glass and

lumber when they were available, and Tom Smith

made a point of using the cheapest materials possible in building his thermal-envelope house. Similarly, Solsearch Architects built their low-cost

Conserver Home with as few special design features as possible. Some of the more elaborate

passive solar and double-envelope designs do require specialized materials that may not be readily

or cheaply available, such as glazing materials and

ventilating fans.

Most of the labor required for construction was

unskilled or semiskilled, and building contractors

or subcontractors are generally available for

skilled items such as plumbing and electrical wiring. The barn-raising approach of the New Mexico

workshops was an effective way of developing the

necessary local skill base, as well as a way to finish

most of an attached greenhouse in a single weekend. This approach is less appropriate to the larger

projects, however, but in some cases the owners

provided a significant amount of labor—the

Cooleys, for instance, lived in a tent on the construction site for 6 months, and were still working

Zopau] S. Hoover and Phil Schneider, “Solar Availability in Ohio, ”

AT, the Ohio Appropriate Techno/o~ Bullet[n, vol. 1, No. 2, May 1980,

p. 7., table 2.

74-435 0 - 81 - 5
on their house almost 2 years after it was first

begun. In addition, an increasing number of small

contractors (like the local builder in Bethel) are

mastering the construction techniques required by

these solar and heat-retaining designs, which primarily require careful attention to details rather

than unusual technical skills.

Technical Information and Expertise

General information on passive solar energy and

solar greenhouses is available from Federal agencies like the National Solar Heating and Cooling

Information Center, from State solar offices and

regional centers, and from private organizations

and publications such as Rodale Press, The International Solar Energy Society, Alternative Sources

of Energy, Mother Earth News, and the Center for

Renewable Resources. Most public libraries can

also provide solar literature. If anything, the problem is selecting relevant sources of information

from a very large and diverse pool.

However, specific information directly applicable

to a particular locale, site, and design problem is

not always easy to obtain. Much of the available

information is national in scope or orientation,

and too general to be of help to a builder or owner

making vital design or construction decisions for a

particular job. The lack of specific local microclimate information is a good example: it is desirable in most (but not all) areas of Ohio to orient

glazing 15 to 20 degrees east of south, rather than

due south, because winter mornings are clear more

often than afternoons and because the prevailing

winds are from the southwest. This sort of sitespecific information is not readily available in

many areas, although regional organizations like

the Tennessee Valley Authority and the MidAmerican Solar Energy Complex are developing

designs that take advantage of local climatic conditions. KCC’s Bethel House development is a good

example of a design that is appropriate to local

conditions; it and the other heat-retentive houses

are less dependent on microclimate conditions

than the solar designs.

Local demonstration projects have proven to be

an effective means of disseminating technical information, since they give builders as well as

buyers a chance to see that resource-efficient

designs can work under local conditions. As in the

Bethel case, some aspects of the demonstration

design will be adopted by others in the same locality even though the entire design may not be.

Arkansas framing, for example, is becoming common in the Midwest, due in part to the demonstration and publicity program of Owens/Corning.

Similarly, more than 50 heat-retentive houses

were privately constructed during 1978-79 in the

Saskatoon area using principles developed and

demonstrated at the Saskatchewan House.

As already noted, dissemination of solar greenhouse know-now and skills has been accomplished

by a workshop process. In both design and construction workshops, the orientation is do-it-yourself and the information conveyed is very practical. However, as a means of transmitting technical information and expertise, the workshop approach is limited by a number of factors:

●

●

●

●

The number of participants must be kept

small (about 15 maximum for a construction

workshop) to ensure safety and to give everyone a chance to participate.

Management skills needed to organize, publicize, and supervise a workshop are considerable. If this effort were not voluntary, it

might be cheaper to construct the greenhouse

professionally.

The programs do not always include followup, so the people participating in the workshop do not have continuing access to the expertise of those brought in to run the workshop.

Only a limited number of people are interested in and prepared for undertaking solar

greenhouse construction as a do-it-yourself or

community project. Transfer of knowledge

and skills to the private home-improvement

sector may be necessary if these designs are to

be adopted on a widespread basis.

In a few cases access to information or a

technology is limited by proprietary interests, as

with Norman Saunders’ “solar staircase” roof.

However, the ideas behind these systems are simple enough, and are discussed widely enough in

the literature, that most architects and many

builders should find no difficulty in producing

similar designs of their own.
Ch. 3–Resource-Efficient Residential Architecture ● 59

Financing

Skepticism regarding the workability, efficiency,

and acceptability of passive solar homes often

leads to problems in acquiring financing from local

lenders, for owners and speculative builders alike.

The Cooleys had difficulty obtaining a construction loan, and the Bethel House was possible only

because KCC was willing to “loan” the funds

needed for construction until the house could be

sold. Obtaining a loan sometimes means that the

lender just be educated or that the builder must

accept design compromises, such as a conventional backup heating system that may 

increase building costs substantially and unnecessarily.

Single-family homes are financed primarily

through local banks or savings and loan associations. There are some 23,000 lending institutions,

so the task of educating lenders is considerable.

The lenders tend to be risk-averse, and the appraisers who estimate sale values for them also

tend to be conservative regarding the marketability of most innovations. These factors can pose a

substantial barrier to the financing and diffusion

of resource-efficient housing, and one housing

developer notes that his first solar development

“would never have happened if we had not been

able to do the design, the financing, the land

development, and the construction ourselves.”21

Economic assessment of passive solar and heatretentive houses is also difficult because their actual heating performance depends on uncertain

and indeterminant factors such as weather, internal heat gains, and occupant behavior. Long-term

average performance may be predictable, but

potential owners and lenders are also concerned

about day-to-day liveability. Similarly, the lifecycle analysis may be impressive, but lifecycle

costing involves many uncertainties and is generally more important to society as a whole than to

individual purchasers, lenders, or buyers. 22 The

builder loses interest in the house when it is sold,

the average purchaser moves within 5 years, and

owners and lenders alike are more concerned

about preserving equity and meeting monthly

payments.

For the middle- and upper-income populations

who are the major purchasers of new single family

housing, energy costs of new conventional homes

are a small part (10 to 15 percent) of the cost of

home ownership. Thus, while low energy costs for

passive and superinsulated homes have received

attention and publicity, economic incentives may

not be the only factor in decisions of current

builders and purchasers. Noneconomic factors,

such as achieving greater energy independence

and security, concern about the environment, and

the desire to innovate, also seem to play an important role.23

It is equally difficult to assess the economics of

attached solar greenhouses. At least three potential benefits of this retrofit must be considered:

added living space, food or flower production, and

net heat energy production. Food production depends critically on the skills and attention of the

gardener (see ch. 4), but limited analysis of the

New Mexico greenhouses found construction costs

in the range of $4 to $ 17/ft2 and simple paybacks

(in terms of heat and food production) of 4 to 8

years. In terms of heat production alone, the performance of the Hinesburg greenhouse, when extrapolated to 12 U.S. cities, shows a wide variation

in fuel savings (see tables 3 and 4). This illustrates

the difficulty of making generalizations about

feasibility and points up the need for site-specific

economic assessment, the lack of site-specific

microclimate data (see above) may also be a barrier

to commercial interest in solar greenhouse

retrofits.

Institutional Factors

Other potential barriers to the diffusion and

adoption of these resource-efficient housing technologies may arise from the patent system, the

building industry, utility companies, and building

and fire codes. Some of the designs, like the “solar

staircase, ” are patented, although the owner of

that patent allowed the Cooleys to use the design

for a $15 fee if they would monitor its performance. David Bergmark of Solsearch Architects has

indicated that low-energy house designers do not

ZINlchols, Op. cit., p. 706.

ZZM. A. Thayer, D. BrUnmn, and S. A. Nell, “solar EconornicAnalysis: An Alternative Approach,” Proceedings 0/ the 4th INationul

Pusswe Solar Conference, Kansas City, Me., Oct. 3-5, 1979, p. 241.

z~R. W. Gilmer, The Social Contro/ oj Energy: A ~e jor tb prOmiSe

oj Decentralized Solar Technology (Oakridge, Term.: Institute for EnergyAnalysis, March 1979).
60 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

always cooperate with one another in the exchange and improvement of concepts and designs.

Several of the designers have approached the

builders of low-cost and tract housing about their

designs, although with less success than in the

Bethel case study. They attribute this lack of interest to the unfamiliarity of the technologies and

the builders’ aversion to risk.

A final barrier may arise from building and fire

codes. In some of the case studies the local codes

required electrical wiring installations that would

reduce the depth of the insulation behind the outlet. Two owners wanted to install a Clivus Multrum comporting toilet, but code requirements

forced them to build conventional septic tanks

and drain fields. In other cases local codes forced

the builders to enlarge the windows on the east,

west, and north walls, or limited their use of glass

panels on the roof. The double-envelope design

raised concern because the free circulation of air

around the structure might allow a fire to spread

more rapidly. The designers believe they can remove this potential hazard by installing heat-activated dampers that will block air circulation in the

event of fire.

Federal Policy

Unlike some

other chapters

technologies for

Background

of the technologies studied in

of this assessment, small-scale

residential energy conservation

enjoy widespread attention from the Federal Government. Congressional interest in solar and conservation programs can be found in a number of

Acts, dating from 1973 to the present.

The Solar Energy Research, Development, and

Demonstration Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-473) is

the principal legislation authorizing broad-based

solar energy research programs. The Solar Heating

and Cooling Demonstration Act of 1974 (Public

Law 93-409) calls for the commercial demonstration of solar heating and cooling systems; the

Rural Development Act of 1972 (Public Law

92-419) authorizes a program of low-cost loans for

energy-efficient retrofits and new housing; and the

National Energy Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-618)

provides purchaser tax credits for the home installation of solar devices as well as a loan program

for solar devices through the Federal National

Mortgage Association. Related legislation includes

the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975

(Public Law 94-163), which calls for the establishment of building energy efficiency standards

and creates the Residential Conservation Service

and Federal Energy Management Program. Other

laws provide incentives to small businesses and

farmers, encourage international programs, and

mandate the use of solar equipment in military

construction. 24

In JuIy 1977, on the basis of these and other

Acts, President Carter issued Executive Order No.

12003, setting forth energy performance standards

for federally owned buildings. The order also calls

for the development of a method for estimating

and comparing the lifecycle capital and operating

costs of Federal buildings, including residential.

Current Federal Programs for

Residential Energy Conservation

The policies and programs mandated by existing

legislation have been implemented by several Federal agencies in a large number of programs affecting resource-efficient architecture. The following

discussion illustrates the scope and variety of these

activities.

The Department of Energy (DOE), as the designated lead agency in these efforts, is involved not

only in research, development, and demonstration

programs, but also manages several different programs of technical assistance and information

dissemination, as well as funding grants programs

and providing much of the “pass through” funding

for the programs of other Federal agencies. DOE is

also responsible, under the Energy Conservation

2+ Res1dat1a/ Ener~ Conservation, OP. cit., PP. 64-6S.
—

Ch. 3–Resource-Efficient Residential Architecture ● 61

and Production Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-385),

for establishing and promulgating Building Energy

Performance Standards (BEPS). The BEPS program has become the subject of some controversy,

however, and the standards—which were to have

been announced in August 1980 and included in

State and local building codes by August 1981–

have been delayed. Some of the objections to the

BEPS program will be raised in the discussion of

issues and options, below.

The residential energy-efficiency programs of

the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), like those of the Community Services Administration (see the section on Federal

policy in ch. 4), emphasize self-help projects at the

neighborhood level. One of HUD’s major programs is its household counseling service, which

provides conservation and other information

through a network of 600 local community groups.

Some of HUD’s building energy-efficiency programs have been transferred to DOE, but one official at HUD’s Office of Energy Conservation has

suggested that technologies like those discussed in

this chapter would fare better if DOE concentrated on R&D and HUD on financing and application. She points out that there is still some feeling at the Federal level that small-scale conservation technologies cannot have a large impact on

the Nation’s energy problems, and that the technologies might be adopted more rapidly if a greater

portion of Federal funds went straight to the

neighborhoods or if local groups were allowed a

larger role in project planning.25 In addition,

around 400 VISTA volunteers are working on 90

energy-related projects nationwide, and an official

says that VISTA hopes to raise the number to

1,000 volunteers in 1980.26

With pass-through funding from DOE, the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) supports several research programs designed to promote the

adoption and application of small-scale technologies. USDA, through the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), also makes available low-cost

loans for energy-efficient retrofits and new construction. USDA officials claim that their departments’ energy standards for new rural housing are

-’sGIOrla Cousar, DlreCtOr, Office of Energy Conservation, HUD,

persc)nal communication, Aug. 15, 1980.

“Jack Colhurn, VISTA, personal communication, August 1980.

the strictest in the Federal Government, and in

1979 the FmHA loan programs provided for

almost 175,000 new rural housing units. FmHA is

also developing a “home energy indexing system”

designed to “rate the energy efficiency of heating

and cooling systems and construction features of

specific house plans. ”27 (Further discussion of the

farm and rural energy programs of USDA will be

found at the end of ch. 5.)

The Department of Defense (DOD), under its

Energy Conservation Investment Program, has

embarked on an ambitious program to retrofit existing military buildings (including residential)

with solar energy systems and to include these

systems in the designs of new buildings. The

Military Construction Act of 1980 (Public Law

96-125) requires that DOD analyze all new family

housing to determine whether solar designs would

be cost effective, and, if so, to install or incorporate the systems. DOD is responsible for

400,000 housing units worldwide.

The Federal Home Loan Bank Board, the regulatory agency for the Nation’s 4,400 savings and

loan associations, is actively encouraging those

associations to include energy-efficiency requirements in their home loan programs. There is

no legislative mandate for these efforts, which the

board has undertaken out of its concern for the

national energy situation. In the past year it has

conducted four workshops for local associations,

providing technical and economic information on

solar retrofits and solar systems for new housing

and publicizing the different energy-efficiency

standards that have already been adopted by some

associations.

Issues and Options

The existing Federal programs for residential

energy conservation, though extensive, have been

variously criticized as misdirected, uncoordinated,

or ineffective. The issues raised by these criticisms,

as they relate to the technologies discussed in the

case studies, fall into four related areas:

● program priorities and coordination;

● R&D;

ZiDonald L. Van Dyne, Policy Analyst, USDA, pemml communication, and his presentation to the Northeast Agricultural Marketing Committee, Sturbridge, Mass., June 19, 1980.
62 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

● demonstration and information dissemination; and

● financing.

ISSUE 1:

Program Priorities and Coordination.

A number of studies, including those presented

in table 6, suggest that energy-efficient architecture can reduce residential heating loads by an

order of magnitude and that energy-saving retrofits and new housing are cost effective against present energy prices. Other studies also suggest that

improving the energy efficiency of buildings could

represent the fastest and the cheapest means to

reduce national energy consumption and U.S. dependence on imported fuels. An earlier OTA report concluded that “the potential for conservation before the end of the century dwarfs that of

solar. ”28

Nevertheless, the impact of Federal activity on

the development and application of passive solar

and heat-retentive technologies in residential

housing has been relatively limited to date. In

large part, this lack of impact reflects a lack of emphasis on residential conservation in the existing

energy programs of the Federal Government.

Another OTA study suggests that:

Because of the wide variety of programs influencing both housing and conservation, many mechanisms exist to affect energy consumption in

homes . . . . [But] energy conservation has not

been a major priority for most Federal programs,

and there has not been strong coordination of the

various departmental efforts. A stronger commitment to energy conservation, combined with improved technical work and more sophisticated cost

analysis, could mean a much stronger response to

conservation goals from both the public and

private sector.29

As the lead agency, DOE, and especially its

Conservation and Solar Energy (C&SE) Programs, have been the subject of particular

criticism. OTA’s critique of these programs included the following findings:

ZsConservation and Solar Energy Programs Oj the Department O/ En~gy:

A Critique (Washington, D.C.: Office of Technology Assessment,

U.S. Congress, June 1980), p. 14.

ZgResidentia/ Ener~ Conservation, op. Cit., p. 13.

●

●

●

The

●

●

●

C&SE lacks a clear vision of where it is going

and how it will get there.

DOE does not appear to have set priorities

among the various programs in C&SE to ensure that the total resources are being apportioned to achieve the maximum benefit.

C&SE needs to develop the capability to determine what it can accomplish for the country, to make sound policy and program decisions to reach these objectives, and to keep

the programs moving steadily toward the

goals in the face of pressures to alter course in

ways not necessarily in the national interest.30

study also found that:

C&SE could improve its coordination with

other Federal agencies, such as HUD, and

other government levels (State, local, and

foreign).

Closer cooperation between solar and conservation programs is needed to formulate a

least-cost buildings strategy for combining

passive features, active systems, and conservation measures in the most economical way for

different types of buildings and climates. Several important areas are underemphasized, including building retrofits.

The Office of State and Local Programs needs

increased technical capability and discretionary monies to properly encourage flexible and

responsible efforts to meet local and State

needs as well as national goals.31

Option 1-A: Review Federal Policy and

Program Priorities.–Congress may wish to exercise its oversight powers to order a thorough

review of Federal programs for residential energy

conservation and/or to direct DOE to modify its

priorities and programs to give greater emphasis to

conservation measures, particularly those appropriate to low-cost retrofits and new low-income

housing.

Congress has agreed to DOE’s request for a 1-

year delay in the promulgation of the BEPS conservation standards (see above), originally scheduled for August 1980. These standards are likely to

JOConSert,ation and so~ar Enera Programs oj the DePanment 0/ Enevw

A Critique, op. cit., pp. 3 and 13.

JIIbid., pp. 4, 5, and 32.
Ch. 3–Resource-Efficient Residential Architecture ● 63

become the model for State and local building

codes, and once established they will hasten the

widespread application of the resource-efficient

technologies discussed in this chapter.

Congress might also choose to investigate

means of improving the programs of technical and

financial assistance to State agencies and local

organizations. The case studies suggest that locally

based efforts are very successful in encouraging the

adoption of these technologies.

Option 1-B: Redirect Federal R&D Efforts.–The case studies in this chapter and the

studies cited in table 5 suggest that a variety of

conservation measures can be taken at a

reasonable cost, but much remains to be learned

about the best combinations of features for different climates. OTA’s Critique concluded that

“DOE has paid insufficient attention to basic

research directed at energy conservation and solar

energy. ”32 Similarly, OTA’s Residential Energy

Conservation found that:

The short-term focus of current DOE conservation R&D ignores some longer term options that

also have high returns . . . Research on attitudes,

energy use patterns, institutional and legal barriers

to conservation, and similar important areas have

not received adequate emphasis. Research and policy decisions on energy technology do not adequately consider the conservation applications of

new technologies, the potential of conservation to

reduce demand and provide time for shifting to

new energy systems is not fully appreciated. The

policy appears to reflect an attitude by DOE and

the Office of Management and Budget that conservation should be viewed as a stop gap that merits

little Federal research funding, in sharp contrast to

new production approaches.33

Congress may wish to direct DOE to reorganize

its programs and redirect its residential energy

R&D to reflect the findings of projects like those

referred to above. In particular, there is a need to

gather “social science” data on the attitudes and

preference of home buyers and the effects of occupant behavior on the thermal performance of

energy-efficient houses. This information would

also be useful in determining the impact of resource-efficient design on the marketability and re-

‘21bid., p. 26.

3~Reslden[1a/ Enero Conserttulon, op. cit., p. 13.

sale value of the houses to which these technologies have been applied.

Further R&D might also focus on the interaction of these technologies and the optimal combination of solar and heat-retentive features.

Another area for further investigation is the cost

of the conservation measures, particularly their

lifecycle costs. An important technical area that

has thus far been underemphasized is the potential

benefit of energy-conserving retrofits for existing

housing. Finally, because the application of these

technologies is highly site specific, there is also a

need for detailed microclimate information for different areas of the country.

ISSUE 2:

Demonstration and information

Dissemination.

Some demonstration projects have shown themselves to be very effective in increasing public

awareness and interest in resource-efficient housing. The Cooley house has visitors almost every

day, and when it was included on a local solar

housing tour it had 450 visitors in a single day.

Similar results were common in the other cases,

and in the case of greenhouse retrofits a single

demonstration house can lead to the adoption of

this technology by a large number of families in

the same community or region. The Federal Home

Loan Bank Board’s information program for lending institutions has also had a degree of success in

disseminating information and changing attitudes

about resource-efficient housing, as have some

DOE efforts. DOE has three different information

programs—the Energy Extension Service, the National Solar Heating and Cooling Information

Center, and the Regional Solar Energy Centers—

each located under a different deputy secretary

and pursuing a separate mission. Some critics,

however, have expressed concern that these programs are poorly thought out, poorly coordinated

within DOE, and poorly coordinated with the efforts of other Federal information programs and

the needs of State and local agencies.

Option 2: Establish a Central Clearing.

house.–Congress may wish to investigate the

benefits of establishing a single office to gather and

disseminate information on energy-efficient tech-
64 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

nologies for residential housing. Such a clearinghouse might also be given responsibility for developing a compendium of Federal programs for the

use of State and local governments and for compiling handbooks of technical and microclimate data

for local building contractors and owner-builders

(see above). This information should include data

on the design and cost of retrofits like the attached

solar greenhouse. These goals might be achieved

by expanding the National Solar Heating and

Cooling Information Service, but a network of regional clearinghouses might also be effective.

ISSUE 3: .

Financing.

The case studies in this chapter represent only a

tiny sample of the thousands of resource-efficient

retrofits, additions, and new houses that have

been built in the last 5 or 10 years. Like most of

the case studies, the majority of these applications

have been made privately by middle- and upperincome families, without Federal funds and often

without a tax incentive.

To increase the rate of adoption, however, and

to ensure the application of these technologies to

Government-subsidized and private low-income

housing, will require further efforts to reduce the

risks involved for owners, builders, and lenders

alike, whether private or public. The Federal

Home Loan Bank Board’s efforts in this area have

been particularly effective, but a board official has

said that the local savings and loan associations

would prefer not to have formal regulation issued

in this area, so that they may keep as much flexibility as possible in their programs. The newly

created Solar Bank will provide subsidized loans,

another useful new effort is an information and

training program for real estate appraisers, whose

familiarity with the technologies often influences

the resale value and marketability of resourceefficient houses.

Option 3-A: Gather and Disseminate Cost

Data.—The availability of reliable economic information, including detailed lifecycle costing,

would do much to eliminate remaining uncertainties about these technologies. Congress might

direct DOE to include the gathering and disseminating of such data among the priorities of its research and information programs (see above).

Option 3-B: Increased or Earmarked

Funding.—Congress may wish to demonstrate its

commitment to residential energy conservation by

increasing the funding level of the programs and

proposals discussed above, or by earmarking funds

for these purposes in authorizations for other programs. Current funding has been called “woefully

inadequate” to the potential savings that could be

achieved through energy-saving retrofits and new

housing. In view of these potential benefits, such

funding represents a highly profitable social investment, and the investment might best be protected (and its benefits best achieved) through selfhelp and self-sufficiency programs like those of

HUD and CSA. Through such programs, the

funds cease to be a continuing subsidy and become

instead a way to permanently reduce the energy

needs of local households. Direct funding of neighborhood groups for workshops and other local

self-help projects may prove to be far more cost effective than subsidies in achieving the Nation’s

residential energy goals.
Chapter 4

Food-Producing

Solar Greenhouses
Contents

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Conventional Greenhouse Technology. . . . . 68

Solar GreenhouseTechnology. . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Plant Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Solar Greenhouse Horticulture—A Case

Study of the Cheyenne Community Solar

Greenhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

The Community Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

The CCSG Solar Horticulture Technology . . . . . . 74

TheCCSG Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Critical Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Public Perception and Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Essential Resources.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Technical Information and Expertise. . . . . . . . . . . 81

Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Institutional Factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Federal Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Food Protection and

of the Community

Issues and Options .

List of Tables

Table No.

Page

Solar Greenhouse Programs

Services Administration . . . . 84

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

7. Typical yields of Commercia

Conventional Greenhouses.

8. Estimated Yields of Commer

Page

Vegetables in

...,. . . . . . . . . 68

ial Vegetables in

Solar Greenhouses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

9. Major Crops in Cheyenne Greenhouse . . . . . . 76

10. Cheyenne Solar Greenhouse Monthly Yields

During First 2 Years of Operation. . . . . . . . . . . 77

List of Figures

Figure No. Page

l3.

14.

Recommended Minimum Insulation and

Heat Storage for Solar Greenhouses in

the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,,..,. 70

Cheyenne Community Solar Greenhouse

Floor Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
CHAPTER 4

Food-Producing Solar Greenhouses

In the last chapter,

discussed as passive solar

Introduction

solar greenhouses were

collectors that could supply part of the space-heating load of the houses to

which they were attached. In this chapter they will

be discussed as a technology for producing food for

the individual family and for the community. In

this capacity, solar greenhouses have two features

of special interest: they can provide a source of

fresh, locally grown produce year-round, even in

the coldest climates; and, unlike conventional

greenhouse production or the mass distribution of

remotely grown winter vegetables, they do not require large quantities of oil or other fossil fuels. By

combining these two benefits, solar greenhouses

can reduce the food budgets and energy budgets of

individual families, community groups, and the

Nation as a whole.

According to the estimates of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), per capita consumption of vegetables in the United States was 223 lb

in 1975. As nutrition becomes a more important

concern, this figure is likely to rise, and with it the

demand for locally grown produce. A recent report on the Community Food and Nutrition Program observes that:

The focus on quality promises to be the overriding concern of Federal nutrition research for the

1980’s. This concern, which first surfaced within

the Federal Government in a major way when the

Senate [Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs] released its “Dietary Goals for Americans” in 1978, has now penetrated the Federal

bureaucracy. In the very near future, it is expected

that USDA and HEW [now the Department of

Health and Human Resources] will jointly issue a

set of nutrition guidelines calling on all Americans

to consume less sugar, salt, and fat and eat more

vegetables, grains, fruits, and fiber-rich foods . . . .

The concern for improving the quality of the

American diet is reflected in the increasing interest

shown by Congress in the labeling of foods and in

nutrition education. 1

Icommunity ServicM Administration, “A Preliminary Report to

Congress on the Community Food and Nutrition Program of the

Community Services Administration, ’’Jan. 15, 1980, pp. 30-31.

Locally grown vegetables, if properly grown,

have a higher nutritional value simply because

they reach the consumer faster. They usually require less processing, packaging, and transportation—factors which account for as much as 85 percent of the cost of supermarket vegetables. This

has led to heightened private and public interest

in alternatives to conventional, energy-intensive

technologies for the mass production and distribution of fruits and vegetables.

Community gardening has received the most attention from government agencies at all levels:

City lot projects, youth gardens, employee

gardens, and gardens for retired people and the

handicapped have sprung up throughout the country. High food costs caused in part by resource

shortages is the major reason why so many have

become involved in community gardening . . . .

For low-income people in urban areas, gardens are

an opportunity to reduce fuel and food costs simultaneously. 2

The next two chapters will discuss steps that have

also been taken to develop low-cost energy sources

for small-scale farmers (ch. 5) and local marketing

systems for their produce (ch. 6). Both are methods by which the viability of small farms and

quality of produce may be improved, and the costs

of both reduced.

This chapter will examine a community project

in which produce is grown on an energy-efficient

basis year-round while at the same time providing

job training, employment, and a basis for local

economic development.

‘Ann Becker, “Appropriate Technology and Agriculture in the

United States,” background paper for Appropriate Technology in the

United States, prepared by Integrative Design Associates, Inc., for the

National Science Foundation, Research Applied to National Needs,

grant No. 76-21350, 1977, p. 13.

67
68 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

Conventional Greenhouse Technology

Greenhouse food production is not a new idea.

Europeans cultivated pineapples and oranges in

hothouses in the 1600’s, using troughs filled with

charcoals to keep the tropical fruit warm during

the northern winter. The present-day greenhouse

structure with glass walls and roof made its appearance about 1700, and by 1800 was sometimes

attached to the south sides of houses, opening

onto the parlor or salon through folding doors.

These glassed-in rooms, called “conservatories,”

were quite fashionable in Victorian England and

enjoyed a brief vogue in the United States, as well.

They were not used to grow food crops, however,

and because so many were poorly designed or

built, their popularity faded by 1900.

Conventional greenhouses—freestanding structures, glassed in on all sides and heated by oil,

natural gas, or electricity—are not customarily

used to grow a variety of common garden vegetables. Their inefficient designs and high operating

costs make them economical for high-return horticulture, such as flowers, tropical plants, and exotic or out-of-season produce. The last category includes the three crops that are the mainstay of the

limited commercial greenhouse production of

vegetables: tomatoes, lettuce, and cucumbers. Research on greenhouse vegetable yields has focused

on these three commercial crops; typical annual

yields are shown in table 7. Factors that influence

yields include:

light levels;

growing temperatures;

transpiration rates (the rates at which the

plants lose moisture into the air);

carbon dioxide (CO2 levels;

structure of growing medium and availability

of nutrients; and

pest and disease control.

Commercial growers control all of these factors

carefully in order to achieve the highest possible

yields under very dense planting conditions.

Because of the all-glass design, much of the light

that enters the structure goes out again through

the north wall, so supplemental lighting is common. The glass walls and roof allow a great deal of

heat to escape from the greenhouse, especially at

night, so operators must use a standard spaceheating system to maintain stable temperatures.

To keep transpiration rates low, greenhouse humidity is kept high and many operators install

automatic misting systems. It is also common for

greenhouse air to be enriched with additional

CO2, and chemicals are almost always used for fertilizers and for disease and pest control.

Table 7.—Typical Yields of Commercial Vegetables in Conventional Greenhouses

1980 value

Annual yielda Annual Average yieldb (cents/lb)

Crop (ton/acre) crops (lb/ft2

/month) Wholesale Retail

Tomatoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 2 0.46 60-80 70-120

Lettuce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 5-7 0.53 45-75 60-100

Cucumbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 2 0.67 35-100 60-110

aMarketable yield after removing culls.

bYields vary greatly by season; e.g., spring tomatoes yield about three times as much as fall crops, and spring cucumbers yield about 2.2 times as much as fall crops.

SOURCE: Personal communication from William Bauerle, associate professor of horticulture, OARDC, Wooster, Ohio.

Solar Greenhouse Technology

Solar greenhouses are not yet in widespread use tional greenhouses, and as a result crop yields are

for commercial vegetable production. As presently unpredictable. On the other hand, home and

constructed, they have a more highly variable communit y solar greenhouses can be used to grow

growing environment than is permitted in conven- a much wider variety of vegetables, many of which
Ch. 4–Food-Producing Solar Greenhouses ● 69

have a limited history as greenhouse crops in the

United States; and their resource-efficient design,

combined with the innovative horticultural methods, can lead to lower operating costs.

Design

The simplest forms of resource-efficient greenhouses are the cloche, originally a bell-shaped jar or

bottomless glass jug, and the cold- or hot-frame, a

small seedbed enclosed in a glass-topped box.

These traditional small-scale methods of protecting individual plants or rows, which have been

used since the 1600’s by European peasants and

market farmers, have been improved on in the

modern, energy-efficient solar greenhouse. These

modern applications are the attached greenhouse

(examined inch. 3), which can supply part of the

space-heating and food-producing needs of a family home, and the larger freestanding greenhouse,

which is more appropriate to the needs of a community gardening project and is potentially adaptable to low-cost commercial production. The discussion that follows focuses on the freestanding

solar greenhouse.

Three principal features of solar greenhouse design and construction account for its energy efficiency:

. sun-catching design,

● insulation, and

● heat storage.

The south-facing translucent roof is the primary

receptor of the Sun’s light and heat. Because

heating needs are greatest during the winter

months, the slope of the roof is angled to be

perpendicular to the Sun’s rays when it is lowest

on the horizon; the farther north the greenhouse,

the greater this slope. The north roof is angled to

allow sunlight to strike the rear interior wall, and

the east, west, and north walls—since they are not

needed to admit solar energy—are made of wellinsulated wood, masonry, or other materials. Several features allow the greenhouse to capture the

greatest amount of light and heat: the peak of the

roof is about as high as the building is deep; the

structure is at least twice as wide (east to west) as it

is deep, and the inside surface of the opaque walls

and north roof are painted white or lined with reflective materials. These features can combine to

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

Representative model of small freestanding greenhouse

deliver up to 33 percent more light to the plants

during the winter.3

To retain the solar heat that enters the greenhouse, it is heavily insulated. The south roof is

double-glazed with glass or, increasingly, fiberglass

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

Heavy insulation retains heat that enters greenhouse

3

Jack Ruttle, “The Solar Greenhouse That’s Right for You,”

Organic Gardening, vol. 25, No. 8, August 1978, p. 51.
70 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

and clear plastic. Triple-glazing might be necessary

for tropical plants or for extreme climates, but a

night curtain is usually more effective than a third

layer of glazing. The north roof and opaque walls

are insulated according to climate, with the insulation extending into the ground below the frost

line on all four sides. Figure 13 shows the recommended amount of insulation for different regions

of the United States. All seams and joints are

caulked and weatherstripped to prevent drafts and

heat loss.

Unlike conventional greenhouses with standard

space-heating systems, solar greenhouses are kept

warm at night and during periods of cloudiness by

warmth released from a heat storage medium such

as rocks, water, or thermochemical materials.

Water holds heat well and is cheap, drums stacked

along the rear wall in direct sunlight are a common design. Heat storage stabilizes temperatures

in two ways: it absorbs incoming heat during the

day, thus keeping the greenhouse from overheating, and the heat is released slowly as the greenhouse cools, thus keeping it warmer at night. The

amount of heat storage will vary with climate (see

figure 13), and by adding more heat storage the

builders can avoid the need for excessively thick

and expensive insulation. Some solar greenhouses

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

Single row of water-filled 55-gal drums

also include a backup system to provide heat when

outside temperatures are particularly low or during extended periods of cloudiness.

Plant Production

Solar greenhouse horticulture is still in the early

stages of development, but a number of innovative

methods have been discovered. In keeping with

Figure 13.—Recommended Minimum Insulation and Heat Storage for Solar Greenhouses in the United States

Regional recommendations for minimum amounts of insulation in walls

and roof, below ground and of water for heat storage.

Zone 1

Zone 2

Zone 3

Zone 4

Source:

wall and roof, R-40

below ground, R-15 to 3

feet deep

heat storage, 4 gallons per

square foot of floor

wall and roof, R-22

below ground, R-15 to 3

feet deep

heat storage, 3 gallons per

square foot of floor

walls and roof, R-12

below ground, R-10 to 2

feet deep

heat storage, 3 gallons per

square foot of floor

walls and roof, R-6.5

below ground, R-10 to 2

Zone 5

Zone 6

Zone 7,

walls and roof, R-6.5

below ground, R-5 to 1

foot deep

heat storage, 2 gallons

square foot of floor

walls and roof, R-6

below ground, R-5 to 1

foot deep

heat storage, 1 gallon per

square foot of floor

8, 9 These regions need insulation and night curtains, but to i

much lower insulating values.

Greenhouses in these regions do

not require double glazing, but it

will help. No heat storage or belowground insulation is needed for

‘1

feet deep I

minimum performance. About half

heat storage, 2 gallons per the north slope of the roof should 9-8 Y

square foot of floor be glazed.

Organic Gardening and Farming Research Center, In Organic Gardening Magazine, August 1978, p. 54.
Ch. 4–Food-Producing Solar Greenhouses ● 71

principles of resource conservation and environmental safety, these have tended to be organic

rather than chemical techniques. Pest control, for

instance, can be accomplished with natural predators such as praying mantises or small reptiles.

CO2 can be provided by keeping a compost pile or

by incorporating large amounts of organic materials into the growth medium, this will also improve

the structure and fertility of the soil.

Unlike conventional greenhouses, where plants

are grown in pots on waist-high benches, solar

greenhouses usually have 18-inch deep beds on the

floor, which both increase the growing area and

protect plant roots from the larger swings in air

temperature. The variable conditions in a solar

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

18-inch-deep beds on the fIoor of the

Cheyenne Community Solar Greenhouse

greenhouse can also be exploited to meet the growing conditions of different plants in the same

space: cool crops can be grown at floor level or

near the glazing; crops that need more warmth can

be grown in hanging containers or on top of the

heat storage. Since home and community greenhouses are used to grow a wide variety of crops,

these variations may actually be an advantage.

The horticulture department at Pennsylvania

State University has begun an evaluation of the

commercial vegetable production potential of

several solar greenhouse designs.4 Preliminary

results showed a rather high degree of variability

in time to fruiting and expected total yields (see

table 8). The investigators reported that the quality of the produce was generally as high or higher

than the quality of the same crop grown in a conventional greenhouse. These preliminary results

involve too many variables to be readily comparable with the yield figures for conventional

greenhouses given in table 7, but they do suggest

that some plant varieties are better suited to solar

greenhouses than others. Further research and experience will be required to determine the crop

yield potential of solar greenhouses and the best

crop varieties and horticultural methods for realizing that potential.

+Carla Mueller, 1. w. White, and R. A. Aldrich, “The Growth and

Response of Vegetables in Sub-Optimum Greenhouse Environments,

Proceedings o/ the Conference on Energy-Conserving Sokzr-l+eated Greenhouses, Marlboro College, Marlboro, Vt., Nov. 12-19, 1977.

Table 8.—Estimated Yields of Commercial Vegetables in Solar Greenhouses

Time to first yield (days) Yield per crop (ton/acre) Average yieldb (Ib/ft 2

/month)

Crop and varieties #1 #2 #3 #4 #1 #2 #3 #4 #1 #2 #3 #4

Tomatoes

9102M c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 66 58 24 8 35 36 0.18 0.06 0.27 0.28

“Small Fry’’d

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 116 102 93 55 33 60 36 0.42 0.25 0.46 0.28

Lettuce

Bibbc

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 101 89 87 21 20 20 19 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.22

Buttercrunch c . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — 20 22 18 14 0.23 0.25 0.21 0.16

Cucumber

“La Reine”c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 76 51 51 10.4 12.1 13.9 12.8 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.15

aGreenhouse designs: bAssuming constant yield at single-crop rate, with two crops/yr of tomatoes,

#1—20 by 20 ft double-barrel vault fiberglass house with heat storage.

#2—Same as #1 but without heat storage.

and three crops/yr of lettuce and cucumbers. Figures are at best approximate,

#3—20 by 20 ft two-ridge gable-roofed house double-glazed with acrylic panelsince it is not known whether the yield figures reflect spring, summer, or fallcrops.

ing. cTransplant.

#4—12 by 16 ft traditional single-glazed glass house. ‘Seed.

Backup heat was supplied to all houses, but on average temperatures were

lower in #1 and #2.

SOURCE: Carla Mueller, J. W. White, and R. A. Aldrich, “The Growth and Response of Vegetables in Sub-Optimal Greenhouse Environments,” Proceedings of the Conference on Energy Conserving Solar Heated Greenhouses, Marlboro College, Marlboro, Vt., Nov. 19-20,1977.
72 ● Assessment of Technologyf or Local Development

Relatively large freestanding solar greenhouses year after 2 years of operations The case study

are currently under construction or recently put that follows will discuss a fourth installation, the

into operation by cooperatives in Orange, Mass., Cheyenne Community Solar Greenhouse in Laraand Flagstaff, Ariz.; the Cherokee Nation has con- mie County, Wyo.

structed a number of solar greenhouses which they

hope will show profits of as much as $1 million per sBob Hathaway, Cherokee Nation, personal communication.

Solar Greenhouse Horticulture—A Case Study of the

Cheyenne Community Solar Greenhouse6

The Community Setting

Cheyenne, the capital and largest city of Wyoming, is located in Laramie County in the southeastern corner of the State. The city has a population of approximately 60,000, of which 20 percent

are Hispanic and 2.5 percent are black; over 10

percent of the city’s residents are 60 years of age or

older. A surge of development has been taking

place in the area since the early 1970’s, with the

population of Laramie County growing by 15 percent between 1970 and 1976 after remaining relatively stable in the preceding decade. This growth

is attributed primarily to the recent acceleration of

domestic energy production, especially coal, and

increased mineral exploration in the region.

Rapid expansion, particularly in the outlying

fringes of Cheyenne, has focused the city government’s attention on its infrastructure (streets,

water system, and fire and police protection) and

on its management and financial capabilities for

dealing with this growth. The mayor has cited the

local government’s difficulties in responding to all

of the city’s needs simultaneously, and emphasized

that priority must be given to necessary projects

and those that can “pay their own way. ”

Rapid growth has also had some “boomtown”

effects, including an inflationary impact on the

local economy, particularly on the food, housing,

and energy costs for Cheyenne’s low-income and

elderly residents. The directors of the Laramie

County Senior Citizens Center cited nutritional

bMaterial in this case study is based on a working PaPer) “community Solar Greenhouse, ” prepared by Katherine Day and Babette

Racca for the Harvard Workshop on Appropriate Technology for

Community Development, Department of City and Regional Planning, Harvard University, May 15, 1979.

*b ‘&

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

The elderly and low income are recipients of the harvest

from the Cheyenne Community Solar Greenhouse

inadequacies, expensive and energy-inefficient

housing, limited health services, and physical

isolation as the major problems facing the city’s

elderly residents; the same problems face much of

the low-income population.

Community Action of Laramie County

(CALC), the local branch of the Community

Service Administration (CSA), is the largest social

service agency in Cheyenne. Its clientele consists
Ch. 4–Food-Producing Solar Greenhouses ● 73

largely of the low-income and elderly segments of

the city’s population, and it has a history of undertaking innovative community projects. CALC has

established an Energy Advocacy Program, which

has been used as a forum to examine utility rate

hikes; a Foster Grandparents Program, which

among other things places senior citizens in the

school system to share their experiences and skills

with students; and a Weatherization Program,

which both provides job training and improves

the energy efficienc y of low-income housing.

Another innovative local agency is Youth Alternatives, a program that places young offenders in

public service projects to work off court fines or as

an alternative to jail terms.

In 1976, as a part of CALC’s efforts to develop

innovative and instructive uses for Federal funds,

the agency recruited 15 Summer Youth Program

participants for a pilot project to design, build,

and plant three 10 by 16 ft solar greenhouses attached to the homes of local low-income families.

The participants, all from low-income families,

ranged in age from 16 to 22 and included several

from work-release programs like Youth Alternatives. The summer program was a success and generated considerable enthusiasm in the community.

It convinced CALC that solar greenhouse technology was simple and inexpensive, and that it

could serve as an imaginative, productive way to

train community members in design, construction, and horticultural skills. CALC also recog-

+,~ ‘

nized the technology’s potential as a focus for local

development that could encourage low-cost selfhelp among its low-income clients, provide a

meaningful activity for senior citizens, and improve the nutrition of those using the local meal

programs. To realize these potential benefits and

to encourage the widespread adoption of the technology, CALC decided to pursue a large-scale

demonstration project—a freestanding community

solar greenhouse.

Development

In the fall of 1976, CALC submitted a grant request to CSA’s Community Food and Nutrition

Program for $56,000 to fund the construction

of the Cheyenne Community Solar Greenhouse

(CCSG). It was awarded $42,700 by CSA, which

had also funded the pilot project. In December of

the same year, initial plans for the design of the

greenhouse were developed by 30 local volunteers,

ranging from engineers to high school students,

who participated in a workshop and training session conducted by CALC in conjunction with the

Domestic Technology Institute (DTI) of Denver,

Colo. These plans were revised and a final draft

prepared by DTI; the extent of their revisions is

unclear and the subject of controversy (see below).

After a 2-month search for a site in the city

proved fruitless, CALC was able to find a suitable

(if somewhat remote) location for the greenhouse

,L

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

Workmen, mostly volunteers, constructing the roof of the Cheyenne Community Solar Greenhouse

74-435 0 - 81 - 6
74 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

Cheyenne Community Solar Greenhouse, Cheyenne, Wyo.

on a 2.5-acre parcel of land on the outskirts of

Cheyenne, about 5 miles east of the center of

town. The land belonged to a local family, who

gave CALC possession of the site for 10 years with

the option of extending their use of the land for an

additional 10 years thereafter. In return for the use

of the site, it was agreed that at the end of the 10-

or 20-year period the land and the greenhouse

would revert to the owners.

Construction began in June 1977. The construction crew was supervised by two paid carpenters

from the community, and consisted of about 50

workers, most of them volunteers, including Summer Youth Program participants, senior citizens,

and other local residents. One 60-year-old woman,

the first licensed woman plumber in Wyoming,

contributed a great deal of time to the design and

construction of the greenhouse’s plumbing system.

DTI also provided occasional technical assistance.

Seven months later, in January 1978, construction

was completed and planting began. To help cover

operating costs, CALC immediately began developing one section of the greenhouse for the commercial production of flowers, seedlings, and

starter flats.

The land surrounding the greenhouse was developed as a community gardening site, consisting

of 22 plots, each 12 by 30 ft. Low-income residents

were given priority in the assignment of these outdoor plots; all of the plots were planted the first

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

Community gardening plots help reduce family food costs

summer, with 50 percent of them going to lowincome gardeners. Also located on the site are two

solar food dryers, comporting bins, an adobe oven

used for soil sterilization, and two small geodesic

domes.

The CCSG Solar Horticulture

Technology

The 5,000-ft2 CCSG consists of three separate

growing chambers of about 1,500 ft2 each, permitting individual climate and pest control in each
—

Ch. 4–Food-Producing Solar Greenhouse ● 75

chamber (see figure 14). Located at latitude 41 ‘N,

its roof has a 450 slope and is oriented 150 west of

true south. The roof is double-glazed, with an

outer layer of Filon, a corrugated fiberglass, and

an inner layer of Monsanto 602, a strong, clear

plastic.

The foundation contains 120 yd3 of concrete

and is insulated along the outside with polyurethane foam. The east, north, and west walls are insulated with 8 inches of blown-in insulation; the

north-facing roof contains 10 inches of insulation.

As further protection against heat loss to winter

winds, the north wall is bermed on the outside

with step-like layers of compacted earth and wooden beams. All seams and joints have been carefully

caulked or weatherstripped to prevent infiltration.

Wall studs were placed 4 ft apart to reduce construction costs, and interior walls are paneled with

particle board painted white to provide maximum

light reflection.

Heat storage is provided by 180 water-filled 55-

gal drums painted flat black. The drums are placed

in a single row along the south kneewall and two

or three high in a single row along the north wall.

Each drum stores about 450,000 Btu/yr; the total

heat storage capacity of the greenhouse is estimated to be almost 1 million Btu/yr. Backup heat

is provided by two wood-burning stoves that were

Figure 14.—Cheyenne Community Solar Greenhouse Floor Plan

~. - - -- - - - - -- / \ Parking

/ t

I

I

I

I

\

N

s
76 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

built by a local high school welding class and installed in the east and west wings. Heat loss occurs

primarily through the glazing at night, and DTI

has recommended installing night curtains; but

the staff feels that funding for such an expensive

purchase will not be available for some time. However, heat loss is not a serious problem: temperatures rarely drop below 40° F during winter

nights, and the lowest temperature recorded during the first year of operation was 320 F.

During the summer, excess heat is vented by

nine wind turbines, three in each chamber, and 13

vents allow cooler outside air to enter through the

walls. Five electric fans also assist air intake and

circulation. These design features have proven inadequate, however, and serious overheating problems were encountered during the first summer of

operation, with peak temperatures of 1160 F. Such

heat, combined with the high humidity in the

greenhouse, severely restricted the activities of

elderly workers and caused tremendous stress on

plant life. DTI has recommended the installation

of day curtains to keep the unwanted heat from

entering the greenhouse, but the staff fears that

this would cut light flow too severely and thereby

inhibit plant growth; other solutions to the overheating problem are being explored.

Originally, a methane digester (see ch. 5) was included in the greenhouse design to provide backup

heat as well as carbon dioxide and fertilizer for the

plants. It was found, however, that the design

capacit y of the digester was far less than claimed—

only about 60,000 Btu/day—and that even this

level of operation would require CCSG to use a

compressor and to obtain additional manure from

surrounding farms, as well as diverting valuable

staff time to operating the digester. But the

greatest obstacle to using the digester was a fundamental design flaw: the methane storage tank

and gas burner were placed in the same room,

greatly increasing the danger of an explosion. No

insurance company will cover such an operation,

and for lack of insurance the digester system has

never been used. CALC blames DTI, which

drafted the final design, and may pursue legal action against the firm.

Paradoxically, the purpose the digester was intended to serve has been satisfied by a far simpler,

safer, and less costly alternative: a compost pile.

All of the greenhouse’s plant wastes are currently

being recycled in compost bins, which provide

heat, CO2

, and fertilizer. In addition, the water

drawn from a nearby well for use in the greenhouse is partially recycled and stored in a graywater recovery tank until it can be reused for plant

irrigation.

Over 100 varieties of plants are grown in the

greenhouse. Table 9 lists the major vegetable

Table 9.—Major Crops in Cheyenne Greenhouse

Beets

Broccoli

Brussel sprouts

Cabbage

Carrots

Cauliflower

Celery

Cucumbers

Eggplant

Green beans

Green peppers

Herbs

Kohlrabi

Lettuce

Okra

Onions

Peas

Peppers

Potatoes

Radishes

Squash

Swiss chard

Tomatoes

Turnips

Wax beans

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

crops, and bedding plants and a variety of flowers

are also cultivated. In keeping with the concepts of

resource conservation and environmental awareness, the methods used in CCSG are oriented

toward organic rather than conventional (chemical) horticulture. The staff and volunteers also

practice a number of innovative horticultural

techniques:

● Biological pest control.—The CCSG staff has

introduced several varieties of natural predPhoto credit: Office of Technology Assessment

Staff and volunteers promote maximum productivity

while growing over 100 varieties of plants
Ch. 4–Food-Producing Solar Greenhouses ● 77

●

●

●

●

ators to control insect pests; the lace-wing

flies, ladybugs, and praying mantises released

in the greenhouse are now establishing selfreproducing populations. In addition, a number of predators native to Wyoming, including three varieties of wasps, the surfid

(hoover) fly, and several varieties of spiders,

have introduced themselves into the greenhouse through vents and doors.

Companion planting. –Rather than planting a

given bed with a single crop, plants with compatible root systems and foliage are densely

interplanted. This promotes maximum productivity while reducing susceptibility to the

spread of insects and plant diseases through

the beds. In some cases the companions (e.g.,

carrots and onions) repel each other’s pests.

Multiple-harvest varieties.—To further boost

productivity, experiments are underway to replace plants that can be picked or harvested

only a few times with substitutes that can be

picked continuously yet continue to grow and

produce.

New varieties.—Experiments are also underway to find plants and plant varieties that will

produce satisfactory yields even under the

stressful conditions characteristic of solar

greenhouses—i.e., high daytime temperatures

in summer and low nighttime temperatures in

winter. Research is also being conducted to

develop and use a range of plants which will

grow to greater heights, thereby making more

efficient use of the limited floor space in the

greenhouse.

Optimum timing of planting and harvest.–

Unlike field agriculture (which has one growing season in Wyoming) and conventional

greenhouse horticulture (which has virtually

no seasons), solar greenhouses are subject to

two seasons. “Summer” crops flourish between March and November; “winter” crops

are grown between September and March.

CCSG’s staff is trying to determine optimum

planting and harvesting times, as well as the

best crops, in order to make most effective use

of this cycle in growing seasons.

The CCSG Project

By March 1979, crops had been produced from

all three sections of the greenhouse; table 10

Table 10.—Cheyenne Solar Greenhouse Monthly

Yields During First 2 Years of Operation

(in Ibs of produce)

Month Yield Month Yielda

March 1978 . . . . . . . . . . . 7

April 1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

May 1978.............13 6

June 1978............177

July 1978.............266

August 1978..........242

September 1978.......202

October 1978.........305

November 1978........168

December 1978. . . . . . . . 87

January 1979. . . . . . . . . . 88

February 1979.........172

Total. . ...........1,930

March 1979...........216

April 1979............18 2

May 1979.............16 7

June 1979............17 8

July 1979.............18 2

August 1979 ..., .. ....506

September 1979.......359

October 1979.........231

November 1979........297

December 1979........213

January 1980..........308

February 1980.........215

3,054

aArea use:

bVirrter-5% carrots, 3% radishes, 400/. lettuce, 25% swiss chard, 10% cabbage, 5°A spinach, 5Y0 peas, 2Y0 herbs.

&It?ItIW-50°h tOITINOeS, 250/. cucumbers, 5% peppers, 5“/0 greens

(spinach), 7Y0 squash, 2% herbs, 5% miscellaneous.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

presents the quantities of vegetables harvested

each month during the first 2 years of operation.

This data should be viewed in light of several considerations. First, the east chamber is occupied by

bedding plants and a work area and is being developed for commercial use, so most of the vegetables

were harvested from the center and west chambers. Of the 3,000 ft2 in these two sections, only

about 85 percent or 2,500 ft2 is actual growing

space, the remainder being taken up by the waterfilled drums and walkways.7 Second, yields for the

first few months were low because not all of the

beds had yet been planted; in addition, the crops

first planted in January 1978 and picked in March

should have been planted the previous October,

which would also have increased yields. Third,

yields during the summer months were low due to

overheating problems. Fourth, the records for the

first year may be imprecise, since it was difficult to

ensure that volunteers remembered to record their

pickings.

Most importantly, however, the staff and volunteers had little expertise in greenhouse horti-

?Th~ ~PaC~glven over t. heat storage is unavoidable, although it

could be reduced by substituting more expensive thermochemical or

phase-conversion devices. The amount of space given over to walkways is a reflection of CCSG’S particular clientele: extra space had to

be given over from plant beds to walkways in order to provide ramps

between levels and chambers and to remove other architectural barriers that would have made the greenhouse less accessible to the elderly and the handicapped. CALC is currently attempting to increase

participation by the handicapped.
78 . Assessment of Technology for Local Development

culture at the outset, and they also had to make do

with whatever seeds were donated. They anticipated that yields would increase as they gained experience and a better knowledge of crop varieties.

Figures for the second year of operation, which

show a 57-percent increase in yields, would seem

to confirm this expectation, preliminary figures for

the third year of operation indicate a further significant increase in yields.

During the first year of operation, the vegetables

grown by CCSG were distributed as follows:

●

●

●

●

67 percent to volunteers, with first priority to

senior citizens and low-income workers;

15 percent to local nutrition programs, including Meals-On-Wheels and Needs, Inc.,

and the Cheyenne Attention Home;

9 percent to paid staff and other CALC activities; and

9 percent for sale to the public.

Senior citizens reported that they were pleased

not only by the produce and exercise the project

provided, but also by the chance to do something

new and interesting and the opportunity to see

their friends and meet new people. Head Start

teachers often brought small children to the site,

which offers special advantages for learning about

natural processes while exploring the greenhouse.

Summer Youth Program and CETA participants

have had a chance to learn carpentry and other

skills, and the director of the Youth Alternatives

program reports that the recidivism rate for teenagers working at the greenhouse is much lower

than for those who participate in more conventional alternatives.

CCSG provides jobs for two managers (one a

horticulturalist from Colorado, the other a local

carpenter), a fill-time CETA worker (a horticultural trainee in the Green Thumb Program), and

several part-time CETA workers (including students from Cheyenne’s alternative high school). In

addition, 50 senior citizens and 20 other volunteers worked at the site during 1978. Salaries for

the staff totaled $35,000; volunteers considered

the produce they received to be compensation for

services rendered, rather than a handout. As one

elderly volunteer commented, “People should

work for their vegetables.”

Total capital costs for design and construction

were about $64,500, including the purchase of the

unused methane digester. The actual costs of construction were borne primarily by CSA, but without the large donations of land, materials, and

labor by the local community and paid staff (who

worked many hours beyond their contractual obligations) the project would have required additional funding. The same might be said of operating expenses, which total $38,000 per year for salaries, supplies, and electricity for lights and fans.

Volunteer work represents most of the labor supplied to the project, which is labor intensive by

design; the only capital equipment that might be

substituted for volunteer or paid labor would be

an automatic sprinkler system to mist the plant

beds. Produce distribution is done on an informal

volunteer basis, and patrons of the commercial

section come to the site to obtain plants, produce,

and seeds.

CALC currently covers operating costs through

Federal funding and other Government programs

like CETA. At its present stage of development,

the commercial section of the greenhouse provides

little supplemental revenue. CCSG’s staff is exploring ways to develop its commercial operation

and is investigating the regional market for ornamental plants, seeds, and starter flats for home

gardens. No estimates of the size of this market or

the anticipated capture rate are available, but the

staff is certain that the market would support any

amount of commercial products they might offer

at current prices. They also think they might

develop a certain edge by selling unusual and

hard-to-obtain plants, teas, and herbs. However,

solar greenhouses present certain problems in fullscale exploitation of seasonal flower markets:

Easter lilies and poinsettias, for instance, cannot

be raised in solar greenhouses because of the

relatively wide temperature fluctuations characteristic of these installations, the same is true of most

tropical plant varieties.
Ch. 4–Food-Producing Solar Greenhouses ● 79

Critical Factors

Public Perception and Participation

The idea of building a large solar greenhouse

came from the director of CALC, who was encouraged by the success of the pilot project in the

summer of 1976 and saw the development of a

community-scale project as a means of demonstrating the feasibility of the technology and

stimulating its widespread adoption in the community. CALC, the local arm of CSA’s Community Action Program, has a history of innovation in designing programs to serve its varied

clientele; CCSG is an example of a project in

which the public participated in designing the

technology to address local needs and achieving

local objectives:

teaching marketable skills;

involving senior citizens in meaningful activities;

providing fresh locally grown produce yearround;

developing a focus for community organization and cooperation; and

demonstrating a technology relevant to local

development. -

One distinctive feature of this project was the

central role of community volunteers in the design, construction, and operation of the greenhouse. The training session and workshop organized by CALC allowed the planning group to

gain some necessary expertise and help ensure that

local needs and desires would be expressed and,

where possible, incorporated into the plans. The

review and revision of the plans by DTI should

have ensured that no technical errors remained in

the final design, but the methane digester and

overheating problems suggest that this was not the

case (see below). The actual construction of the

greenhouse was also carried out by local labor, including two paid carpenters who supervised the

work of trainees from CETA and the Summer

Youth Program and the efforts of as many as 50

local volunteers. Similarly, the operation of the

greenhouse is carried out by 50 to 100 local volunteers and trainees, supervised by a paid staff.

The operation of the greenhouse is managed by

the three paid, full-time staff members, who spend

much of their time experimenting with different

solar greenhouse horticultural methods. Regular

volunteers have certain assigned tasks or responsibilities—the herb garden, for instance—but

much of their work is determined by the chores at

hand. Key staff decisions on greenhouse horticulture and operations are guided by the Greenhouse

Policy Advisory Committee, which in addition to

the staff includes several senior citizens and other

community representatives. Larger financial and

policy issues are decided by the 18-member board

of CALC, which includes 6 representatives elected

by the low-income segment of the community; 6

representatives of civic and community organizations, such as the League of Women Voters, Kiwanis Club, NAACP, and Latin-American Association; and 6 representatives of local governments,

including 3 city and 3 county commissioners or

their appointees.

Local government apparently favors the project,

but thus far has been unable to give it much support because of more pressing demands on its time

and resources. General community interest has

been high, and the staff has been pleasantly surprised by the interest shown and volunteer labor

donated by the wealthier segments of the community. Several hundred local residents visited the

site during the first year of operation, and the staff

offers tours of the facility as well as outdoor gardening classes and other outreach activities. Several members of the community have built their

own attached greenhouses after being involved in

the project, including one elderly volunteer who

built his at no cost with materials salvaged from

the local dump. Other local residents plan to do

so, and the staff, encouraged by these spinoffs,

have kept in touch with the builders and are currently developing workshops on solar greenhouse
80 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

operation and food production to stimulate further adoption of the technology.

Nevertheless, although the staff regularly uses

radio and other media to publicize the project,

many members of the community have never

heard of the greenhouse. Interviews with 15 elderly residents at the Laramie County Senior Citizens

Center revealed that only one of them had any

knowledge of CCSG, and the center’s director reported that, although their newsletter reached

over half of the area’s elderly population, only one

article about the greenhouse had appeared in it—

and the publication of this one article was at his

suggestion, not CALC’s. The director expressed

an interest in getting more of the center’s clients

involved in the greenhouse, but noted four major

barriers:

●

●

●

●

lack of coordination between CALC and the

center;

poor transportation services to the site;

senior citizens’ fears of venturing outside the

city limits, away from medical services and

friends; and

lack of interest on the part of some of the

elderly in any social activities, even those taking place in a hall adjacent to the center.

Essential Resources

Material inputs for the construction of the

Cheyenne greenhouse included land, building materials, labor, and a few pieces of specialized equipment. The 2.5-acre greenhouse site, as mentioned

above, was donated by a local family and thus

represented no cost; however, at the end of 10 or

20 years the land, the greenhouse, and any other

improvements on the site will revert to the owners. This is hardly an ideal arrangement, and other

communities might well consider the relative

benefits of short-term savings on land against the

long-term possession of their entire facility. CALC

had no choice in this instance; the terms of the

CSA grant did not permit purchase of the property.

Building materials represented a little over half

of the capital costs of the project and were purchased with CSA funds and a $2,000 grant from

Laramie County. Additional materials were donated by community sources, including the 55-gal

drums, which were donated by a local company.

Equipment costs consisted primarily of the methane digester, which was purchased with $6,000

from the CALC general fund. Additional equipment was donated or loaned by local sources.

Labor costs included $20,000 for two carpenter/

supervisors and $4,500 for Summer Work Program

workers. Additional labor was donated by local

volunteers and Youth Alternative workers. Detailed records of donated labor, materials, and

equipment are unavailable, but the CCSG staff

estimates that they were worth about half as much

as the recorded development costs.

Raw materials used in the production process

costs include soil, water, gardening tools, seeds, a

limited amount of electricity, containers for commercial potting, and the natural predators used for

pest control. With the exception of the seeds and

natural predators, all of these resources were

available locally at a relatively low cost. The

predators were in some cases purchased from commercial laboratories and suppliers, but no further

purchases will be necessary if stable and selfreproducing populations have been established in

the greenhouse. Many of the original seeds were

donated, and CCSG is now producing some of

their seed within the greenhouse from previous

crops. The topsoil excavated during the construction of the greenhouse was placed in its planting

beds after it was completed, and soil quality has

been continuously improved by the addition of

compost and nutrients. Water is drawn from a

nearby well and partially recycled in the greenhouse for reuse in irrigation. Water usage is dramatically reduced because of reduced evaporation:

field-grown tomatoes require 162,500 gal/ton of

fruit, compared to 11,700 gal/ton in a greenhouse,

a savings of almost 93 percent;8 this is an important consideration in semiarid areas like Wyoming, which receives an average of only 14.65

inches of precipitation annually. Electricity bills

for running the well pump, fans, and lights average between $10 and $20 per month.

‘James C. McCullagh,

Pa.: Rodale Press, 1978).

cd., The Solar Greenhouse Book (Emmaus,
Ch. 4–Food-producing Solar Greenhouses ● 81

Technical Information and Expertise

Although solar greenhouse technology appears

fairly simple when compared to some of the other

technologies studied in this assessment, such as

resource recovery (ch. 7) or wastewater treatment

(ch. 8), the design and construction of a greenhouse on this scale is fairly complex and may require knowledge and skills that are beyond the

reach of many local residents and social service

agencies.

CALC’s experience with their design consultants, DTI, shows that even with expert advice

problems do crop up. Although the training session and design workshop for the planning group

was conducted by CALC in conjunction with

DTI, and although the firm made the final revision of the plans for the greenhouse, two design

flaws seem to have found their way into the final

design. The first is inadequate ventilation, which

led to serious overheating problems during the

first summer of operation. DTI recommended the

installation of day curtains to keep out unwanted

summer heat, just as it had recommended the installation of night curtains to prevent winter heat

loss; both modifications would have required significant additional costs, however, and the CCSG

staff feels that day curtains would severely cut light

flow and thus inhibit plant growth.

A more serious problem involved the proposed

methane digester. DTI claimed that the digester

would produce enough methane to provide between 140,000 and 315,000 Btu/day in backup

heat. The CCSG staff, after consulting the Solar

Energy Research Institute in Golden, Colo., insisted that the maximum design capacity of the

digester was only 60,000 Btu/day, and that even

this level of output would require the addition of a

compressor and the extra cost of obtaining manure from local farms. Furthermore, the operation

of the digester would have required an estimated 2

man-hours per day of skilled staff time, which was

at a premium, and might have presented insurmountable training problems for volunteers.

Under these conditions, both the appropriateness

and the cost effectiveness of the digester were open

to question.

By far the greatest obstacle to the use of the

digester, however, was a fundamental design flaw:

as mentioned above, the methane storage tank

and the gas burner were placed in the same room,

creating a serious danger of an explosion. According to CALC and the CCSG staff, DTI was

responsible since it had drafted the final design

plans; for its part, DTI has complained that agencies like CALC are unable to deal with technical

difficulties. Cooperation between CALC and DTI

has ceased, and litigation is being pursued.

A greater degree of technical expertise among

the CALC and CCSG staffs during the design

and construction phases might have prevented

these design flaws and might have provided

greater learning opportunities for the members of

the construction crew. Nevertheless, public participation in the planning group as well as in the

construction and operation of the greenhouse has

served to create a pool of community residents

who are familiar with the principles of solar

greenhouse horticulture and experienced in the

design, construction, and operation of the

greenhouses. They have been a valuable source of

advice for residents who planned to build their

own attached greenhouses and have done a good

deal to promote the further dissemination and

adoption of the technology in Cheyenne.

Experience elsewhere has shown that this

grassroots approach to technology transfer can be

very effective. CSA, which has funded several

solar greenhouse projects, recommends “networking,” the sharing of information and experience

among local public agencies. Interviews with the

owners of attached solar greenhouses in New Mexico (see ch. 3) showed that 88 percent of them had

recommended the technology to their neighbors

and 55 percent of them knew of other attached

greenhouses that had been built as a result. They

also stressed the effectiveness of the workshop approach, in which neighbors come together for a

weekend to learn about and build a greenhouse, in

the dissemination of the technology.

Financing

The CCSG project was financed on a debt-free

basis, as were most of the New Mexico attached

solar greenhouses studied in the last chapter. But

where the New Mexico builders paid for their

greenhouses out of pocket, the Cheyenne greenhouse has been financed primarily by Federal
82 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

grants. Construction costs were met by two grants

from CSA (an initial grant of $42,700 in 1976, followed by a continuation grant of $13,800 in 1977)

and $6,000 from CALC's general fund (which also

comes from CSA), plus a $2,000 grant from Laramie County. Operating expenses for 1978 were

paid by another $23,000 from the CALC general

fund, an estimated $15,000 in CETA and Green

Thumb funds, and about $500 in sales revenues

(which was used for incidental expenses such as

seeds and office supplies).

An additional, unrecognized source of financing

is the volunteer labor and materials donated by

local residents and firms. These, too, represent an

investment of local resources in the project, and

unless they are included the actual cost of the

greenhouse is obscured not only 

from the local

developers but also from potential users in other

communities. Similarly, no dollar figures were

available on the cost savings made possible by

CCSG’s donations of food to local meals programs

or on the intangible benefits of job training, improved nutrition, offender rehabilitation, or activities for the elderly. The adoption of accounting

practices which quantify both the investment of

nonmonetary resources and the return of intangible benefits would help clarify the financial

unknowns and risks involved in such projects.

CALC chose Government grants as its source

of financing for three reasons: 1) they were

available; 2) they were debt-free; and 3) it was

assumed that local banks would not finance a project before its operation began and before its

economic viability could be ascertained. Since the

“commercial” section of the greenhouse has as yet

generated no significant revenue, it appears highly

unlikely that financial institutions would invest in

it, either. Attached solar greenhouses might be

Federal

Background

No existing Federal legislation deals principally

or specifically with food-producing solar greenhouses. Nor, it appears, are there any prospects for

legislative action on this subject in the near future.

The House Agriculture Committee, for instance,

economically feasible for private individuals, particularly if they were given tax incentives; but a

mixed social service/commercial project on the

scale of CCSG must necessarily resort to a grant,

at least for its capital costs. Lack of Government

subsidies would bar the development of similar

projects unless grant funding could be obtained

from private foundations.

Institutional Factors

As has been seen, local governments were able

to give the CCSG project only limited support,

but they did not oppose it. The only opposition

came from the owner of a commercial greenhouse,

who feared that he would lose part of his market

for plants and flowers. Coordination with other

social service agencies left much to be desired, but

presented no barrier to implementation. Nor did

building codes, OSHA regulations, or other local

and Federal regulations pose serious obstacles to

the development of the greenhouse. Because of the

design error with the methane digester, no insurance company would cover the greenhouse without assurances that the digester would not be used;

but with a properly designed digester–or in the

absence of such equipment—obtaining insurance

would probably create few serious problems for a

project of this sort.

Perhaps the most significant institutional factor

in the development of the Cheyenne greenhouse,

and the most important issue affecting its transferability to other communities, concerns the character of CALC itself. This agency seems to be

extraordinarily committed to exploring innovative

ways of responding to the needs of its constituents.

The presence of these same qualities may well be a

vital requirement in any attempt to duplicate the

Cheyenne experience.

Policy

is not considering any proposals on solar greenhouses; and if the committee considers them in the

future, according to one staff member, they would

probably be more interested in their potential for

saving energy rather than growing crops.9 This at9Gary Norton, assistant counsel, House Committee on Agriculture, personal communication, July 31, 1980.
Ch. 4–Food-Producing Solar Greenhouses ● 83

titude seems to be shared by other congressional

committees and Federal agencies, and it appears to

result from: 1) an overwhelming preoccupation

with the energy crisis and measures to alleviate it,

and 2) a greater emphasis on the national economy and international competitiveness rather

than local development and the delivery of community services.

Although no legislation directly addresses the

subject, however, a number of acts contain provisions, that indirectly or implicitly support the

development of food-producing solar greenhouses.

These acts include:

● the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964;

● the consolidated Farmers Home Administration Act;

● the Rural Development Act of 1972; and

● the Housing and Community Development

Act, as amended in 1978.

These are the primary Acts upon which various

Federal agencies have based their programs of

funding, information dissemination, and a limited

amount of research (much of it aimed at energy

conservation) for food-producing solar greenhouses.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development, through its Office of Neighborhood SelfHelp Development, gathers and disseminates technical information that will be useful to communities in revitalizing local neighborhoods and providing services and products needed by local residents. The Office has provided funds for a series of

publications on energy and urban gardening prepared by the Civic Action Institute, one of these

publications, “Neighborhood Food Programs,” includes some information on the possible use of

solar greenhouses as a part of such programs. 10

The Department of Commerce, through the

Economic Development Administration, has provided funds for the construction of at least one

food-producing greenhouse, a controversial hybrid solar/hydroponic project of the Kickapoo

tribe in Oklahoma.11 VISTA volunteers regularly

assist low-income groups in the development of

IOMatt Andrea, Office Of Neighborhood Self-Help Development,

Department of Housing and Urban Development, personal communication.

I I Mb Hathaway, Cherokee Nation, personal communication.

alternative energy projects such as solar heaters,

alcohol stills, and solar greenhouses; it is unclear,

however, whether they have tried to exploit the

latter’s food-producing potential.12 The National

Science Foundation (NSF) has also sponsored a

limited amount of research on the application of

alternative technologies to agriculture and urban

gardening. 13

USDA, despite its mandated concentration on

food production and its responsibility for administering the many Federal food programs, has

no specific programs to investigate or develop

food-producing solar greenhouses. This is not to

say that USDA ignores greenhouses entirely: its

Farmers Home Administration makes loans available for the construction of solar greenhouses, and

the Department has a few small research efforts

underway, but the focus of both loans and research is on energy savings. This emphasis reflects

the source of finding: USDA “mostly takes its

marching orders from the Department of Energy”

(DOE), which provides the funds for energy research and demonstration projects and then turns

many of them over to USDA for management .*4

An indirect but increasingly important source

of support for food-producing solar greenhouses,

however, has been the Federal food aid programs

administered by USDA. Until the 1960’s, these

programs were relatively small and were directed

toward the needs of the American farmer. By the

late 1960’s, it had become clear that domestic

hunger and malnutrition were far more serious

than had previously been recognized. In 1967,

after a series of national inquiries, it was estimated

that “some 10 million to 15 million low-income

Americans were suffering from gross malnutrition

while millions of others were skirting nutritional

collapse due to borderline deficiencies. ”15 Other

studies suggested that malnutrition was a major

IzScot Sklar, National Center for Appropriate Technology, personal communication.

13See Ann Becker, “Appropriate Technology and Agriculture in

the United States,” background paper for Appropriate Technology in

the United Stares—An Exploratory Study, prepared by Integrative Design Associates, Inc., for the National Science Foundation, Research

Applied to National Needs, grant No. 76-21350, 1977.

14Bill Hougart, David FeId, et al., Farmers Home Administration,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, personal communication.

15”A Preliminary Report to Congress on the Community Food and

Nutrition Program of the Community Services Administration,” op.

cit., p. 1.
84 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

factor leading to unemployability and chronic

dependence on public assistance programs.

In response to these and other findings, Congress created a number of large new nutrition and

food aid programs, including the Food Stamp Program (which now costs $12 billion per year) and

the School Breakfast and School Lunch Programs

administered by USDA. At the same time, Congress also created a relatively tiny program—the

Emergency Food and Medical Services Program–

to be carried out by the Office of Economic Opportunity, which has since been renamed the

Community Services Administration.

Food Production and Solar Greenhouse

Programs of the Community Services

Administration

The Office of Economic Opportunity was created by the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964

and was renamed the Community Services Administration (CSA) in 1974. A part of President

Johnson’s “war on poverty,” it was originally designed to reach the poor directly by bypassing

State and local governments and distributing

funds to grassroots organizers. Some 900 community action agencies (CAAs), almost one for

every county in the Nation, have been set up to

provide jobs for the poor and to provide information and financial support for projects that will

lead to local self-sufficiency. These programs are

intended to break the cycle of poverty by promoting community independence, employment, and

long-term economic development.

Because of its strong grassroots orientation CSA

also provided a mechanism for distributing other

forms of Federal assistance. According to one

CSA official, the CAAs and their respective programs became:

. . . vehicles for delivering the services of other

agencies, such as the CETA programs for the Department of Labor, the weatherization programs of

the Department of Energy, and the Head Start

program of the former Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. We have the network and the

outreach people, other agencies have programs; so

we broker the services. We are an action clearinghouse of sorts. That’s fine, but it takes us away

from our goal and puts us into a welfare slot when

we’re supposed

fare trap.16

An example

ciency and its

to be getting people out of the welof CSA’s emphasis on self-suffirole as a local “action clearinghouse” is its Community Food and Nutrition Program (CFNP). Originally established as the Emergency Food and Medical Services Program under

section 222(a)(1) of the Economic Opportunity

Act of 1964, it now operates under the following

mandate:

. . . improve the delivery of food and nutrition

services by other agencies, to mobilize other antihunger resources both public and private, to coordinate anti-hunger activities at all levels of government, to develop new approaches to the problem

of hunger among the poor, and to do all of this in

the context of promoting ultimate self-sufficiency

for those among the poor who are capable of becoming self-sufficient. 17

Recent estimates suggest that the average lowincome family spends over 50 percent of its income

on food, compared with a national average of less

than 20 percent; as many as 40 percent of those

who are eligible, however, still do not participate

in the Food Stamp Program.18 This and other food

aid programs provide significant economic benefits

to low-income families by freeing up additional income, but the emphasis of most of the programs is

on providing immediate relief and short-term

maintenance—”welfare’’—rather than investing

public and private resources in projects that will

lead to long-term economic development and independence. CFNP, on the other hand, tries to

promote better nutrition and local self-sufficiency

at the same time through its efforts to develop:

. . . the ability of low-income people to produce,

preserve, purchase, or market their own foodstuffs.

These foodstuffs may and often do supplement

those provided by Federal feeding programs or by

private sector institutions . . . . Activities eligible

for funding under this [program] include but are

not limited to: (1) Conservation, distribution, and

utilization of foodstuffs, such as (i) Organizing fam16Mar~hal]~arman, Cornrnunity Food and Nutrition program,

Community Services Administration, personal communication.

17”A Preliminary Report on the Community Food and Nutrition

Program of the Community Services Administration,” op. cit.

161bid. p. 35; Community Services Administration, “community

Food and Nutrition Program, Final Rules,” Federal Register, pt. IV,

vol. 45, No. 99, May 20, 1980, p, 33798.
Ch. 4–Food-Producing Solar Greenhouses ● 85

ily and community gardens . . . . [and] (iii) Establishing greenhouses, canneries, etc.19

Other provisions in CSA’s mandate call for providing more assistance to small-scale and part-time

growers and for promoting the use of idle Federal,

State, and local land for food production, especially by the poor.20 As a result, CFNP and other

CSA programs have promoted community gardens, food cooperatives, pick-your-own farms, and

farmers’ markets (see ch. 6), as well as solar

greenhouses and other relatively sophisticated

food-production technologies. While CSA is interested in the technology of projects like solar greenhouses, it is more interested in the jobs that a community greenhouse might provide, the food it

could produce, and the subsequent improvements

in nutrition, food and energy costs, and general

economic well-being that might result from its

development.

CSA does not have a well-developed research

program. It is primarily a funding source for selfsufficiency projects, and as such it does not demand the kind of detailed data that an agency like

NSF or DOE might require from a research project. Neither has it been able to persuade USDA or

the land-grant universities to undertake any

significant research on alternative technologies

that would be appropriate to these small-scale, selfsufficient projects.

21 CSA has been unable to

gather a body of information or experience on

greenhouse design or horticultural methods, and a

number of the solar greenhouses built by local

CAAs have been too small for effective food production or energy conservation. A further criticism has been that when local CAAs build greenhouses they often give little or no training in how

to manage and use them and seldom follow up on

the project to deal with problems or monitor performance. 22

19’’Community Food and Nutrition Program, Final Rules,” op. cit.,

p. 33791.

‘“Ibid.

21 R oger Blobaum, AT consultant, personal communication, JUIY

24, 1980. It should be pointed out, however, that the horticulture department at Pennsylvania State University is currently evaluating

several solar greenhouse designs for the commercial production of

vegetables and flowers, and that a book on the same subject has

recently been published by Michigan State University Press (Wittwer

and Honma, Greenhouse Tomatoes, Lettuce and Cucumbers, 1979).

22 Bob Hathaway, Cherokee Nation, personal cOrnrnunication.

CSA is now taking steps to fill in some of the

gaps in the technical information about solar

greenhouse design and food production. The

National Center for Appropriate Technology

(NCAT), which is almost entirely funded by CSA,

is currently conducting two research programs

that will generate data on solar greenhouses. The

first is the Solar Utility Economic Development

and Employment Program (SUEDE), which is a

good example of CSA’s function as an “action

clearinghouse:” the program was conceived and

funded by CSA; the Department of Labor provides workers through the CETA Program; DOE

pays for materials; and NCAT is monitoring all of

the 15 individual projects, several of which are

solar greenhouses. NCAT set the standards for

evaluation and is looking at how the projects were

constructed, how they perform, and what potential they have for wider application.23 The second

program is the New England Solar Greenhouse

Monitoring Program, in which NCAT is gathering data on 18 separate greenhouse projects in

order to generate information on:

. indoor and outdoor temperature ranges;

. energy consumption for operation and backup heating;

. reduction in fuel consumption when a solar

greenhouse is attached to a residential structure; and

. crop productivity.

NCAT has had difficulty in analyzing the results

of the New England program, however, because of

the great differences in the designs of the greenhouses and the varying expertise of the people

who built and used them.24 Furthermore, not all

of the greenhouses are used for food production,

and crop yield data is a low priority.

Issues and Options

Food-producing solar greenhouses have the potential of increasing the availability of locally produced vegetables, which might in turn improve

nutrition, lower food costs, and reduce the energy

consumed in growing, processing, and transportZjScott Sklar, National Center for Appropriate Technology, wsonal communication.

24Andy Shapiro, “NCAT New England Solar Greenhouse Monitoring Program—Second Progress Report,” National Center for

Appropriate Technology, Sept. 1, 1980.
86 ● Assessment of Technologyfor Local Development

ing these vegetables from remote growing areas.

The horticultural methods used in these greenhouses also promise to use less chemical fertilizers,

less pesticides, and less water than conventional

methods; in addition, their solar design may reduce the economic and energy costs of operating

the greenhouses. Finally, by achieving all of these

goals in a context of self-sufficiency, community

greenhouses promise to provide jobs, teach valuable skills, develop the local economic base, and

reduce the dependence of elderly and low-income

citizens on Government services and assistance

programs.

Principal barriers relate to the gathering and

dissemination of detailed information on the energy-saving and food-producing features of the

greenhouses. Problems also exist in promoting

serious consideration of this technology by community groups and the financial community, as

well as in providing technical advice and assistance for their development.

ISSUE 1:

Technical Information on the

Potential Effectiveness of Solar

Greenhouse Technology.

The single most serious barrier to the widespread adoption of this technology 

is the lack of

reliable data on the design of solar greenhouses

and on their potential for saving energy and producing food crops. CSA has a mandate to improve

programs of community assistance, including

small-scale food production. However, DOE,

USDA’s Extension Service, and the land-grant

colleges are doing very little research on the design, performance, and crop yields of solar greenhouses or on the identification and breeding of

greenhouse crop varieties. Local CAAs and community groups seldom have the funds, the manpower, or the expertise to undertake formal scientific monitoring programs, but thus far the results

have been limited in scale and difficult to assess.

Option 1-A: Designate a Central Clearing.

house for information on Solar Greenhouse

Technology.–NCAT might be a logical clearinghouse for gathering technical information on

solar greenhouse design and horticultural methods. Its present monitoring projects may provide a

preliminary data base, and it is already grappling

with the difficulties of analyzing data from different designs, conditions, and user behaviors. A

simple, standardized format would allow operators

to report details of greenhouse design, operation,

local weather conditions, and other useful information. Data on crop varieties planted, growing

conditions, time to harvest, and yields would also

aid in evaluating different plant varieties and

horticultural methods. A designated central clearinghouse could disseminate as well as gather information on greenhouse methods and performance, thereby giving technical assistance to present operators and providing necessary information

to potential operators and developers.

Option 1-B: Support or Expand Existing

Monitoring Programs.–NCAT’s current

SUEDE and New England monitoring programs

will yield useful information, but they are studying

a limited number of individual projects. Additional funds might be made available for a more

extensive monitoring effort, either by NCAT or

by local CAAs.

Option 1-C: Redirect Existing Research.–

USDA has recently announced plans to increase

funding for research on organic farming methods.

Since many solar greenhouses and community

gardens use organic methods, Congress may wish

to direct USDA to target some of these funds

specifically for the investigation of methods and

plant varieties appropriate to greenhouse horticulture.

Option 1-D: Fund Additional Research.–

It may be productive to investigate the cost effectiveness of community solar greenhouse projects

versus that of more conventional food aid and

economic assistance programs. Depending on the

results, Congress might wish to authorize additional funds for R&D on improved solar greenhouse designs, crop varieties, and effective horticultural methods.

ISSUE 2:

Coordination of Existing Programs of

Technical Assistance.

As discussed above, a number of Federal agencies have programs that offer some form of assistance or support for community greenhouses and
Ch. 4–Food-Producing Solar Greenhouses ● 87

gardens. These different agencies and their local

representatives have not always had adequate expertise in the development of such projects, however, nor has their training and followup performance always been satisfactory. There is at present

little coordination between these programs; in addition, their very diversity presents a barrier to

local organizers, who often do not know what assistance is available to them or what eligibility requirements they must meet.

Option 2-A: Designate a Lead Agency.–

This option is resisted by both the agencies and

their clients, primarily for financial reasons. As

noted earlier, DOE is the focal point for energy

programs which are the likeliest source of funding

for solar greenhouse projects. Money is given to

DOE, which takes an overhead slice and then forwards the balance to USDA or some other agency

for the management of the various projects. Because of travel cutbacks and manpower shortages,

however, USDA cannot inspect or monitor the

projects directly and must hire contractors to perform these tasks. By the time DOE, USDA, and

the contractors have all taken out funds to cover

their overhead and expenses, only 50 percent of

the original funds may be left for the actual project.25 In addition, the Government may often Pay

more than necessary for the greenhouse construction it does support because of the lack of available

personnel who understand both the potential of

the technology and the needs and conditions of

the local community. 26

Option 2-B: Designate a Central Clearinghouse for information on Federal Assist.

ance.–A designated clearinghouse for the gathering and dissemination of technical information on

solar greenhouses (outlined above) could also serve

as a clearinghouse for information on the financial

and technical assistance that is available through

other Federal agencies and programs, since it

would already be in contact with both the existing

projects and the potential developers. CSA’s

grassroots network of local CAAs make it the obvious candidate to manage both types of clearz~paul Sleusner, U.S. Department of Agriculture, personal communication.

zs~b Hathaway, Cherokee Nation, personal communication.

inghouses; specific operating responsibility for

both technical and assistance information might

be assigned to NCAT.

ISSUE 3:

Providing Financial Support for the

Development of Community Solar

Greenhouses.

As with most other small-scale technologies,

even those whose goal is self-sufficiency, there is a

shortage of front-end financing for the construction of solar greenhouses. Tax credits exist for

residential energy-conservation measures, but

none exist for food production; and tax credits are

least useful to low-income families, whose need is

greatest, because they seldom have access to capital to invest in these measures. Community projects like the Cheyenne greenhouse also lack access

to capital from conventional sources. Banks are

hesitant to finance such unusual projects, especially when there is little data on the technology

involved. The CALC organizers went after Federal grants for their project because they were

available and debt-free; they assumed that no

other financing would be available, and they may

have been correct in this assumption.

Option 3-A: Increase Tax Incentives.–

Congress could choose to make attached solar

greenhouses eligible for residential tax credits or

tax deductions; this might be done through directives to the Internal Revenue Service, which at

present will not allow claims for solar greenhouses,

whether for energy-saving or food-producing purposes. However, this option would probably 

require an amendment to the Income Tax Code of

1954.

Option 3-B: Increase Markets.—Another

option for congressional action would be to increase markets for locally grown produce by encouraging Federal food programs and other Federal agencies to procure vegetables and produce from

local producers wherever possible, with a special

attention to community, cooperative, and other

nonprofit producers. This might be accomplished

through Federal procurement guidelines similar to

those for recycled materials.
Chapter 5

Small Farm Systems
Contents

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Alternative Energy Technologies (I)–

Energy From Biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

A Case Study of the New Life Farm, Drury,

Me. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

The Community Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

The New Life Farm Systems of Technologies . . . . . 96

NLF Methane Digester Design and Performance. . . 97

Biogas Applications and Economics. . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Alternative Energy Technologies (II)–

On farm Solar Applications . ............101

A Case Study of the Small Farm Energy

Project, Cedar County, Nebr. . ..........102

The Community Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

The SFEP Innovation Strategy . ..............104

SFEP Innovator Energy Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Critical Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Public Perception and Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Essential Resources. . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . . 112

Technical Information and Expertise. . . . . . . . . . . 113

Financing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Institutional Factors. . . . . . . . . . ., , . . . . . . . . . . 114

Federal Policy . . . . . . . . .................116

Background .., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., . 116

Rural Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Energy Self-Sufficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Issues and Options . . . ., . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . 118

List of Tables

Table No). Page

11. Daily Yields From Several Biogas Digester

Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

12. Technical and Economic Data for Three RGP

Digesters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

13. Nutrient Content and Output of NLF

Phytomass Digester. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

14. Capital Costs for Two Farm Digester Systems. . 101

15. Energy Cost From Farm Digester. . . . . . . . . . . 101

16. Socioeconomic and Agricultural Profile of

Nebraska, Cedar County, and the Small

Farm Energy Project ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

17. Types of Projects Adopted by Innovating Farmers

Under the Small Farm Energy Project, 1977-79.105

List of Figures

Figure No. Page

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

Potential Bioenergy Supplies . , . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Types of Animal Manure. . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . , 93

NLF/RGP Biogas Plant #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

NLF Phytomass Digester Operating

Performance . . . . . . ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Portable Solar Collector . . . . . . . . , ... , . . . . 106

Home-Built Compost Turners . . . . , . . . . . . . . 107

Solar Grain Dryers . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . 109

Solar Dairy Water Heater . , . . . . . . . . . . ., . . 110

Solar-Heated Farrowing Barn . . . . . . . . . , ., . 110

Solar Window-Box Collector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Solar Food Dryer ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
CHAPTER 5

Small Farm Systems

Introduction

The last chapter dealt with solar greenhouse

technology as an alternative for family and community food production. This chapter and the

next will deal with small-scale alternatives to largescale, energy-intensive agricultural technologies—

this chapter with systems by which the small farmer can reduce his energy costs and increase the selfsufficiency of his food-producing operations, and

chapter 6 with the local farmers’ market as a way

for the small farmer to increase his profits by selling directly to the consumer.

Few trends since World War II have been more

thoroughly documented—or more generally lamented—than the decline of the small family farm.

A number of economic factors have contributed

to this trend. The rapidly increasing cost of farmland (amortization and interest) has been the most

important of these factors, because it makes farming more capital intensive and thereby encourages

large-scale ownership. Rising energy costs and general inflation over the last decade have also made

small-scale farming increasingly precarious. The

three major costs (other than land) associated with

farming are feed for livestock, fertilizer for the soil,

and energy to run farm machinery and heat buildings. Rising petroleum prices affect the first factor

indirectly and the last two directly; the combination has had a drastic impact on the economic viability of the small farm. Some larger farmers, with

more assets to borrow against, have been in a better position to ride out the current cost-price

squeeze; corporate growers in some cases have

been able to balance increased costs with increased

profits from other sectors of the food industry,

such as processing, packaging, and distribution.

Small farmers have not had these options, and

many of them, especially on the fringes of expanding urban centers, have felt compelled to sell their

land to developers. According to the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), about 24 million acres of rural

land were converted to housing developments,

reservoirs, or highways between 1967 and 1975—

an area about the size of the State of Indiana. 1

About half of this land was either active cropland

or high-quality rural land that could have been

turned into productive cropland with a relatively

small investment. Recent figures suggest that rural

land continues to be converted to these same uses

at a rate of about 1 million acres per year.2 No

figures are available on how much of this acreage

has come from small-scale farms, but the small

farmer, who generally has been most vulnerable,

has had the greatest economic incentive to give up

his land.

Two ways to improve the viability of the small

family farm would be to develop local markets

where the small farmer can get a higher return on

his produce (see ch. 6) and to develop local, lowcost sources of energy, fertilizer, and livestock

feed. This chapter discusses two such attempts to

reduce energy costs and increase the self-sufficiency of the small farm. The first is the New Life

Farm, a research and educational center in the

Ozark Mountains near Drury, Me., which is developing alternative energy sources and energyconserving farming techniques. The second is the

Small Farm Energy Project in Cedar County,

Nebr., a 3-year research and demonstration program that is intended to show the impact of

proven alternative energy technologies and conservation techniques upon the energy consumption and production costs of small-scale, lowincome farmers.

IJefferey Zinn, “Farmland Protection Legislation,” Library of Congress issue brief No. IB7801, May 29, 1980, p. 1.

‘Julian L. Simon, “Resources, Population, Environment: An Oversupply of Bad News,” Sctence, vol. 208, No. 4451, June 27, 1980, p.

1435.

91
92 Assessment of Technology for Local Development

Alternative Energy Technologies (l)–

Energy From Biomass

A recent OTA report on the energy potential of

biomass concluded that:

Energy from the conversion of wood and other

plant matter represents an important underexploited resource in the United States. As renewable, abundant, and domestic resources, these and

other sources of biomass can help the United

States reduce its dependence on imported oil. The

amount of energy supplied by biomass, now relatively small, could expand rapidly in the next two

decades–a period when the Nation’s energy problems will be particularly acute.3

Biomass currently produces about 1.5 Quads4

per year, or about 2 percent of the U.S. 1979 energy consumption of 79.7 Quads/yr, primarily from

the direct combustion of wood in the forest products industry and, to a lesser degree, in home

heating.

By the year 2000, between 6 and 17 Quads/yr

could be produced from biomass sources, depending on a number of factors including how much

cropland is used for food productions This represents between 8 and 22 percent of current domestic consumption, by comparison, imported oil

and natural gas supplied about 23 percent of U.S.

energy consumption in 1979. Assuming that U.S.

consumption rises to 100 Quads/yr by 2000, energy from biomass could make a significant contribution to the administration’s goal of 20 percent

solar and renewable sources for that year.

Figure 15 shows the six major sources of biomass

energy and their relative contributions to the high

and low estimates of potential bioenergy supplies.

(Energy from municipal solid waste, another potentiall y significant source, is discussed in ch. 7.)

The three major processes for converting these

sources into usable forms of energy are: 1) direct

combustion and gasification; 2) distillation into

JEnfla From 13~0/Oglca/ Processes (Washington, D. C.: Office of

Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, July 1980), OTA-E-125, p. 3.

4A Quad equa]s 1 quadrillion (1015) Btu. This is approximately

equal to the energy of 10 million bbl of crude oil, 50 million tons of

coal, or the typical annual output of eighteen 1,000-MW electrical

powerplants.

~EnerO From Bioiogica/ Processes, op. cit., PP. 13-14.

alcohol; and 3) anaerobic digestion to produce

biogas.

Direct combustion of wood is the most widespread application of bioenergy today, with between 1.2 and 1.3 Quads/yr used for process energy in the forest products industry and another 0.2

to 0.4 Quad/yr used in home heating and fireplaces. These uses are likely to expand considerably in response to rising energy prices, even

without new Government incentives. Gasification

of wood and herbage (i.e., grass and crop residues)

could be more practical than direct combustion

for supplying process heat, particularly in industrial applications. The widespread adoption of this

technology could depend on the development of

reliable, mass-produced gasifiers that could be attached to gas- or oil-fired boilers. Both gasification

and direct combustion could compete with other

uses of forest products, however, and would compete with coal in many industrial applications.

Alcohol fuels can be produced from a wide variety of biomass feedstocks, and they are the only renewable source of liquid fuels for transportation

that uses available technology.6 Ethanol (grain

alcohol) is already being produced from grains and

sugar crops as an octane-boosting additive to gasoline. About 50 million gal of fuel ethanol were

distilled in 1979, and installed capacity may be as

high as 200 million gal by the end of 1980; but

with domestic gasoline consumption at 110 billion

gal/yr, ethanol is a small addition to current U.S.

fuel needs.7 Production could reach 10 billion

gal/yr (enough to blend 100 billion gal of gasohol)

by 2000, but production of more than 1 billion or

2 billion gal/yr could put ethanol in competition

with other uses of grain and have serious inflationary impacts on the price of food and animal

feed.8 Methanol (wood alcohol) can be produced

from grasses and crop residues as well as from

wood; no large-scale production facilities currently

61bid,, p. b; S& alwOTA’S technical memorandum, G~oho~

(Washington, D.C.: Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, September 1979), OTA-TM-E-1.

TEner~ Frm Biological Processes, p. 87.

‘Ibid,:p. 100.
Ch. 5–Small Farm Systems ● 93

Figure 15.—Potential Bioenergy Supplies (not

including speculative sources or municipal wastes)

Animal

Ethanol from grains manure

and sugar crops

1/

Agricultural

2 %

\

processing

wastes

High total = 17 Quads/yr

Agricultural

Animal processing

manure wastes

20/0 1 %

Low total = 6 Quads/yr

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

exist, however, and it is also estimated that methanol can be produced from coal at about half the

cost of biomass conversion.9

Anaerobic digestion of biomass produces biogas, a

burnable mixture of about 60 percent methane

and 40 percent carbon dioxide. Potential feedstocks include municipal sewage and solid organic

wastes, certain grasses and aquatic plants, and

animal manure. OTA estimates the energy potential of manure alone at 0.2 to 0.3 Quad/yr (see

figure 16).10 Anaerobic digestion of manure is also

Figure 16.—Types of Animal Manure From

Confined Animal Operation

Total energy potential = 0.2 -0.3 Quad/yr

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment from K. Smith, et al., “Animal

Wastes,” contractor report to OTA, March 1979.

an efficient waste treatment process whose byproducts can be used as a soil conditioner or dewatered

for use as animal bedding, and may have potential

as a high-protein feed supplement. In addition, the

manure/biogas fuel cycle does not compete with

the production of other commodities; instead, it

makes use of an existing, underexploited resource

without destroying its value for other uses. 11

gIbld., p. 103, table 9.

IOIbid., p. 123.

1 IIbid., p. 12.
94 ● Assesmen of Technology for Local Development

This biomass fuel cycle is best suited to smallscale exploitation because of the dispersed nature

of the resource base:

About 75 percent of the manure resource is on

animal operations of 1,000 head of cattle or less (or

the equivalent for other animals such as swine, turkeys, chickens, and dairy cows), and 50 percent is

on operations one-tenth this size or smaller. Only

15 percent of the manure resource occurs on large

feedlots of the equivalent of more than 10,000 head

of cattle. Because manure cannot be economically

transported for long distances, exploiting the manure resource will require digester designs suitable

for relatively small animal operations. Important

features of these digesters will be automatic operation and low installation cost.12

121bid., p. 127.

In short, anaerobic digestion of animal wastes is

a technology whose resource base makes it particularly appropriate for small-scale onfarm applications. There is still a need to develop and demonstrate a variety of digester designs in order to improve their flexibility and reliability, reduce their

capital costs, determine the biogas yield and effluent characteristics of different feedstocks, and

explore alternative applications for both biogas

and byproducts. The following case study examines the efforts of one group of Missouri farmers to

develop digesters suitable to their needs.

A Case Study of the New Life Farm, Drury, M0.

13

The Community Setting

The Ozark region of southwestern Missouri is

sparsely populated and affords a poor living for

most of its residents. The hills have been heavily

logged or cleared for fields and pastures, and much

of the land is badly eroded, leaving few acres of

good farmland. A large portion of the land is used

for hog- and cattle-raising, but even these operations are only marginally profitable. Overgrazing

has led to further erosion.

The traditional small farmers in the area are

conservative and tend to distrust outsiders. They

feel cut off from their fellow Missourians to the

north, who tend to own larger and more productive dairy and hog farms, and often joke about

seceding from Missouri and joining Arkansas.

They are particularly distrustful of State and

Federal officials and feel that they are being shortchanged by the various farm assistance programs

in the area.

The New Life Farmers, by contrast, are by and

large young and college-educated. Many are from

IJMuch of the material in this case study is based on a working

paper, “New Life Farm, Drury, Missouri,” prepared by Michael

Fischer and Michael Swack for the Harvard Workshop on Appropriate Technology for Community Development, Department of City

and Regional Planning, Harvard University, May 15, 1979.

urban backgrounds and came to the Ozarks as

part of the “back to the land” movement in the

late 1960’s. Few of them joined communes, however; for the most part, they came alone or with

their families to set up farms. They were interested

in self-reliance and living in harmony with nature,

but many had little experience with rural living or

farming techniques.

One of these young farmers was Ted Landers,

who purchased a 240-acre farm near Drury in

1972. Landers has degrees in both engineering and

business, as well as an interest in organic gardening and alternative sources of energy. Soon after

buying his farm, Landers began building a methane digester and solar air and water heaters. His

work attracted the attention of other young farmers with similar interests, who began working with

him.

Development

After several years, as the young farmers became more experienced, many of them wanted to

share what they had learned with others who had

similar interests. Some of them also wanted a

chance to use their skills in research and community organizing without having to take conventional, full-time jobs. They set about organizing
Ch. 5–Small Farm Systems ● 95

Photo credit: New Life Farm

New Life Farm, Drury, Mo.

New Life Farm (NLF) as a community institution

with a number of goals:

●

●

●

●

pursuing R&D techniques that could be used

by local farmers to improve the productivity

of their land while maintaining the natural

balance of the ecosystem;

acting as an educational center for training in

these technologies and assistance in implementing them;

providing periodic employment for laborers,

researchers, and managers from the community; and

serving as a focal point for community services like day-care and for activities such as

theater groups and crafts collectives.

NLF was incorporated in the spring of 1978 as a

tax-exempt, nonprofit educational and research

organization. Its bylaws require members to contribute 6 days of work on the farm each quarter,

and those who have done so for three of the last

four quarters may run for the board of directors

and vote on project decisions and changes in the

bylaws. There were 40 members in November

1979, and members have served on the county

Soil and Water Board and local University Extension Service advisory panel. One member teaches

at the local university, and another has run for

public office at the State level.

NLF has four major projects currently underway, two of which involve the development of

methane or biogas digesters. 14 These devices consist of sealed tanks which are loaded with manure,

grass, or other crop wastes; the organic material

decomposes into a high-quality liquid fertilizer and

a burnable gas that can be used in place of propane or natural gas for heating and cooking. The

“Rural Gasification Project,” funded bya$155,000

grant from the Community Services Administration (CSA), will design and build 20 such digesters, 4 in each of five regions across the country, for

low-income farmers who will pay 10 percent of the

cost. NLF is also involved in a joint research effort

with University of Missouri faculty at Rolla to test

and evaluate the performance of a large batchloaded phytomass (or plant material) digester

under a variety of circumstances. This project,

funded by a 3-year, $230,000 grant from the Department of Energy (DOE), will try to determine

what type of crops produce what types of gas and

14 De~cript10ns of these projects are based on various New Life Farm

brochures and discussions with members.
96 . Assessment of Technology for Local Development

fertilizer, as well as how the application of the fertilizer affects crop productivity over the long term.

Another project is the “Why Flush? Water

Quality Conservation Project,” which is funded

primarily by the Rockefeller Foundation.15 It is

designed to educate the public on alternatives to

current methods of handling sewage, with particular attention to onsite treatment systems such

as comporting toilets. NLF’s fourth project is

“Solar Heating Made Easy,” a joint effort with

Southwest Missouri State University, which is

funded by the U.S. Office of Education’s Community Service and Continuing Education program. The project runs 2-day workshops throughout the State, during which a class of about 10

trainees is shown by NLF members how to install

a simple, low-cost solar space or water heater in

the home. (See chs. 3 and 4 for discussions of the

workshop approach.)

The New Life Farm Systems

of Technologies16

One of the unique features of the NLF approach

is the way in which the technologies will be integrated into larger systems. Each technology becomes a component in a cyclic process whereby

the byproducts of one stage (energy and/or materials) become the inputs for the next stage. Although some waste is inevitable, a well-designed

cycle needs very few inputs of energy or materials

from outside the system and produces very little

waste that is not reclaimed. Conventional technologies, by contrast, can consume many external

inputs and discard large volumes of wastes as

solids, sewage, or air pollution. The NLF approach

is intended to be less costly and gentler on the

environment.

The NLF biogas project, which was selected for

study in this report, illustrates how technologies

can be integrated into a cyclical system. It comlsThe prOject has received a $3,750 grant from the Rockefeller

Foundation and $500 from the National Demonstration Water Project.

I’%forrnation on thew technologies was supplied by Ted Landers

of New Life Farm, but performance projections are based on limited

data. For example, the quality and quantity of gas and sludge produced from different materials under different conditions is the subject of considerable debate. Landers claims that his estimates are conservative and is trying to confirm them through controlled experiments, but a great deal of research remains to be done.

bines alternative farming methods, fertilizer production, waste disposal, and energy production into a unified system designed not only for the needs

of the small farmer but also for the ecology of the

region.

The geology of the Ozarks, with a thin topsoil

over a porous limestone base makes surface waste

disposal difficult and possibly hazardous to health.

Manure and sewage, which may still contain pathogens (disease-causing micro-organisms), and

chemical fertilizers can pass quickly through the

limestone without adequate elimination of pollutants, making groundwater pollution a potentially

serious problem. The thin topsoil produces poor

pasturage, and over the years the steady clearing

and overgrazing of the hilly land has led to

massive erosion. Soil quality has been further impaired because many farmers do not fertilize their

fields due to the high cost of fertilizers. Finally, the

region lacks indigenous fossil fuel resources, and

the cost of importing energy (mostly propane and

electricity) is very high, as a result, energy costs

have become an increasingly significant percentage of the farmer’s budget.

The biogas system addresses all of these problems simultaneously. The system begins with tree

cropping. NLF grows a variety of honey locust

trees, whose pods are high in protein and carbohydrates and can be used as animal feed. The trees

produce four times the nutrients per acre that

would be produced by oats, and their roots help to

anchor the topsoil and prevent erosion. The grass

growing beneath the locusts is no longer overgrazed and can be gathered in controlled harvests

and fed into the digester, along with animal

manure.

These organic materials are mixed with water in

the digester to form a slurry that is about 10 percent wastes by weight. The slurry can be fed to the

digester either continuously (adding a little fresh

material each day) or in batches (reloading with a

fresh slurry every 30 to 60 days), depending on the

type of materials and the convenience to the farmer. The slurry is pumped into a sealed tank where

it decomposes through the action of anaerobic microbes—bacteria and fungi that feed and reproduce rapidly in the absence of oxygen. One byproduct of this anaerobic decomposition is biogas,

which is composed of about 60 percent methane
—

Cl-t. 5–Small Farm Systems ● 97

(the main component of conventional natural gas)

and 40 percent carbon dioxide, with traces of

hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, and nitrogen. The

other byproduct is a sludge that is high in carbon

and nitrogen compounds and makes an excellent

substitute for conventional chemical fertilizers.

Using this sludge, the topsoil can be enriched and

built up over time with less danger of ground

water pollution than is posed by either manure or

chemical fertilizers.

Some controversy exists as to whether or not

anaerobically digested nutrients exist in compounds that are more likely to remain in the topsoil than the compounds in chemical fertilizers.

However, it does seem clear that anaerobic digestion (which takes place at temperatures of 950 F

over a period of up to 60 days) succeeds in killing

most of the pathogens present in manure. Thus, to

the extent that sludge instead of raw manure is applied to the soil, some improvement in ground

water quality should result.

One of the main goals of NLF research on biogas digesters is to gain a more precise understanding of the nutrient content of sludge, how it varies

with the mix of materials being digested, and how

these nutrients are made available to plants. The

goal of NLF’s development efforts is to build and

demonstrate digesters that can be built easily by

farmers, perhaps with some hired labor for specialized tasks, in a reasonably short time and at a low

cost. These goals are combined in NLF’s two biogas digester projects: the Rural Gasification Project

(RGP), which is developing manure digesters; and

the joint phytomass project, which is developing

digesters for crop residues and other plant wastes.

NLF Methane Digester Design

and Performance

NLF has built five small-scale, continuousloading hog manure digesters for RGP and is designing a sixth. These digesters represent three

prototype configurations, with slight variations in

size and input mix, but are based on a common

design (see figure 17). The digester is an insulated

tank divided into upper and lower sections connected by a surge tube. A submersible sump pump

in the loading pit moves slurry into the bottom or

“active” section. The amount of slurry in the

lower section, called the “active volume,” is the

usual measure of a digester’s capacity; NLF’s manure digesters ranged from 300 to 500 cubic feet

(ft3

). The slurry is heated to optimal temperature

by a hot water pipe or a coil gas heater like that in

a hot water heater. As decomposition begins and

biogas pressure increases in the active section,

some of the slurry is forced into the upper or

“surge” section. Biogas collects at the top of the active section and can be drawn off through a gas

line to the household appliances or other uses (see

below). Sludge is removed periodically through a

discharge tube in the bottom of the active section

and replaced with fresh slurry to maintain a fairly

stable level of decomposition and biogas output.

Most biomass will produce 1 ft3 of biogas per

day for each cubic foot active volume of slurry,

although some manure slurries will produce twice

this yield. NLF feels that the latter estimate is true

for hog manure, and the yield from their RGP-3

digester compares favorably with yields reported

by other experimenters, shown in table 11. A 300-

ft3 digester like the RGP-3 would require input

manure of approximately 180 1b/day, the daily

wastes of about 120 hogs. 17 Table 12 itemizes the

costs and potential energy savings of three RGP

manure digesters. A digester of this size could easily supply all of the gas needed for cooking, water

heating, and maintaining digester temperature on

a small farm.

The NLF phytomass digester consists of four

batch-loading reactors of 4,000-gal capacity each,

which can be operated either in parallel or in

series; this modular design gives the digester more

flexibility in operation. The four reactors have a

total active volume of 2,000 ft3, which could yield

2,000 ft3 of biogas per day. These units have not

been operated extensively enough to provide reliable data, however, and the proposal submitted to

DOE indicated that the facility would operate at a

combined rate of only 1,210 ft3

/day. 18

Initial test results with orchard grass cuttings

show that a 5-percent slurry has an average daily

biogas output of 200 ft3 per reactor over the first 30

ITRichard Merrill, ‘(Methane Generation,” in Energy Primer, ed. the

PortoIa Institute (Palo Alto, Calif.: New Alchemy West, 1974), p. 143;

the figure for steers seems rather low.

18James E. Gaddy, “Energy From Farm Crops,” research proposal

submitted to DOE, 1977; the author is a professor at Missouri State

University, Rolla, and principal investigator in the NLF phytomass

digester project.
98 ● ASSeSSment of Technology for LOcal Development

c

Steel building

pole barn \

Loading

pit

Figure 17.—New Life Farm/RGP Biogas Plant #1

3“ Pvc

flexmode

inlet tube \

II :;:;;e 1

fittings 1

Water line

connected

to no-tank

hot water

—

heater $11—

+

#

It 4“ concrete gas slab

h L’ ‘~=

2’0” with 6“ x 6“ x 10 wire mesh

for reinforcement

u ,.- . - . —. - . —. —. —.— .—. .

4“ PVC surge tube

2’ x 2’

.

I

II 1“ black iron pipe for

cleaning

5’0” heated water circulation

man-hole

I 4“ steel

I A/ cover

~ /!- q

. . — . —. —. —. —. —. —N

tube

SOURCE: New Life Farm.

Table 11 .—Daily Yields From Several Biogas

Digester Designs (ft3 biogas per

ft3 active volume per day)

Builder/designer Waste typea

Chinese peasants . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown

Indian peasants. . . . . . . . . . . . . Unknown

Dr. William Jewell of Cornell

University for DOE. . . . . . . . . Cow manure

Ken Smith of the Ecotope

Group for DOE and State

of Washington. . . . . . . . . . . . Cow manure

Energy Harvest, Inc. . . . . . . . . . Cow manure

New Life Farm:

RGP #3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hog manure

Phytomass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Orchard

grass

Daily yieldb

0.67-0.83

1.25

2.50

1.67-6.67

4.17

0.60-2.40

0.80

(estimate)

aAssumes 10-percent slurry by weight.

bAssumes biogas at 60 percent methane.

SOURCES: Ted Landers of New Life Farm and Lee Johnson, “Neighborhood

Energy: Designing Democracy in the 1980’ s,” Stepping Stones: Appropriate Technology and Beyond, Lane de Moll and Gig Coe (eds.),

(New York: Schocken, 1978), p. 183, table 5.

/ \

~ Sawdust

for insulation

_ 3/16” x 1“ steel

banister

prestressed for

reinforcement

— 3“ Concrete wall

poured with

slipform

\

4“ concrete slab

6“ x 6“ x 10 wire mesh

for reinforcement

\ 2“ blue stryofoam

2“ sand for base for insulation

days. It is assumed that increasing the slurry to 10

percent phytomass would double the output to

400 ft3

/day per reactor. This yield of 0.8 ft3/ft3/

day is about half the yield of manure digesters (see

table 11). The four reactors, loaded in sequence at

the optimal interval, should produce a reliable

1,000 ft3

/day of biogas. Figure 18 shows three

measures of the phytomass digester’s performance.

It is estimated that full-scale operation of the

NLF phytomass facility would require inputs of 44

tons of dried plant wastes annually. This would

amount to 17 acres of cornstalks or pasture

grasses, or a little less than 33 acres of weeds or uncultivated grasses. 19 The same initial tests with orchard grass shows that the sludge from the digester

lglbldo; and L. John b, “Practical Building of Methane Power

Plants. ”
Ch. 5–Small Farm Systems ● 99

Photo credit: New Life Farm

Methane digester tanks

would return significant amounts of nutrients to

the soil. Table 13 presents the nutrient content of

the sludge and the annual production of each nutrient by the NLF phytomass digester. Tables 14

and 15 present a cost/benefit analysis of the phy -

tomass system, based on the present size and on

double that capacity; note that the process shows

some economies of scale.

Biogas Applications and Economics

The energy uses to which biogas might be applied vary considerably from season to season,

while biogas production would be relatively constant year-round. Consequently, biogas must either be used to meet those energy loads which are

more or less stable or somehow be stored for use in

times of excess demand. Otherwise, the surplus

energy of the gas would be wasted instead of used

to offset the cost of the system. This is an important consideration in determining the most economical scale for a given farm: digesters large

enough to supply winter space-heating needs

(about 380 ft3/day output) would produce a large

amount of surplus gas in the summer, whereas the

applications that are constant from day to day,

such as hot water heating and cooking, demand

relatively small amounts of gas (about 100 ft3

/

day).20

As it turns out, however, this innovative technology shows conventional economies of scale:

large volumes of gas can be produced more cheaply than smaller volumes. Larger digesters would

thus provide greater energy savings, and a better

return on investment, if they could be applied to

larger loads or their output somehow stored for

later use.

ZoConsumption figures from Dawson, 1975.

Table 12.—Technical and Economic Data for Three RGP Digesters

Item Digester #1 Digester #4 Digester #5

Active volume. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 ft3

400 ft3

500 ft3

Tank construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Slip form concrete Plastic Plastic

Materials cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,885 $2,000 $1,500

Labor cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,885 $1,000 $1,000

Levelized capital costsa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $480 $382 $318

Annual yield (50% utilization). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.04 MMBtu 41.39 MMBtu 51.74 MMBtu

Levelized energy savingsa 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $604 $815 $1,015

Net savings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $124 $433 $697

Cost/MMBtu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $15.46 $9.23 $6.15

Cost/MMBtu (100% utilization) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7.73 $4.61 $3.08

1980 cost of LPG/MMBtu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $6.49 $6.49 $6.49

aUses Iifecycle costing methods presented in OTA’s Application Of solar Tech- Consumer discount rate =6% (current savings interest)

nology to Today’s Energy Needs, vol. Il. Tax deductions, O&M expenditures, Life of system= 20 years

biomass costs, and replacement costs have been omitted. The following as- Initial cost of LPG = 60¢/gal

sumptions were applied: Inflation = 6%

Capital charges on a 10-year loan= 15% Fuel escalation (above inflation) = 5%

SOURCE: New Life Farm.
100 l Assessment of Technology for Local Development

Figure 18.—NLF Phytomass Digester Reactor Operating Performance

Reactor 4 Batch size–3,600 (gallons)

Agricultural residue—orchard grass Percent Residue 5.5(%)

Startup date Nov. 21,1979 Culture/residue ratio 4:1

Daily average gas production rate (cubic feet per day)

500

375

250

125

0

Carbon destruction (%)

Methane/carbon dioxide ratio (o/o methane)

100

75

50

25

0

SOURCE: New Life Farm.

Table 13.—Nutrlent Content and Output

of NLF Phytomass Digester

Nutrient Percent of sludge Annual yield (Ib)a

Nitrogen. . . . . . . . . . .

Phosphorus. . . . . . . .

Potassium . . . . . . . . .

Sulfur . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sodium. . . . . . . . . . . .

Magnesium . . . . . . . .

Calcium . . . . . . . . . . .

Manganese . . . . . . . .

Zinc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Iron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.3

1.2

0.7

0.6

0.3

0.5

13.2

0.06

0.06

0.6

825

175

150

75

125

3,300

15

15

150

aTotal sludge = 25,000 lb/yr.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

The conventional method for storing gas is to

compress it and keep large volumes in a small

space under high pressure. The NLF designers,

however, generally oppose this approach: it would

require a significant amount of gasoline or electricity to run the compressors, and the pressurized

gas itself is highly explosive. Instead of storing the

gas, they intend to use it to produce other forms of

energy (such as electricity or alcohol) that can be

stored more easily or for which there is a stable

year-round demand.

Surplus gas from the 2,000-ft3 NLF phytomass

digester, for example, could be used as feed gas for
Ch. S–Small Farm Systems ● 101

Table 14.—Capital Costs for Two Farm

Digester Systems”

NLF

Phytomass Projected

(4 modules; (8modules;

2,000 ft3

) 4,000 ft3)

Steel tanks, 4,000 gal minimum .

6-kW generators with engine,

120 VAC, 60 herz. . . . . . . . . . . .

Gas storage tank with

concrete pit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Forage chopper with blower. . . .

Building materials . . . . . . . . . . . .

Heater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sludge pump, 10 gal/min. . . . . . .

Piping, agitators, valves,

miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Laborb 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$2,660

1,250

700

1,000

1,460

300

200

1,000

500

$4,080

1,250

900

1,000

2,080

400

200

1,300

700

$9,070 $11,910

aEstimates are presented for two digester sizes in order to demonstrate economies of scale. Modular reactors are batch-loaded in sequence in order to

maintain relatively constant total yield. Note that these figures include costs

for electric generators. Prices are in 1978 dollars.

bDoes not include cost of farmers’ labor, only that of specialized help such as

welders.

SOURCE: New Life Farm.

Table 15.—Energy Cost From Farm Digester

Size (ft3 active volume). . . . . . . . . . 730 1,460

Yield (MMBtu/yr). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 534

Capital cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $9,070 $11,910

Annual operating costs

Biomass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $150 $300

Maintenance, 2% . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 240

Capital charges, 8% . . . . . . . . . . 720

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,050 $1,490

Energy cost

As methane (per MMBtu). . . . . . $4.10 $2.80

As electricity (per kWh at

20% efficiency). . . . . . . . . . . . $0.055 $0.038

Price of liquid propane (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4.60/MMBtu

Marginal cost of electricity (1979). . . . . . . . . . $0.060/kWh

a 15-horsepower engine turning a 7.5-kW electrical generator. At 20-percent thermal efficiency,

this system could produce 3,500 kWh/month,

compared to average farmhouse loads of 900

kWh/month.21 NLF might be able to sell its surplus electrical power to the rural electric cooperative or use it to supply another system in their

farm operation. In addition, about 10,000 Btu/hr

in waste heat is available in the exhaust gas and

radiation from the engine, which could be used to

heat the building that houses the digester.

A second potential use for excess biogas is to

heat an alcohol still. Recent increases in the price

of gasoline have helped make the production of

alcohol fuels on the farm a more attractive option.

Although operating an alcohol still consumes

more than 50 percent of the energy in biogas that

it produces in distilling alcohol, the alcohol can be

stored much more easily. This arrangement would

provide a constant, high-volume demand for biogas and allow the farmer to produce fuel for his

machinery at a lower unit cost. Either system—

biogas/electricity or biogas/alcohol–would increase the cost effectiveness of both technologies

by reducing or removing the need for fuels or

energy from off-farm sources.

The NLF biogas system responds to the local

needs and condition of farmers in the Ozarks. In

the case study that follows, a group of low-income

farmers in Cedar County, Nebr., has addressed a

somewhat different set of needs and conditions

through the application of solar technologies.

SOURCES: New Life Farm and Rural Electrification Administration, USDA. ZIConsumption figure from Federal Power Commission.

Alternative Energy Technologies (II)–

Onfarm Solar Applications

The energy needs of the small-scale farmer can

give rise to a wide variety of innovative solutions.

As in the case of the NLF system of technologies,

they may involve the integration of alternative

farming techniques with small-scale applications of

alternative technologies. The techniques and tech-
102 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

nologies may be familiar; what is new is their integrated application to the particular needs of the

small farmer, an application that responds to local

needs and conditions by developing the means to

make better use of local resources.

The NLF system is based on anaerobic digestion, a fuel cycle that produces energy from biomass. It evolved in response to the needs of hog

farmers in the Ozarks, but many of its developers

were from urban backgrounds and had engineering or management skills that might not be available in other communities. By contrast, the case

study that follows examines a project that is designed to show how far a group of low-income

farmers without special skills can progress toward

energy self-sufficiency when provided with technical and cost-sharing support.22 Its participants are

ZZRural Development, Inc.! “Evaluation of the Small Farm Energy

Project at the Center for Rural Affairs,” contractor report to Community Services Administration, contract No. P-78-30, Dec. 1, 1979,

p. 1.

established, full-time farmers who are developing

their own applications of alternative technologies,

most of them based on solar energy, to the resources and needs of small farming and livestock

operations in northeastern Nebraska.

The principles of passive and active solar power

have already been touched on in chapters 3 and 4,

and the onfarm applications of these principles

will be examined in some detail in the case history.

For a more thorough examination of this subject,

the reader should consult an earlier OTA report,

Application of Solar Technology to Today’s Energy

Needs. 23

zjAPp~ication of Solar Ener~ to TodAy’s Ener~ Needs (Washington,

D. C.: Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, June 1978),

vol. 1, OTA-E-66; and vol. II, OTA-E-77, April 1979.

A Case Study of the Small Farm Energy Project,

Cedar County, Nebr.24

The Community Setting

Cedar County is a small rural county in northeastern Nebraska which has experienced a slow

but steady decline in population during the past

several decades—a pattern not unusual for poor

rural counties in the Midwest. 25 In 1970 over 45

percent of the work force was engaged directly in

agriculture and much of the remainder in the sales

and service occupations that support it. Many of

the residents are decedents of German, Czech,

and Swedish settlers, and the county has a wellintegrated community life common to an earlier

period of U.S. history. This is illustrated by the extremely low crime rate in the county: 454 crimes

reported per 100,000 population, compared to a

rate of 3,619 per year for Nebraska as a whole.

In 1974 there were 1,258 farms in Cedar County, with an average size of 354 acres.26 This in2+Much of the following dlscuwion is drawn from Rural Development, Inc., op. cit.

251bid., p. 19.

Z6U.S. Census Bureau, f 974 census of A@dture.

dicates a pattern of small-scale agriculture that is

unusual in Nebraska (average farm size 683 acres)

and in most of the Midwest. The topography partially explains the persistence of small-scale farming. The area is characterized by rolling hills and

numerous creeks and marshy valleys that impede

the movement of large farm machinery across the

fields. The hilly terrain and frequent dry spells

pose a danger of wind and water erosion. Consequently, the local farmers often employ more

traditional, labor-intensive methods of farming,

including small fields, contour plowing, windbreaks, and terraced hillsides.27

Local farm operations are generally more diversified than in other areas of Nebraska, where farmers often rely entirely on grain for their cash crop.

Cedar County farmers grow a number of crops, including alfalfa and soybeans as well as corn and

oats. Local farmers use some chemical fertilizers,

but they depend largely on crop rotation to main27Rural Development, Inc., op. cit., PP. 19-21.
Ch. 5–Small Farm Systems ● 103

tain soil fertility. The farms are mechanized, often

with three or more tractors each, but they still require the work of the entire family.

Hog breeding and dairy operations are more

common in Cedar County than in the rest of the

State, and they are well-suited to intensive use of

the available land. General livestock farms seem to

be less vulnerable to energy price increases and

supply disruptions than specialized operations of

the same size. The major variable is electricity demand: dairy farms have a fairly substantial load

for hot water and milkers year-round; and hog

farms have a heavy load for space- and floor-heating during winter farrowing; but general livestock

farms, which farrow less often in winter and milk

fewer dairy cows, have a lower and more stable demand for electricity y.

Table 16 presents a social, economic, and agricultural profile of Cedar County and the State of

Nebraska. Both median family income and per

capita income are lower than the averages for Nebraska and the Nation as a whole. In 1970 the

county ranked 2,684 out of the 3,067 U.S. counties in median family income. Farm production

costs consume a greater percentage of gross farm

income than in the rest of the State, and energy

costs often represent 20 percent of the operating

expenses for some of the smaller operations. Projections based on figures supplied by DOE indicate

that energy costs on these small farms will double

by 1984. Small farmers with low net incomes will

be most vulnerable to energy shortages and price

increases, which might in some cases make the

smallest agricultural and livestock operations economically untenable.

Development

The Small Farm Energy Project (SFEP) is an attempt to address these local needs and conditions.

The project is sponsored by the Center for Rural

Affairs (CRA), a nonprofit corporation in Walthill, Nebr., as part of an advocacy program for

small farmers and other low-income rural residents. CRA’s interests include a wide range of

agricultural methods and appropriate technologies, but because the cost of electricity was rising

faster than other farm expenses, their particular

focus in this project was on technologies that

would conserve or produce energy.

CRA submitted its proposal to CSA, which approved it on October 1, 1976, as a “national research and demonstration project” and funded it

for an initial 15-month period. A second CSA

grant approved a year later provided the funding

necessary to complete the 39 months of work outlined in the CRA proposal.

—. . . . ,-. The objectives of the project are:

●

●

●

to determine the energy price vulnerability of

small farmers;

to produce working models of technologies

that save or produce energy;

to calculate what impact these innovations

Table 16.—Socioeconomic and Agricultural Profile of Nebraska, Cedar County,

and the Small Farm Energy Project

Small Farm Energy Project

Measure Nebraska Cedar County All innovators Major participants

Population change, 1960-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + 5.2% – 8.8% NA NA

Per capita income, 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4,508 $2,660 NA NA

Mean years of education, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2 12.1 12.0a

12.9a

Average family size, 1970. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 3.5 5.8b

6.2b

Average farm size (acres), 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 683 354 357C

381d

Percentage of farms with more than 20 milk cows, 1974. 4.O% 16.6% 62.5%b

66.7%b

Average gross farm income, 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $55,224 $40,047 $34,735 d $40,633 d

Average net farm income, 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . $13,057 $8,368 $2,919d

$5,066d

Profitability (net •/• gross), 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.6% 20.90/o 8.40/o 12.5%

NA = not applicable.

aAverage 1977 figures.

b

1975 figures.

C

1977 figures.

‘1976 figures.

SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau, 1970 Census of Population and 1974 Census of Agriculture; and Small Farm Energy Project.
104 . Assessment of Technology for Local Development

have on farm energy usage, in terms of both

Btu and dollars;

● to develop and implement an educational

program; and

● to develop an energy and income recordkeeping system for small farmers.

The stated research objective of the project is to determine the impact of proven alternative energy

technolog y and conservation techniques on the

energy use, cost of production, and net incomes of

low-income farmers. For this reason the project includes a control group of farmers keeping energy

records. The stated demonstration objective of the

project is to show how far a group of 24 lowincome farm families can progress toward energy

self-sufficiency when provided with technical

assistance and cost-sharing over a 3-year period.

Fifty full-time, low-income farmers from Cedar

County were selected as SFEP participants (see

table 16 for a profile of this group). Twenty-five

were in the innovating group, which received

technical and cost-sharing assistance to help them

construct alternative energy devices on their

farms. The other 25 were in the control group,

whose only involvement was to maintain detailed

energy and income records for 3 years. In addition, a board of directors composed of local residents—two farmers, a lawyer, and a banker—was

established, not only to help establish the project’s

credibility with the local farmers but also to serve

as a channel for disseminating information about

SFEP and gathering community opinion for management decisions. The project works out of a

storefront office in Hartington, the county seat.

The SFEP Innovation Strategy

The project is designed to be a controlled experiment in innovation. The three major elements in

its innovation strategy are:

Education.–First the farmers learned what

technologies were available and how to make use

of them. The project staff arranged a series of lectures and discussions by engineers, agricultural

specialists, and farmers from other communities

who had undertaken similar projects on their

farms. They also held hands-on workshops with

the innovating group, and individual staffers held

one-on-one sessions with the “innovators” during

farm visits. The Hartington project office set up a

resource library and started mailing out an innovator newsletter.

Self-Selection and Installation.–Next each

farmer chose a technology that he thought he

could apply to his own farm. This self-selection by

the innovators was the cornerstone of SFEP’s approach to technology transfer. The project staff

helped in preparing designs and cost estimates so

the farmers could base their decisions on the probable construction time, payback period, and

amount of cost sharing from project funds. The

farmers built and installed most of their innovations, with technical support from the SFEP staff

and sometimes with “barn raising” construction

help from the staff and other farmers in the innovating group.

Data Gathering.—The innovating farmers

have monitored the technical performance of most

of their installations. The primary focus of SFEP

recordkeeping, however, for both the innovators

and the control group, was on energy: what kinds

of energy were used, how much of each source,

and how much they paid for it. Both groups of

farmers submitted quarterly and annual records,

which have been analyzed in the projects’ annual

progress reports, The results28 are open to question

because the sample is small and because the energy-awareness caused by recordkeeping also influenced the energy use of the control group. Nevertheless, the figures give a rough indication of the

conservation effect of the innovating group’s projects:

●

innovators used an average of 37 million Btu

less in 1978 than in 1977, while the control

group used an average of 29 million Btu more;

because of price increases, innovators still had

an energy cost increase of 1.8 percent, but the

increase was 9.8 percent for the control

group; and

for the first 2 years of the project, increases in

energy expenditures averaged 12.4 percent for

the innovating farmers and 22.7 percent for

the control group.

**center for Rural Affairs, “Preliminary Report, January 1977

through December 1978, for the Impacts of Various Energy Innovations on Consumption and Net Incomes for 43 Small Farms,” prepared for Community Services Administration, July 1979.
SFEP Innovator Energy Projects

Table 17 lists the types and numbers of energy

projects undertaken by the farmers in the innovating group. Individual participants initiated as few

as two projects or as many as nine, and most of

them completed at least one project without technical or cost-sharing support. Almost 75 percent of

the projects begun in the first 2 years were carried

through and actually utilized, including most of

the major ones.

Table 17.—Types of Projects Adopted by

Innovating Farmers Under the Small Farm

Energy Project, 1977-79

Conservation

Insulation, storm windows, and doors . . . . . . . . . .

Flue dampers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Energy-efficient waterers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Small conservation projects. ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alternative sources of energy

Solar space heating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other solar projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wood heat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wind electrical generator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Agriculture

Soil testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., .,

Comporting and limited tillage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

56

6

14

9

1

30

14

5

19

Total number of projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

aSome farmers insulated both their water heater and their walls, or both their

farmhouse and their barn.

bExcludes 23 “projects” that consisted of adopting pressurized gas caps to

prevent fuel loss by evaporation.

SOURCE: Rural Development, Inc., for Community Services Administration.

About half of the SFEP projects involved conservation measures, including improved insulation

for the farmhouse, barn, and other buildings; installing energy-efficient watering and milking

equipment; and doing tune-ups on farm machinery. A number of them involved changes or improvements in farming methods, such as soil testing, increased comporting, limited cultivation

where possible, improving terraces to reduce fertilizer needs, and changing to a shorter season

corn to reduce drying costs. Over a third of the

projects, however, involved applications of renewable energy sources, including conversion to wood

stoves for the farmhouse or workshop, a wind

generator, and 20 applications of active or passive

solar devices.

Most of the projects were fairly simple, homebuilt, low-cost devices constructed from locally

available materials. Generally the farmer adapted

the technology in a design suited to the needs of

his particular farm operations. The following discussions of six of these installations include a brief

description of the technology and an account of its

design, operation, and benefits. In keeping with

the spirit of the SFEP approach to technology

transfer, the first two accounts are in the words of

the farmers themselves unless indicated by brackets. The third and fourth are taken from reports

submitted by a study team composed of Cedar

County residents, and the last two accounts are

based on SFEP’s second-year report.29

Portable Solar Collector (figure 19).–This is

an adaptation of an active solar hot-air system also

referred to as the vertical-wall or “North collector,” after the Colorado rancher who originally

developed it. It can be built directly onto the south

wall of the structure to be heated, or it can be constructed in the workshop and mounted later or, as

in this design, moved from building to building.

The collector plate is painted black and covered

with a Filon fiberglass glazing, cool air from the

structure is drawn first behind the collector (for

preheating) and then through the air gap in front

of the collector plate, where it picks up the solar

heat and delivers it into the building. Like the

south roof of a solar greenhouse (see ch. 4), the

slope of the collector should be perpendicular to

the Sun’s rays in winter. Innovator Gary Young’s

account:

A portable solar collector is moveable. I put it on

an old grain trailer that I was going to junk. I made

it portable so I could heat the house or dry grain.

Construction on it is really a lot more simple than

you would think. The most complicated part is figuring out the air gapping. The frame is made of

lumber from an old hoghouse. When we heat the

house it takes cold air off the floor. The one-inch

air gap has air baffles in it to turbulate the air so

that it will take all the heat possible off this black

aluminum. Then I just nailed the Filon on. You

don’t want any outside air getting into the collecZpsee the working Paper, “Report From Community Study Team:

Small Farm Energy Project.”

74-435 0 - 81 - 8
106 . Assessment of Technology for Local Development

Figure 19.— Portable Solar Collector

tor in the wintertime, so you use a lot of caulk to

seal everything. Sun shines through the Filon and

heat gets absorbed by the aluminum; heat is transferred to the air in the one-inch air gap, and this

air enters the house.

The SFEP people wanted me to build one a couple of years ago, but Delores [his wife] didn’t want

a collector sitting by the house or hanging on the

house, because it would detract from the beauty of

it. And then, when I [said] I wanted to make a portable collector, Delores said “yes” if it could be

moved from the house in the summertime so she

could raise her flowers. So we had to develop a way

to attach it to the house and grain bin, so it could

be moved from one place to the other.

To hook up the collector, you use these innertubes with these adapter plates. One hooks onto

the back side of the collector, and the other one

hooks onto a plate just like this on the barn [or on]

the house. I just bolt them together and seal them

up. I think a portable one like this will have it over

the permanent one, because farmers may have a

bin at this place and another bin at another place a

few miles down the road.

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

Another advantage of this design is that the tilt

of the bed is adjustable so we can get maximum absorption of the sun. For the grain drying season,

the sun was still quite a bit higher than it is in the

wintertime, so we made it adjustable so that we can

get more sun in the early fall. We get full absorption of the sun, and in the wintertime we can tilt it

up some more and get maximum heat from the sun

in the dead of winter.

The thing was pretty cheap, too. Not counting

the time and my old lumber, I spent $1,300 to build

it. That includes fan, motors, controls and everything. This one surely heats the house nicely. The

furnace never runs except for an hour or two early

in the morning. I’m sure our fuel bill will be far less

than half what it was. Before, we filled the tank

every 2 weeks—we have a 500-gallon tank—where

we now fill it about every 6 to 8 weeks. On our

house-our house has 1,200 square feet–we might

recover the cost of this in 4 to 6 years. That’s just

on the house alone. It doesn’t include grain drying.

Home-Built Compost Turners (figure 20).–

Comporting is based on the aerobic decomposition of animal and vegetable wastes, a process that
Ch. 5–Small Farm Systems ● 107

Figure 20.—Home-Built Compost Turners

Wuebben design

Tractor ~-

w

Counter —

balanfe - -

— /

~Power shaft with

%*

-U-joints, 540 rpm

u,

. “ U-joint

Tool bar

Gear box — - -

Drive shaft / ~ Bearing

\

Bearing Compost flow

8 ft. x 8“ dia. auge~ with small knives>

(from Badger silage unloader)

Counter

balancd

Top View

A ~ Front angle iron support

t

Tool bar

3-point hitch” \ / ~ShearPin ~earing~

Gear box, 1 to 1 ratio Bearing Adjustable chain1

Rear View

Kleinschmit design

ground speed control

Side View

seat

on

16” drum, 24” total djameter, 400 rpm -

\

Teeth 1 % circumference per drum half, lap 12” at center

Front View

is described in chapter 7. To aerate the wastes and (see ch. 7) to the tractor-pulled, $5,000 Easy-Over

keep them from overheating (which would destroy composter that can turn 500 tons of compost in an

their nitrogen content), the compost pile must be hour. 30 Because 500 tons is about the annual

turned periodically. Turning compost by hand, es- volume of a 25-cow dairy operation,31 it would

pecially if large piles are involved, can be extreme- clearly be an advantage to the small farmer if he

ly time-consuming. An alternative is to lay it out could rent the machine out or share its capital

in windrows (long piles similar to the rows into costs with his neighbors. Two SFEP participants

which grain or hay is raked for drying before it is built their own compost turners at a much lower

stored or baled) and turn it with a machine designed for that purpose. Commercial compost ‘“Percy Knauth, “An Iowa Farmer Rediscovers Nature’s Way,”

turners are available in sizes ranging from the self- Quest, May 1980, p. 74, Knauth’s source, farmer Richard Thompson,

propelled, $52,000 Scarab used by the Bronx estimates that it would take five men 20 hours to turn this much comFrontier Development Corp. in their 365,000- post.

j IVolume figures based on OTA, Energy From Bio/ogmd processes,

ton/yr composting operation in the South Bronx op. cit., p. 130; and Richard Merrill, op. cit., p. 143.
108 l Assessment of Technology for Local Detvelopment

cost with salvaged parts. Bill Kleinschmit developed a machine for turning windrows of compost.

His account:

There are a few basic reasons why comporting is

a good idea. The nitrogen in the manure will stabilize, and it isn’t going to be leached down by the

rain. You save a lot of it, and it really nourishes the

plants. Another benefit is that with compost you

get rid of the threat of disease from having the manure around. A man from Iowa spoke at a seminar. He had a terrible colon infection in his hogs

[and cattle] prior to starting comporting. Since he

started comporting, he has had only minimal problems with infection. It helped get rid of the bugs,

provided fertilizer for the ground, and produced

better, healthier grain.

My project with the Small Farm Energy people

was building this compost turner. I started with a

windrower that was no longer good for windrowing. It was completely shot. But the parts I wanted

weren’t. The engine and the drive mechanisms,

chains, and the big pulley came from a big John

Deere 55 combine that we used to have. I had to

have something that was slow, so I took an oil

pump, orbit motor, and a flow control valve and

with this I could achieve as little as maybe 6 inches

a minute or less, and then I could still go up to 10

feet a minute with no problem. And the drum was

just a 16-inch drum and I had just taken some 4-

inch scrap iron and made the angle for the teeth of

the drum. That’s pretty well what it’s been made

of—what one person might call a lot of junk.

The windrow that my comporting machine is set

up for is about 8 feet wide and 4 feet high. You can

make the windrow whatever length you want it. I

think the one I have now is well over 100 feet long.

The thing was cheap to build. I paid $150 for the

windrower, and the guy was happy to get rid of it

because it had been sitting there for 5 or 6 years. I

don’t have over $1,000 in it right now. The engine

may need an overhaul and I may stick a different

engine on it that would take less fuel, but other

than that, I don’t feel there’s too much that I

would have to put into it.

As far as the benefits, well, the first year I did

this with just a manure spreader and a manure

loader. I put about 10 loads of raw manure on one

area, 10 loads of compost on another, and then the

rest of the field had nothing on it. I had fairly good

oats where I had put raw manure. Where I put the

compost, I used half as much manure by volume,

and I would say I had about half again more results. The other area I don’t care to talk about—

that didn’t have anything.32

Solar Grain Dryer (figure 21).–Traditionally,

corn was picked in the ear and stored in slatted

cribs, where air flow removed the moisture. The

advent of the combine (which picks and shells the

corn in the field) led to the circular steel storage

bin, in which the corn is dried with heat produced

from propane or electricity. The energy used for

this conventional method of drying corn often exceeds the total amount required for plowing,

planting, cultivating, and harvesting the crop.33

Four SFEP farmers chose to address this energy

cost by installing solar grain dryers based on a simple design developed by Dr. William Patterson of

South Dakota State University. In each case, a

collector made of corrugated metal is attached to

the southern two-thirds of the storage bin, with an

air space between the collector and the wall of the

bin. Solar heat transferred to the air as it passes

behind the collector raises its temperature by 50 to

10° F and lowers its relative humidity. The warm,

dry air then flows through the grain to remove its

moisture. In the Wuebben dryer the air rises from

the bottom of the collector, enters the storage bin

through vents at the top, and is drawn down

through the grain by an exhaust fan located at

ground level. In the Fish dryer the air is drawn

through vertical openings on the north side of the

bin to a fan on the south side, which then forces

the warm air up through the grain. Unlike Gary

Young’s portable collector, these permanent installations can only be used during the fall harvest,

but they can still reduce the small farmer’s energy

needs. None of the four SFEP solar grain dryers is

exactly alike, but all are home-built with materials

that can be salvaged or obtained from the local

lumber yard. The community study team’s report:

Solar drying is a form of low temperature drying.

Along with saving propane and electricity, the

method is believed by some farmers to result in a

superior quality of dried grain. To construct a solar

grain dryer a sheet of corrugated metal is painted

black and wrapped around the south facing curve

of the bin. The metal is open at one end and connects with an airtight shed at the other end. The

JZMany small farmers in Cedar County apparently do not fertilize

some of their fields, or do so only with raw manure.

JJRural Development, Inc., op. cit., P. 5.
Ch. 5–Small Farm Systems ● 109

Figure 21.—Top View of Fish Solar Grain Dryer and Wuebben Solar Dryer, West View

SOURCE: Small Farm Energy Project.

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

Solar grain dryer

shed contains a big fan that sucks outside air past

the blackened metal, which heats it, and forces it

into the bin. The Trubys have incorporated a fiberglass cover over the corrugated black metal collector plate in their bin. The bin holds 6,000

bushels and requires a 7-to 9-horsepower fan. The

average solar grain dryer costs about $600, and it

will achieve an annual savings of about $319.34

Solar Dairy Water Heater (figure 22).–Modern dairy farmers use automatic milking machines

powered by electricity, which makes them highly

dependent on this form of energy. However, they

also use a significant amount of electricity to heat

water for cleaning the machines and washing the

cows for milking. Two of the SFEP innovators

chose to apply an active solar energy system to

their water heating needs: solar energy is transferred to water circulating through copper tubing

attached to a 64-ft2 collector plate on the south

roof. The major problem with such a system in a

cold climate is that it may freeze up. One solution

is to use a mixture of water and antifreeze in the

collector system and then use it to heat potable

water. The- SFEP design, in which the potable

water itself circulates through the collector, is

J4SIX thousand bushels represents the corn harvest of 555 acres at

average 1979 yields. The cost savings would be over a 10-year period,

assuming 10-percent inflation and annual price increases of 2 percent

for electricity and 5.7 percent for propane.
110 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

Figure 22.—Dairy Water Heat Exchanger

Heat exchanger Warm

Coolant 1

lines

~-ld

I

9

I t

I IT I

~HOtj-~,~Hottmkd

Compressor Warm tank .

SOURCE: Small Farm Energy Project.

more efficient but more complicated, since it must

be drained when there is a danger of freezing. The

two SFEP installations incorporate a drain-down

system designed by the Domestic Technology Institute at Lakewood, Colo., involving solenoid

valves, a pump, differential thermostats, a freestat,

and some rather complicated wiring. This complexity prevents the farmer from building the

whole system himself and substantially increases

the cost; it may be desirable to develop or select a

simpler design such as the thermosiphon.35 Edgar

Wuebben, a dairy farmer who also built a compost

turner (see above), has installed a drain-down,

potable-water solar heater. The community study

team’s report:

One of the energy-saving devices on the Wuebben farm is a solar water heater for the grade-A

dairy barn. Water is pumped through the rooftop

collector and then drains down into a hot water

heater, where it can be warmed further with conventional power. In the winter, when there is danger that freezing might burst the pipes, solenoid

valves open and drain the water out of the collector when a temperature drop tells [the switching

mechanism] the sun has gone down.

The Wuebbens use a 120-gallon storage tank.

They could have used some type of antifreeze in

the system, but the lower danger of contamination

and the efficiency of the drain-down system

seemed more appropriate.36 The dairy operation

J5Rura] Development, Inc., op. cit., P. 8.

J61f antifreeze were pumped through the collector, heat would have

to be transferred to the potable water in some way. Some designs call

for the antifreeze to be piped through a heat-exchanger coil immersed

in the hot water tank. Many local building codes forbid this practice,

however, because any leaks that develop in the heat-exchanger coil

will contaminate the potable water with antifreeze.

required 50 to 80 gallons of water per day. Without

the solar collector, heating the water required

about 20 kWh per day; with the collector, the electricity used is reduced to 5 kWh per day. The

Wuebbens expect to recover the cost of the system

in about 6 years. However, [the SFEP] staff estimate the average cost of this type of heater at

about $1,597 and the annual savings at about

$175. This would mean a 9-year payback period instead of 6 years.37

Solar-Heated Farrowing Barn (figure 23).–

Hogs are one of the major sources of income for

farmers in Cedar County, and heated farrowing

barns have become a popular means of increasing

production by allowing sows to farrow year-round.

These barns are usually heated with propane, kerosene, or electricity. With technical assistance

from Professor Peterson of South Dakota State

University (who also developed the basic solar

grain dryer design, above), Rick Pinkleman converted an old dairy barn into a solar-heated farrowing barn.

Figure 23.—Solar-Heated Farrowing Barn

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

The first step was to weatherize and insulate the

barn. The south roof, which measured 17 by 50 ft

and had a slopeof700 from the horizontal, proved

to be an excellent location for the collector. He

painted the corrugated metal roof black and covered it with clear corrugated fiberglass to trap the

37 Again, cost savings are over a 10-year period, assuming 10-Percent inflation and annual price increases of 2 percent for electricity

and 5.7 percent for propane.
Ch. 5–Small Farm Systems ● 111

solar heat. A fan pulls air from the attic through

the collector and into a heat storage area containing 850 plastic, l-gal milk jugs filled with a

mixture of water and methanol. A second fan

pulls the preheated air through a ventilator duct

into the barn itself. At night the heat stored in the

water jugs is transferred to the air, thus helping to

keep the barn warm. This system has too little

heat storage to work without backup heat, but it

should make a significant difference is spaceheating costs for the farrowing barn.

Other SFEP Innovations.–Home spaceheating costs can be reduced more effectively

through conservation measures than through passive solar additions,38 and most of the farmers in

the innovating group added insulation to their

farmhouse walls and ceilings, installed storm windows and doors, insulated their water heaters, and

purchased pressurized gas caps to reduce the loss of

fuel through evaporation. Nevertheless, one family built a solar greenhouse on an old porch (see

chs. 3 and 4), another farmer built a small solar

“window box” collector (figure 24), and several

others installed fixed vertical-wall collectors similar to Gary Young’s portable design (see figure 19).

Another family’s solar hot-air application was the

solar food dryer (figure 25). In a slightly different

kind of project, the Kaiser family bought a commercial wind generator and set it up on their farm.

It produced electricity in winds over 8 miles per

hour and had an average output of 200 kWh/

month; this saved the family about 20 percent on

its electric bill.

38 See ~es[den[ia/ EnerN Consewation (Washington, D. C.: Office

of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, July 1979), OTA-E-92,

vol. I.

Figure 24.—Solar Window Box Collector

(cross-section view)

SOURCE: Small Farm Energy Project

Figure 25.—Solar Food Dryer (cross-section view)

Hinge for

opening cover

\

Sunlight Clear plastic or

Moist

exit air

// ,

fiberglass cover

// /

~ / / Cover frame

Air

Incoming

dry air

Food tray of heavy netting or f iberglass screen

supported by dowels

SOURCE: Small Farm Energy Project.

Critical Factors

Public Perception and Participation pecially conducive to public interest or involveThe two small farm projects examined in this “ ment:small farm communities tend to be conserv- -

chapter illustrate the manner in which public ative and to distrust outsiders. SFEP and NLF

participation can affect public perceptions of local used different techniques for gaining public apdevelopment projects. The settings were not es- proval and participation.
112 ● Assessment o/ Technology for Local Development

SFEP made citizen involvement a feature of its

project design from the very outset. The staff of

CRA are all midwesterners, but they realized they

still might be viewed as outsiders in Cedar County. Early in the planning phase, therefore, a board

of directors was established to oversee the project

and represent it in the community. The four directors were all native Nebraskans and influential,

active community members whose participation

helped to establish the project’s credibility with

local farmers. The CRA staff also surveyed county

residents and institutions while the proposal was

being developed to determine what activities

would be most appropriate for the county’s needs.

Planning and decisionmaking at the New Life

Farm in Missouri, on the other hand, was limited

to the group of original New Life Farmers, all of

whom were outsiders. These people seem to have

accurately identified the needs of small farmers in

the region and are very open to public participation, but few natives of the community were involved in the organization’s early stages or in its

ongoing operations. NLF members have tried to

establish personal relationships with local farmers,

and several jobs at the farm have been filled by

local residents, but the broader community still

knows little about the project or its aims. NLF has

recently stepped up their outreach efforts, in part

to attract more private donations, but unlike the

Cedar County project it has not come to be seen

as a creation of the local community.

SFEP’s greater success as a demonstration project results in large part from its stress on selfselection, which makes use of existing patterns of

technology transfer. Traditionally, information

and new farming techniques have been passed on

from neighbor to neighbor and generation to generation. Recognizing this, SFEP’s technical assistance focuses on one-to-one relationships and

individual innovation, allowing local people to

demonstrate technologies that can be useful in the

kind of farm operations actually found in the area.

This makes the farmers themselves active agents in

technology transfer, and it also allows them to become active participants in the project without

joining a formal organization. By contrast, NLF’s

organizational style seems to be more akin to an

urban cooperative model than to traditional rural

practice. This may actually work against public

participation, because local farmers who want to

learn about new farming techniques at NLF may

feel that an active commitment to the organization

would be required.

While it is difficult to determine from available

data how well NLF has been accepted by the

Ozark farmers, data on the SFEP outreach programs indicates widespread support in Cedar

County. Over half of the local residents surveyed

by the community study team knew about SFEP

and its activities, and a number of nonparticipants

had planned or begun building their own energy

projects. So had 25 percent of the control group,

which was subject to the same outside influences—

i.e., SFEP’s educational component as well as the

general increase in energy consciousness throughout the Nation.

The lack of a true control group is one of several

flaws in the project’s quasi-scientific design; another is small size of the sample, but perhaps the most

serious flaw is the lack of randomness in selecting

the participants. Most of the SFEP innovators

were self-motivated to participate, and they were

apparently hand-picked by the staff and local advisory board. In addition, 9 of the 24 innovators

undertook a disproportionate share of the projects, including the largest installations, and the

data presented in table 16 suggest that these major

participants were better educated and had more

profitable farms.

Essential Resources

Most of the projects at NLF and SFEP can be

built by the farmers themselves at low cost and

with locally available materials. NLF’s small manure digesters, which could supply the cooking

and water heating needs of an average farm, can

be built for between $2,500 and $3,500, although

the designers think the price could be reduced in

time (see table 12). Most of the SFEP projects have

even lower costs, and many of them make use of

salvaged materials. Most small farmers possess the

carpentry and plumbing skills necessary for their

construction, although they may need to hire local

labor for some of the construction work on the

larger installations. The most complicated materials, and the only ones not locally available,

were the drain-down switches for the solar dairy

hot water systems.
Ch. 5--Small Farm Systems ● 113

The costs of raw materials depends on the type

of system and the type of crop used. Solar energy,

of course, is free; but the amount of solar energy

available will vary with location and season. Manure for comporting or for digesters is readily

available and frequently underutilized by current

farming methods. Plant wastes for the phytomass

digester are also available at low cost: wild grasses

and weeds can be collected for about $0.25 bale, or

$264/yr; cornstalks can be gathered for $4.73 per

1,600-lb bale, or $150/yr.39 Since the sludge from

the digesters can still be used for compost or feed,

this technology makes more efficient use of an

available resource without destroying its value for

other uses.

One traditional rural resource has not been exploited, however: the communal or shared labor

of local farmers. The rural “barn raising” tradition

may still exist in these communities, but it was not

reported to have emerged among the innovating

farmers in Cedar County,40 not all of whom were

close neighbors, or between NLF and the native

farmers in the Ozarks.

Technical Information and Expertise

The literature on solar and biomass technologies is growing rapidly, but much of the early

research was done under less than optimal conditions, and many promising areas have barely been

touched. Part of the problem has been that very

little money has been available for conducting formal scientific experiments, and even in areas

where preliminary research has been done, there is

considerable debate about whether these technologies are appropriate to real-life, onfarm applications. Both NLF and SFEP have tried to fill

these information gaps.

NLF’s experiments with biogas digesters are

adding to the sometimes sketchy information generated by a handful of experimenters around the

world over the last 20 years. There is a fairly good

understanding of which parameters (feedstock,

carbon-to-nitrogen ratio, temperature, etc.) affect

gas yield, but as yet there is no precise understanding of what impact these factors have individually

or in combination. Similarly, little research has

JgEiScher and Swack, op. cit., p. 69.

40 Rura] Development, Inc., op. cit., pp. 53-54.

been done on the nutrient value of biomass

sludge, the availability of the nutrients to plants,

or on the long-term impacts of applying sludge as a

fertilizer and soil conditioner. NLF’s research efforts address these questions, although the results

are not yet widely available.

SFEP, despite its project design, is less a rigorous

research program than a well-designed and highly

successful education and demonstration program.

Its workshop approach was particularly useful in

disseminating information: agronomists and farmers came to speak to the Cedar County group, and

consultants were hired to work with both participants and staff. The results clearly demonstrated

the potential of farmer-built, self-selected technologies on these Nebraska farms, but there was very

little new technological innovation in any of these

applications. 41 Furthermore, because of the inevitable roughness of the onfarm data gathering

and because of the number of uncontrolled variables and outside influences in the Cedar County

“experiment ,“ it would be difficult to establish

conclusively that the economic viability and energy vulnerability of these farms have been significantly affected, let alone that the results can be applied to small farms in other regions of the United

States. 42

If the NLF and SFEP installations are to be replicated on a widespread basis, more detailed information will be needed on the design, costs, and

performance of these and other small-farm energy

systems. A preliminary evaluation of the SFEP

project suggested several methodological changes

that might improve the usefulness of information

generated by this program and similar efforts elsewhere:

●

●

●

collect better baseline data on the farmers’ attitudes toward change, in order to evaluate

the project’s impact in this area;

include a larger number of farmers, in order

to offset random effects and make valid conclusions;

adopt a case study approach, in order to collect and analyze data on a technology-bytechnology and farm-by-farm basis, rather

than in the aggregate;

411bid., pp. 71-72.

4ZIbid., pp. 40-41, 59, 71.
114 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

concentrate on the technologies that have the

greatest potential energy-saving impacts;

develop a model farm, with the active participation of the farmer, by installing a number

of technologies to demonstrate the potential

benefits of an integrated small-farm energy

system; and

utilize comprehensive cost-benefit analysis at

all stages of the project .43

The NLF system of technologies is an example

of the sort of model farm that might be developed,

although the model should include solar as well as

biomass applications. SFEP has indicated that it

will undertake case studies of individual installations, but no studies are available as yet.

Financing

Both of these small projects have been financed

primarily by grants. The NLF case study, like several others in other chapters, demonstrates that

trying to survive exclusively by grants can cause

an organization a number of problems.

NLF generally develops a prototype before it

seeks finding for a project, which both reduces the

risks involved and encourages grantors to take the

project seriously; but dependence on Government

and foundation grants has led to restrictions on its

use of funds. The large DOE “Energy From Farm

Crops” grant, for instance, is earmarked for specific research on the phytomass digester, and thus

works against the type of integration that NLF

would like to achieve. In addition, Government

grants may not be forthcoming unless a project is

in line with the current objectives and priorities of

the granting agency. NLF has a friendly relationship with the local bank and can borrow against

its savings account, but a conventional loan is

highly unlikely at the present time. An alternative

would be to pursue a broader mix of finding

sources, like the “consortium funding” of the

Bronx Frontier project (see ch. 7), but for this approach NLF might need the help of an experienced grants manager. Another alternative, since

there seems to be commercial potential for the

manufacture and sale of digesters, would be for

NLF to investigate the possibility of selling its services as a design consultant.44

4J]bid., pp. 17, 29, 39,64,66.

44 FiKher and Swack, op. cit., p. 79.

SFEP has avoided some of the restrictions imposed by the grants economy. Its project design

stressed the installation of devices based on

proven technologies and design concepts, which

serves to reduce risks; but it also stressed self-selection by the innovating farmers, which led to a

greater variety of applications. Cost-sharing,

which has been used in a number of agriculture

programs, appears to have been useful both because it is accepted by the farmers and because it

reinforces the innovator’s sense of ownership.

However, while the cost share was found to be important in initiating innovations in the early

stages of the project, it was not always needed to

sustain the innovation process. Many of the SFEP

farmers undertook projects without cost-sharing,

and only 52 percent of the money allocated for

this purpose was actually spent. The average cost

share was 43 percent of the project cost; the staff

and advisory board felt that a 100-percent share

would be seen as a giveaway program and that

more than a 50-percent share would be useful only

for “high risk” or “first time” innovations.45 The

proposed model farm, however, may require a

larger share because of the number of installations

involved.

Institutional Factors

The full development and widespread dissemination of these small-farm technologies would require the active cooperation and backing of the

land-grant colleges and the Agricultural Extension

Service (AES). NLF has thus far enjoyed a cordial

relationship with the local state university

through joint research on the phytomass digester,

and there seems to be a great deal of interest in the

project from government officials at the Federal,

State, and local levels. Similarly, SFEP has tried to

establish friendly relations with the University of

Nebraska Cooperative Extension Service, which

has moved one of its energy specialists to nearby

Concord. Institutional change has been slow,

however, and a number of barriers remain.

AES operates with relative success throughout

the United States, partly because its over 100 years

of activity has given it legitimacy and credibility.

However, its responsiveness to the problems of the

small farmer varies greatly from one region to

4JRural Development, Inc., op. Cit., PP. 43-44.
Ch. 5–Small Farm Systems ● 115

another, according to a SFEP consultant. Extension programs are jointly funded by Federal, State,

and county governments, but they are managed at

the State level. This should allow them to respond

to local agricultural needs, but some State-controlled programs tend to focus on the problems of

large-scale farming groups, whom they perceive to

be their primary clientele. According to information gathered by Rural Development, Inc., for

CSA, nothing similar to SFEP had been undertaken by AES anywhere in the Nation.46 This created an opportunity for SFEP, which employs a

number of the educational and outreach techniques developed and used by AES, to supplement

the activities of the existing extension programs.

There is evidence, however, that the State AES

agency opposed the establishment of SFEP.

To be eligible to receive its CSA grant, the

SFEP proposal had to be approved by the Governor of Nebraska and the State Tax Commissioner

(in his capacity as head of the State’s Energy Office). During the review period, the Governor

received a letter from the University of Nebraska

opposing the project: the University, with the

backing of Nebraskans for Progressive Agriculture

(a group of large farmers with ties to the University), claimed that the SFEP staff was unqualified to

undertake the project and that it would duplicate

efforts already underway at the University

through AES. SFEP was able to refute these arguments, but the incident apparently served to politicize the project. Three years later, in the spring of

1979, Rural Development, Inc., reports that:

. . . during a conversation the evaluators had with

the Director of the [University ofl Nebraska

Cooperative Extension Service, it was clear that he

was not open to cooperation with persons working

on agriculturally-related problems who were not

associated with land-grant or traditionally agricultural-mandated institutions . . . . The SFEP project

had not significantly affected the University of

Nebraska [Cooperative] Extension Service, al-

+6 Rural Development, Inc., Op.cit., p. s.

though the project staff, advisory board and cooperators prefer that it would.47

NLF, too, has experienced opposition to its efforts

to involve local high school students in its workshops.

The Missouri and Nebraska projects may, to

some extent, find themselves working in competition with AES and local extension services. By addressing a new clientele (the farmers at the lower

end of the income and acreage ranges in their

areas) and by encouraging alternative agricultural

techniques, they might unintentionally challenge

the conventional methods advocated by the established institutions and threaten to usurp their

local role. Joint grants and joint research, such as

NLF has undertaken with the State University of

Missouri at Rolla, may help to overcome these

barriers, but institutional change is likely to remain a slow and incremental process.

Two regulatory issues have arisen from these

projects: proprietary rights and patents, and

digester safety. The SFEP participants view their

small-farm technologies as examples of local innovation and adaptation which, as such, should

be available for use by all farmers at the lowest

possible cost. As a result, the staff has made no attempt to secure patents or copyrights, and some of

the innovating farmers even suggested that a law

should be passed so that some of the devices could

not be patented. Biogas technology, on the other

hand, raises a safety issue. The designers have

sought to reduce the risks of oxygen contamination and explosion wherever possible, and the

batch-loaded digesters are relatively safe because,

once loaded, they remain sealed until digestion is

completed. Nevertheless, NLF has installed a “gas

sniffer” alarm in its digester building, and widespread adoption of biogas digesters may necessitate

formal safety regulations, such as local building

codes forbidding a digester from being attached to

a livestock shelter.

471bid., pp. 55-56.
116 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

Federal

Background

Unlike the cases studied in other chapters of

this assessment, the two case studies in this chapter entail the development and adoption of a

whole range of technologies, from new comporting

techniques to solar and biomass energy systems.

Consequently, they are related to and affected by

a large number of Federal programs and policies.

The development and diffusion of the small-scale

farm technologies examined in these case studies,

however, are most relevant to three broad, interrelated national issues:

● developing rural America;

● progressing toward greater energy self-sufficiency at all levels—national, regional, local,

and individual; and

. retaining agricultural lands and preserving

the structure of the farming sector.

The third issue, agricultural land retention, is

discussed in chapter 6; the other two issues are

discussed below.

Rural Development48

A 1970 congressional policy declaration stated

that “the highest priority must be given to the revitalization and development of rural areas. ” Defining the exact Federal role in these activities has

been the focus of considerable debate ever since.

Rural development has become a broad mission,

involving initiatives by Federal, State, and local

governments as well as the activities of the private

sector. The coordination of these diverse efforts so

that their results are mutually supportive has been

a particular and continuing concern in the rural

development initiatives of both Congress and the

executive branch, several of which affect the development of alternative technologies for the small

farmer.

The Rural Development Act of 1972.

–This Act (Public Law 92-419) is the primary

source of programs to promote economic and com-

+eSome of the materia] in this section is drawn from Sandra S.

Osburn, “Rural Development: the Federal Role,” Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service issue brief No. IB771 13, June

23, 1980.

Policy

munity development in rural areas, and most of

the rural development activities of the legislative

and executive branches have focused on the implementation of this legislation. The Act’s stated

purpose is “to provide for improving the economic

and living conditions in rural America. ” Of particular relevance is title V, “Rural Development

and Small Farm Research and Education.” Two of

this title’s goals are: 1) “to expand research on

innovative approaches to small farm management

and technology” and 2) “extend training and technical assistance to small farmers so that they may

fully utilize the best available knowledge on sound

economic approaches to small farm operations. ”

To this end the Act establishes the Small Farm Extension, Research, and Development Programs,

which were to consist of:

. . . extension and research programs with respect

to new approaches for small farms in management,

agricultural production techniques, farm machinery technology, new products, cooperative agricultural marketing, and distribution suitable to the

economic development of family size farm operations. (sec. 502)

The Act designates USDA as the lead agency in

Federal rural development efforts. USDA placed

most of the operating programs under the Farmers

Home Administration, while the responsibilities

for lead-agency coordination were assigned to the

Rural Development Service. A number of institutional changes have taken place since 1972, however, in part because of congressional criticism of

the way in which the present and previous administrations have implemented the policymaking and

coordinating mandate of the Act. These changes

also reflect the findings of executive branch studies

and reviews of rural development, the findings

and changes which affect small farm technology

are outlined below.

The earliest review was carried out in 1977 by a

joint task force of officials from USDA and the Office of Management and Budget, under the direction of the Administrator of the Rural Development Service. The task force identified the following as one of the weaknesses in the current rural

development efforts:
Ch. 5–Small Farm Systems ● 117

Federal programs have concentrated heavily on

public facilities investments which have improved

the public infrastructure in many rural areas, but

have not stimulated substantial private sector

employment. Federal programs have also underinvested in human resource development and in

technological innovation in rural areas .49

Their report also stressed the need to develop a national growth and development policy and to ensure that rural needs and interests would be included in any such policy.

A second review of Federal rural development

policy took place as part of the White House Conference on Balanced National Growth and Economic Development, authorized under the Public

Works and Economic Development Act of 1976,

which took place from January 29 to February 2,

1978. On December 1, 1978, President Carter announced the findings of the conference’s water

and sewer task force; these proposals later led to

an interagency Coordination and Service Delivery

Agreemen t

50 that included a proposal to place

more emphasis on alternative and innovative

technologies for waste-management in rural areas.

The Secretary of Agriculture issued a memorandum on March 21, 1979, that set forth USDA’s

rural development policy and specified the following goals:

●

●

●

●

●

improve rural income levels and increase

rural employment opportunities;

improve the access of rural residents to adequate housing and essential community facilities and services;

provide a more equitable distribution of opportunities through targeting efforts on distressed areas, communities, and people;

create and implement a process for involving

the private sector and Federal, State, and

local agencies in establishing policies and programs that affect rural areas; and

strengthen the planning, management, and

decisionmaking capacity of public and private

institutions concerned with economic opportunity and quality of life in rural areas.

491bid., p. 6.

soother agencies involved in the agreement are the Departments of

Housing and Urban Development, and Labor; Environmental Protection Agency; Economic Development Administration; Council on

Environmental Quality; and Community Services Administration.

96th Congress.—Continuing congressional

concern about the implementation of rural development policy was demonstrated by several pieces

of legislation enacted or considered by the 96th

Congress:

Rural Development Policy Act of 1980 (Public

Law 96-355).–This Act directs the Secretary

of Agriculture to prepare a comprehensive

Rural Development Strategy, based in part

on the goals and recommendations of local

communities and on the need to strengthen

the family farm system, and to update this

strategy annually in a report to the appropriate House and Senate committees. The Act

also creates the position of Under Secretary of

Agriculture for Small Community and Rural

Development, to be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the

Senate. Significantly, the Act also extends for

2 years the authorization for title V of the

Rural Development Act of 1972 (see above)

and specifically authorizes the Secretary of

Agriculture to promote R&D efforts related

to appropriate technologies for small- and

medium-sized farms.

Other legislation.—To ensure that rural interests are considered in the design and implementation of national programs in other

areas, bills were introduced that would establish an Office of Rural Health within the Department of Health and Human Services

(H.R. 2886 and H.R. 3882) and a Rural Area

Transportation Office within the Department

of Transportation (S. 839). All three of these

bills, however, died in subcommittee.

Energy Self-Sufficiency

Since the 1973 OPEC oil embargo, policies to

promote energy self-sufficiency at all levels have

become an integral part of other domestic policies, including agricultural and rural development

policies. Major initiatives have been put forth

since 1977, and many of the more recent initiatives contained provisions encouraging energy

conservation or production. The most important

of these are presented below.

The Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 (Public

Law 95-1 13) contains in its title XIV (the National

Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching
118 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

Policy Act of 1977) findings that bear directly on

small farms and appropriate technologies, and call

for new Federal initiatives in several areas, among

which are:

●

●

●

more intensive agricultural research and extension programs oriented to the needs of

small farmers;

development and implementation of energyefficient and environmentally sound methods

of utilizing nonfood agricultural products

and waste products; and

investigation of the effect of organic waste

materials on soil tilth and fertility.-

To that end, the Act amends section 502 of the

Rural Development Act of 1972 to emphasize programs that will develop new approaches to small

farm products, marketing techniques, and finance,

it also adds to section 502 a new subsection (d)

specifying that small farm extension programs

“shall [use], to the maximum extent practicable,

paraprofessional personnel to work with small

farmers on an intensive basis. ”

Subtitle H of the Act encourages R&Don “uses

of solar energy with respect to farm buildings, farm

homes, and farm machinery,” and promotes the

establishment and operation of model solar energy

demonstration farms in each State to determine

“energy usage, income, costs, operating difficulties, and farmer interest with respect to these

model farms. ”

The Energy Security Act of 1979 (Public Law

96-294) also contains numerous provisions relating

to small farms, but the majority of them are contained in its title II, the Agricultural, Forestry, and

Rural Energy Act of 1979. These provisions include the following:

●

●

that the Secretary of Agriculture implement an

Agriculture, Forestry, and Rural Energy Production, Use, and Conservation Program to enable the United States to achieve net energy independence in agricultural and forestry production by 2000;

that the Secretary implement an applied research program to develop economical and energy-efficient fuels from biomass; techniques for

using energy so derived in the production,

processing, and marketing of agricultural commodities and forest products; and energy conservation systems and techniques for farmers;

●

●

that the Secretary establish not less than four

and not more than eight Agricultural Biomass

Energy Centers, in different geographic regions

of the United States to undertake research, development, and demonstration projects on

promising new farm energy technologies; to develop a data base and perform energy need analyses for rural residents and communities; to disseminate information on new energy systems

and provide technical assistance to farmers; and

to support energy-efficient model farms; and

that the Secretary establish an extension program to disseminate the results of farm energy

research, to encourage the adoption of energy

conservation and production technologies, to

conduct workshops for interested farmers, and

to provide technical and cost-sharing assistance

for the installation of farm energy systems.

In addition, there are several provisions in title

VII (the Omnibus Solar Commercialization Act of

1979) which direct the Secretary to support the

dissemination of information on renewable resource research and to establish a National Solar

Energy Information Center as part of a coordinated information and outreach program.

Other legislation relating to small farm energy

policy included the bill to amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (Public

Law 96-438), which authorizes the Farmers Home

Administration to make or insure loans for the

development, construction, or modification of

solar and other renewable energy systems on family farms.

Issues and Options

Existing and proposed legislation provides a

broad range of technical and financial assistance

for the diffusion of small-scale agricultural technologies. No major institutional changes appear to be

needed at this time. The specific issues that emerge

from the cases examined in this chapter fall into

two interrelated areas: 1) R&D, and 2) education

and outreach.

ISSUE 1:

Research and Development.

These case studies include technologies at varying stages of development. For instance, knowledge of solar thermal phenomena is far more complete than knowledge of anaerobic decomposition.
As a result, solar thermal technologies like the

vertical-wall collector and solar hot water system

can already be demonstrated in onfarm applications. In fact, it is likely that further improvements

in these systems might be discovered primaril y

through onfarm adaptation and everyday use.

However, some biomass systems like the biogas

digester seem to be in two stages of development at

once. Significant design improvements and cost

reductions have been achieved through the experience gained in demonstrations, but much remains

to be learned about both the basic biological processes involved in anaerobic digestion and about its

operating parameters—the energy content of different feedstocks or feedstock mixes, their various

biogas yields, and the nutrient value of the resulting sludge. Nutrient content and nutrient availability in digester sludge is the subject of particular

debate.

In addition, little information has been generated thus far on the full potential of these solar

and biomass installations as components in a larger, integrated system of farm technologies. The devices installed in the Small Farm Energy Project

were not always those with the greatest energysaving potential, and self-selection by the innovating farmers usually led to isolated, piece-by-piece

installations. It would also be useful to gather

more reliable data on the feasibility, costs, and

benefits of an integrated farm energy system that

combines a number of complementary energy

technologies with a number of other conservation

strategies, such as changing fuels in farm machinery, using low-tillage techniques, and incorporating some organic farming methods. Another focus

for integrated R&D might be the investigation of

alternative crop/livestock systems that make more

efficient use of available resources and conditions

as part of an integrated, sustainable, self-sufficient,

and environmentally benign farming operation.

New Life Farm, for example, modified the Ozark

grass/hogs system by cropping a tree that had not

previously been grown in the region, producing

energy from hog manure, and returning sludge to

the land to improve its fertility.

Option 1: Support increased R&D.–Congress may wish to accelerate the development and

diffusion of alternative small-scale farm technologies by directing USDA and other Federal agencies to broaden and intensify their research efforts

in the areas described above, as authorized by existing legislation. These efforts would generate

more detailed and reliable information if individual projects were directed to give a high

priority to information gathering; cost-benefit

analysis would be especially desirable, and might

be included in the technical assistance offered by

the funding agency if local expertise is lacking.

ISSUE 2:

Education and Outreach.

The New Life Farm and the Small Farm Energy

Project both had two functions: research and

demonstration. NLF was perhaps more successful

in its research component, but SFEP was particularly successful in its demonstration component.

Self-selection by the innovating farmers simulates

the manner in which such technologies might actually be disseminated on a local level, and the

spread of conservation strategies among the nonparticipants in Cedar County illustrates how rapidly these technologies might be transferred in

small farming communities.

Option 2: Support improved Demonstration and Extension Programs.—Legislation

already passed by Congress (see above) calls for

more intensive research and extension programs

aimed at the energy needs of small farmers and

authorizes the establishment of model farms in

each State as well as a number of regional agricultural energy centers. Congress might wish to promote these initiatives by appropriating or earmarking additional funds to implement them.

These model farms and regional centers might be

located at AES or State extension research stations. An alternative would be to investigate ways

to encourage regional “networking” among existing projects and community groups, particularly

those with installations on working farms. It

should be noted that NLF is incorporated as a research and educational organization, and that

SFEP is funded by CSA as a “national research

and demonstration project. ” These and similar

projects might serve as the nuclei for such regional

networks. Finally, Congress might wish to promote the consideration and adoption of smallscale alternative agricultural technologies by

directing Federal funding agencies to encourage
120 . Assessment of Technology for Local Development

project designs with a strong outreach component, to disseminate the results of these projects to State

and/or by directing the Secretary of Agriculture agencies and county agents through AES.
Chapter 6

Farmers' Markets
Contents

Pagc

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....123

Alternatives for Direct Marketing of Local

Farm Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Farmers’ Markets: Six Case Studies . . . . . . . . 125

Rutland,Vt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Morehouse Parish, La. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Ravinia, I1l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Boston, Mass.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Baltimore,Md.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Seattle,Wash. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Impact on Small-Scale Local Agriculture ...135

Critical Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Public Perception and Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Page

Essential Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Technical Information and Expertise. . . . . . . . . . . 138

Financing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Institutional Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Federal Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...140

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Agricultural Land Retention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Direct Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...141

Issues and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Table

Table No. Page

18. Boston Farmers’ Markets Summary, 1978.....131
CHAPTER 6

Farmers’ Markets

Introduction

The last chapter examined a number of technologies that can reduce the small-scale farmer’s

vulnerability to energy price increases and supply

disruptions. These technologies can also improve

the economics of small-scale agriculture by reducing production costs, particularly those related to

nonrenewable sources of energy. Just as essential

to the viability of the small farm, however, is access to dependable and profitable markets. With

the advent of large-volume supermarket chains,

which tend to rely on large-volume growers, the

markets available to small-scale farmers has become increasingly limited. This chapter examines

the farmers’ market and other alternatives to this

energy-intensive, mass-distribution marketing system.

The current U.S. marketing system for farm

products, like current large-scale farming methods,

has arisen since World War II in an era of cheap

and readily available energy. Most of the domestic

fruit and vegetables that Americans consume are

grown in specialized growing areas like California

where large highly mechanized farms have

achieved a remarkably high productivity through

the application of energy- and capital-intensive

farming technologies. The produce is sold, transported, processed, and packaged, then transported

again, resold, and retransported, until eventually

it reaches the supermarket shelves. Four times as

much energy is consumed in processing and distributing farm products as in the actual planting,

cultivating, and harvesting of the crops.l

Just as most of the energy consumption and

other costs of this mass-distribution system lie beyond the farmer’s gates, so do most of the profits:

of every dollar that consumers pay for fruit and

vegetables, only 30 cents gets back to the original

grower.2 Furthermore, the increasing cost of fuel

IColin Norman, So~t Technologies, l-lard Choices (Washington,

D. C.: Worldwatch Institute, June 1978), p. 25.

2A. Schumacher, et al., “Technologies for Direct Marketing,”

OTA working paper, pt. I, p. 14.

for this long-distance system has, over the last

decade, led to increases in the prices of fresh fruit

and vegetables that have far outstripped the increases in both other agricultural prices and the

general cost of living.3 In addition, this system has

not only made the farmer dependent on distant

markets, it has also made cities, metropolitan

areas, and even entire States dependent on food

that may be grown thousands of miles away.

For example, New England now imports between 85 and 90 percent of the food it consumes.4

The New Hampshire Food Policy Study Committee recently concluded that their State “would find

itself hard-pressed for adequate food for its citizens

within 7 to 10 days of a serious oil embargo against

the United States."5 According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), between May

and October 1978 (the local growing season) New

York City imported almost 8,000 truckloads of lettuce and other vegetables from California, produce that could have been grown locally. These

transcontinental shipments consumed 6 million

gal of diesel fuel and added 15 cents to the price of

each head of lettuce; if the quantity of lettuce imported from California had been grown within 200

miles of New York City, the Nation would have

conserved almost 130,000 bbl of oil, and the consumer would have saved 14 cents per head of lettuce.6

At the same time that prices to the consumer

are rising, the relative return to the farmer is falling. Small-scale farmers, who are unable to take

advantage of economies of scale, are particularly

hard-hit by the current cost-price squeeze and are

finding it increasingly difficult to break even. As a

~Ibid.

4NeaI R. Peirce and Gorge M, !datch, “Preservationists Seek

Government Help as Farmland Gives Way to Developers,” Nutlonui

.louma/, vol. 12, No. 33, Aug. 16, 1980, p. 1,359.

5Neal R. Peirce, “Gardens in the City,” Washington Post, Aug. 28,

1979, p. A13.

bDonald S. Leeper, “Lettuce: Food, Money, Energy,” Neu York

Times, May 14, 1980, p. A27.

123
124 l Assessment of Technology for Local Development

result, the United States loses an average of 36,000 developers. Almost 1 million acres are “paved

farms each year,7 many of which are abandoned or over” each year, and often these are precisely the

(if thev are near expanding urban centers) sold to –– farmlands closest to the consumer. (See the discus-

,

T&nard TaPr, “The Bittersweet Harvest,” science 80, vol.

7, Nov. 1980, p. 79.

Alternatives

1, No. sion of farmland retention in the “Federal Policy”

section at the end of this chapter.)

for Direct Marketing of

Local Farm Products

Many of the vegetables imported from California and other distant growing regions have been

and can again be grown much closer to the major

metropolitan areas in the Midwest and East. The

primary barrier to small-scale local agriculture is

limited access to markets: the mass-distribution

system is geared to large-scale production, and distributors are unwilling or unable to deal with

small lots from local producers. An alternative to

the current distribution system is direct marketing

of local produce to local consumers by the farmers

themselves.

In a recent survey, 8 USDA has identified five

major methods of direct farmer-to-consumer

marketing:

●

●

●

●

pick-your own, in which consumers go to the

farm, harvest the crops they want, and transport the product to their own homes; this

method usually means the lowest prices, but

is least convenient to the consumer;

roadside stands and farm stores, which are essentially retail outlets similar to the greengrocers of the past, involve some additional

operating costs for the farmer but, since they

are located on or near major highways, are

more convenient to the consumer;

famhouse sales, the most common method, is

similar to the last method but uses the farmhouse or another available farm building instead of a specially built and maintained

structure;

door-to-door, which offers the best service to

the consumer but involves the greatest incon-

‘Peter L. Henderson and Harold R. Linstrom, Farmer-to-Consumer

Direct Murketmgirs SIX States (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of

Agriculture; Economics, Statistics, and Cooperative Service information bulletin No. 436, July 1980).

venience and transportation costs for the

farmer; and

● @die farmers’ markets, at which a number of

farmers offer their products at a convenient

centralized location; this method will be the

focus of the balance of this chapter.

The USDA study found that only 15 percent of

the farmers in the six States surveyed sell their

products directly to consumers, and that only 6

percent of these farmers do so through farmers’

markets. However, USDA also found that farmers’ markets were “most advantageous to small

farmers and those who do not have access to heavily traveled public highways or are located 10 miles

or more from cities. ”9 As a tool for local development, as well as an alternative marketing system, farmers’ markets and other direct-marketing

strategies offer the following advantages over the

current mass-distribution system:

●

●

●

they can provide consumers with fresh produce, of equal or higher quality and at equal

or lower prices than the produce at the local

supermarket, without requiring transportation to and from the farm;

they can provide area farmers with a strong,

reliable local market where they can get a

higher return on their land and labor by eliminating the many processors and middlemen

who normally stand between food producers

and food consumers; and

they can improve the economic health of local agriculture by allowing farmers to diversify their crops and keep their land in production, by encouraging them to adjust their

production to local demands, and by giving

‘Ibid., pp. 1 and 4.
Ch. 6–Farmers’ Markets 125

them an incentive to adopt new and more efficient farming strategies and technologies

that will both decrease their costs and increase their productivity.

This chapter draws on information gathered

from six different farmers’ markets around the

country: Rutland, Vt., Morehouse Parish, La.,

Ravinia, Ill., Boston, Mass., Baltimore, Md., and

Seattle, Wash. The diversity and success of these

markets is evidence of the vitality and adaptability

of the farmers’ market as a technology for food distribution and local development. To make this

survey as useful as possible, both for immediate

analysis and for the benefit of communities that

might wish to establish their own farmers’ markets, the experiences and problems of these six

markets are presented as case studies, with emphasis on the following points:

●

●

●

●

●

●

How did the need for the market emerge?

Who took the initiative in establishing the

market, and what were the first steps taken?

What organization and purposes were decided on? How is the market run, and by

whom?

What site was chosen, and how? What facilities are available?

How were local farmers recruited?

How were customers attracted and retained?

The diverse origins of the six farmers’ markets

show the range of local needs and interests such

markets can address, the variety of groups and

agencies whose initiative or cooperation can help

get them started, and the number of avenues by

which they can develop. Despite this diversity in

motive and development, however, the results

have been much the same in each case: a valuable

service to the residents of the local community,

and a stimulus to small-scale farming in the surrounding countryside. The six markets are therefore considered collectively in addressing the following questions about the performance and impact of the farmers’ market:

●

●

●

●

●

●

What have been the economic results and

benefits?

What changes have farmers made in land use

or techniques?

Have consumers’ tastes and concerns

changed farmers’ production or methods?

What additional changes in farming technique or technology could further improve

small-farm productivity and profitability?

What critical factors seem to have the most

effect on the success or failure of a farmers’

market?

What recommendations for other communities or for Federal policy emerge from the experiences of these farmers’ markets?

Farmers’ Markets: Six Case Studies10

Rutland, Vt.

By the close of its sixth season in 1979, the Rutland County Farmers’ Market had grown from a

hesitant enterprise located in a church parking lot

to one of the largest and most successful markets

in northern New England, a community activity

that promotes the welfare of the region’s farmers

and townspeople alike. Three factors seem to be

most responsible for the market’s success: 1) at the

outset, producers and vendors organized themselves into a formal association with a defined set

of purposes; 2) the association found and held

onto an appropriate central location that would

IOMarerla] in the following case studies is based on Schumacher, et

al., op. cit., and particularly the annex, “Five Case Studies. ”

ensure the market’s commercial success; and 3) the

design and operation of the market responds to

the social and economic needs of a diverse crosssection of both the urban and rural communities,

thereby ensuring its integration into the social

fabric of the region.

The original impetus for the market came from

the Rutland Opportunity Council, a local Community Assistance Agency, which saw it as a useful extension of its food and nutrition program.

(See ch. 4 for a discussion of other activities of the

Community Food and Nutrition Program of the

Community Services Administration.) The council recruited local farmers and community gardeners, who then incorporated themselves with
126 . Assessment ofTechnologyfor Local Development

the State of Vermont as a nonprofit agricultural

cooperative—the Rutland County Farmers’ Market—with bylaws, a board of governors, and a set

of clearly defined purposes:

to provide a marketplace for local growers to

sell their crops and for area craftspeople to sell

their wares;

to provide the consumer with quality local

produce and handmade goods;

to eliminate the need for a middleman, thereby providing a higher retail dollar for the

farmer/draftsperson and a lower purchasing

price for the consumer;

to provide consumers with the assurance of

quality they have come to expect in Vermont

produce and crafts;

to provide a festive marketplace that will add

color and diversity to the city, benefiting local

merchants and townspeople alike; and

to Provide a vehicle in which the rural and

urban qualities of Rutland County can blend

in harmony.

Membership in the market is open to anyone

from the community; those selling in the market

are automatically members, and other supporters

must pay a membership fee. The 10-member board

of governors is elected by the general membership

at an annual meeting, usually in April. All final

decisions are taken by the board, but it takes its direction from standing committees for such things

as entertainment, children’s activities, and advertising.

Seasonal or daily fees are collected from the

farmers and vendors and applied to operating

costs. The fees range from $30 to $100 seasonally,

or from $3 to $10 daily, depending on the size of

the table or space used. In 1979, the operating

costs for the market ran to about $6,000, including

insurance, rent, and office expenses. The two biggest items were advertising costs and the salary of a

paid coordinator. The Rutland experience shows,

however, that a good coordinator is perhaps the

best investment a farmers’ market can make.

Theirs began working for the market 2 years ago as

a CETA worker, but is now paid out of market

funds. His job includes allocating market spaces,

collecting fees, coordinating various market activities, keeping records of gross sales in order to evaluate the market’s growth and economic impact,

and arranging for publicity. The market also provides a paid coordinator to arrange activities for

children while their parents shop.

For its first 3 years, the market was located in a

church parking lot outside the central business district, and business was so poor that on some days

farmers went home having sold nothing at all. In

1977, after having sold a number of merchants on

the idea of a Saturday market on the street in

front of their stores, the market convinced the

Board of Alderman to let them use downtown

Center Street. Traffic was blocked off and vendors

set up their tables in front of the stores, and

market business improved dramatically. Because

of continued resistance from the mayor and a few

businessmen, they were forced to move the next

year to their present location in Peoples Park,

about 200 yards from the Center Street site, but

the results were the same. The downtown locations were centrally located, highly visible, and

provided more room for both vendors and customers. Local merchants now realize that they

benefit from the market’s overflow, and the outcome has been not only a more successful farmers’

market, but a stronger and more mutually supportive relationship between the farmers and

craftspeople, the local business community, and

the consuming public.

For farmers in Vermont, where 95 percent of

agricultural output consists of dairy products, the

farmers’ market provides a market where none existed before. Many were new to fruit and vegetable

farming, having switched to them because of these

new markets, or had previously relied on produce

for only a marginal portion of their farm income.

When they saw the high return they could get

from selling produce at or near retail prices, the

latter group began allotting more of their time, energy, and land to this part of their farming operation, which they now view as a major factor in

their financial solvency. Some of these farmers

now gross as much as $1,000 per week from their

direct-marketed produce, having almost doubled

their income from it in each succeeding year.

In addition to fruit and vegetables, the Rutland

County Farmers’ Market also offers local maple

products, honey, flowers, and herbs, as well as

baked goods, pickles, jellies, and jams. Local artisans—many of them retired senior citizens—sell
Ch. 6–Farmer's Markets ● 127

handmade crafts such as needlework, jewelry,

wooden toys, and pottery. To attract customers,

the market distributes a small advertising booklet

through local hotels and restaurants and uses

weekly newspaper ads and hourly radio spots on

market day. The market also sponsors live entertainment by dancers, theater groups, musicians,

and mimes, who are allowed to pass a hat among

the crowd of tourists and townspeople.

The result is an enterprise that responds to a

cross-section of needs within the community and

brings significant benefits to local farmers and

consumers alike. The broad nature of the market’s

appeal may explain why it has succeeded where

other community development projects—a food

co-op, a women’s health clinic, and a community

cannery—have failed, its benefits as well as its appeal seem to cross political, occupational, age, and

sex lines.

Morehouse Parish, La.

Morehouse Parish is a cotton-raising county in

northeastern Louisiana. Of its 33,000 people,

18,000 live in the principal city of Bastrop, where a

garment factory, two papermills, and a chemical

plant are the primary employers.

The Bastrop Farmers’ Market was set up by the

Morehouse Parish Vegetable Producers Association as an outgrowth of a comprehensive small

farms program initiated 20 years ago by the county

extension agent. At that time, a study done by a

consulting group, Doanne Agriculture, showed

that 1,005 of the 1,426 farms in the parish contained fewer than 100 acres, and that cotton was

the main source of income for these farms. Often

the land was not even in one location, and over

the years farmers had found it increasingly difficult to extract a decent income. Some were leaving for employment in local industries; others were

forced to rely on welfare or social security.

Overall, the economic outlook for the county was

bleak unless the small farms could somehow be

made more profitable.

One of the recommendations of the Doanne

study was that small farmers should consider vegetable crops as an alternative to cotton, since vegetables offered a higher return per acre. However,

a number of problems had to be solved. Not only

did most local farmers lack experience in vegetable

farming, but more importantly the local marketing

system at the time consisted of only a few roadside

stands and door-to-door peddling. Morehouse Parish farmers were also reluctant to change from

their traditional cotton crop to commercial vegetables.

Recognizing these problems, the county extension agent began a reeducation program. He used

community and neighborhood meetings to discuss

vegetable production, set up demonstration plots

in principal communities of the parish, and made

numerous farm visits to discuss vegetable production with individual farmers. A number of the

farmers began growing vegetables and entered into

contract marketing agreements for cucumbers, tomatoes, and okra; but their return per acre was

still low, and participation began to fall off.

Faced with this situation, the county agent and

an extension service specialist conducted a marketing survey that showed that sufficient local demand for local produce existed. What was needed

was to bring potential consumers and producers

together in some kind of a permanent farmers’

market. Accordingly, the agent met with the small

farmers and together they formed the Morehouse

Parish Vegetable Producers Association. To gain

community support, they met with Chamber of

Commerce members, police jurors, school board

members, and other business and civic leaders.

The response was enthusiastic. The local Chamber of Commerce bought a tent, which served as

the first market in 1972. Sales that year totaled

about $175,000. The next year the producers

leased a vacant building and employed a manager

with the help of a $1,600 grant from the State economic development district, and produce sales increased to $400,000.

The success of the first 2 years proved the need

for a permanent market location. With the support of the Chamber of Commerce and a State Legislator, the Morehouse Parish Vegetable Producers

Association received a grant from the Louisiana

Department of Public Works to build a permanent

market facility on a site in downtown Bastrop donated by the Parish Police Jury. Measuring 40 ft

wide and 75 ft long, the building includes an office, a large board displaying the day’s prices, a

walk-in cooler for storing surplus produce over-
128 l Assessment of Technology for Local Development

night, and pea and bean shellers with which customers can process their purchases on the spot.

Today, the market continues to operate

smoothly and with increasing benefits to area

farmers, who exhibit an uncommon degree of cooperation. To prevent flare-ups over prices or unreasonable dumping, a pricing committee sets

scale-weight and bulk prices for the produce, based

on the prevailing wholesale and retail prices; during peak season the prices sometimes change daily.

Moreover, a farmer will commonly drop his produce at the market and arrange for another

farmer, who has more time to spend at the market

that day, to sell his goods while he returns to his

farm tasks. Finally, the members of the Morehouse

Parish Vegetable Producers Association have

realized significant savings by informally sharing

farm equipment and by formally participating in

cooperative purchases of seeds, herbicides, and

pesticides. Savings from these bulk purchases

range between 30 and 60 percent.

The association has over 100 formal members,

from teenagers to senior citizens. Annual membership costs $5; there is a daily market fee of $2 for

nonmembers and $1 for members, with exemptions granted to senior citizens. More than 400

families, however, use the farmers’ market to sell

their produce at one time or another during the

year, and sales continue to expand. One 80-yearold part-time gardener made over $1,000 from a

half-acre plot of tomatoes; another family earns a

return of about $1,000 per acre from the peas,

corn, and collards they truck into Bastrop.

Introducing such a small farm program has necessitated a long-term agenda for teaching adults a

new set of skills. The county agent continues to

provide technical assistance to help farmers in expanding their operations and responding to consumer tastes. As a way to further their education,

farmers have gradually been given more and more

responsibility for seeing that the market system

functions smoothly. They have learned to plan

and cooperate by serving on the market’s pricing

committee, and have developed leadership skills

by having to rotate in the paid job of market

manager. Despite these efforts, however, the full

transition to a stable, self-reliant community with

a healthy, small-scale agricultural base is still some

years down the road—perhaps even into the next

generation.

In recognition of the fact that the future of local

small-scale agriculture rests with the young, the

comprehensive small farms program includes a

number of projects aimed at Morehouse Parish

youth. Through the School Board, the county

agent helped to establish a school vegetable farm,

a greenhouse complex, a cannery, and a slaughterhouse as extensions of the parish’s vocational

training program. Moreover, all of these projects

are linked with the other parts of the system, so

that consumers who purchase vegetables from the

farmers’ market can have them shelled at the site

and then use the modern processing equipment at

the community cannery run by the students.

Students also sell their vegetables at the market,

and plow the revenue back into the school projects. The Morehouse Parish small farm program

has thus been a catalyst in developing the community’s resources, creating new jobs, and providing vocational

The “Market

northern suburb

training and consumer services.

Ravinia, Ill.

on the Green” in Ravinia, a

of Chicago, is one of the most

successful farmers’ markets in Illinois. Its two principal organizers were local businessmen with offices adjacent to the market, who started the venture in 1978 as a means of drawing more customers

to the main business street on Wednesdays. Cooperating with 15 other neighborhood merchants,

they made it clear to the farmers that their desire

to promote the market derived from what they

perceived as a commonality of business interests.

As they wrote to the local farmers, “Our committee is formed of local merchants. We all know

and understand that you are not coming to

Ravinia to please us or sit under our shade trees,

but to make a profit.” A hardworking farmer could

hardly ignore their invitation to sell, which included a description of the market’s location, facilities, and advertising program, and added that:

Selling will be done under nearly ideal conditions . . . . Ravinia is in the center of 100,000 affluent families in Highland Park, Glencoe, Deerfield, and Northbrook . . . . We learned last year

that the buyers expect two things: top quality mer-
Ch. 6–Farmers’ Market~ ● 129

chandise and a festive atmosphere. It is up to you

to provide merchandise of the highest quality. It is

our job to provide the festive atmosphere.

The organizers were keen to ensure the quality

image of their market. They urged that farmers

bring in only their best tasting, top-quality produce, for which they are rewarded with abovesupermarket prices. At the farmers’ market in

neighboring Skokie, a less affluent community

than Ravinia, there is a demand for larger volumes

of more ordinary produce, so the farmers have an

alternate market for seconds. There are also

farmers’ markets in Elgin, Northfield, and Evanston—all within 25 miles of Ravinia—but the

Ravinia market does not directly compete with

them, primarily because of its emphasis on and

reputation for superior quality.

This demand for quality has had an interesting

effect on local agriculture. Ravinia’s consumers,

who are concerned with freshness and wholesomeness, tend to question the farmers about their

use of fertilizers and pesticides and are willing to

pay a premium price for organically grown fruits

and vegetables. As a result, some local farmers are

adopting organic principles and methods to please

their customers, and most of the farmers are

changing their choice of seed varieties to meet the

retail demand for quality and taste, rather than

the wholesale demand for shelf-life and appearance. They now earn about 50 percent more than

they would by wholesaling and enjoy a far more

secure livelihood.

Some 2,500 persons shop at the Ravinia Market

each Wednesday in season, some coming from as

far as Chicago and Wilmette, 20 miles away. Sales

average about $6 per customer; for the 17 participating farmers, this works out to nearly $1,000

gross sales per week, a sufficiently high return to

bring two farmers from Wisconsin and one all the

way from Michigan.

The self-interest of the local merchants and

their ability to organize themselves played a major

role in the success of the Ravinia Market, and they

too have increased their business on Wednesdays,

some by 20 percent. They realize, however, that

without the farmers none of this would be possible, and they offer a number of tips to farmers who

are thinking of selling their produce in a farmers’

market:

●

●

●

●

●

Make sure that the location of the market

is in a traffic area and not in some Godforsaken spot outside of town.

Be sure that you are not used to upgrade or

update or revitalize a downtown district that

is obviously on its way down and out.

Be sure that the farmers’ market is amply supported by promotion and advertising.

Be very sure that you are not competing with

wholesalers or fly-by-night middlemen or

summer students who buy their produce on

the wholesale market and come to the

farmers’ market for a quick profit.

Emphasize quality and freshness, and sell

your produce just as high as the nearest

supermarket. Customers come for quality,

not price.

Boston, Mass.

Like the Bastrop Market in Louisiana, the

farmers’ market in Boston–actually a network of

six markets in different neighborhoods—came into

being through the cooperation of producers’

groups and government agencies. The original

idea seems to have come from the Boston Urban

Gardeners (BUG), a nonprofit group organized in

1976 to promote community gardening and other

forms of urban food production. BUG, which coordinates the activities of existing gardening

groups and programs, sought to better meet the

needs of urban gardeners in Boston, one of which

was for a market at which to sell their produce.

At about the same time, the Division of Agricultural Land Use (DALU) of the Massachusetts

Department of Food and Agriculture (Mass Ag)

had identified a number of rural groups who were

mobilizing to revitalize Massachusetts agriculture

and to preserve the State’s existing (but rapidly

vanishing) farms by making their operations more

profitable. In 1976, a Farmers’ Market Task Force

was formed by representatives of Mass Ag,

DALU, the State Department of Community Affairs, and the State Legislature, with the function

of exploring the government regulations relevant

to marketing the produce of local farmers, as well

as strategies for lowering the cost and improving

the quality of the food distributed to urban residents.
130 l Assessment ofTechnology for Local Development

A third group was the Massachusetts Federation of Farmers’ and Gardeners’ Markets

(MFFGM), a nonprofit organization dedicated to

revitalizing local agriculture through direct marketing strategies. MFFGM, which issues a regular

newsletter called The Mass Marketeer, was interested in the idea of a farmers’ market in Boston

because they felt that its potential high volume

and high prices would attract farmers to the directmarketing movement.

These diverse groups and agencies were brought

together through the efforts of the Center on

Technology and Society (CTS), a nonprofit organization that had worked out a method of solving problems by linking up different networks of

human activity to achieve a particular goal. CTS’s

executive director describes “networking” in the

following way:

In this strategy, one or two individuals act as facilitators identifying individuals and groups with

similar concerns and complementary resources and

linking them together in collaborative efforts as

well as in sharing information and moral support.

In late 1977 CTS began to develop a networking

strategy to implement an alternative food distribution system for Boston’s diverse neighborhoods,

and in 1978 DALU hired the firm on a 12-week,

part-time consulting contract to set up a farmers’

market in Boston that same summer. By bringing

together independent groups with interlocking

needs and interests, CTS played midwife to a

model system of big-city farmers’ markets.

CTS and DALU held a strategy meeting with

representatives of an antipoverty agency, two

county extension services, a local community development corporation and—very significantly—

two local growers. Although these diverse organizations and institutions all shared the overall goal

of establishing a farmers’ market in the Boston

metropolitan area, they disagreed on exactly

where it should be located. Since no centrally located, accessible compromise site could be found,

it was decided, reluctantly at first, to establish

three different markets during the first year.

Following are profiles of the three communities

that served as sites for the Boston farmers’ markets

in the summer of 1978:

●

●

●

Roxbury lies in the heart of the city, and has a

population of 63,000, almost all of whom are

black. Its population has dropped by 26 percent in the last 10 years, in part as a result of

the physical deterioration of the area. Median

family “income is $6,588, with 45 percent of

the families under $5,000. It has the reputation of being a “high-crime area.”

The South End contains Boston’s Chinatown

and is the home of a number of ethnic groups,

with about 36 percent of its 25,000 population

being of foreign stock. Median family income

is $6,532, compared to a median of $9,133 for

all of Boston.

Dorchester has a population of about 180,000,

with a slightly higher than average median

family income of $9,300. Fewer than 20 percent of families have an income under $5,000.

The actual market sites were as diverse as the

communities that hosted them. Dorchester Gardenlands Preserve, Inc., the community development corporation that sponsored the Dorchester market, arranged to have a portion of their

main street blocked off each Saturday morning.

The farmers then parked along the street and sold

directly from their trucks. This was the most elaborate operation, requiring one traffic patrolman to

direct traffic. In the South End, the sponsor was a

tenants’ group, the Methunion Tenants Council,

which owned a parking lot next to a local

restaurant. This parking lot served as the South

End Farmer’s Market. The Roxbury Farmers’

Market was located on a 4-acre abandoned lot

owned by the Boston Redevelopment Authority,

which leased it to the Roxbury organizers free of

charge. However, the lot contained numerous potholes, frost heaves, and piles of rubble; its depressing appearance, and’ the area’s bad reputation, discouraged a number of farmers from participating.

To recruit growers to sell their produce at the

markets, DALU’s assistance proved invaluable.

They put Boston organizers in touch with prospective growers through the Greenbook, an annual directory of Massachusetts growers that lists

the farms and what they produce. With little

money for mass mailings, CTS and a group of volunteers sent out a copy of a typewritten letter to
Ch. 6–Farmers’ Markets ● 131

more than 200 local farmers in May. They also

spread information through local newspapers, agricultural bulletins, and selected newsletters, including MFFGM’s Muss Marketeer.

The Dorchester Farmers’ Market opened on

Saturday, July 8. It was followed by Roxbury on

July 14 and the South End on July 21. Table 18

gives a summary of the economic performance of

the three markets during their first season.

Opening day in Dorchester saw only one farmer

selling during the first hour, and consumers immediately bought him out. The farmer was interviewed by a local television station, and commented enthusiastically about how fast he was selling his produce. By the third week of operation,

seven growers were selling their produce at the

Dorchester Farmers’ Market, most of whom said

they came to Dorchester after seeing the television

interview. In Roxbury, the market had to struggle

from the very beginning and was eventually forced

to close prematurely because of poor consumer

and grower participation. Part of its problem was a

Friday morning schedule, which turned out to be

inconvenient for both shoppers and sellers.

The South End Market, on the other hand, was

scheduled on Friday afternoons from 3 to 7 p.m.,

which accommodated the working population

that had been excluded by the Roxbury market’s

early morning schedule. The schedule also appealed to growers, because it allowed them enough

time to travel to Boston without getting tangled in

the rush hours.

For their part, produce growers were attracted

to the Boston farmers’ markets because they provided a workable alternative to selling wholesale.

One 63-year-old farmer from Tully, Mass., drove

140 miles round trip each week to sell at all three

Boston markets. In an interview in the Boston

Herald-American, he called them a “Godsend” and

said they probably made the difference in his decision not to give up farming. In all, 26 growers

participated in at least one of the 36 total market

days held in Boston during the summer of 1978.

During the following winter, informal questionnaires were sent out to more than 200 Massachusetts growers to find out how responsive farmers’

markets were to their needs. Of the farmers who

replied, almost all were impressed by the amount

of produce they could sell in a short period of time

and the overall volume of sales they had experienced. Many growers were reluctant to discuss

exact figures, but average gross sales on any given

market day appear to have ranged from $200 to

$500, with occasional sales as high as $800. Sales

were good enough, in fact, that a number of

growers said they wanted more urban markets on

other days of the week.

That winter, four new communities in the

greater Boston area began planning to open their

own markets in 1979, and new communities were

advised to schedule their markets on each day of

the week except Sunday. One of them was located

in the affluent suburb of Brookline, in order to attract those growers who had been put off by locations in poor neighborhoods. CTS felt that once

Table 18.—Boston Farmers’ Markets Summary, 1978

Estimate of total Estimated

Market sales Seller’s fee Best selling items customers/market

Dorchester

Saturdays (9a.m.-1p.m.)

July 8-Oct. 7(14 weeks) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $20,000 $2,$5,$10

Roxbury

Fridays (9 a.m.-1 p.m.)

July 14-Sept. 8 (9 weeks) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3,500 None

South End

Fridays (3 p.m.-7 p.m.)

July 21-Oct. 13(13 weeks) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10,400 None

Fruit, corn, salad greens 200-300

Corn, beans, tomatoes 100-200

Corn, beans, fruit 150-250

Total number of market days (all three markets): 36

Average sales per market: Dorchester ($1,500); Roxbury ($390); South End ($800)

Average sales per week at all three Boston markets: $942.00

Total estimated customers buying at the three Boston farmers’ markets, 1978: 7,450

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.
132 l Assessment ofTechnology for Local Development

those growers ventured into Boston, their fears

would be overcome and they would visit some of

the other markets in the city. In 1979 all but one

of the six markets had successful seasons, and

many of the 40 or 50 participating growers said it

was the best year they ever had. Five of the six

markets were scheduled to return in 1980.

Baltimore, Md.

The idea for Baltimore’s market came from a

single consumer. In 1976, at one of the mayor’s

sounding-board meetings, a local citizen raised the

question of what to do about skyrocketing food

prices at the grocery store. This came at a time

when food prices had been rising steeply for 3

years, far outstripping inflation in other sectors of

the economy. “What we need,” the citizen suggested, “is a good old-fashioned farmers’ market,

where people could buy direct from the farmer and

eliminate the middlemen. ” Intrigued by the idea,

the mayor directed the city’s Office of Promotion

and Tourism to see what could be done about establishing a market.

Baltimore is fortunate in having a strong-mayor

system and a history of active, effective mayors. In

this case, the mayor’s stamp of approval was the

key to securing the cooperation and coordination

of the various city agencies and their respective

bureaucracies, a requirement for establishing any

successful farmers’ market.

The site chosen for the market, near the old fish

market, turned out to be a natural. Parking space

would be available for hundreds of cars, and a city

college next to the site would provide water and

restroom facilities for the farmers. To get farmers

interested in the project, staffers from the Office of

Promotion and Tourism got advice and names

from Maryland’s county extension agents and

then went from farm to farm making personal contacts. Letters were then sent out to the farmers

telling them about the facilities of the market and

the details of its operation. In the first year no fee

would be charged, and participants would not

need to prove they were really producers rather

than wholesalers in disguise.

To draw customers to the site, organizers sent

out press releases to radio stations and newspapers, which run public service announcements

and feature articles about the market, including

tips to consumers on what to look for and how to

prepare fresh produce when they get it home.

They also arranged to provide both entertainment

and ready-to-eat food each week, but after the first

year’s success the entertainment was canceled—

customers came in such numbers that the space

that had been used by the entertainers was needed

to accommodate the heavy flow of people through

the market area.

Unlike other cities, Baltimore has not done an

evaluation of their market, and no official data has

been collected on the gross sales or the volume of

produce being moved. However, the rising number of farmers who drive their trucks to the market

(which increased from 12 in 1977, to 70 in 1978, to

approximately 100 in 1979) is some indication that

they find the market profitable. Most of these

farmers have holdings of between 50 and 300

acres, and many have long-established relations

with wholesalers or a roadside stand of their own.

For these farmers to take on the additional burden

of planning trips to the Baltimore market on Sundays, the profit margin of this method of direct

marketing must be considerably more attractive

then their other options. Compared to running a

roadside stand, the city market offers farmers the

chance to move a larger volume of produce in a

shorter time and with lower overhead costs.

Rough estimates, based on the number of empty

bulk containers at the market, place the average

Sunday gross sales in the range of $700 to $1,000

per farmer, with several farmers grossing $2,000 to

$3,000 per market day in peak season.

For the farmers, there is no question that the

market works. On the consumer side, subjective

evidence and a casual survey of prices indicates a

similar positive benefit. A 1979 price comparison

found that farmers’ market prices were, on average, about 30 percent below those in nearby supermarkets. A large number of consumers spread the

benefits over the entire year by buying in bulk and

putting food up for the winter by canning and

freezing. It was not uncommon to see produce carried away in large plastic trash bags.

The success of Baltimore’s city-organized farmers’ market shows that, given the right conditions,

mayors and city agencies are capable of responding
Ch. 6–Farmers’ Markets l 133

quickly and effectively to the needs expressed by

their constituencies. Its example might encourage

other groups and cities to develop this alternative

and supplement to the present mass-distribution

system of food marketing.

In contrast to Baltimore’s informal system, the

history of city-run markets housed in permanent facilities indicates that (over time) large-scale, institutionalized farmers’ markets are subject to a number of economic and political pressures which can

change their character and the function they serve

in the community. An example can be found in

the next case study, the Pike Place Market in Seattle, Wash.

Seattle, Wash.

The conditions that led to the establishment of

the Baltimore Farmers’ Market in 1976 are similar

to those that led to the creation of Seattle’s Pike

Place Market 69 years earlier. Food prices had

jumped 30 percent and the Seattle Times placed

the blame on the city’s food trusts, commission

houses, and wholesalers. A city councilman,

claiming that “the average man was the victim of

organized greed,” called for the creation of a public

market where farmers could sell directly to consumers. The Seattle City Council eventually

passed an ordinance establishing a market at Pike

Place, which was a newly constructed roadway at

that time. The market was to represent the “little

guy”—the city resident, on one hand, and the local farmer, on the other, both of whom felt that

they would benefit by eliminating the middlemen.

The Pike Place Market was an instant success,

but over the years its profitability attracted developers, entrepreneurs, and wholesalers, who gradually encroached on the control and success of the

small farmers. The market was plagued by corruption in the 1920’s and by farm foreclosures during the Depression. A more serious reversal came

during World War 11 with the internment of

Japanese-Americans on the West Coast, many of

whom were farmers; the number of farmers in the

Seattle region plummeted by 65 percent. During

the postwar period, housing developments and industrialization–much of it due to the growth of

Boeing-began “paving over” agricultural land.

Between 1945 and 1975, farmland in King County

shrank from 165,000 to 55,000 acres.

The number of farmer-vendors participating in

the market gradually declined, and by the 1950’s

its operation was no longer bringing any revenue

to the city. Its buildings began to fall into disrepair; health, fire, and building code violations

cropped up; and the blight spread to property surrounding the market.

The Pike Place Market was saved from extinction by an initiative passed by Seattle voters in

1971, which called for the creation of a 7-acre

Market Historical District to preserve the market

and its surroundings. Although the sale of produce by local growers was given the number-one

priority by the historical commission, however, no

farmers were represented on the commission itself

or on the Pike Place Preservation and Development Authority (PDA), which carried out the actual rebuilding of the Market.

PDA’s general approach has been to purchase

buildings from the city and then obtain development financing through government loans and

grants as well as through the sale of tax-exempt

bonds. By the end of 1977, private investment in

Market redevelopment had reached $13.5 million,

and total public funding is projected to reach $40

million before redevelopment is completed. Close

to $15 million in debt financing will have to be repaid out of rental income over the next 10 to 25

years, and this will mean greatly increased overheads for participating small farmers.

Low-income local residents have also been hurt

by redevelopment: there had been 780 units of

low-income housing in the area before redevelopment, but by 1978 the number had fallen to 128.

Although there are plans to bring the number

back up to between 325 and 405, low-income residents felt threatened by the wave of condominium development and the overall “gentrification”

of the area, particularly as it affects the market

itself.

One of the most visible changes in the market

since redevelopment has been a sharp increase in

the number of tourists (see figure 25). Producers

and consumers alike complain about the tourists:

local residents because of the crowds, which make

shopping difficult, and local farmers because, as

one of them put it, “All they want are T-shirts,

jewelry, and one peach.” In addition, merchants
134 l Assessment of Technology for Local Development

who must appeal to these single-purchase customers are now choosing only the largest, best

looking fruit from the wholesalers, gone are the

lower cost, irregular size apples and pears that used

to be available for bulk buyers, large families, and

those on low or fixed incomes.

As a result, Pike Place Market today has more

craftspeople than farmers, more tourists than local

residents. It is no longer strictly a farmers’ market

at all—it has become a general retail market and

tourist attraction. Nevertheless, surveys indicate

that the market is still perceived primarily as a

food market, and that it is the produce that attracts customers. And despite the declining participation of farmer-vendors, the market can still provide consumers with significant savings: a comparison with six local supermarkets showed that

farmers’ market produce was consistently more

varied and less expensive. The produce vendors at

the market still draw a large percentage of their

customers from the immediate area, and the market’s regular customers, who shop there on a weekly basis, are its real mainstay. Significantly, 85 percent of these consumers said that they would buy

locally grown produce in preference to trucked-in

varieties, if both were available.

Nevertheless, local agriculture in the Seattle

area continues to decline. King County’s 1,200

farms range from 1 to 100 acres, with an average of

20.3 acres for vegetable farms and 11.4 acres for

berry farms. About 80 percent of this acreage is

farmed by owners or part-owners, but although 60

percent of the county’s commercial farmers earn

their primary income from the sale of farm products, approximately 70 percent of them also work

at second jobs away from their farms. The current

trend among both vegetable and dairy farmers is

toward steadily lower production and sales, and a

survey conducted by the city in 1974 indicated

that many were selling off their land, or were being forced to give up farming on leased lands because of high rents.

To help these farmers, King County has implemented agricultural zoning policies, current-use

tax laws, deferred utility assessments, and marketing support for local farm products. None of

these measures, however, has stemmed the tide of

conversion from agricultural to residential and industrial uses. A ballot initiative to purchase development rights from the farmers for $35 million

was defeated in 1978 by 180 votes.

Local farmers, interviewed about the future of

small-scale agriculture in the region, were pessimistic. Their own children and grandchildren have

no interest in farming, they said, and the young alternative-lifestyle farmers simply don’t stick with

farming long enough to gain experience. At the

same time, however, these farmers also indicated

that they were not interested in new farm technologies that would allow them to extend their production (and income) into the winter months–

they already work too hard in the spring, summer,

and fall, ran the usual response.

The Bulk Commodity Exchange.–The decline of local agriculture has led to concern that

the redeveloped Pike Place Market might become a

memorial rather than a market outlet for local

farmers. One hopeful development has been the

Bulk Commodities Exchange (BCE), a wholesale

direct-marketing cooperative designed to link

small farmers and local consumers by providing an

accessible outlet for bulk sales of fresh produce.

Incorporated in the summer of 1977 as a nonprofit

producer/consumer cooperative, it includes local

farmers as well as buying clubs, restaurants, and

other institutions. Located in the Market, it was

cosponsored by PDA, the King County Office of

Agriculture, and the Hunger Action Center. BCE

sells its members produce in the same quantities

that farmers generally deliver to wholesale houses:

a flat of strawberries, for instance, or 50 lb of

onions, or 100 lb of potatoes. By the end of 1978,

the gross sales had grown from $4,000 to $40,000,

the number of participating farmers from 17 to 21, ,

and the number of consumers’ groups from 40 to

70.

The BCE offers a marketing option that has attracted two additional groups of farmers: those

who produce too much to sell at farmers’ markets,

but too little for wholesaler houses, and those who

grow mainly for wholesale, but need alternate outlets for surplus cosmetically inferior produce.

Small- and medium-scale farmers sell to BCE because it pays them very well, but the arrangement

also has advantages for consumers. In September

1979, for instance, the local Safeway supermarket

was paying farmers $4.50 case (five dozen ears) of

local corn; BCE paid $5.50 per case, marking it up
to $6.60 case to consumers; Safeway’s advertised

sale price for the same corn was $7.50.

The fact that BCE sells food in bulk is of critical

importance, since at least 50 percent of its members purchase significant quantities of fruits and

vegetables to put up for the winter. One member,

an agricultural extension agent, sees BCE as an

important link between small farmers and urban

consumers; he would favor Federal support for a

network of BCE-type outlets. “We need to encourage our local farming right now,” he said. “Transportation and energy costs can be beaten by taking advantage of our local produce. ” BCE financing now depends on Community Development Block Grants, but when the grants run

out BCE will need to find stable, long-term funding.

Impact on Local Small-Scale Agriculture

In some cases, farmers’ markets have created local markets for fruits and vegetables where no

market had existed before; in others, they have

provided an alternative to the direct-marketing

systems that already existed, such as produce

stands and door-to-door vending. In both cases,

the markets provided higher prices to the farmers

than had been available through wholesalers or

contract marketing arrangements, in some cases

by as much as 50 percent. Average gross sales of

$500 or more were common, and in Baltimore and

Ravinia some farmers were able to sell over $1,000

worth of fruits and vegetables each market day.

Because of low overhead, high prices, and the

large volumes that can be sold in a short period of

time, this form of direct marketing offers the smallscale farmer a considerable financial opportunity.

In response to the opportunity provided by

these markets, local farmers have begun to change

their land-use patterns, planting schedules, and

farming methods. Farmers who had already produced vegetables and fruits, but relied on them for

only a small, marginal portion of their farm income, have begun to allocate more of their time,

energy, and land to these crops. One family in

Vermont now rents out half of their 200 acres to

neighboring dairy farmers, plants 3.5 acres in produce, and uses the rest to extract syrup from maple

trees, which previously provided two-thirds of

their income. A farmer in Louisiana has made a

similar reorganization in his farming operation,

renting all but 25 of his 115 acres to a neighbor

with a large cotton operation and concentrating

all of his energies on growing fresh market vegetables on the remaining land; each of his children

is given an acre to work for themselves, from

which they receive about $1,000 per year.

Farmers’ markets have also changed the planting schedules of participating farmers. They now

plant two crops per year, spring and fall, instead of

just one as they would under corn or cotton

monoculture. They have also learned the importance of staggered planting, in order to assure

themselves of a continuous flow of produce and to

avoid flooding the market, which would erode

their returns. Picking the crops by a certain date

can also improve their return—in Morehouse

Parish, for instance, the extension agent advises

farmers to pick southern peas before September 1,

because by that time most consumers have frozen

and canned all they will need for that winter.

Local direct marketing has also made a difference in the varieties of crops the farmers plant.

Large mechanized operations call for varieties of

peas or tomatoes that are easily picked by machine, for instance; processors demand certain

other varieties that are particularly suited to canning or processing into catsup or soups; and the

mass-distribution system puts a premium on

varieties that ship well, have long shelf-life, and

look appealing to the supermarket shopper. For

the farmers’ market, on the other hand, the premium is on quality and taste; appearance and

shelf-life are secondary. As a result, farmers in

Morehouse Parish plant the pole variet y of lima

bean, which is in greater demand than bush varieties. Because the markets also demand a wider

range of vegetables, farmers are able to diversify

their plantings and thereby decrease their vul-
136 l Assessment of Technology for Local Development

nerability to the failure of any one species or variety. In addition, careful selection of early or late

varieties can allow the farmer to spread out his

harvest, just as he does by staggered plantings–

thus, one farmer in Rutland purchases seed for a

special early pea variety from a firm in Prince Edward Island, Canada, in order to bring his peas to

market in early June, a week or two ahead of other

growers. Finally, the careful selection of seed varieties allows the farmer to grow what will sell best,

and to adjust his production to local demand and

taste.

All of these measures allow the farmers to increase the efficiency of their operations and make

the best use of available labor, but the case studies

also reveal that farmers are further improving the

productivity of their operations by changing their

farming methods and adopting technologies that

are more appropriate to vegetable farming and direct marketing. This is most pronounced in Morehouse Parish, where farmers have begun an informal program of sharing farm equipment, thereby sharing capital costs as well, and have realized

further savings through cooperative bulk purchases of seed, fertilizer, and pesticides. In response to consumers’ concerns and premium

prices at the Ravinia market, local farmers have

begun shifting to organic farming methods,

through which they can also realize savings by reducing or eliminating the use of fertilizers and

pesticides, and replacing them with such methods

as comporting and biological controls.

A number of additional technologies offer the

farmer potential methods for extending his growing season, and thus his income, and perhaps even

achieving a year-round operation. Black sheet

plastic is widely used as a mulch, but it is also an

excellent means of warming the soil and achieving

early, high-value crops of tomatoes, cucumbers,

sweet corn, and squash; in northern climates, it

makes possible the cultivation of desirable crops

such as cantaloupes and other melons. A second

planting of tomatoes in July, staked and heavily

mulched, can be protected with a 6-ft, plasticcovered teepee; this solar-heated and frost-proof

technique can give an additional month of growth

and yield late tomatoes that are very popular with

consumers. A raised bed under a glass sash can

also extend the growing season, and a larger greenhouse can produce fresh lettuce and salad greens

from November through February (see ch. 4). In

colder climates, well-insulated root cellars can also

provide a simple, low-cost storage system based on

historical techniques; in them, farmers can store

squash, cabbage, carrots, onions, and parsnips for

year-round sale to consumers.

These techniques are, for the most part, more

familiar to organic gardeners and alternative-lifestyle farmers than to commercial farmers. And for

the most part, these conventional farmers show

little interest in technologies for extending their

growing season or achieving year-round production. The usual reason given, particularly by farmers in the Seattle area, was that they already felt

overworked after 8 months of planting, cultivating, harvesting, and selling produce. What may

be needed, however, is a better understanding of

available technologies for decreasing costs, increasing productivity, and extending the growing

season. The steps taken by the county agent in

Morehouse Parish–workshops, demonstration

plots, and farm visits—proved to be an effective

means of achieving this goal. These same techniques, however, could also be applied to the production of vegetables in solar greenhouses (see ch.

4) and in urban community gardens.

Critical Factors

Public Perception and Participation

If any one conclusion can be drawn from the six

case studies in this chapter, it is that the single

most important factor in the successful development of a farmers’ market is the participation of

the local farmers in the planning, design, and

operation of the market. The deficiencies of Pike

Place as a farmers’ market shows that more attention must be given to the farmers’ interests and

problems, and that they must be consulted and

given more responsibility. Of all the various actors

in the redevelopment of Pike Place, the producers ‘ , ,
Ch. 6–Farmers’ Markets l 137

were the most vital but the least organized, and

thus the least heard from.

In Morehouse Parish, by contrast, the market is

operated by the farmers themselves, with the help

of the local extension agent. Similarly, the successful market in Rutland, Vt., was organized by

the local farmers, who also participate in its governance; spokesmen there attribute the market’s success in large part to the fact that the farmers organized themselves into a formal cooperative with

a clearly defined set of goals. In Boston, finally, the

idea for a network of farmers’ markets originally

came from a local producers’ group, and it was by

putting this group in contact with a network of

similar organizations that the State government

and its consultants contributed to the project.

The Ravinia and Baltimore case studies show

that local merchant groups and municipal governments can be effective in initiating a farmers’ market, but in other cases these same groups have

been barriers to implementing such projects, as

will be seen below. The organizers of a farmers’

market would do well to make early and close contacts with these groups, however, since their cooperation greatly facilitates the establishment and

operation of the markets.

The farmers’ markets have been well received

and actively supported by the general public. They

appeal to and serve the needs of a broader crosssection of the community than do some other local development projects, and the Boston and

Rutland markets successfully enlisted community

groups and individual citizens in the organization

and governance of the markets. The evidence suggests that it is the identity of the market as a food

market that is responsible for much of this appeal

and support, and organizers should be certain that

nonfood activities remain subordinated to this primary function, which should also be the focus of

their promotional efforts.

Consumer participation is also important, and

in most cases a carefully planned and vigorously

pursued program of promotion and advertising

can contribute significantly to the market’s initial

success and eventual self-sufficiency. Informational letters sent to local farmers, followed by

farm visits to establish personal contacts, were useful in recruiting producers for the Ravinia and

Baltimore markets; their continued participation,

however, depended on attracting and retaining

customers. Rutland’s brochure on the market is

one way of doing this, and most of the markets

make use of paid advertisements in local newspapers or public service announcements on local

radio stations, informing the general public of the

market’s existence telling them what to look for on

a given market day, and in some cases quoting current prices. Media coverage of a market’s opening

can help to attract both producers and consumers,

as happened in Boston. Feature articles in the food

section, which Baltimore encouraged through

press releases, can serve an additional function by

educating the consumer on how to prepare an unfamiliar vegetable or how to make new dishes with

fresh produce—a useful tool in a community nutrition program as well as a means for diversifying

and strengthening the market for locally grown

produce.

Essential Resources

The natural resource base on which a society relies—land, water, etc.—can be utilized to meet its

production needs in different ways, along a continuum representing various degrees of centralization. Some regions might specialize in agriculture,

while others are used primarily for industrial uses;

but such an approach imposes extremely high

costs for processing and transportation. Because of

rapidly rising energy costs, recent development efforts have concentrated increasingly on creating

and developing viable local economies. Implicit in

this approach is the need for a system of mixed

land use within any given region.

If local agriculture is to be part of this mix, its

survival may depend on the existence of local produce outlets like the farmers’ market or bulk commodity exchange. By decreasing costs and increasing both productivity and profitability, these local

markets can help the small farmer to stay in

business and keep his land in productive use.

Small farmers outside Rutland, Boston, and Baltimore all testified to the high profitability of the

markets and the difference they had made in the

solvency of their operations. The farmers’ market

has had its largest impact, however, in Morehouse

Parish, where marginal farmers saw no alternative

to the cotton crop. Many of these farmers were

74-435 0 - 81 - 10
138 . Assessment of Technology for Local Development

saved by switching to more profitable vegetable

crops and more efficient methods, and by establishing direct access to local consumers who want

to buy what they produce.

Farmers will further improve their return if they

adjust their production to the varieties or grades of

produce that are in demand in a particular community. A market survey or careful recordkeeping

can be a great help in making this adjustment. The

variety of available produce and the reliability of

the producer seem to be important factors in all of

the case studies; but in some of the markets quality

is the primary consideration, while in others price

is more important, and in yet others the consumers are interested in the wholesomeness of organically grown vegetables. Very early and very

late produce (May peas and October tomatoes, for

instance) are also in great demand and therefore

more profitable for the farmer who is willing to adjust his schedule or adopt new methods.

The physical design of the marketplace itself

should give primary consideration to the functional use of space. Selling produce off the tailgates

of trucks parked on a blocked-off street is the

simplest and perhaps the most efficient arrangement. A more permanent facility needs lighting

and drainage capacity, as well as a practical layout

that facilitates the movement of shoppers and

tourists; it also needs outside access in the form of

parking and loading areas. Some consideration

should also be given to the type of neighborhood

in which the market is to be located and the schedule of its operation. Roxbury’s reputation as a

“high-crime area” discouraged a number of farmers from going there, but the site itself was uninviting and the schedule—Friday morning and

early afternoon—was inconvenient for both the

farmers and the working people of the community.

The Boston network has scheduled its six markets

on six different days of the week, so that farmers

have a different market available every day except

Sunday. Location, layout, and scheduling are all

areas where organizers need input from local

farmers and consumers.

The Pike Place Market shows some of the pitfalls

to be avoided in the redevelopment of existing urban markets. Preservation rather than demolition

was the rule in its redevelopment, but the planners

appear to have concentrated on exterior appearance rather than on the real functions of the

market. Within the Market, the design of sales

and storage space seems to have proceeded without sufficient input from the local producers themselves. Moreover, according to some consumer interviews, not enough attention was given to the

needs of local shoppers, who complained of

crowding, lack of parking, loss of housing and

services, and an actual decline in the availability of

low-priced produce.

Technical Information and Expertise

Local farmers and gardeners are the main source

of expertise, but in several case studies they were

unfamiliar with direct-marketing techniques and

with the tastes of local consumers, as well as with

the methods of fruit and vegetable farming. The

local agricultural extension service could provide

invaluable assistance in these areas, as it did in

Morehouse Parish, and the networking strategies

used by CTS in Boston are also an effective way to

spread information and experience.

A market survey can determine not only

whether sufficient demand exists, but also what

crops or varieties will be in particular demand by

local consumers. The same information can also

be gathered through careful recordkeeping by the

participating farmers or, as in the case of the Rutland market, by a paid coordinator. In Ravinia,

one of the local merchants who organized the

market also serves as an unpaid market master; in

Baltimore and Seattle this role is played by municipal employees. In all of these cases the arrangement removes the burden of actually running the

market from the farmers, but the Morehouse

Parish study shows that the farmers themselves are

capable of assuming the management chores. By

rotating the post of market master and membership on the pricing committee, this arrangement

also contributes to the development of management skills in the community.

The Morehouse Parish example also shows the

importance of a comprehensive program of education, information, and training in the techniques

of vegetable farming as well as the management of

the farmers’ market itself. The local county extension agent not only got the local farmers interested

in vegetable farming and direct marketing, but has

also initiated a training program in the local
Ch. 6–Farmers’Markets 139

school system and is trying to interest the communit y in running a cannery. Some of the Seattle

area farmers suggested the development of similar

agricultural apprenticeship programs to train new

farmers and reverse the decline in their numbers.

Such training programs might also include exposure to innovative farm technologies that will

increase productivity and extend the local supply

of produce to a more nearly year-round basis. The

lack of interest in these methods on the part of the

Pike Place farmers might be overcome by a better

understanding of the methods themselves and

their potential economic rewards. Networking, as

practiced in Boston, might accomplish the same

end by bringing farmers together with those who

are already familiar with these techniques.

Financing

According to available information, total investment in the Pike Place Market project has already exceeded $50 million. While it may be too

earl y to determine whether the full impact of the

redevelopment will justify expenditures on this

scale, it would be reasonable to ask whether this

use of funds reflects the needs of local farmers or

the desires of local residents, and what its effect

will be on the future character of the surrounding

community. The functions of Pike Place as a

farmers’ market might well have been promoted

with a smaller infusion of funds, and the redevelopment financed without placing financial

burdens on the farmers in the form of higher rents

to subsidize the capital costs of the project.

Judging by the experience of the five other markets, the initial financing needed to set up a

farmers’ market appears to be quite minimal, depending on whether it is quartered in a permanent

facility or whether the produce is simply sold off

the back of the farmers’ trucks. The real need, at

least in the beginning, is for operational expenses

to pay the salary of whatever staff is required to

coordinate market activities, run the advertising

program, and carry out other duties. In the smaller

markets, the fees paid by the farmers may be insufficient to cover these costs, but considering the ancillary benefits the markets produce in cit y

neighborhoods, the expenses could reasonably be

borne by the municipality, as they are in Baltimore or by the local merchants, as they are in

Ravinia. The State grants that paid for the initial

operating expenses in Morehouse Parish and the

consultant’s fee in Boston are appropriate ways to

finance startup costs, but the Bulk Commodity

Exchange in Seattle shows signs of becoming

dependent on the Community Development

Block Grants that support its operation, and when

these grants run out it will need to find stable,

long-term funding if it too is to become a viable,

self-sustaining enterprise.

Institutional Factors

The farmers’ market represents only a minor

economic threat to local wholesalers and massdistribution retail outlets, and these interests have

not been particularly vocal or active in their

opposition to the farmers’ markets studied in this

chapter. In fact, the markets often provide an outlet for farmers whose output is are too small to be

of interest to traditional marketing systems.

Wholesalers may represent a threat to local producers, however, when they compete unfairly with

locally grown products or when they, rather than

the small farmers, have a controlling voice in the

operation of the market.

Opposition has come, instead, from local merchants and from municipal officials. As was the

case in Rutland, store owners often fear that the

farmers’ market will detract from their business,

and for this reason oppose having them on the

street in front of their shops. Prior consultation

with the Chamber of Commerce and other groups

can often do much to allay their fears, avoid their

opposition, and even enlist their support. In most

cases, the markets had positive impacts on local

business, and this information may help to convert the uncertain. In Ravinia, in fact, it was the

merchants themselves who organized the market

as a way of increasing their business, and in both

Rutland and Seattle the markets significantly

stimulated the tourist trade. The Baltimore case

study shows that the municipal government can

itself take the initiative in establishing a market. It

also shows that the support of the mayor can be

invaluable in obtaining the necessary cooperation

of various city agencies that might oppose or impede the development of the market—the most

likely candidates being Health and Sanitation,

Public Works, Zoning, Weights and Measures,

Tourism, and Police.
140 l Assessment of Technology for Local Development

Federal

Background

Like a number of the technologies examined in

other chapters of this report, the farmers’ market

and other means of direct marketing have potential benefits that cut across several national issues;

their success or failure can therefore be affected by

a number of Federal policies. Energy conservation,

for instance, is an important byproduct of the establishment of these markets. Farmers’ markets, in

turn, are affected by rural development and small

farm policies, which are discussed in chapters 4

and 5, respectively. However, Federal policies

most directly relevant to the development of

farmers’ markets are those which concern agricultural land retention and the encouragement of

direct marketing. A third related topic, that of the

role of the Agricultural Extension Service, will

also be discussed at the end of this section.

Agricultural Land Retention11

By improving the economic viability of small

farms near urban areas, the widespread adoption

of alternative technologies for the production and

marketing of farm products may help to slow the

conversion of the Nation’s cropland to nonagricultural uses, a trend that has become a topic of increasing debate at all levels of government. Between 1967 and 1975, according to USDA’s Soil

Conservation Service, about 24 million acres of

rural land—an area about the size of Indiana—was

converted to housing subdivisions, highways, reservoirs, parks, and other nonagricultural uses; by

1972, American farmers were planting 50 million

fewer acres than they had in 1950.12

Recent years have seen a continued net loss of

cropland:

Each year 1.25 million acres are converted to efficient cropland by draining swamps and irrigating

deserts, while 0.9 million acres are converted to urI Isome of the material in this section is drawn from Jefferey Zinn,

“Farmland Protection Legislation,” Library of Congress, Congres.

sional Research Service issue brief No. IB78013, May 29, 1980; and

w’. Wendell Fletcher, “Agricultural Land Retention,” Library of

Congress, Congressional Research Service report No. 78-177 ENR,

Aug. 31, 1978.

12zinn, Op. cit., pp. 1, 2.

Policy

ban and transportation use. The rest of the 2.2 million acres of rural land which goes out of use yearly

is abandoned because it has “low soil fertility and a

terrain unsuited to efficient use of modern machinery.” A million acres yearly goes into additional wilderness recreation areas and wildlife refuges, and another 300,000 acres goes for reservoirs

and flood control. 13

In other words, for every acre of farmland created (at great cost) from swamps or deserts, an acre

of previously useful land is “paved over” or

“drowned” and lost to agriculture forever. Often

this is precisely the farmland closest to the consumer.

This issue was concealed during the 1950’s and

1960’s by repeated crop surpluses; by Government

payments to farmers to keep land out of production; and by low prices for petroleum-based fuels

and fertilizers. In the early 1970’s, increasing world

demand for U.S. agricultural products and a temporary suspension of Federal set-aside programs

led farmers to bring much of the available land

back into production. At the same time, rising oil

prices have sharply increased the costs of conventional, energy-intensive agricultural techniques.

Concurrently, yields have been adversely affected

by an increased variability in the weather: 1979

produced a bumper crop, but the 1980 crop was

significantly reduced in many regions by heat and

drought.

Concern about farmland conversion continues

to mount. Some people feel that continued conversion to nonagricultural uses, combined with

the deterioration of some of the remaining cropland, may hinder the achievement of the Nation’s

long-term agricultural production goals. Others

point out that although 1.25 million acres are converted to cropland each year, this is usually done

by draining swamps or irrigating deserts, which requires a high initial investment and an increased

demand on the Nation’s energy and water supplies. These views are discounted by those who feel

that advances in conventional agricultural tech1’Julian L. Simon, “Resources, population, Environment: An

Oversupply of Bad News,” Science, vol. 208, No. 4451, June 27, 1980,

p. 1435.
nology will offset any production losses or cost increases that arise from cropland conversion and

abandonment. Still others think that the situation

should be studied further before changes are made

in Federal policy to deal with the problem on a

nationwide basis. Finally, some think that farmland retention is an essentially local or regional

problem.

Many State and local governments are currently considering legislation to protect farmland from

indiscriminate development, and others have already adopted such measures and implemented a

wide range of programs to carry them out. *4 The

Federal Government is also assessing the impact of

its own policies on agricultural land retention.

The National Agricultural Lands Study, which is

being carried out jointly by USDA and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), is scheduled

to present its final report in January 1981. USDA,

CEQ, and the Environmental Protection Agency

have either adopted or are now formulating policy

statements in support of the concept of cropland

retention. Despite these efforts, however, there

currently exists no Federal program to assist State

and local governments in developing farmland

protection legislation and programs.l5 Members of

both the 95th and 96th Congresses proposed legislation to establish such a program.

95th Congress. —In the 95th Congress, the

Agricultural Land Retention Act (H.R. 11122)

called for a commission to undertake a comprehensive study of agricultural land, and to

recommend to the President and Congress

methods for instituting a national policy for protecting farmland. In addition, its title III proposed

a demonstration program to provide Federal funds

and technical assistance to States and localities for

testing and demonstrating farmland protection

methods during the life of the proposed commission. The National Agricultural Land Policy Act

(S. 2757) was generally similar to H.R. 11122.

Neither of these pieces of legislation was enacted

by the 95th Congress.

The Farm Tax Equity and Family Farm Development Act (H.R. 107 16) was more directly relevant to appropriate technology and agricultural

14c5ee ~etcher, op. cit., and Untuxing Open Spuce (Washington,

D. C.: Council on Environmental Quality, April 1978).

I JFletcher, op. cit., p. 43.

land retention. Its title IV would have authorized

low-cost small farm ownership and operating

loans, to be made and insured by the Secretary of

Agriculture, that would enable small, family, and

low-income farmers and ranchers to acquire smallscale alternative farm technologies. Furthermore,

its title V (“Farm Marketing Programs”) would

have authorized funds to support the development

of alternative systems for the distribution and

marketing of agricultural products. H.R. 10716

was not enacted by the 95th Congress.

96th Congress.—Members of the 96th Congress proposed legislation that was essentially the

same as that proposed during the 95th Congress.

The Agricultural Land Protection Act (H.R. 2551)

would have authorized funds for conducting

studies on the issues surrounding the retention of

agricultural lands as well as for demonstrating different methods of cropland protection, but it also

contains provisions which might encourage the

adoption of appropriate technologies by small

farmers. It directs the Secretary of Agriculture to

conduct a comprehensive study of methods for

protecting and improving agricultural lands in and

around urban areas, which would set a precedent

for including urban food production in the formulation of land retention policies. This Bill also

declares that it is the policy of Congress to foster

intergovernmental cooperation in making decisions likely to affect the conversion of agricultural

land to other uses. After considerable floor debate,

the House rejected H.R. 2551 on February 7, 1980

by a vote of 177-210.

Direct Marketing

The central piece of Federal legislation affecting

the development of farmers’ markets and other

forms of direct marketing is the Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing Act of 1976 (Public Law

94-463). The purpose of this Act is to promote

“the marketing of agricultural commodities

. . . directly to individual consumers, or organizations representing consumers, in a manner calculated to lower the cost and increase the quality of

food to such consumers while providing increased

financial returns to the farmer” (sec. 3). The Act

authorizes USDA to promote direct marketing in

three ways:

. continuous surveys in each State to deter-
142 l Assessment of Technology for Local Development

mine the extent of direct marketing and its

impact on financial returns to farmers and

food quality and cost to consumers;

financial and technical assistance to State

departments of agriculture and extension

services for programs to encourage direct marketing; and

annual progress reports to the appropriate

House and Senate committees.

USDA’s Economics, Statistics, and Cooperative

Service (ESCS), which was to conduct the surveys,

has pointed out that the funding–$500,000 in a

supplemental appropriation in September 1978—

was insufficient for continuous nationwide surveys. ESCS had previously proposed an alternative approach consisting of statewide surveys of between 6 and 10 States annually, periodic surveys

of cooperative marketing associations, and supplemental case studies of representative directmarketing methods to be prepared through research agreements with State experimental stations. The first survey of 6 States was released in

July 1980,16 and ESCS has executed research

agreements with 10 State experimental stations for

case histories.

Two other USDA agencies have undertaken a

joint effort to inform producers and consumers of

the potential benefits of direct marketing. The

Agricultural Marketing Service, which works with

State departments of agriculture on technical assistance programs, and the Science and Education

Administration, which works with State extension services on educational assistance, have invited each State to submit proposals for projects to

promote direct-marketing methods. Through the

end of fiscal year 1978, this program had disbursed

$1,948,000 for 22 projects in 23 States.

In conjunction with Cornell University, USDA

is also developing a computer planning model to

assist farmers in making their marketing decisions.

When fed information on a farmer’s available labor, land, crops, and other variables, this model

will produce a recommendation for the allocation

of resources among different marketing methods—

the marketing mix—that will maximize the farmer’s return on his investment. Farmers are to have

access to this computer model through their counlbHenderson and Linstrom, op. Cit.

ty extension offices, many of which have already

been equipped with computer terminals.17

Finally, USDA has also undertaken direct-marketing programs under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 1087),

which provides matching funds for State marketing improvement projects, and the Smith-Lever

Act of 1914 (38 Stat. 372), which established the

Agricultural Extension Service. Of the 35 projects

funded under the former Act in fiscal year 1978,4

were specifically related to direct marketing; under

the latter, USDA reported in 1975 that “the cooperative extension service agencies in 18 States

have established active, continuing direct marketing programs and have published over 100 related

informational bulletins.”18 A recent evaluation of

these extension service projects found that:

In general, the direct marketing activities pursued by the cooperative extension service agencies

appear similar to those authorized by section 5 of

the Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing Act of

1976-for example, 12 of the projects funded under

the act involve planning farmers’ markets and 11

involve roadside markets. The major difference appears to be that extension service activities are

more limited in scope, due to funding constraints. 19

Issues and Options

ISSUE 1 :

Research and Information Gathering.

The Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing Act

authorized $3 million for a 3-year program to encourage direct marketing. ESCS subsequently received a supplemental appropriation of $0.5 million in fiscal year 1978 to conduct its surveys (see

above), and equal amounts were budgeted in fiscal

years 1979 and 1980. In a recent evaluation of the

Act, the General Accounting Office (GAO) found

that USDA’s programs have been effective in

ITIntervlew with Peter L. Henderson and Harold R. Linstrom, pro]-

ect directors, Impacts of Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing on

the Structure and Performance of the Food Deliver y System, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Economics, Statistics, and Cooperative

Service, Aug. 29, 1980.

lsDlrect Famer.to.Consumer Marketing Program Shotdd Be Continued

and improved (Washington, D. C.: General Accounting Office, july 9,

1980), report No. CED-80-65, app. IV, p. 36.

*91bid.
Ch. 6–Farmers’ Markets l 143

aiding the expansion of direct marketing and in

gathering a considerable amount of information

on the extent and impact of different marketing

methods. The report also found, however, that a

number of the current projects cannot be completed before the end of the program, and that the

full impact of some of these projects will not be

measurable for a number of years. GAO concluded that extension of the Act “would help the

States continue such projects until (1) the original

objectives are reached, (2) the projects become selfsufficient, and/or (3) other sources of fundings can

be obtained.”20

Option 1: Reenact the Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing Act of 1976.—Authorization for current USDA direct marketing programs ended on September 31, 1980. GAO recommends that the Congress continue its support for

the Direct Marketing Program for an additional 2-

or 3-year period by authorizing such funds as it

thinks necessary for existing projects, new projects, and improved program coordination and

evaluation. GAO also recommends that a single

office within USDA be designated to coordinate

direct marketing programs and to serve as an information clearinghouse. Reenactment would

allow USDA to initiate new pilot programs, consolidate existing programs, and gather additional

data on the impact of direct marketing on local

food production, regional food security, energy

conservation, income stability for farmers, and

agricultural land retention (see below). USDA

concurs with most of these recommendations. 21

ISSUE 2 :

Outreach and Information

Dissemination.

The effectiveness of the innovative programs

begun by the county extension agent in Morehouse Parish suggests that similar extension programs may be beneficial in other communities if

they are equally well designed and imaginatively

implemented. The Cooperative Extension Service’s direct marketing programs have been

hampered by inadequate funding, however, and

‘“lbid., p. 15.

‘

i Ibid., pp. 15-17.

have not as yet reached all regions of the United

States.

Option 2: Expand* the Role of the Agricultural Extension Service in Promoting Direct Marketing.—Should Congress decide to extend the Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing

Act of 1976, it may wish to earmark certain funds

for use by local extension agents for information

and planning projects similar to those in Morehouse Parish and elsewhere. Congress may also

wish to direct that the Agricultural Extension

Service be given a larger role in disseminating the

results of the pilot projects and marketing surveys

initiated under the Act or in making the joint

USDA-Cornell University computer model available to the largest possible number of farmers.

Congress might also direct that the local extension

agents and regional extension specialists throughout the Nation be encouraged to supply more information and suggestions for the design of direct

marketing projects, and/or that they coordinate

their activities with the related local programs of

other Federal agencies, such as the food and nutrition program of the local CSA community action

agency (see ch. 4 and the case study of Rutland,

Vt.).

ISSUE 3 :

Agricultural Land Retention.

The development of local direct marketing systems may contribute significantly to the survival

of the Nation’s decreasing number of small-scale

and family farms. The data being gathered by the

ESCS should eventually shed light on the impact

of direct marketing on retention of local agricultural lands. This issue has national as well as

local importance, however, and the results of these

surveys, in combination with the results of the

joint USDA-CEQ National Agricultural Lands

Study, will be of vital interest in the formulation

of future Federal policy and programs.

Option 3: Investigate the Impact of Direct

Marketing on Agricultural Land Retention.

—Should Congress decide to extend the programs

initiated under the Farmer-to-Consumer Direct

Marketing Act of 1976, it would allow ESCS to

complete direct marketing surveys in every State,

instead of the 18 to 26 currently proposed, and to
144 l Assessment ofTechnology for Local Development

complete the supplementary case studies being car- to consider the implications of both studies in the

ried out by selected State experimental stations. formulation of future legislation, so that Federal

Congress may want to review the results of the policy and programs will be designed in such a way

completed reviews and the results of the forth- as to achieve maximum benefits in these intercoming “National Agricultural Lands Study,” and related areas.
Resource

Chapter 7

Recovery

From Municipal Solid Waste
Contents

Page

introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....147

Alternative Resource Recovery

Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Centralized Resource Recovery—A Case

Study of the Recycle Energy System,

Akron, Ohio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

The Community Setting. . . . . . . . . ..., . . . . . . . 149

Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

The Recycle Energy System Technology. . . . . . . . . 150

The Akron RES Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

Source Separation and Resource Recovery

—A Case Study of the Bronx Frontier

Development Corp. Composting Project,

New York City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

The Community Setting. , . . . . . . .,...., . . . . . 155

Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

The BFDC CompostingTechnology . . . . . . . . . . . 157

The BFDC Composting Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

Critical Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

Public Perception and Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

Essential Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

Financing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

institutional Factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Page

Federal Policy . . . . . . . ..................164

Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

of 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . , 165

Other Laws Having an Impact on Resource

Recovery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Issues and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

List of Tables

Table No. Page

19. Projected Profit and Loss Statement, Akron

RES Project, 1980--2004 . .................154

20, Projected Costs of Two Aerobic Composting

Processes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

21. Projected Cost/Revenue Balance, Bronx

FrontierProject. , . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

List of Figures

Figure No. Page

26. Operational Flow Chart, Recycle Energy

system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

27. BFDC Open-Windrow Composting Process . . . 158
CHAPTER 7

Resource Recovery

From Municipal Solid Waste

Introduction

Public and private organizations throughout the

United States are investigating and investing in

technologies that will recover resources from

municipal solid waste (MSW).l Two increasingly

serious problems—those of waste disposal and resource supply—are compelling them to do so:

The United States annually generates more than

135 million tons of MSW. Its disposal is a rapidly

growing problem for many areas of the country,

where such traditional methods as open dumping,

landfill, uncontrolled incineration, and ocean

burial are too expensive or environmentally unacceptable. At the same time, MSW contains over

two-thirds of the national consumption of paper

and glass, over one-fifth of the aluminum, and

nearly one-eighth of the iron and steel. If burned,

the combustible portion of this waste would be

equivalent to about 1.9 percent of the Nation’s annual energy use.

Resource recovery . . . recycling, and reuse can

contribute to the wise and efficient use of materials, to conserving energy, to preserving the environment, and to improving the balance of trade by

reducing our dependence on imported natural resources. By using materials more than once, virgin

resources can be conserved for ourselves and for future generations.2

Major environmental legislation enacted during

the 1970’s ruled out several previously acceptable

methods of solid waste disposal, and this put pressure on State and local governments to find innovative ways of disposing of MSW. At the same

time, supply disruptions and price increases, such

as the 1973 oil embargo and the recent OPEC

price hikes, have caused uncertainty about the future availability and cost of energy and other raw

materials. This uncertainty has in turn led to

greater efforts to conserve these resources and,

where possible, to recycle them for further use.

Consequently, to the extent that alternative technologies for solid waste disposal can also recover

energy and materials from MSW, they can reduce

the cost of community services and promote local

development, as well as serving the interests of

health, environmental protection, economic wellbeing, and national security.

1 As defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of

1~76 (PublIc Law 94-580), sec. 1004, these “resources” include both

energy and materials.

2Materiuh and Encrg> From jMunwipu/ Waste (two VOIS., Washington, D. C.: Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, July

1979), vol. 1, OTA.M-93, p< 3.

Alternative Resource Recovery Technologies

An earlier OTA assessment has identified two

major methods for recovering energy and materials for recycling from MSW: source separation and

centralized resource recovery. Source separation

consists of programs to separate recyclable mate-

~Ibld., ~speclally ap p . C; (or a more extensive sur~”ey of research in

this area, see U.S. Bureau of Mines, Bureau of Mines Research on Resource Recowr>, Reclamutton, Utd[tatlon, Dsposal, and Stabd[zanon,

Bureau of Mines Information Circular 8750, (Washington, D. C.: Department of the Intermr, 1977).

rials at the waste source and then collect them

through such -methods as curbside collection, community recycling centers, industry-sponsored recycling programs, and commercial and industrial

methods of source separation. These programs are

the only available method by which wastepaper

can be recovered for recycling into new paper

products, and they also recover significant

amounts of glass and ferrous and nonferrous

metals. Industry-sponsored programs, for instance,

147
148 l Assessment ofTechnology for Local Development

collected 25 percent of all the aluminum beverage

cans produced in 1977. In addition, separated yard

wastes and other organic matter can be composted

to produce soil-enhancing materials.

Centralized resource recovery, in which mixed

wastes are processed at a central facility, also can

recover energy from MSW either by producing

steam or by converting the organic components of

the waste into some form of fuel. The upper limit

on energy recovery from MS W would equal about

1.9 percent of current annual energy consumption

in the United States, and the recovery of all of the

recyclable materials would save an additional 0.4

percent—the energy it would require to produce

these materials from virgin sources—for a total

energy savings of 2.3 percent of current consumption. Technical and economic factors will keep

energy recovery to a fraction of this potential for

the foreseeable future; nevertheless, centralized

resource recovery can play a small but significant

role in conserving energy.

A number of alternative technologies for recovering materials and for burning the combustible

portion of MSW or converting it into fuel are at

various stages of development. Commercially operational technologies include the comporting of

organic wastes and the magnetic recovery of ferrous metals, as well as two types of energy recovery

systems: the mass incineration of raw MSW in waterwall furnaces or small-scale modular incinerators; and several processes that recover solid refuse-derived fuel (RDF) from separated and treated

wastes.

Developmental technologies, which have been

demonstrated in pilot operations but not in fullscale plants, include several processes for recovering aluminum and glass from the waste flow, as

well as two methods of energy recovery: pyrolysis

systems, in which the wastes are distilled at high

temperatures to produce medium- and low-Btu

gases and liquid RDFs; and landfill methane recovery, in which the gases produced by biological

processes are removed through wells and treated

to produce pipeline-quality methane. There is sufficient pilot experience with these systems to estimate full-scale performance, but technical and

economic uncertainty is greater than with commercially operational systems.

Experimental technologies, which are still being

tested in laboratories and pilot plants, include

processes for the recovery of nonferrous metals

and wastepaper from MSW, as well as two further

energy recovery processes: anaerobic digestion, in

which a mixture of methane and carbon dioxide is

generated through bacterial action in a process

similar to the activated sludge system of wastewater treatment (see ch. 8); and a waste-fired gas

turbine. In addition, considerable research has

been done on several hydrolysis processes, in

which ethyl alcohol (ethanol) is produced from the

organic portion of MSW through either acid treatment or enzyme action. There is as yet insufficient

information to predict the technical or economic

feasibility of any of these technologies.

This chapter consists of case studies of two projects that are applications of commercially operational technologies: the Recycle Energy System in

Akron, Ohio, an example of centralized resource

recovery through the waterwall combustion of raw

MSW for steam generation as well as materials

recovery; and the Bronx Frontier Development

Corp. project in New York City, an example of

source separation and the recovery of organic

materials through comporting. Although these

projects differ in scale and complexity as well as

process and product, both are approaches to local

development based on the assumption that solid

waste is not a useless end-product to be disposed

of, but rather is a resource that can be recovered

and used in ways beneficial to the community.

In the case of Akron, the approach involves

using solid waste as a fuel to generate energy

needed for space heating and manufacturing in

that city’s business district. In the case of the

Bronx, it involves transforming organic refuse

from a produce market into compost, which is

then used to reclaim otherwise infertile land for

parks and urban farming. Both present alternatives to the conventional techniques and institutional arrangements for dealing with MSW.
.

Ch.7 Resource Recovery From Municipal Solid Waste 149

Centralized Resource Recovery-A Case Study of

the Recycle Energy System, Akron, Ohio4

The Community Setting

Akron, population 269,000, is located in northeastern Ohio. The city’s economy centers on

trucking and manufacturing industries, primarily

those involved in rubber production. Manufacturing sector employment declined by 20 percent between 1960 and 1970, while service sector employment increased by almost 40 percent. Employment

patterns in the rubber industry, the major employer, reflect these local trends: older plants have

been phased out and hourly jobs eliminated, while

Goodyear and B. F. Goodrich have invested millions of dollars in administrative and research facilities. Nevertheless, the manufacturing sector

still employed 38 percent of the city’s work force in

1970, compared to a national average of 26 percent.

Like many other northern industrial cities,

Akron has experienced a decline in the economic

activity of its central business district over the last

20 years. While most of the retail stores have

moved to the suburbs, however, there has been

some development of educational, office, and

government facilities. The University of Akron

has grown considerably and has made capital investments of $65 million in the city since 1965.

The old Quaker Oats mill has been converted into

a successful shopping mall, hotel, and office

building, and Ohio Edison has built a new headquarters in the Cascade Plaza complex. City and

county agencies also employ a significant number

of people in the central business district.

Most of these offices, as well as the surrounding

churches, hospitals, shops, and other businesses,

use steam for space heating and hot water. The

—

4Materlal in this case study IS based on the working paper, “Solid

Waste Fired Steam Plant,” prepared by Randall Constantine and

Jonathan Feld for the Harvard Workshop on Appropriate Technology for Communlt}~ Development, Department of City and Reglona] Plannlng, Harvard Un~versity, May 15, 1979; background information on Akron was made available by the city’s Department of

Plannlng and Urban Development,

steam is supplied by the local utility company,

Ohio Edison, but since 1948 the company has

wanted to abandon its outmoded steam operations

and concentrate on providing electrical energy.

The cost of providing steam energy from antiquated central plants had become more expensive

than onsite production, and Ohio Edison’s downtown plant was in violation of Federal environmental standards. Two of the major energy users

in Akron’s central business district, B. F. Goodrich and the University of Akron, operated their

own powerplants and did not purchase power

from the utility. However, both institutions encountered problems with their plants; Goodrich,

in particular, was also in violation of Federal

emissions standards, and compliance would have

required major capital expenditures. In addition,

both institutions were faced with rising demand at

a time when the cost of fossil fuels was rising

rapidly.

At the same time that problems were developing

in the energy supply for the central business district, Akron and surrounding Summit County

also began encountering problems with the disposal of their solid waste. As early as 1969, the

adverse environmental effects of landfill disposal

were becoming increasingly apparent: raw garbage

was an unstable fill, generated noxious odors, and

spoiled the landscape. In addition, the Hardy

Road landfill, the city’s major facility, was projected to be filled within 15 years. New sites were

difficult to locate because of the high population

density and stricter environmental standards; in

1976, the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) indicated that it would not approve further

landfill sites in the Akron area. If the sites were

located farther from the city, however, the cost of

transporting garbage to them would increase significantly.

It was in this context that, in 1968, planners in

Akron began searching for an alternative solid
.

150 l Assessment of Technology for Local Development

waste management system. Any new system

would have to meet five major objectives:

1. processing the widest range of solid waste

without special handling or sorting;

2. reducing the volume of waste to a minimum

residue for subsequent landfill;

3. reducing air pollution;

4. making any new disposal system compatible

with an urban setting; and

5. keeping solid waste disposal costs at their current levels.

After considering pyrolysis, site compacting, railroad hauling, incineration, and continued landfill,

the city turned its attention to the Recycle Energy

System (RES), which would incinerate solid waste

to generate steam energy.

Development

When Akron began searching for a solution to

its waste disposal problem in 1969, B. F. Goodrich

donated $15,000 for a feasibility study of an energy

recovery system. The study concluded that, although the system was technologically feasible, it

would not be economical for the city to generate

steam from garbage unless there was an increase in

total demand for steam, particularly in the summer months when most users employed electric air

conditioning. For this reason, and because of the

large capital investment involved, the city did little to pursue the project at that time.

The 1973 oil embargo rekindled interest in energy recovery systems, and the project regained momentum. The greatest support for the project came

from the City Council, particularly its President;

the Mayor, on the other hand, was reluctant to

commit the city to the large capital investment required for the development of a new technology.

Unable to solicit Federal support, the city’s Planning Department borrowed $1 million from Akron’s revenue-sharing funds to finance a preliminary engineering study.

This time the study, conducted by the engineering firm of Glaus, Pyle, Schemer, Burns, and

DeHaven, was more favorable, and the city retained an investment banking firm, Prescott, Ball,

and Turbin, to float bonds to finance the project.

The design work proceeded smoothly, but the underwriters had difficulty raising the necessary capital, in part because of problems encountered by

similar plants elsewhere and in part because of the

firm’s lack of familiarity with this type of project.

In mid-1976 another banking firm, Dillon, Read

& Co., agreed to help float the bonds for the project, and with their assistance additional steam

users were found and contracts between them and

the city were negotiated and signed. By December

1978 financing was completed and construction

began. Once the details of the project took form,

the Mayor and other members of the city government became more active in their support.

Photo credit: Teledyne National

The Akron Recycle Energy System

became operational in 1979

By November 1979 the plant was operating at

60 percent of capacity and was due to reach 100

percent by the end of the year. The city owns the

site and the plant, but Teledyne Industries is

responsible for actually running the plant, and a

user committee performs in an advisory and informational role.

The Recycle Energy System

Technology

The RES process is an example of a technology

for centralized resource recovery—that is, it can

recover energy and recyclable materials from collected, mixed MSW. It combines a waterwall combustion systems with an air classifier for density

5waterwall ~ombu5tion system5 have hcen used Commercially in

Europe since World War II; other communities in North America

using these systems include Saugus, Mass., and Hamilton, Ontario,
Ch. 7–Resource Recovery From Municipal Solid Waste l 151

separation and a magnetic separator to recover ferrous materials. According to previous studies,

these technologies are estimated to achieve a waste

reduction efficiency of 70 to 80 percent by weight

and 85 to 95 percent by volume; a ferrous materials recovery efficiency of 90 to 97 percent; and an

energy recovery efficiency of 59 percent. c

Figure 26 is an operational flow chart of the

Akron RES plant. The sequence of events at the

facility is as follows.7

Solid waste is delivered to the RES by garbage

trucks, tipped into a pit, and carried up to the

shredders by means of inclined conveyor belts.

Closed circuit cameras monitor the pits and conveyor belts to watch for unsuitable kinds of

waste—although the RES is designed to accept a

wide variety of refuse, it cannot process liquids,

large objects, or tanks of compressed gas. Unsuitable refuse is removed from the conveyors by

an overhead crane.

Two pulverizer shredders force the waste

through a shredding grate, and the shredded

material is fed through a stream of rising air—an

air classifier—that separates refuse according to

density. Heavy material is then passed through an

electromagnetic device that separates ferrous

metals (for recycling) from nonferrous metals (for

landfill). Low-density material, which will be

burned, is conveyed to a storage bin and then,

when fuel is needed, fed into the boiler.

Fuel and air are fed into the boiler through jets

in the boiler walls in order to ensure uniform combustion. About half of the fuel burns while falling

through the boiler; the rest burns as it rests on the

bottom grate. Flue gases pass through electrostatic

precipitators, which remove particulate matter,

6Materds ad Erter~ From ,Munwpd Ware, op. cit., pp. 99-100,

tables 32, 33, and 34. “There is currently no standard accepted way to

evaluate the energy recover y efficiency of resource recover y s y s -

tems . . . . System energy efficiencies can be calculated in terms of the

energy content of the fuel produced, and in terms of output energy

available as steam. ” The 59-pmcent efficiency of the RES is in terms

of the latter.

TG]aus, Pyle, Schemer, Burns, and DeHaven, “Feasibility Study of

Sol[d Wasre Reduction Energy Recovery,” September 1977, and “Recycle Energy for Central Heating and Process Steam, ” June 1977. Information on the operational characteristics of the plant is as projected by the designers; since the plant has been fully operational for

such a short time, it is difficult to evaluate how accurate these claims

are. Other resource recovery plants have not operated with the reIlablllty their designers expected.

and are then evacuated through the smokestacks.

Both the bottom ash from the boiler and the fly

ash from the electrostatic precipitators are loaded

into trucks for removal. Should shredded waste be

unavailable to fire in the boiler, because of either

mechanical failure or inadequate waste supply, the

plant can fire up three auxiliary oil burners fed by

a 200,000-gal reserve tank.

Solid waste has an average heating value of

4,500 to 5,500 Btu/lb, compared to 10,000 Btu/lb

for coal. The major problem in using raw waste as

a fuel is the fluctuation in its consistency and,

therefore, its heating value; it tends to create

surges of energy when incinerated. The RES in

Akron will minimize this effect by shredding the

waste, putting it through a density separator, and

then storing it to ensure a mixture with a more

uniform heating value. The air jets and pneumatic

feed system in the boiler are also designed to provide the burner with a uniform feed. With this

system, the shredded waste ultimately has a relatively uniform value of 6,500 Btu/lb.

Critics of the technology employed in the RES

have raised a number of doubts about its success.

The waste may “bridge” or jam in the pits or in the

storage bin; the dead weight of the waste may

damage the rams or the conveyor belts; soot and

bottom ash may collect in the boiler, causing frequent shutdowns for cleaning; and increased corrosion of the inside boiler walls caused by burning

100 percent garbage may decrease boiler life. The

system’s proponents feel that, despite these possible technical problems, the project’s risks are acceptable.

The RES borrows selectively from technologies

already in use by other industries, interjecting innovations and new designs where necessary, to

produce a system that can deal effectively with the

problems of burning solid waste. The boiler was

designed especially for the RES: higher thermal efficiency allows the system to work at lower temperatures; suspension burning and the constant

mixing of air and fuel inhibits corrosion caused by

oxidation of the boiler walls; and steam jets have

been installed to clean soot from inside the boiler

before corrosion can recur. Where other problems

may arise, backup and alternate systems have been

built into the plant, and contingency funds have

been set aside to finance necessary modifications.
152 l Assessment of Technology for Local Developrnent

Figure 26.—Operational Flow Chart, Recycle Energy System

SOURCE: Teledyne National.
Ch. 7–Resource Recovery From Municipal Solid Waste 153

The Akron RES Facility

Akron’s RES plant has been fully operational

for less than a year, and the data have been insufficient to assess the system’s impact on the environment. However, it typifies the current state of

knowledge with regard to both pollution abatement and occupational safety and health. Air for

the boilers will be pulled in from the plant,

creating a negative air pressure that should prevent dust and 1itter from spreading to the surrounding area. The plant grounds will be pleasantly landscaped and well maintained, both as further

protection against litter and to be esthetically

pleasing. Little water will be discharged from the

plant, and the combustion of shredded waste

should produce fewer toxic gases than the combustion of coal. EPA is now monitoring pollution

from resource recovery facilities as they come on

line and is developing a data base which, if it

proves necessary, should facilitate the development of further control technologies.

About 76 percent of RES revenue comes from

the sale of steam, which is sold at prices competitive with Ohio Edison’s rates. Steam users

were required to sign 25-year contracts with the

city in order to assure investors of the economic

viability of the project; users who would not sign

long-term contracts are required to pay a 20-percent surcharge.

Another important source of revenue is the tipping fee of $3.50/ton charged to haulers who

dump their waste at the RES, which accounts for

16 percent of its revenues. The fee is lower than

that charged at other dump sites in the area, and

because the RES is centrally located haulers’

transportation costs are also less than to more

remote sites. However, in order to further assure

itself of a steady and sufficient flow of wastes, the

city has taken a controversial approach: it passed

an ordinance requiring all haulers to deliver to the

RES. Private haulers currently have a suit pending

against the city challenging the legality of this ordinance. 8

Another 8 percent of RES revenue comes from

the sale of recovered ferrous materials. The city

—.

8Gkmu IIIOU Lundf[//, Inc., et d. v. CI[> of Akron, et J. Case C78-

65A of the N(>rthern Dlstrlct, Eastern Division of the Federal District

Court of Ohio.

74-435 0 - 81 - 11

currently plans to landfill nonferrous byproducts

of the RES, but potential uses also exist for these

materials, and their sale could provide additional

revenue. F1y ash and soot, for instance, can be

used as construction fill or as a cement additive.

An earlier OTA study projected potential markets

for recovered aluminum, paper, and glass as well

as iron and steel, that should exceed anticipated

levels of recovery through 1995.9 Akron has not

depended on this source of revenue to make its

RES project profitable, but it has provided incentives to Teledyne Industries, the plant operators,

by giving them a portion of any revenues they can

generate from the sale of reclaimed materials.

Total capital costs for development and construction are estimated at $56 million. Net operating revenues (total revenues less operating expenses) are projected to be $5.4 million in 1980,

$5.7 million in 1981, and about $6 million per year

from 1982 through 2004 (see table 19). Net profits

after debt service, interest, and equipment replacement are expected to be over $1 million per year

for the entire 25-year period.l0 While the RES is

designed to generate income, however, the use of

this income is restricted to the RES itself and cannot be mixed with general municipal funds. Any

profits must be used to retire bonds early or to

replace capital equipment.

Construction of the RES has assured downtown

businesses of a reliable source of reasonably priced

steam energy. As a result, some of them have

begun long-needed renovation, and economic activity in the downtown area has been infused with

a sense of optimism and confidence. The RES has

also produced environmental benefits: the combustion of MSW produces fewer toxic gases than

the coal-fired Ohio Edison plant; by reducing the

volume of its wastes by 80 percent, the city has

also reduced the pressure on its landfill and extended its useful lifetime; and RES residues provide inert fill that produces no odors, attracts no

rats, and therefore does not need to be covered

daily with dirt.

9,Materials and Energv From ~Munictpu/ W’USCC, op. cit. p. 63. Howe~’er, the prices users would be willing to pay and the quality they’

might demand could present barriers to the profitable sale of large

amounts of recovered materials If resource recovery were w’ldelv

adopted.

IQhlo water De\,elopment Authcmtv, O~~ICtUl Stuttmwnt on the R~-

cycle Energv Retenue Bonds, 1976.
—

154 l Assessment of Technology for Local Development

U-)FJ Ino *C)

w--tHi

w-*-

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .
Source Separation and Resource Recovery-A Case

Study of the Bronx Frontier Development Corp.

Comporting Project, New York City11

The Community Setting

The South Bronx is a large collection of poor

neighborhoods whose unofficial boundaries have

expanded tremendously in the last few years. Its

acres of rubble-strewn lots and vacant buildings

have made it a symbol of urban decay, and recent

data illustrate the area’s serious problems. During

the first half of the 1970’s, it experienced a severe

population decline and a high rate of building

abandonment, with some neighborhoods losing

Photo credit: Bronx Frontier Development Corp.

Abandoned buildings and rubble-strewn lots became a

symbol of urban decay during the 1970’s

more than 50 percent of their population. *2 Family

income levels in the area are extremely low, with

more than 25 percent listed below the poverty line

in 1975. Unemployment rates are high, especially

among the young, and less than 25 percent of the

area students entering the city’s academic high

schools end up graduating.

As one city planner pointed out, however, these

aggregate facts mask different trends within

I IMaterla] in the following case study is based on the working paper, “Bronx Frontier Comporting Operation,” prepared by Bet h

Siegel and Ann Verrilli for the Harvard Workshop on Appropriate

Technology for Community Development, Department of Cit y and

Regional Planning, Harvard University, May 15, 1979.

IZData drawn from New York City’s Housing and Vacancy survey

of 1975.

specific neighborhoods. 13 Although urban blight

appears to be spreading to certain areas that had

formerly remained stable, other neighborhoods–

those that had been the most visibly devastated

and had the highest crime and arson rates and the

most school crowding—are now showing some improvement. There is a feeling in some of these

areas that opportunities for progress really do

exist.

There are obstacles, however, to realizing these

opportunities. One of these is a long tradition of

noncooperation among various elements within

the South Bronx community and within its competing political organizations. Not only is there

distrust among groups, but also among individual

residents. As one community worker observed,

“People in this neighborhood are scared; they

won’t even talk to people in the next-door apartment. It took us three months to form a tenants’

association in one building. Nobody would talk to

anybody else. ”

Most residents see housing and jobs as the most

important local concerns; they attach less importance to human services and open-space issues.

However, some community organizations believe

there is a great need to develop programs that help

residents help themselves. One such way to organize people and give them a sense of self-worth, as

well as skills and supplemental income, is urban

gardening.

The Bronx Frontier Development Corp.

(BFDC) is a nonprofit organization that was

formed to aid in the redevelopment of the South

Bronx. Through its principal activity, comporting,

it hopes to contribute to efforts undertaken by

several neighborhood groups to revitalize the community by reclaiming barren land with parks and

urban gardens. Comporting is a process that reclaims organic solid waste by converting it into

humus, an effective soil conditioner. Comporting

I ~Peter Canti]lo, New York City Department of Planning, Bronx

Borough Office,
t

$

156 l Assessment of Technology for Local Development

Photo credit: Bronx Frontier Development Corp

Urban gardens help revitalize communities

also provides an opportunity to recycle the organic

component of MSW productively, while simultaneously relieving the pressure on dwindling urban landfill sites.

Development 14

The initial idea of “greening the

was inspired by a 1974 editorial in

South Bronx”

the New York

Times written by the vice-chairman of the City

Planning Commission, Martin Gallent. The editorial proposed that the city undertake a program

of at least temporarily greening some of the vast

tracts of rubble with parks and gardens until

longer range plans could be developed. He suggested that opportunities for job-creating and income-producing ventures such as tree farms, nurseries, and cash crops be explored.

The editorial attracted attention throughout

the city, and one local activist, Irma Fleck, decided

to see how such a project could be brought about.

Talking with local residents, urban gardening

l+ InfC)rmatlon ~)n the history of Bronx Frontier Development Corp.

IS drawn from interviews with staff; from its publication, “BFDC’S

Lc]ng Term G(]als, History and Background;” and from “Taming the

South Bronx Frontiers,” Quest, December 1978/January 1979.

Photo credit. Bronx Frontier Development Corp.

A big grin of pride

groups, city planners, and local officials, Fleck

quickly established that community interest existed. She also found a major obstacle: the lack of

good topsoil. The soil under the rubble was infertile, depleted of nutrients, and contaminated with

lead and other toxic substances. Importing topsoil

would be prohibitively expensive for community

groups or even the city.

Comporting seemed to be the best way to produce the necessary topsoil at lower costs. Humus,
Ch. 7–Resource Recovery From Municipal Solid Waste l 157

produced by the natural decomposition of organic

wastes, would provide nutrients and improve mineral and water retention; combined with clay and

sand (which could be obtained by crushing rubble), it would produce good topsoil. The nearby

produce terminal, Hunt’s Point Market, could provide plenty of compostable vegetable wastes. The

project also offered a way to provide employment

and training for local residents, as well as a sense

of purpose through community involvement,

something Fleck considered essential to the longterm redevelopment of the South Bronx.

Discussions with New York City urban gardening groups and with the Institute for Local SelfReliance indicated that a comporting program

might work. The Institute, a Washington-based

technical assistance group, studied its economic

feasibility and reported in July 1976 that, with a

capital investment of $250,000 for equipment and

first-year operating costs, a comporting operation

could be developed. Furthermore, if half of this

compost were sold commercially, the operation

could become self-supporting in another year.

Armed with this information, Fleck and Jack Flanagan, a police community affairs officer in the

South Bronx, were able to obtain seed money

from the Community Services Administration

(CSA) and additional funding from several private

foundations.

The comporting operation was envisioned as a

two-phase process. Phase I would involve setting

up the comporting facility and distributing the

compost free of charge to community gardens and

parks. Phase 11 would consist of generating revenue

by marketing the compost in bulk to the private

sector (e.g., nurseries and farmers) and perhaps to

city parks departments.

BFDC found that it had to file a long report

with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which had ruled that the

comporting operation was a Solid Waste Management Facility and would have to comply with all

the relevant regulations.15 During 1977, BFDC

signed contracts with the private waste haulers

serving Hunt’s Point Market for the delivery of

15See “Technical Report on the Bronx Frontier Development Corporation Comporting Project,” submitted by BFDC to the New York

State Department of Environmental Conservation, 1976.

vegetable refuse and with the suburban city of

New Rochelle for leaves, and then leased a 3.7-

acre city-owned site. Equipment was purchased,

staff was hired, the site was prepared, and in June

1978, the first batch of compost was produced.

The BFDC Comporting Technology

The two major comporting processes are anaerobic comporting, in which microbes (bacteria and

fungi) that do not require oxygen break down

wastes in a sealed container; and aerobic comporting, in which microbial action takes place in

the presence of oxygen. Anaerobic comporting requires less frequent attention, but it is a much

slower process and gives off highly objectionable

odors. Aerobic comporting, on the other hand, is

relatively odorless, faster, and, because it gives off

more heat, more effective in killing disease-carrying organisms. Most comporting systems, including BFDC, are aerobic. l6

Aerobic decomposition involves a succession of

microbe populations, each species reaching a peak

population under different nutrient and temperature conditions. The temperature range within

which the microbes can survive and function most

efficiently is limited, so temperature control is a

major concern. They also require a supply of nutrients (oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen,

phosphorus, and potassium being the most important) to thrive and reproduce; when these elements are plentiful and properly balanced, decomposition is more rapid. The most important

measure of nutrient balance is the carbon-to-nitrogen (C/N) ratio, which should remain between

20:1 and 30:1. An excessively high C/N ratio

slows decomposition and inhibits plant growth

when the humus is applied to the soil; and excessively low C/N ratio can be toxic to the

microbes and later to plant roots. Since waste

materials vary in their C/N ratios, the proper

balance is often achieved by combining two kinds

of wastes in the system—for example, MSW and

sludge from wastewater treatment. Moisture and

———..—.

160ther ~ommunltles Using Compostlng processes include: Durham,

N. H.; Burlington, Vt.; Tom River, N.J.; Bangor, Me.; Upper Occoquan, Va.; Windsor, Ontario; Camden, N.J.; Philadelphia, Pa.;

Washington, D. C.; and Los Angeles, Calif. (Source: Jerome Golclstein, editor of In Business and Compost Science, The JG Press, Emmaus, Pa. )
—

158 l Assessment of Technology for Local Development

oxygen content are also important, and can be 4.

controlled by a number of methods.

When BFDC first began operation, it used a

version of the aerobic process known as “open

windrow” comporting, which consists of six basic

stages (see figure 27):

1. Compacted wastes, such as leaves and vegetable matter, arrive daily by truck. The leaves 5.

are stacked at the edge of the site, and the

organic wastes are piled in a receiving area.

2. Laborers hand-sort the waste to separate out

noncompostable materials, which are set

aside for later pickup by the carting service.

3. The waste is laid out in windrows (long rectangular piles about 10 ft wide and 4 ft high)

with a base of 3 ft of leaves topped by 1 ft of

organic wastes, equaling three volumes of

leaves to one volume of vegetable waste.

Since the organic wastes can be very wet, the

leaves serve as a bulking agent and help absorb some of the moisture.

The wastes are shredded and mixed by running a compost-turning machine through the

windrow several times. Volume is reduced by

about 60 percent during this step, and shredding also reduces the size of the particles so

that a greater surface is exposed to microbial

action, thereby accelerating decomposition.

Comporting begins. Over the next few weeks,

decomposition is rapid as bacteria begin

breaking down the material and heat is generated. During this period, workers monitor

the windrows daily to check temperature,

moisture level, oxygen content, and C/N

ratio. The compost-turner is run through the

windrow approximately three to five times

per week to aerate the pile and redistribute

heat and moisture. After about 2 weeks, the

microbial activity begins to slow down and

less frequent turning is required. The next 4

to 6 weeks allow the compost to mature and

dry out. When temperature, C/N ratio, and

Figure 27.—BFDC Open-Windrow Composting Process

non.

comciostables

Hunt’s Point carting

Market service

Vegetable Dumped and covered

waste hand sorted refuse

containers

25 yd3*d”1 5 yd3*d-1 organic

compostables

I

New Rochelle

Components Leaves mixedwindrowed

75 ydl*d-l 95 yd3*d-1

v

Packaging

distribution

Final

processing

blending

BCompleted

compost

dessicated

1-4 weeks

57 yd3*d-1

SOURCE: Bronx Frontier Development Corp.
other measures indicate that the humus is

stable, it is ready for shipment.

6. After it is mechanically screened to remove

pieces of plastic and glass, the compost is delivered to community gardens, where it is

mixed with sand and clay and applied to the

soil.

The principal drawback to the open-windrow

technique, however, was that it could produce

only a relatively small volume of compost o n

BFDC’s 3.7-acre site. In order to transform the

operation from the level of demonstration to that

of a self-sustaining business enterprise, BFDC has

turned to a second version of the aerobic process:

“aerated pile” comporting. In this technique the

compost piles are not turned; instead, electric

blowers force air through them by means of perforated pipes placed through the piles. BFDC has

installed a 40-kW wind turbine to run the blowers.

Since receiving a grant in 1979 from the National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT) to

make this change, BFDC has expanded its capabilities in several ways. Its compost piles are now

more than twice as large as those permitted by the

open-windrow technique, comporting can be carried out in the winter. The increased temperatures

generated inside the compost piles also allow for

the safe inclusion of manure and/or sewage

sludge. This combination of inputs, called “codisposal” because it combines wastes from two major

waste streams (MSW and sewage), is a technology

that one expert views as “the wave of the future. ”17

17Dr lames F. Parr, Iaboratc>ry chief, Biological Waste Management and Organic Resources Laboratory, Agriculture and Environmental Quality Research Institute, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

personal communlcatlon, July 25, 1980.

Photo credit: Bronx Frontier Development Corp.

A compost turner aerating vegetable waste at BFDC
160 l Assessment of Technology for Local Development

The BFDC Composting Facility

BFDC estimates that at full capacity their operation could be run by one skilled person, but because of their commitment to creating jobs they

will have eight people on the staff. Except for the

technical supervisor, the staff consists of local residents. Most of the skills involved are relatively

simple and easily acquired: hand-sorting, operating the compost-turner and a front-end loader

used to arrange the windrows, maintaining and

repairing the equipment, and performing tests to

monitor conditions in the piles.

The process appears safe, although a few precautions are required. BFDC provides gloves, earplugs, and safety goggles to the staff; it carries insurance against accidents; and it complies with a

variety of Federal, State, and city health regulations. To ensure product safety, BFDC (with the

assistance of EPA and the Cornell University Extension Service) tests the compost for heavy metals

such as lead, cadmium, and zinc. The major

source of these contaminants is automobile pollution, which enters the waste stream through the

leaves of roadside trees. Tests are also performed at

the garden sites on a regular basis. To date, all of

these tests have indicated that the BFDC compost

is safe.

Economics.–It is difficult to calculate what

the total costs of the project are or how to separate

them into development costs, capital costs, and

operating expenses. In part this is because so much

of the equipment, labor, and services have been

donated or subsidized. ’8 There are also indirect

lslt Seems charaCterktiC of many of the projects OTA studied (particularly those v’here nonprofit organizations are involved) that traditional cost-accounting procedures are inadequate. This is especially

true for cost items that are donated or subsidized. As a result, when

overhead and administrative costs that cannot be

allocated specifically to the comporting operation.

Finally, since the project is still in the first phase of

its development, it is also difficult to forecast what

operating expenses will be when it is fully operational. Nevertheless, based on past expenditures

and fiscal estimates prepared by BFDC,19 it is possible to approximate some of the costs for the project’s open-windrow process. These costs are presented in table 20, as are the projected costs of the

aerated-pile process. These projections suggest the

economies of scale that might be achieved by full

implementation of the aerated-pile process. Note

that unit costs decline from over $30/yd3 for a

process rate of 50 tons per day (tpd) to only

$10/yd3 for a process rate of 200 tpd.

Revenue comes from tipping fees charged to

waste haulers and from the sale of compost, either

in bulk or in bags. BFDC intends to undertake a

market study to evaluate the potential market for

its compost, but while preliminary research points

to a strong demand for the product, potential revenue from sale of the compost is limited because of

prior commitments the group has made for its use.

BFDC has promised 2,640 yd3

/yr over the next 2

years as its matching contribution for a $1. 1-milunit costs are calculated (based on total costs excluding donations

and subsidies) and compared to those for commercially available products, project proponents can often deceive themselves (and the community) into believing they are producing a less expensive product.

The fact is, from a societal point of view, that these subsidized items

have a real value and (if unit costs with the subsidy were the same

whether commercially produced or produced by the nonprofit

organization) this value is the price society pays to purchase the “unquantifiable” benefits of the project.

19’’The Bronx Frontier Comporting Operation: Current Status,

Spring 1979,” prepared by BFDC for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State Environmental Facilities Corp., and New York City Department of Sanitation,

Apr. 20, 1979.

Table 20.—Projected Costs of Two Aerobic Comporting Processes

Open-windrow process Aerated-pile process

50 tpd 100 tpd 50 tpd 100 tpd 200 tpd

Capital investment. . . . . . . . . . $360,040 $360,040 $518,800 $530,400 $543,400

Operating expenses/year. . . . . 170,079 170,079 122,500 146,200 186,800

Total annual expensesb . . . . . . 228,156 228,156 206,960 232,960 272,480

Unit cost of compost/yd3C 

. . . . 33.81 16.90 30.67 17.26 10.09

alncludes site preparation.

bIncludes Operating expenses, amortization of capital investment, and depreciation of capital equipment.

CBased on process output of 6,750 yd’3

yr at 50 tpd, etc.

SOURCE: Bronx Frontier Development Corp.
lion grant from the Department of Interior, the

New York State Department of Parks and Recreation, and the New York City Department of

Parks. The grant was given to South Bronx Open

Space Task Force, a coalition of two other community groups trying to build miniparks on 15 vacant lots in the borough. In addition, the Frontier

has provided more than 2,000 yd3 of free compost

to urban gardening groups in the South Bronx.

The remainder of the compost will be available

for sale. Table 21 illustrates the projected cost/

revenue balance and shows the extent to which

operating costs and total annualized costs can be

met with various combinations of bulk and bag

sales.

Table 21 .—Projected Cost/Revenue Balance,

Bronx Frontier Development Corp.

100 yd/day 200 yd/day 400 yd/day

Bulk sales . Doesn’t cover Covers Covers total

operations operations annual costs

Bag sales. . Covers Covers total Covers total

operations annual costs annual costs

SOURCE: Bronx Frontier Development Corp.

The project also offers distinct benefits to the

private haulers who dispose of vegetable wastes

from the Hunt’s Point Market. Because the local

landfill site in the Bronx is overloaded, these

haulers have had to transport wastes to a landfill

in Queens. The Frontier dumping site in the

Bronx not only saves them fuel, but also charges

them substantially less than the city landfill.

Dumping fees at the BFDC site are only $l/yd3 for

uncontaminated vegetable wastes and $1.50/yd3

for waste in nondegradable packages, compared to

$3.50/yd 3 at the city landfill. This disparity in

rates suggests that the dumping rates charged by

BFDC are lower than they need be. Raising them,

it has been suggested, would generate additional

revenue and thereby improve the project’s ability

to sustain itself without further Government subsidies or grants.

Although BFDC’s compost project cannot by itself alleviate the monumental waste disposal problems of New York City, it could, if adopted by

other neighborhoods and boroughs, help extend

the life of local landfills. A Government waste

management expert has said that communities

throughout the Nation should be able to replicate

BFDC’s comporting operation and its plans for codisposal of sewage sludge, thereby multiplying its

environmental benefits.20 In addition, if the project becomes a commercial success and offers local

residents the opportunity to learn marketable

skills by participating in a business enterprise, it

could also play a role, albeit very small, in addressing the social and economic problems of the South

Bronx.

‘“Parr, op. cit.

Critical Factors

Public Perception and Participation

The degree of public participation in the decisionmaking process varied considerably in these

two resource recovery projects, primarily because

of the different institutional settings. The RES was

a municipal project, planned and executed in conventional ways by the Akron city government.

The BFDC project, on the other hand, was setup

as a community development corporation; as

such, it tried to involve the community through a

board of directors roughly representative of the

South Bronx. Day-to-day management decisions

are made by project staff, but the board of directors has final approval on all BFDC programs.

However, it is not clear how active a role the

board of directors played in formulating policy for

the BFDC, nor whether all sectors of the community felt adequately represented by the board.

BFDC, through its active role in coalitions like

the Open Space Task Force, is becoming an important organizing force in the South Bronx, but

its experience demonstrates the difficulty of bringing community interests together. It has had difficulties in reaching the grassroots level of community organization. In addition, like other urban

gardening groups, BFDC has reportedly en-
1620 Assessment of Technology for Local Development

countered opposition from traditional political

leaders of New York City’s minority community.

These leaders tend to identify themselves with

multimillion-dollar housing projects and job training programs; they feel that low-cost, self-help approaches to redevelopment could be used as an excuse by Federal, State, and local officials to withdraw support from projects that involve more

money. BFDC’s answer to these criticisms has

been that self-help projects create the necessary

political and psychological foundation for redevelopment that previous efforts often lacked.

BFDC’s success in overcoming this opposition will

depend on its ability to form coalitions with other

self-help groups and to create a broad base of support from community residents.

BFDC also provides an interesting example of

how local residents temper what might have been,

in view of the limited expertise and resources available within the community, unrealistic objectives

on the part of the project staff. The staff generally

took a broad view of the problems of the South

Bronx, but they were often overly ambitious in

their attempts to address a wide range of issues

with limited resources. The staff has spent much of

their time fundraising, publicizing, and developing

new programs; as a result, they have sometimes

neglected the progress of the comporting operation, the core of the project. Day-to-day operations were often left to the onsite crew, who had

too little expertise to deal with some of the problems that arose. Although many of the delays in

the comporting project were beyond local control,

part of its inefficiency was caused simply by the

lack of management at the site. In many instances,

the board of directors played an important role by

“keeping the staff’s nose to a specific grindstone.”

The board recognized the dangers of trying to accomplish too much and urged the staff to concentrate on the existing comporting operation rather

than initiating new programs.

By contrast, the RES project in Akron was

strictly a municipal undertaking, using traditional

modes of urban planning and decisionmaking.

When the city’s Planning Department began investigating waste disposal strategies in 1968, the

criteria used to evaluate the alternatives were

largely technical, economic, and environmental.

There is no evidence that any attempts were made

to involve the public in the evaluation process

through such devices as neighborhood study

groups or public hearings. This approach typifies

the way in which many municipalities go about

making decisions on large, capital-intensive projects: they have been considered to be technical

and economic decisions, rather than matters for

public opinion or review (see chs. 7 and 8). In the

case of Akron, not even the project’s financing required public approval, because the revenue bonds

which helped finance the project were issued by a

special authority. Neither will the county’s and

city’s general obligation bonds require public approval, since they will not increase the total municipal debt service above the existing spending

limits.

The Akron steam users, a group with obvious

interests in the project, played a very small role in

the initial design and development of the RES.

During contract negotiations over steam prices,

users expressed resentment at not having been

consulted; it was they who proposed forming an

Users Advisory Committee. At first the city resisted, but it later agreed to the idea in order to

allay user fears and accelerate contract bargaining.

The committee will help spread information about

RES to other users and will provide a forum at

which to discuss common problems and difficulties. Although it has no official authority, the

committee is perceived by the users as an effective

way to exert their influence collectively.

Essential Resources

One of the most important technical issues confronting any attempt at resource recovery is the

volume and quality of the waste stream: what goes

into the process greatly affects what comes out,

whether the waste is composted or burned. Both

projects offer low tipping fees and other incentives

to haulers, but problems remain.

Although Hunt’s Point Market in the Bronx is a

good source of compostable organic waste, a great

deal of nondegradable material such as plastic

wrappings and containers was included in the

matter dumped at the project site. To correct this,

BFDC developed a formal system for sorting and

separating the waste at Hunt’s Point Market, but

thus far the private carters have resisted any col-
Ch. 7–Resource Recovery From Municipal Solid Waste ● 163

lection plan that would force them to pick up and

dump organic wastes separately. In addition, the

union opposes having drivers and helpers separate

waste unless new contracts are negotiated with the

carters. The Hunt’s Point merchants, for their

part, view any source separation plan as something that would benefit the carters; as an incentive, they want collection fees lowered. Because of

the complexities involved, BFDC thinks the only

general solution would be to have source separation mandated by a legislative act. In the meantime, it is attempting to establish a wider range of

organic waste sources: BFDC accepts Christmas

trees gathered by the City Parks Department and

is also negotiating with local race tracks to obtain

stable wastes.

The technical and economic viability of the

RES in Akron is affected by the quantity as well as

quality of its input waste. Its most critical need is

for a large, constant supply of combustible refuse

so that it can meet its steam contract obligations.

Any shortfalls must be met by using auxiliary oilfired boilers, at substantially increased cost, and

frequent use of the auxiliary boilers could cause

the project to be economically untenable. For this

reason, the outcome of the lawsuit brought by private carters against Akron will materially affect

this technology’s ability to compete economically

with alternatives. It should also give other cities an

indication of whether the legislative method of

controlling the waste stream will work.

Financing

BFDC has relied primarily on foundation grants

for the purchase of capital equipment and on CSA

subsidies for operating and administrative funds.

BFDC’s goal is to achieve self-sufficiency through

the retail sale of compost, but like many new small

enterprises BFDC has had short-term cash flow

problems. This has made it difficult to cover operating costs while the project is being expanded to

an economically viable scale of production. Project

revenues from the open-windrow process were inadequate to cover operating costs, but full implementation of the more efficient aerated-pile process could cover total annual cost (see table 21).

The profits could then be used to fund the new

programs BFDC would like to undertake in the

future.

Optimally, BFDC might have spent several

years at the 50-tpd process rate, operating at a deficit, in order to gain needed technical and managerial experience, but this schedule would have

required either medium-term debt or subsidies to

cover operating deficits. This option remained

closed so long as BFDC’s only source of operating

capital was short-term grants limited to a specific

use. This type of financing created two problems:

first, staff time was diverted from project management to the search for new grants, leaving little

time to correct problems or to prepare market

surveys for its compost; second, new grants were

often given only for new projects, and still more

funding was required to cover the additional costs

these projects entailed. 21 In this connection,

BFDC came up with the concept of “consortium

funding:” to avoid becoming restricted by dependence on money from a particular foundation, it instead sought small contributions from a number of

foundations.

Financing for the RES in Akron has been supplied through both revenue bonds and general obligation bonds, which seems to be the most

creative use of municipal debt instruments utilized

in any of the cases examined in this study. The

city retained the underwriting firm of Dillon, Read

& Co., Inc., which had extensive experience with

municipal bonds in general and with revenue

bonds in particular. The firm also had extensive

experience in financing other resource recovery

and solid waste disposal facilities, including those

in Toledo, Ohio, Hempstead, N. Y., and Dade

County, Fla.

Dillon, Read’s first decision in structuring the financing was to provide more money for the project: in addition to raising funds for construction

costs and overruns, they established contingency

funds for cost overruns and any necessary modifications after the plant became operational. They

also recommended the local hauling legislation

zlo~e examp]e of these problems is the windmill that BFDC

erected in the fall of 1979 to provide electricity for the planned aeration technology before the latter was even in place. The staff saw the

potential for using wind power at the site; the group’s fundraisers saw

the opportunity to obtain a grant specifically for using wind power;

and their proposal was accepted. However, this project diverted staff

time and resources from the prlnclpal operation—comporting. While

wind power represents an exciting addition to the project, at present

it may be more important to develop a secure market for BFDC’S

compost.
164 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

and long-term steam contracts to ensure adequate

sales revenues to cover the bonds. As a result, debt

service coverage was reduced from 175 percent to

150 percent, which in turn provided an additional

$16 million without increasing Akron’s debt service payments.

The city and county participated in the permanent financing as well, each selling $5 million in

general obligation notes. These notes were advertised and sold publicly without the assistance of an

intermediary. Proceeds of the notes were used to

build steam lines to B. F. Goodrich, the University

of Akron, and City Hospital; a portion was also

used as a construction contingency fund, to be

spent if revenue bonds proceeds were insufficient.

Any proceeds remaining after completion of construction were to be used to retire outstanding

debts.

Institutional Factors

Institutional problems in the development and

implementation of source separation and centralized resource recovery programs include the

following:

●

●

●

●

uncertainty about cooperation by householders, businesses, and others who generate

waste;

uncertainty about cooperation by local waste

collectors and haulers;

opposition from competing landfills;

arbitrary or inflexible application of health

and environmental standards; and

s problems arising from fragmented and overlapping State and local jurisdictions.

Source separation programs like BFDC are particularly prone to problems of noncooperation by

waste generators and haulers. Centralized resource

recovery projects like the Akron RES are more

likely to be hampered by problems of overlapping

jurisdictions. Both types may experience problems

arising from the application of health and environmental standards, plus those of competition

from existing disposal systems. The suit against the

Akron hauling legislation was brought by a landfill operator as well as local haulers, and if the suit

succeeds it may reduce the project’s supply of combustible wastes.

BFDC, on the other hand, has had problems

not only with the waste sources at Hunt’s Point

Market and the local haulers, but also with overlapping jurisdictions and insensitive application

of environmental regulations. The New York

State Department of Environmental Conservation

(DEC) ruled that the comporting operation was a

“solid waste disposal facility, ” which meant that it

was subject to all of the rules and requirements for

conventional landfills, incinerators, and dumps.

BFDC had to submit permit applications not only

to DEC but to the State Environmental Facilities

Corp. and the New York City Department of Sanitation, and the time spent developing the supporting documentation caused significant delays

and increased costs. BFDC also found that it

could not include stable wastes in its comporting

operation because of an city regulation that prohibits transporting manure except a sealed truck.

Federal Policy

Background

Several Acts have established national policies

and programs for technologies which reclaim materials and energy from MSW. Taken together,

they demonstrate Congress’ growing commitment

to resource recovery, primarily as a supplemental

source of materials and secondarily as an alternative source of energy. However, these Acts also

demonstrate a continuing commitment to largescale rather than to small-scale projects. Because

systems appropriate for smaller communities may

have problems not shared by large-scale systems,

an analysis of current and upcoming legislation

can help to identify those areas which may need to

be addressed if these alternatives are promoted in

the future.

The Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, a part of

the Clean Air Act Amendments (Public Law

89-272, as amended), was the first major law prescribing the Federal role in resource recovery and
reclamation from MSW. The Act recognized the

contribution of solid waste disposal to air pollution abatement, and it encouraged the design

and testing of solid waste management and resource recovery systems that would protect public

health and the quality of the environment. To this

end, it provided technical and financial assistance

to State governments and interstate agencies in

planning and developing programs for solid waste

disposal and resource recovery. The Act also emphasized the need to improve management techniques and organizational arrangements for collecting, separating, recovering, and recycling solid

wastes and for disposing of unrecoverable residues.

The stated purpose of the Resource Recovery

Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-512), the second of the

three major laws, was to amend the Solid Waste

Disposal Act of 1965 “in order to provide financial

assistance for the construction of solid waste disposal facilities. ” The Act not only stressed new

methods of solid waste disposal, but also emphasized the importance of recycling and reuse of

waste materials. In addition to monies allotted to

conduct studies in several related areas, the Act

made grants available for demonstration-scale

resource recovery systems “of all types, and under

representative geographical and environmental

conditions.” Further, its title II, the Materials

Policy Act of 1970, established the National Commission on Materials Policy and required annual

reports to the Congress on studies of various waste

generation, materials recovery, and waste disposal

options, practices, and policies. Under this Act

the Administrator of EPA could fund resource recovery demonstration projects; award grants for

State, interstate, and local planning; and recommend guidelines for solid waste recovery, collection, separation, and disposal systems.

The overall intent of these two laws, as expressed in the legislative findings of the 1970 Act,

was to enhance the quality of the environment

and conserve materials through the development

of a national materials policy. Both emphasized

that the primary responsibility for MSW collection and disposal rests at the local level.

The Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act of 1976

Between 1970 and 1976, when the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (Public

Law 94-580) was passed, the issues of alternative

energy sources, of materials recovery, and of technological size and complexity had become more

important to Congress. RCRA reaffirmed that

“the collection and disposal of solid waste should

continue to be primarily a function of State,

regional, and local agencies, ” but it also found

that “the problems of waste disposal have become

national in scope . . . and necessitate Federal action.” While protecting public health and enhancing the quality of the environment remained

a major function of the Act, it also sought to encourage the recovery of energy and materials from

MSW.

RCRA’s stated purpose was to “provide technical and financial assistance for the development

of management plans and facilities for the recovery of energy and other resources from discarded materials. ” It established an Office of Solid

Waste in EPA, through which all of the designated

responsibilities except those pertaining to R&D

were to be carried out (sec. 2007). Thus far, EPA

has provided financial assistance to approximately

66 communities for feasibility analysis, development of a procurement strategy, and the solicitation and selection of contractors to design and

construct facilities.

The Act also encouraged States and municipalities to take a more active role in the development of resource recovery projects. It called

for the creation of “Resource Conservation and

Recovery Panels,” which were to “provide State

and local governments upon request and without

charge teams of technical, financial, marketing,

and institutional specialists to render assistance on

resource recovery and conservation” (sec. 2003).

EPA, through its Technical Assistance Panels Program, provided staff and consultant expertise in

these areas to over 160 communities during 1978

and 1979. EPA also provides States with funds to

develop comprehensive plans for dealing with all
166 l Assessment of Technology for Local Development

areas of MSW management, and it has established

planning requirements that require the removal of

State laws that impede contracting for these projects. As a further aid, EPA has drafted a guide explaining how States can provide technical assistance, financial assistance, information dissemination, and other services to local communities.

Furthermore, in a notable expansion upon

earlier legislation, RCRA required the Department of Commerce to promote the dissemination

and commercialization of resource recovery

technologies by providing: “l) accurate specifications for recovered materials; 2) stimulation of

development of markets for recovered materials; 3)

promotion of proven technologies; and 4) a forum

for the exchange of technical and economic data

relating to resource recovery facilities” (sec. 5001).

The Department of Energy (DOE), like EPA,

also provides funds for feasibility studies by communities that are considering resource recovery

projects. DOE also conducts and funds research

into the basic science and technology underlying

various processes for resource recovery.

Finally, beyond the provisions which promote

recovery of energy and materials from solid wastes

generally, RCRA contained several specific provisions which bear upon the technologies’ appropriateness for local development. The first provided for information exchange among the several

levels of government, and between government

and private firms, regarding “technical and economic levels of performance that can be attained

by various available resource recovery systems”

(sec. 1008); this information on the range of available alternatives should aid local governments in

choosing systems appropriate to their needs. Second, the Act required the EPA Administrator to

“undertake a comprehensive study and analysis of

systems of small-scale and low-technology waste

management. ” (sec. 8002) Although the subsequent report has not received wide distribution,

EPA’s Office of Solid Waste has launched a SmallScale and Low Technology Program designed explicitly to respond to the waste disposal needs of

small communities. This program is likely to encourage the diffusion of small-scale technologies

that are appropriate for local development.

There is, however, one provision in the Act

which may mitigate against small-scale technologies: section 8006 authorizes Federal grants

for the demonstration of resource recovery systems; but subsection 8006(c)(B)(2) requires that the

share paid by a Federal grant for the construction

of a project which serves only one municipality

cannot exceed 50 percent, while if a project serves

more than one municipality the grant can pay for

75 percent of construction costs. This provision

may allow several municipalities to build larger

facilities and to realize economies of scale, but it

may also cause individual communities to lose

control over the design, financing, and operation

of their own resource recovery systems.

Other Laws Having an Impact on

Resource Recovery

The Energy Security Act of 1980 (Public

Law 96-29+).–Title II of this Act contains several

provisions dealing with “municipal waste biomass

energy.” It reconfirms the Federal Government’s

commitment to research, development, and demonstration of energy-from-waste technologies, but

it also strengthens the existing mechanisms for

promoting the adoption of these technologies. The

Act broadens DOE’s power to encourage the construction of municipal recovery projects by increasing the Federal share of construction loans to

80 percent and by allowing risk guarantees of up to

90 percent of principal and interest (sec. 233). The

Act also allows DOE to make price support loans

for existing projects and price guarantees for new

projects (sec. 234). Finally, the Act established

within DOE an Office of Energy from Municipal

Waste to administer these programs.

The Energy Tax Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-

618).–This Act contains provisions that should

influence resource recycling and recovery. The

first provides an additional 10-percent investment

tax credit (for a total of 20 percent) for the purchase of equipment used to recycle ferrous and

nonferrous metals, textiles, paper, rubber, and

other materials for energy conservation (sec.

301(c)(i)). The additional credit is available for a

wide range of equipment placed in service after

October 1, 1978. The second provision sets recycling targets for major energy-consuming industries, including the metals, paper, textile, and
Ch. 7–Resource Recovery From Municipal Solid Waste ● 167

rubber industries. Specific targets will be set for

the. increased use of recycled commodities over the

next 10 years.

Amendments to internal Revenue Code of

1954--Exempt Organizations (Public Law 94-

568).–Section 4 of this Act requires that “the Secretary of the Treasury, in cooperation with the

Administrator of EPA, make a complete study and

investigation of all provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 which discourage the recycling

of solid waste material, and that he should report

his findings to Congress, along with specific

legislative proposals and detailed estimates of their

costs.” In compliance with this requirement, the

Department of the Treasury published Federal Tax

Policies: Recycling of Solid Waste Materials (February 1, 1979).

The Federal Ocean Dumping Act of 1974

(Public Law 92-532, as amended by Public Law 93-

254).—While the general intent of the Act is the

international protection of the oceans, one of its

major effects has been virtually to eliminate the

disposal of domestic solid wastes in the ocean. To

the extent that it precludes the use of a former option for solid waste disposal, this Act increases the

amount of solid wastes that communities must

deal with.

Issues and Options

The case studies presented in this chapter help

to illuminate a number of issues which apply not

only to incineration and comporting technologies

but to alternative resource recovery technologies

in general. In so doing, they point out some of the

problems faced by the producers and consumers of

these technologies, as well as suggesting a range of

options available to the Federal Government for

addressing those problems.

ISSUE 1 :

Federal Financing.

The BFDC case study provides evidence that,

even when Government funds are available, there

m ay still be problems with the type of financing

provided by the Federal sources, the use of this financing by the project staff, and the approach to financing appropriate technology projects. Government grants and subsidies are most desirable for

those stages of a project that provide a social good

but involve risks or potential returns on investment that are unacceptable to the private sector.

In the case of the Bronx comporting project, the

funds provided by CSA for feasibility studies,

market surveys, organizational startup, and the

purchase of capital equipment all served legitimate

and appropriate purposes. However, BFDC also

needs funds for long-range planning and administration. When money is made available for

use only on a specific new program, it may encourage projects like BFDC to spread themselves

too thin simply in order to obtain additional funding. Capital equipment and startup funds obtained in this manner may mistakenly be considered “free” by the staff, but these new programs

carry with them present management duties and

future capital obligations that can become a

tremendous drain on limited manpower and

resources.

Much of the problem may lie in the attitude of

Federal programs and officials toward projects of

this type. Local development projects like the comporting operation might be thought of exclusively

as a human service—as “welfare’ )

-rather than as a

potential new business enterprise. In such a situation the grantor may not fully take into account

the financial aspects of the project or hold the

grantee accountable for his financial decisions. By

allowing the project to become over extended, or

by encouraging new programs rather than the

consolidation of existing ones, Federal support can

become counterproductive from the point of view

of local development. These projects are not intended primarily to be commercial operations, nor

is it easy to separate social and economic objectives in a depressed area like the South Bronx.

Nevertheless, those projects that prove to be successful economic enterprises are far more likely to

provide a basis for community organization and

local development—and therefore serve the purposes of the grant programs themselves—than

those that are restricted exclusively to providing

human services.

Congress may wish to address this issue by reviewing the procedures and standards by which

existing Federal programs evaluate the financial

performance of local development projects.
168 l Assessment of Technology for Local Development

ISSUE 2 :

Large-Scale Centralized Recovery

Systems v. Modular Systems and

Source Separation Programs.

Large-scale centralized energy recovery facilities,

both mass incineration systems like Akron’s RES

and systems that produce RDF for sale to electric

utilities, have experienced significant economic

and technical problems.22 The economic problems

arise from the capital-intensive nature of these

projects, recent high rates of inflation for all

capital projects, additional capital requirements

for plant modifications, unexpectedl y high

operating and maintenance costs, and the reluctance of both energy purchasers and financing

sources to absorb the financial risks of the projects. Furthermore, the very size of projects like the

RES can result in a built-in inflexibility making

them dependent on a large and secure waste

stream (see below).

The technical problems arise from uncertainties

about the reliability of the technologies, unforeseen design problems that have caused excessive

downtime and required extensive process and safety modifications, difficulties with boiler performance and corrosion, poor RDF quality, and reduced system energy efficiencies. In addition, there

is uncertainty about the impact of future changes

in emission-control regulations and monitoring

techniques, and a widespread perception that (in

view of these financial and cost/reliability problems) these technologies may become obsolete during their 25-year lifetimes as a result of future

breakthroughs in resource recovery.

These problems and concerns are typical of new

capital-intensive energy technologies, and they

constitute a serious barrier to the implementation

of mass incineration and RDF projects. The allocation of risk becomes harder to negotiate, and

system vendors in particular have reacted to their

negative experience with new installations b y

either withdrawing from the market or becoming

far more cautious about the risk they will absorb.

This trend, if continued, could make it even more

ZZThe following discussion is drawn from a report prepared b

Sandy Hale of Gordian Associates, Inc., for the Electrical Power

Research Institute, 1979, pp. 39-47.

difficult to implement similar projects in the

future.

Option 2-A: Federal Intervention to Reduce or Absorb Risks.–Congress might wish to

investigate methods of risk reduction, either by

making centralized resource recovery projects eligible for tax-free bonding or by providing incentives

or loan guarantees for manufacturers and/or

municipalities.

Option 2-B: Investigate Other Alternative

Technologies.–Congress may wish, in view of

the continuing economic ad technical problems

with capital-intensive, large-scale centralized systems, to investigate methods for encouraging the

adoption of other proven technologies for resource

recovery. Small-scale modular incinerators, for instance, have been used successfully to produce

steam, hot water, and hot air in institutional and

industrial applications. Individual furnace units

are small but higher capacity can be achieved by

adding several identical modules. This design

should allow greater flexibility, and its two-stage

combustion process may also reduce particulate

emission problems.23

Another possibility would be to investigate

methods of encouraging the establishment or expansion of source-separation programs. Familiar

approaches include curbside collection, community dropoff centers, and commercial recycling operations. Such programs are labor intensive and

produce relatively uncontaminated materials for

recycling. They require greater cooperation by

waste generators and may put a greater burden on

collection, so such programs will require careful attention to design and implementation strategies.24

Dissemination of information on program design,

combined with some form of incentive to communities or local recycling entrepreneurs, might

be effective in promoting such programs.

ISSUE 3 :

Control Over the Waste Stream.

Because centralized energy recovery systems are

subject to economies of scale, their viability depends on assured long-term access to a large supply

ZJMaterlalS and Enerm From Municipal Waste, op. cit., pp. 254-255.

241bid., p, 69.
Ch. 7–Resource Recovery From Municipal Solid Waste ● 169

of MSW.25 Long-term waste flow control is difficult to achieve, however: other disposal options

may have lower costs now or in the future; cooperation between several municipalities may be required, and flow control may be resisted by private

haulers and competing landfills. The two basic

methods to guarantee such a supply are: 1) offering

lower tipping fees than competing disposal alternatives, which may endanger the economic

viability of the project; and 2) legislating public

control of the waste stream, which is now being

challenged in the courts. The Akron waste control

ordinance, which is now before the Federal District Court of Ohio, is therefore of national importance. The legal issues raised by the case, as

summarized by a recent study, are as follows:

● Interstate Commerce.—The recycling of materials from MSW is considered to be a form

of interstate commerce as is some hauling and

disposal of MSW by private haulers. Such activities are thus regulated by a large body of

Federal statutes which cannot be preempted

by local or State legislation.

● Anti-Trust Violation.–The enactment of

waste control legislation creates a monopoly

which violates Federal law.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that municipalities do not have the same exemption from

Federal anti-trust provisions that States are allowed by terms of the Clayton Act. This sets legal

precedent to the effect that cities cannot create

monopolies, which indicates that any future waste

control legislation may have to be enacted on a

statewide basis. This, of course, is contingent upon a

ruling in the Akron case that waste control leg25The fo]lo~lng discussion IS drawn from Hale, op. cit., Pp. 47-49.

islation in general is not offensive on interstate

commerce grounds .26

Option 3-A: Amend Federal Law to Allow Municipal Waste Control.–Congress

may wish to investigate ways in which antitrust

and interstate commerce statutes might be

amended to exempt MSW and/or municipal waste

control from their provisions.

Option 3-B: Encourage State Waste Control Legislation. –If municipal waste control

legislation is found to be in violation of antitrust

statutes but not in violation of interstate commerce, Congress may wish to encourage the adoption of State waste control laws. In some cases, for

instance, municipalities and counties are constrained under their State charters from entering

into the long-term contracts (20 to 30 years) that

would be necessary to ensure adequate MSW supply for facilities like the RES; this problem is further complicated when MSW from several jurisdictions must be combined for a single facility.

Two approaches have been taken: the State of

Florida has enacted legislation requiring that

MSW set out by community residents must be

delivered to the resource recovery facility by

private haulers; the State of Wisconsin has gone a

step further, declaring that the municipality is the

actual owner of the waste stream. Congress might

investigate the advantages and disadvantages of

these and other State approaches, and formulate a

model waste control law to be recommended to

the States.

2bIbid., p. 49.

74-435 0 - 81 - 12
Chapter 8

Community
Contents

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

Conventional Wastewater Treatment

Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .174

Alternative Wastewater Treatment

Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............175

Land Treatment Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

Onsite Treatment Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

Aquiculture Treatment Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

A Case Study of the Hercules AquaCell

Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Community Setting ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

The Solar AquaCell Technology . .............179

The Hercules AquaCell Treatment Facility . . . . . . 183

Critical Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Public Perception and Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Essential Resources. . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , , . . 185

Technical Information and Expertise . . , . . . . . . , . 186

Financing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

Institutional Factor-s . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

Federal Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...188

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........188

Innovative and Alternative Technology Program . . 189

Issues and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

List of Tables

Table No. Page

22. Cost and Performance Comparisons Of the

Hercules AquaCell ... , . . . . . . . . . ........179

2 3. Summary of Federal Legislation and

Regulations Relating to Innovative and

Alternative Technologies. ., . . . . , . . . . . . . . . 190

24. Alternative Technologies for Wastewater

Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

List of Figures

Figurc No. Page

28. Solarr AquaCell System Process Flow, Diagram . 180

29. Section View--Solar AquaCell System. .“. . . . . 181

30. Treatment Performance in Relation to

Retention Time for the Solar AquaCell Process. 182

31. Proposed 2.0-mgd Solar AquaCell Facility for

the City of Hercules. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

32. Electrical Energy Consumption for

Conventional and Solar Aqua Cell

Wastewater Treatment Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

33. Generalized Classification of Innovative and

Alternative Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
CHAPTER 8

Community Wastewater Treatment

Introduction

A decade ago, the small neighborhood sewage

treatment plant was generally regarded as a root

cause of the American water pollution problem—

poorly designed, cheaply constructed, improperly

maintained, run by the mayor’s brother-in-law and

a couple of high school dropouts. So there was a

strong trend away from small systems into large

centralized facilities .. ..1

Today, however, with a number of new

community-based wastewater treatment systems

available, centralized conventional treatment

methods are only one choice among many. The

purpose of this chapter is to introduce the reader to

the alternatives that exist for community wastewater treatment and also to provide a more detailed insight into one community’s efforts to

develop one of these innovative technologies.

The Nation’s stake in developing cheaper and

more effective treatment methods is potentially

enormous: more Federal dollars are being spent for

this purpose than for any other nondefense public

works program except the Interstate Highway

System. 2 Many communities have yet to install

treatment facilities that meet the Environmental

Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) effluent standards,

and EPA estimates that it will cost as much as $25

billion to complete the construction or upgrading

of the needed treatment plants.3 The General Accounting Office (GAO) has found that the funds

required for this investment are not now available

and may never be; GAO recommends strongly

that lower cost approaches must be pursued.4

The range of wastewater treatment systems

available to communities must be judged according to the unique needs of each community. For

example, the conventional, centralized facilities

rely on large trunk sewers to convey wastewater

from outlying communities. Suburban expansion

often follows these sewer “mains, ” a situation

which might be either favorable or undesirable

depending on the community’s growth plans. A

community must consider a number of other factors in choosing the most appropriate wastewater

treatment system: environmental elements, such

as climate, geology, soil, and type of wastewater;

socioeconomic factors, like treatment cost and effects on population growth; and the technical

characteristics of the treatment system itself.

Three levels or stages of wastewater treatment are

generally recognized:

●

●

Primary treatment removes large particles from

raw wastewater through screening and sedimentation. Approximately 60 percent of the

suspended solids, and about 35 percent of the

5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5),5

are removed during primary treatment.

Secondary treatment reduces the concentration

of suspended solids and BOD5 still further.

EPA defines secondary treatment as “a treatment level meeting effluent limitations for

BOD5 and suspended solids of 30 mg/l [each]

on a monthly average basis or 85 percent

removal of these parameters, whichever is

more stringent. ”6

IClem L. Rastatler, et al., iMunlci/xd Wmtewater Treatment: A

Cui?en Guude to Factllty Pkmnmg (Washington, D. C.: Environmental

Protection Agency, January 1979).

‘Claudia Copeland, “Municipal Pollution Control: The EPA Construction Grants Program, ” issue brief No. IB80049 (Washington,

D. C.: Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Oct. 27,

1980).

~Large Con$tmction p~oject~ to Correct Combined Sewer ~’erflou’s Are

Too Costly (CED-80-40) (Washington, D. C.: General Accounting Office, Dec. 28, 1979), vol. 1, p. iii.

41bid.

SBOD5 is a conventional measure of wastewater quality, based on

the amount of oxygen required by bacteria to decompose suspended

organic waste over a 5-day period. Discharging wastewaters with high

BOD5 into surface waters (rivers, lakes) can reduce their oxygen concentration to levels that are harmfully low for aquatic organisms.

6Environmenta1 protection Agency, “Intent to Issue Revised Guidance Concerning Review of Advanced Treatment Projects for Construction Grants Program, Request for Comments, ” Federal Register,

vol. 45, No. 121, June 20, 1980, pp. 41,891.

173
174 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

● Tertiary or advanced treatment provides the

highest quality of wastewater effluent. It removes nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, and further reduces BOD5 and suspended solids. EPA defines advanced wastewater treatment as a treatment level “providing for maximum monthly average BOD5

and suspended solids of less than 10 mg/l

[each] and/or total nitrogen removal of

greater than 50 percent.”7

In addition to the standard processes described

for primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment,

chlorine (or in some instances ozone) is sometimes

added to treated wastewater to destroy pathogens

before discharge.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of

1972 mandated that all publicly owned treatment

71b1d.

works achieve secondary treatment standards.

However, there are still a large number of communities which must build or replace secondary

treatment systems. 8 Many communities, especially

in arid areas, are also attempting to recover

wastewater as a resource, rather than treating it as

a burden to be disposed of. Still other communities are concerned with high-quality treatment of wastewaters, in order to avoid such

problems as lake eutrophication and ground water

contamination. In light of these varying needs, the

following discussion identifies a wide range of

secondary and advanced treatment alternatives

for community wastewater treatment.

Scouncil on Environmental Quality, Encironmentai @cz/ity: The

Tenth Annual Report of the Council on Enuronmentai Quality (Washington, D. C.: Executive Office of the President, 1979).

Conventional Wastewater Treatment Systems

The major conventional technologies for secondary treatment use biological processes to treat

wastewater. The three most widely used conventional biological treatments are oxidation ponds,

activated sludge and trickling filters.

The oxidation pond is used in about a third of

the existing U.S. secondary treatment facilities.

About 90 percent of these ponds service communities of less than 10,000 people.9 In oxidation

ponds, wastes are decomposed by bacteria. Ponds

can be aerobic (containing oxygen in water),

anaerobic (containing no oxygen), or facultative

(aerobic at the top, but anaerobic at the bottom).

The type of pond depends in part on the type of

wastewater being treated; most ponds now in use

are facultative. Oxidation ponds have lower construction costs, require less energy, and are easier

to operate and maintain than the other conventional technologies. However, they remove suspended solids poorly, require large land areas, and

do not work well in cold weather.l0

9Environmentul Poliution Control Ahernatit’es: Municipal Wastewater

(Washington, D. C.: Environmental Protection Agency, November

1979) (hereafter “EPA 1979”).

IOIbid.; and ~nnovatlt,e and Ahernative Assessment Manual (Washington, D. C.: Environmental Protection Agency, 1980) (hereafter

“EPA 1980”).

The second conventional biological process, the

trickling filter, has been in widespread use since

1936. 11 After primary treatment, wastewater is

trickled through a bed of rocks or a synthetic

medium such as plastic beads; micro-organisms living on the filter medium digest organic wastes.

The treated wastewater is then collected by an

underdrain and any solids are allowed to settle.

This is a simple process that can accommodate a

wide variety of wastewaters without difficulty. The

system’s simplicity is its main advantage: neither

operation nor maintenance is difficult. However, if

the system is upset, it requires a long time to recover. Other disadvantages of the system include:

low tolerance for high concentrations of organic

wastes, vulnerability to below-freezing temperatures, odor problems, and limited flexibility and

control.

The most commonly used and versatile conventional biological secondary treatment process is

the activated sludge system.12 Like oxidation ponds,

the activated sludge process relies on bacterial decomposition. However, unlike the pond system,

the bacterial culture is aerated and agitated to enI IEPA 1980.

‘21bid.
Ch. 8–Community Wastewater Treatment ● 175

sure that the wastewater and sludge are “activated’’—oxygenated and mixed. After aeration,

the activated sludge is allowed to settle and a portion is recycled to maintain the culture. *3 Activated sludge systems produce a high-quality effluent from varied wastewaters and do not require

a great deal of land. Operation of the systems,

however, requires more attention than either of

the other conventional technologies, due to their

tendency to be upset by variations in amount and

composition of wastewater. They also cost more to

build and consume more energy than either oxidation ponds or trickling filters. 14

Two new technologies for conventional, centralized wastewater treatment also deserve mention. These processes are hybrids that combine elements of the activated sludge and trickling filter

systems. The first, rotating biological contractors or

“biodiscs,” consist of a series of plastic discs which

provide a large surface area for the growth of

micro-organisms. These discs rotate through

wastewater, exposing the micro-organisms to organic wastes. In this respect, the biodisc process is

similar to the trickling filter concept, but the discs

also aerate and agitate the wastewater as they

rotate, like the activated sludge system.

The other hybrid system, the activated biofilter,

is similar to the trickling filter in that wastewater is

trickled over redwood slats covered with microorganisms. Like the activated sludge system, however, the biofilter system also recycles part of

the sludge to maintain a high-density bacterial

culture.

Unlike the above secondary treatment systems,

which are based primarily on biological processes,

conventional advanced waste treatment systems

are mostly physical-chemical processes. Advanced

processes include the addition of chemicals to

remove phosphorus; filtering processes to remove

suspended and colloidal solids; filtering through

carbon, which absorbs biologically resistant

organics; and a variety of biological and physicalchemical processes to remove the different forms

of nitrogen. 15

I ~Ibld.; and Wastewater Englneermg: Treatment, Disposal, Reuse,

Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., 1979.

14EpA 1979. 151bid.

Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems

Three types of alternative waste treatment systems are currently in limited use in the United

States: the first type, land treatment, processes

wastewater by applying it to the land; the second

type, onsite treatment, includes systems appropriate for the individual home; and the last type,

aquiculture, treats wastewater through the controlled cultivation of aquatic plants and animals. l6

Land Treatment Systems

The most widely used and most reliable land

treatment method is irrigation. Treated wastewater

has been used to irrigate agricultural lands and

pastures for over 100 years, but it is also being used

to irrigate forest lands and recreational lands, such

as golf courses. At present, about 400 to 500 comlbofflce of Technology Assessment, “Energy From Aquacuhre, ”

draft report, 1979.

munities in the United States are using some form

of wastewater irrigation. 17

Wastewater is applied to the land through irrigation ditches, by inundating the land with 2 or

3 inches of wastewater at a time, or by spray or

sprinkler irrigation. 18 Pollutants in the wastewater

are removed primarily through a combination of

biological and chemical processes: some are taken

up by growing plants; other are decomposed by

soil micro-organisms or through chemical processes in the soil. Wastewater irrigation produces a

high-quality effluent, which can either be collected

for reuse or discharged to ground and surface

waters. In some cases, crop production has been

higher using wastewater irrigation than using

17EpA 1980.

leA/tmatlc,e W@te Management Techniques /or Best %mticable

Waste Treatment (Washington, D. C.: Environmental Protection

Agency, Municipal Construction Division, October 1975).
176 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

conventional irrigation, and increased revenues

from crops have helped to offset the costs of the

systems. Irrigation systems, however, require more

land than either conventional treatment systems

or the second major type of land treatment, infiltration-percolation systems.

In contrast to wastewater irrigation, infiltration-percolation relies on rapid flow of wastewater

through sandy soils. The soil filters the wastewater

and soil organisms decompose organic wastes. Uptake of nutrients by vegetation, however, does not

play the major role in this system that it does in

irrigation treatment. The infiltration-percolation

system is particularly useful in situations where it

is useful to replenish ground waters—for example,

to avoid saltwater intrusion—but the potential exists for ground water contamination, especially by

nitrates. Infiltration-percolation systems require

less land and (in most cases) less energy than irrigation systems. However, they have a limited

capability for removing nutrients, such as nitrogen

and phosphorus compounds; and consequently

they require careful management to avoid ground

water contamination, which tends to limit both

their flexibility and Iifespans. 19

Onsite Treatment Systems

Onsite systems are wastewater treatment systems that serve individual households or clusters

of homes. The most prevalent onsite system, the

septic tank soil absorption system, serves about a

third of the population of the United States. Like

the land treatment system, septic tank absorption

relies on complex physical, chemical, and biological processes in the soil to remove and decompose wastewater pollutants. While septic tank

absorption systems are used widely, their effectiveness and safety in any given location will depend on soil permeability; the depth of the ground

water table and bedrock; rainfall and seasonal

flooding; and the distance to the nearest surface

water or well.

In situations where septic tanks are infeasible,

several other onsite systems are available. For example, the septic tank mound system disposes of

wastewater in sand-filled, aboveground mounds.

The engineered mound provides the same treatment functions as absorption beds.

In areas of low soil permeability and high net

evaporation, another technique has evolved to

dispose of wastewater—evapotranspiration (ET). An

ET system works by evaporating wastewater from

a bed of sand. Plants growing on the surface of the

sand bed help increase the rate of water loss. ET

systems are fairly widely used, especially in the

arid Southwest, and approximately 4,000 to 5,000

are in operation in the United States today. Although ET systems require a great amount of land,

they are an effective method of disposal and require a minimum of maintenance.

Two other types of onsite systems are often

used at sites where a high-quality effluent is necessary for discharge to surface waters. Aerobic treatment systems, like activated sludge systems, maintain a highly concentrated bacterial culture that

decomposes organics. These systems provide very

advanced treatment, but they are also expensive

and require a great deal of operational and maintenance attention.20 A more practical and costeffective method of producing a high-quality effluent for surface water discharge is the septic tank

sand filter system. This system is similar to the soil

absorption systems, except that the wastewater is

filtered through subsurface beds of sand and then

collected and drained by underdrains.

Aquiculture Treatment Systems

Although still in the development stage, two

aquiculture systems have recently emerged as alternative methods of wastewater treatment. Both

systems use vascular aquatic plants to increase the

surface area on which bacterial decomposition can

take place; the plants also absorb some of the

nutrients, suspended solids, and heavy metals in

the wastewater. The two systems differ in the types

of plants they employ.

Natural wetlands have unintentionally served

as waste treatment systems for centuries. Recently,

however, artificial wetlands have been experimentally constructed to provide both primary and secondary treatment. Marsh plants, anchored in

shallow oxidation ponds, provide increased sur19EpA 1979; EPA 19gO; and Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., op. cit( ZOEPA 1980.
Ch. 8–Community Wastewater Treatment ● 177

face area for bacteria and also help remove nutrients from wastewaters. 21

Aquatic systems combine the large, shallow lagoons of facultative oxidation pond systems with

the controlled growth of floating plants, such as

water hyacinths or duckweed. Most of the treatment occurs through bacterial action, but the

aquatic plants also reduce nutrients, heavy metals,

and suspended solids.22

The Solar AquaCell treatment system, which is

discussed in the following case study, combines

elements of the aquatic systems with components

of other conventional wastewater treatment systems. The AquaCell technology will be described

in greater detail in a later section, but the focus of

the case study is on the community’s attempt to

develop and adopt a wastewater treatment technology that is appropriate to its unique local needs

and goals.

Photo credit: So/ar AquaSystems

Plants such as water hyacinths, shown here, absorb some

of the nutrients, suspended solids, and heavy metals that

are found in wastewater

ZIIbld,; and OTA, op. cit.

22 EPA 1980,

A Case Study of the Hercules AquaCell Project23

The Community Setting

The city of Hercules, founded in 1900 as a company town by the old Hercules Powder Co., is located in the northeastern San Francisco Bay area.

Its rolling green hills and proximity to the ocean

are attractive to newcomers, and since 1974 the

town has experienced feverish growth, moving

from a village of barely 121 people to a community

of 7,000 in just 6 years.

Hercules is basically a middle-class community

and has virtually no unemployment. Modal family

income in March 1979 was between $23,000 and

$29,000, and 90 percent of households had incomes between $18,000 and $60,000. About half

ZIMaterlal in ths case study is based on the working paper, “solar

AquaCell Wastewater Treatment, Hercules, California,” prepared by

Lee Bourgoin and Alice Levine for the Harvard Workshop on Appropriate Technology for Community Development, Department of

City and Regional Planning, Harvard University, May 15, 1979, pp.

147-242.

the population is white, and of the balance 23 percent are Filipino, 11 percent black, 9 percent Chinese, 5 percent Hispanic, and 2 percent Japanese.

The newer part of town, located inland, consists of

small-lot, single-family housing tracts that are

rapidly consuming the rolling landscape.

In 1977, the city government, led by a City

Manager and Council, began looking for additional sewage treatment capacity to meet the needs

of its growing population. They wanted a system

that could be expanded incrementally as the city

grew, and they looked at several options. One was

to increase the capacity of the conventional plant

where its wastewater was then being treated, in

the nearby city of Pinole. Another option, which

was being recommended at that time by EPA, was

the construction of a consolidated regional sewage treatment facility for four localities—Pinole,

Crockett, Rodeo, and Hercules—in line with regulations promulgated under the Federal Water
178 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

Pollution Control Act of 1972. (Before the Clean

Water Act Amendments of 1977, Federal water

pollution policy promoted the establishment of regional districts to monitor water quality, implement treatment standards, and build regional sewage treatment plants.) A third option was for Hercules to build and operate its own municipal

sewage treatment plant.

The first two options, however, would have put

limits on the city’s growth. The Pinole plant

expansion could serve a maximum Hercules

population of only 15,000, and a regional plan set

forth by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) had likewise limited the city to a

maximum population of 15,000. The city’s own

master plan, on the other hand, specified a 1990

population of 23,000, to be reached in steps by

controlled growth. ABAG’s ability to enforce its

regional master plan came from its role as a State

and Federal grant-approving entity: Hercules

could build its own treatment facility, but unless it

accepted ABAG’s growth ceiling it could expect

little outside financial support.

Fortunately for the city, outside financing was

not necessary. A few years earlier, the Pacific Refinery, a subsidiary of a Houston-based corporation, had shifted the point of payment for its sales

taxes from Houston to Hercules. This resulted in a

tax windfall for the city amounting to $2 million

per year, which meant that the city would be able

to finance the construction of a sewage treatment

plant out of its own revenues.

In addition to having a tax base that allowed it

to exercise autonomy in building a treatment facility, the Hercules City Council was also interested in trying innovative, environmentally

sound methods to deliver municipal services. They

were interested in attracting further development,

and they recognized the opportunity to make Hercules a showplace community with a reputation

for farsightedness and leadership.

Development

During 1976, City Manager Ralph Snyder had

read in the trade journals and in a San Diego

newspaper about a treatment process designed by

Solar AquaSystems, Inc. The process was innovative, and it produced water cleaner than was required by secondary treatment standards. He contacted the firm’s president, Steve Serfling, for

more information.

Sex-fling and his associates had developed the

AquaCell Wastewater Treatment Process as a

more marketable version of their earlier experiments with the cultivation of freshwater shrimp

and fish in a closed system. After obtaining a

patent for the AquaCell in 1976,24 Serfling and

his partner, Dominick Mendola, pooled about

$15,000 to set Up a backyard prototype for research and evaluation. During the fall and winter

of 1976-77, Solar AquaSystems built and tested

a larger wastewater prototype to treat human

sewage.

In early 1977, the Hercules city government

signed a contract with Solar AquaSystems to conduct a feasibility study for an AquaCell plant. A

contract was also awarded to Metcalf and Eddy,

Engineers, for a feasibility study of the proposed

expansion of the existing Pinole plant. Both

studies were submitted in May 1977, and reviewed

by the City Council and staff members, including

Bill Chapman, the city engineer.

In comparing the two options (see table 22), the

city took several cost factors into account, the

most important of which was that the annual operating and maintenance costs for the AquaCell

system would be much lower than at the Pinole

plant. Assuming a population of 23,000 in 1990,

these costs for the AquaCell system could be as

much as $300,000 per year less than the conventional option:

AquaCell at 2.2 million gal/day

(mgd) capacity (Solar

AquaSystems’ estimate, expressed $150,000 to

in 1979 dollars) $200,000 per year

Pinole expansion for 5,000 homes

at $84/yr/connection and 2.2

mgd capacity at 1.5 cents/gal $453,000 per year

Besides the financial considerations, there was

also the question of which option would best handle the projected increase in the city’s population.

As mentioned above, the Pinole expansion would

serve a maximum Hercules population of 15,000,

Z4So]ar AquaSystems holds the patent on the system’s greenhouse

covers, ponds, bioweb substrates, floating plants, aeration system,

and the “solar sprayers” that mist water into the air.
Ch. 8–Community Wastewater Treatment . 179

Table 22.—Projected Cost and Performance Comparisons of the Hercules AquaCell Facility

Versus the Pinole Plant Expansion

Hercules Municipal Sewage Treatment

Plant using the Solar AquaCell System

1977 estimated capital costs

per gallon of plant capacity. .. .$2.57

Effluent quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Choice of secondary or tertiary.

Expansion-contraction flexibility . Simple—change pond size. Can build incrementally as needed.

Energy requirements . ..........250 kWh/million gal treated.

Disposal requirements. . . . . . . . . . Sludge and hyacinths—225 ft3

/million gal if

hyacinths are chopped, 165 ft3

/million gal

if composted.

Land area required . ............1.3 acre/1 mgd capacity.

Labor required. . . . . . . . . ........1 person, part-time, 1 backup person.

Biological/mechanical tasks.

Other requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . Aquatic plant harvester. Composter on site.

Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Flexible—keeps working if component

fails. 24 hours to repair before overflow.

Byproducts of potential value

to Hercules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aquatic plants: compost, animal feed,

methane. Treated wastewater: industrial

water, greenbelt irrigation, freshwater

marsh enhancement, food production.

Pinole Plant expansion of

Conventional Activated Sludge System

$2.67

Secondary only.

Difficult—requires new infrastructure. Must

build for total future planned capacity.

625 kWh/million gal treated.

SIudge—360 ft3

/million gal.

1 acre/1 mgd capacity.

None additional required. 6 people, full-time

already employed. Mechanical tasks.

Truck access.

Inflexible—loses efficiency if component

fails. 4 hours to repair before overflow.

No current use of wastewater or sludge,

although greenbelt irrigation and methane

production are possible.

SOURCE: Solar AquaSystems; based on laboratory data and contractor estimates

and this additional capacity would have to be built

(and paid for) all at once. Estimated cost to Hercules as of December 1977 was $4 million, against

an estimated cost of $3.5 million for the AquaCell.

The flexibility of scale in AquaCell construction

thus became an important cost consideration: because of the modular design, economies of scale

are slight, so the city could build to current capacity requirements and then expand the facility as demand increased, spreading capital costs over time

as the city grew.

After considering all of these factors, the City

Council selected the AquaCell system by unanimous vote. It could grow with the city, and as ‘one

Council member pointed out, “we are buying the

flexibility to grow to the [population] limit we

want.” The appeal of local control over local development was echoed more forcefully by Councilman Joel Zieper:

If you want to do something right, do it yourself.

I couldn’t care less whether we get any money from

the State, They would probably do it wrong anyway. We’ll do it right and then we’ll take all the

credit.

City Manager Snyder added that the city wanted

to make a “contribution to the state of the art, ”

and summed up the benefits in the following way:

There comes a time when it is necessary to consider other values than what may appear to be

“safe.” The merits of energy conservation, water

recycling, fish life production and agricultural byproducts use are, to me, very significant and

achievable objectives not only in terms of the community but also for the nation and even parts of

the world.

The Solar AquaCell Technology

In the Solar AquaCell Wastewater Treatment

Process, waste-consuming plants and marine organisms occupy a lagoon enclosed under a greenhouse cover. The technology consists of three

components:

1.

2.

An inflated polyethylene greenhouse cover is

built over three treatment lagoons in order to

stabilize water and air temperatures and to

prevent excessive evaporation.

Anchored, buoyant plastic-mesh ribbons and

tubes, called “bio-web substrates,” are placed

in the lagoons (like marsh plants in an artificial wetland) to expand a hundredfold the

surface area where the waste-digesting organisms live and graze. As a result, the organisms multiply more rapidly and hence take

less time to digest the waste. As in the conventional activated sludge process, most of
180 ● Assessment of Technology/or Local Development

Photo credit: Hercules AquaCell

8-ft-deep lagoon, enclosed by greenhouse cover, where

secondary treatment begins

the digestion of waste in the AquaCell occurs

by bacterial action.

3. Aquatic plants, in this case water hyacinths

and duckweed, are grown on the pond’s surface. The plants subsist on nutrients from the

wastewater, and also serve to screen the pond

from sunlight, thereby preventing the growth

of undesirable algae.

Figure 28 depicts the AquaCell process. Sewage

passes through a grinder into a covered anaerobic

pond, where grit and a large portion of the solid

wastes settle out. The wastewater then enters a

second anaerobic pond, also sealed beneath a

floating black rubber cover, where abundant bacteria on the bio-web substrates begin to digest

wastes, producing a small amount of methane in

the process. Retention time for this stage is 18

hours.

After primary treatment, the treated wastewater

flows into an 8-ft-deep facultative lagoon, where

secondary treatment begins. This lagoon contains

more bioweb substrates, which facilitate the

growth of micro-organisms and encourage the settling of solids suspended in the wastewater. Bacteria and grazing micro-organisms continue to digest the wastes. Retention time for the facultative

stage is an additional 18 hours.

Secondary treatment continues in the main portion of the greenhouse lagoon (see figure 29),

where other waste-eating animals have been

added: protozoa, amphipods, grass shrimp, hydra,

snails, worms, and additional micro-organisms.

Water hyacinths and duckweed now cover the

water’s surface, taking up nutrients and heavy

metals from the wastewater and keeping down

algae growth by screening out the sun. Anaerobic

Figure 28.—Solar AquaCell System Process Flow Diagram

Anaerobic contact cell - 1st stage Anaerobic contact aquacell - 2nd stage Aerobic solar aquacell

– Solids digestion & acid generation – Methane generation stage 2 d — 8 hrs liquid retention

— ays retention - secondary effluent

— 18 hrs liquid retention — 4-6 days retention - advanced tertiary

— 4-6 mo. solids retention — 1-2 yrs solids retention

-., -A-.

sludge digestion from top bacteria, and reducing COD, BOD,

SUS. solids, and nitrogen.

Solar energy Aerobic solar aauacell

nutrients, and increasing sedimentation of suspended solids.

SOURCE: Solar AquaSystems.
Ch. 8–Community Wastewater Treatment c 181

Figure 29.—Section View, Solar AquaCell System

>

Solar energy

Solar pond cover

(double layer

\ \ \

air-inflated roof)

Floating aquatic plants provide shade & treatment

Water hyacinths

I Duckweeds

SOURCE: Solar AquaSystems.

waste digestion occurs on the bottom of the

lagoon, where sludge slowly builds up at a rate of

between 1⁄4 and 1/2 inch per year.

Trials of the AquaCell process in the 2,000- and

4,000-gpd prototype facilities showed that secondary treatment quality can be achieved with 2 days

retention time for a l-acre pond handling 1 mgd of

wastewater, a capacity that would serve a population of 10,000.25 Advanced treatment quality

was achieved after 4 or 5 days. However, as illustrated in figure 30, nitrates and phosphorus,

ZJData recorded and analyzed by the Environmental Studies

Laboratory, Umversity of San Diego.

which encourage algae growth, are only partially

removed from the water within 5 days (50 percent

of the nitrates; 10 to 20 percent of the phosphorus). If desired, the remaining phosphorus can

be removed by adding lime to the water, and the

remaining nitrogen by increasing the retention

time.

Most of the pathogenic organisms (disease-causing bacteria and viruses) contained in the wastes

die off during the long retention periods. Other

pathogens get trapped in the sand filtration system, where they eventually die or are consumed

b y other organisms. Remaining pathogens are
182 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

Figure 30.—Treatment Performance in Relation to

Retention Time for the Solar AquaCell Process~

Typical

7

1 hr 24 hrs- 48 hrs 72 hrs = hrs 120 hrs

raw typical day 1 day 2 day 3 day 4 day 5

sewage

primary

effluent Retention time

(conventional

or anaerobic pond)

aBased on data collected from the 2,000-gpd pilot-scaie SoIar AquaCell

Laboratory in Solana Beach, Calif., from October 1976 to March 1977; and current data being collected from the new 4,000-gpd pilot facility located at the

Cardiff Wastewater Treatment Facility. Data from Cardiff facility is recorded

and analyzed by the Environmental Studies Laboratory, University of San

Diego.

killed with ozone in a contact disinfection chamber as the water flows out of the main lagoon and

into a clear well to be pumped away.

A crucial component of the system is the greenhouse cover. It traps solar energy during the day

and reduces heat loss at night, thereby helping to

maintain the effectiveness of the AquaCell during

colder winter months and reducing its energy consumption year-round. A water-mist spraying system helps reduce air temperatures during summer

months. In dry climates, the greenhouse cover also

reduces evaporation from ponds. This is especially

valuable for systems whose object is to reclaim the

wastewater for other uses. Also, since the greenhouse cover prevents evaporation, and because

the aquatic plants and invertebrates consume

minerals, the AquaCell system can decrease the

concentration of dissolved solids, rather than increasing them as happens in conventional oxidation pond systems. Finally, the greenhouse cover

Photo credit: Hercules AquaCell

Ozone contact disinfection chamber under construction at

the Hercules AquaCell Treatment Facility

will help to contain odors, although few are produced in normal operation.

Maintenance requirements include: monitoring

environmental conditions, such as temperature, to

assure the most efficient metabolic rate; sand filter

back washing; removing sludge every 3 to 6

months; and harvesting the aquatic plants.

Studies have shown that the aquatic plants used in

the AquaCell process are generally hardy and able

to withstand some fluctuations in nutrient content, and air and water temperatures, changes in

water chemistry, and even the presence of toxic

compounds. 26 The system’s large holding capacity

and relatively long retention time are designed to

dilute “slugs” (sudden but transient concentrations) of toxic wastes in incoming wastewater,

helping to protect the plants and bacteria from

damage. In addition, the large holding capacity

will give operators a longer period to correct malfunctions before the system begins to overflow-24 hours instead of the 4 hours of conventional systems.

According to Serfling, the final volume of solids

requiring disposal will be less than half the volume

produced by conventional activated sludge systems. The harvested plants may be composted

alone or with the sludge to produce fertilizer and

zbwi]liam S, Hi]lrnan and Dudley D. Culley, Jr., “The Uses o f

Duckweed,” American Scientist, vol. 66, July-August 1978, pp.

442-456; B. C, Wolverton (cd.), Compiled Data on the Vascular Aquatic

Plant Program: 1975-1977, prepared for NASA National Space Technology Laboratories.
.

Ch. 8—Community Wastewater Treatment ● 183

soil-enhancing materials (see ch. 7 for a discussion

of comporting). Because water hyacinths grown in

sewage average 20 percent protein, and duckweed

as much as 40 percent, they may also have value as

animal feed so long as concentrations of toxic

compounds are not excessive. The sale of these byproducts, as well as reclaimed water, could further

reduce operating costs.

The Hercules AquaCeIl Treatment

Facility

The opening ceremonies for the Hercules AquaCell plant were held on Earth Day, April 22, 1980.

Figure 31 shows the AquaCell treatment facility

designed to provide 2-mgd capacity, advanced

wastewater treatment for the city of Hercules. The

initial phase of construction was designed to hanHowever, about 6 months will be needed before Photo credit: Hercules AquaCell

the plant can be considered fully operational. The Hercules AquaCell Treatment Facility

Figure 31 .—Proposed 2. O-MGD Solar AquaCell Facility, City of Hercules

D

-

,

Plan view of the proposed 2.0-MGD Solar AquaCell Lagoon Treatment Facility for the City of Hercules, Calif. Each AquaCell

will be 2.0 acres (6 acres total). The 0.35-MGD treatment phase currently under construction consists of a 1.5-acre AquaCell

system with anaerobic, facultative, and aerobic stages, approximately one-half of AquaCell A.
184 . Assessment of Technology for Local Development

dle 350,000 gpd. A 1.15-acre earthen pond, about

220 by 230 ft has been built; this pond will be enlarged to 2 acres, and two additional 2-acre ponds

will be built, when the plant expands. The initial

phase does not include a separate anaerobic pond;

instead, the single lagoon contains three cells—

anaerobic, facultative, and aerobic—separated by

walls of heavy rubber.

For the first few months of operation in Hercules, treated water will flow back to the conventional treatment plant at Pinole to be tested and

treated again. If the AquaCell system works reliably, treated water will be pumped into San

Francisco Bay through an outfall in neighboring

Rodeo. In the future, however, Hercules is considering using the treated water for greenbelt irrigation. Nitrogen and phosphorous removal will

not be required for this use, since these compounds will act as fertilizers. The city is also investigating the possibility of selling its reclaimed

water to Pacific Refinery for industrial use.

Total capital costs of phase I construction for

350,000-gpd capacity were about $2 million, considerably higher than Solar AquaSystems’ original

estimate. The major reasons for this cost increase

were the 50-percent increase in the size of the initial lagoon and the city’s decision, anticipating future expansion, to build the initial AquaCell plant

with adequate basic elements (tanks, pumps, and

pipes) for capacities of up to 4.4 mgd. Another factor in the cost increase is that, because the Solar

AquaCell is a new process unproven on a municipal scale, design and construction costs have escalated as engineers and contractors added relatively high contingency fees to cover risk; this

added 10 percent to the cost of basic elements

alone.

Total capital costs for expansion to full 2.2-mgd

capacity are currently estimated at an additional

$2 million to $3 million. Although the capital cost

of the Solar AquaCell is comparable to Hercules’

share of the Pinole expansion, it appears that operating and maintenance costs for the AquaCell

will be relatively low. Experiments have shown

that the AquaCell also uses less electricity than

conventional systems (see figure 32), and (in the

Figure 32.—Electrical Energy Requirements for

Conventional v. Ecological Wastewater

Treatment Systems

Electricity

(WKHR)

required per

million gals.

treated

12345678 9

Facility size in MGD

aDeveloped from E. B. Roberts and R. M. Hagan, Energy Requirements of Alternatives in Water Supply Use and Conservation: A Preliminary Report, California Water Resources Center University of California Davis, Contribution #155,

December 1975; and from A. Cywin, Director of Effluent Guidelines Division

EPA, “Energy Impacts of Water Pollution Control”, Energy, Agriculture and

Waste Management, William Jewell, cd., 1975.

bBased on biomass optimization for biofuels and electrical generation (no

ozone electricity included).

SOURCE: Environmental Protection Agency. Draft Innovative and Alternative

Technology Assessment Manual. EPA 430/9-7S-0001, 1978.

future), methane produced in the anaerobic stage

may be used to generate electricity and further

reduce costs.27

ZTMethane utilization is also a common practice in conventional

wastewater treatment technologies. Anaerobic digestion yields a gas

that is 65 percent methane and 35 percent carbon dioxide. One ftJ of

gas (enough to light a 60-watt bulb for 6 hours) is generated each day

for every 100 gal of wastewater treated. The gas is typically used to

provide one-third to one-half of the heating requirements of the treatment plant. (Wastewater Pollution Control Federation, Wastewater

Treatment Pkmr Design IWashington, D. C., 1977], p. 531). See ch. 5

for further discussion of methane digesters.
Ch 8–Community Wastewater Treatment ● 185

Critical Factors

Treatment of wastewater by the Solar AquaCell

is too new a technology to warrant a definitive

evaluation as yet; there are as yet no reliable performance data. However, as an example of the

problems of developing a new technology, the

Hercules experience should be of interest to communities thinking of adopting innovative wastewater treatment systems of their own.

Public Perception and Participation

The issue of what to do with Hercules wastewater elicited little general debate among residents. Most of them knew that a new facility was

under consideration, but few of them knew any

details of the controversy. Apparently they were

willing to leave the decision to the City Council,

feeling that it would make the right choice and

that their sewage would be adequately treated.

The recent growth and constant state of change in

Hercules seemed to have deterred community involvement: attendance at council meetings was

usually low, and there were only a few informal

neighborhood groups. Since the decision to go

ahead with the AquaCell plant, the project has

received a fairly high level of local publicity and

support, although public involvement remains

low. City officials are organizing neighborhood

meetings and publishing a newsletter in an effort

to increase citizen participation in this and other

city decisions.

The response to the AquaCelI technology was

different in two other communities where the firm

submitted proposals at about the same time. In

early 1977, Solar AquaSystems submitted proposals to build AquaCell plants in San Diego,

where the proposal is still pending, and on the

Chemehuevi Indian Reservation at Lake Havasu,

Calif., where it was rejected. In the latter case, the

debate caused by the introduction of so unconventional a technology appears to have been responsible for its rejection. The Chemehuevi submitted a

grant application using the system to the Department of Commerce’s Economic Development

Administration (EDA), but by the time the firm

could explain the technology to EDA (who initially turned the proposal down in February 1978, but

subsequently approved it), the controversy over

the proposal and the prospect of further delays

had created so much suspicion in the Chemehuevi

community that they decided not to get involved

in the technology at all.

In San Diego, on the other hand, Solar AquaSystem’s proposal helped to engender local enthusiasm for using an innovative method of sewage treatment. The city subsequently submitted a

grant application to EPA to fund some type of

aquiculture-related wastewater treatment plant.

EPA approved the application in January 1980,

and San Diego is currently considering various

systems, including the AquaCell.28

Whatever the problems in getting them

adopted, however, once new ideas become realities

they begin to have a ripple effect in the community. This has been the case in Hercules, where

many people have taken a cue from the city’s approval of an AquaCell to install low-flush toilets

and restricted-flow shower heads in their own

homes. According to some estimates, these actions

will reduce local water consumption by as much as

40 percent. This also results in a more concentrated wastewater flow, which would be a problem

in conventional systems.

Essential Resources

The performance of the AquaCell process is affected by climatic conditions and the amount of

land available for its treatment ponds. Colder temperatures limit the efficiency of all biological

wastewater treatment processes; communities with

a less temperate climate than California’s would

find that retention times in either a conventional

zsother examples of aquiculture w’asteurater treatment prcqects exist in Lakeland and Dlsneyworld, Fla.; Mountain View’, Calif.; and

Vermontville, Mich. (Source: Jerome Golds[eln, edltw of/n BuJ(rzcJ.~

and Compost Scwnce, The JG Press, Emmaus, Pa.).

74-4 3s o - 81 - 13
186 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

system or a Solar AquaCell would have to be increased in order to obtain the advanced treatment

quality achieved in Hercules. Since the AquaCell

has not yet been tested in colder climates, no precise adjustment tables are available, but this does

pose a potential limit on the transferability of the

technology.

Theoretically, scale is not a limiting factor, since

the AquaCell system could be built small enough

to handle sewage from 5 to 10 houses, or large

enough to handle in excess of 100 mgd, the capacity required for a population of 1 million. Land

availability, however, could be a limiting factor.

The AquaCell requires about the same amount of

land as an oxidation pond system, but more space

than an activated sludge facility. In some densely

developed urban areas, where land is expensive,

this may weigh against the AquaCell; but its other

benefits and cost advantages may still make it

competitive. AquaCell’s greatest competitive advantage may be in smaller communities, where

land is less expensive and where there are diseconomies of scale in building conventional

facilities.

Another factor limiting the transferability of

the AquaCell to other communities is that water

hyacinths are considered a weed problem in some

regions, particularly in the Southeastern States

where overgrowth clogs freshwater canals; the release of hyacinths from the AquaCell could aggravate this problem.29 In California and many

other areas, however, water hyacinths will not survive outside the greenhouse environment.

Technical Information and Expertise

Communities faced with the need to construct,

expand, or upgrade their wastewater treatment facilities would profit from a broader knowledge of

the technological alternatives available to them.

For instance, there is a need for further study of

which treatment systems are most appropriate for

different kinds of communities—older cities, new

towns, rural areas, and suburbs—as well as which

are most appropriate to different climates and soil

types. The Hercules facility, as the pioneer installation of one new technology, can be a valuable demonstration on a municipal scale and a

l~homas Bull, Er-tergy Program, ORlce of Technology Assessment.

source of information for other communities, and

EPA has expressed interest in studying the Hercules AquaCell during its first 2 years of operation. In addition, conducting surveys to gather information about potential markets for reclaimed

water and other system byproducts would be

helpful in determining the feasibility of the

technology and in planning local development

programs.

Communities that decide to use a technology of

this type would need the services of a design firm,

engineers to adapt the design to a specific site,

project development managers, construction

workers, system operators, and maintenance personnel. Only the design phases, however, require

special expertise. Under competent management,

the actual construction should not be difficult,

since it is based on typical greenhouse and lagoon

designs. Operation and maintenance does differ

somewhat from that of conventional plants, but

the skills involved (such as harvesting aquatic

plants) appear simple enough to develop through

short training programs.

For both Hercules and Solar AquaSystems, the

first year of the AquaCell plant’s operation is

crucial to its technological success and economic

viability. Once the system is established, it is

designed to need only minor adjustments to ensure that it is working at maximum efficiency. The

city has given the firm a $54,000 contract to

manage the facility during the startup year. As

part of this contract, Solar AquaSystems has also

agreed to train operators, prepare operation and

maintenance manuals, and supervise testing of

water chemistry and biological components.

Financing

The capital costs of the AquaCell are equivalent

to those of expanding an existing conventional

plant, according to current estimates. However,

AquaCell costs may well be lower than those of a

completely new conventional facility, especially in

communities where smaller capacity requirements

give conventional plants a higher per capita cost.

AquaCell’s lifecycle cost advantages are related

primarily to the technology’s flexibility. First, its

modular design makes it simpler and cheaper to

upgrade a facility for advanced treatment, and also

allows enlargement of the facility to meet the
Ch. 8–Community Wastewater Treatment ● 187

demands of a growing community without requiring the community to spend large initial sums for

oversized facilities.30 Second, the system’s biological components are relatively hardy, which

allows them to adapt to changes in waste concentrations and reduces the possibility of system

malfunction. Third, its operating and maintenance costs appear to be substantially lower than

those of conventional systems, partly because the

greenhouse cover reduces energy consumption

and partly because the system produces less sludge.

Despite these economic advantages, however,

the greatest single barrier to developing and implementing the technology has been the lack of a

sufficient, steady source of financing. Conventional technologies and proven alternatives are

more familiar to private and public sources of

funding, and their costs are usually more clear-cut.

In adopting new or unproven technologies, on the

other hand, potential time delays and added costs

should be calculated, or at least formally recognized, in order to arrive at a realistic determination of final costs. In the case of the Hercules project, part of the discrepancy between estimated

and actual costs was due to time delays and the addition of contractors’ fees and contingencies to

cover risk.31 The element of risk exists at nearly

every stage, from the initial feasibility study,

through the design and engineering phases, all the

way to eventual construction, operation, and

maintenance. As uncertainty increases at any

stage, so do the potential costs of the project and

the hesitation of the sources of financing.

The city of Hercules tried to obtain developmental funding from EPA’s Office of Research and

Development, but that office did not have the

available resources to support a large ‘{experimental” project. (This situation has improved somewhat with the change of Federal policy reflected by

the creation of EPA’s Innovative and Alternative

Technology Program, discussed later in this

chapter.) EPA construction grant funds would

have been available only if Hercules agreed to

IOcouncll on Environmental Quality, Environmental Wlity—1 975,

the Sixth Annual Report OJ the Councd on Environmental Qualit y

(Washington, D. C.: Executive Office of the President, 1975).

JIFor example, the contractor hired by the city to build th e

AquaCell greenhouse cover increased contract fees for structural

engineering aspects in expectation of added costs due to possible

unknowns regarding the unconventional technology.

limit its growth and participate in either the Pinole

expansion or the proposed regional treatment

plant. This would have been a barrier to the transfer of this technology to communities that lack

Hercules’ tax base; Hercules was fortunate, and

perhaps unique, in being able to find the multimillion-dollar AquaCell project out of its own

revenues.

The Solar AquaCell case also illustrates many

of the financial problems faced by innovators and

entrepreneurs in appropriate technology. Lack of

funds has prevented Solar AquaSystems, Inc.,

from hiring a sanitary engineer to help with design

and to enhance the firm’s credibility, and low

salaries have been a strain on staff morale. The

company’s ability to plan has been restricted, and

the size and diversity of its development hardware

have been limited. Demonstration (and the capital

it requires) is the key step to commercialization,

but the firm’s marketing operations have been

hampered by the inability to visit prospective users

or follow up on contacts. For example, the city of

Santa Fe, N. Mex., has expressed an interest in the

AquaCell system, but as yet the staff has lacked

the time and money to make a presentation to

that city. Similarly, the company was unable to

send representatives to Hercules as often as it

wished to facilitate construction there. Solar

AquaSystems expects to break even on the Hercules project; only if other communities decide to

use the system will they make a profit from their

technology.

The failure of the firm to attract outside investment capital has not been for lack of trying. They

found, however, that venture capital sources

wanted substantial control over the firm before

they would invest, usually amounting to 80 or 90

percent of the company. This was in part because

of the high-risk nature of the investment, and in

part because the venture capital market was extremely tight in 1976, when they were seeking

funds. As one source explained:

Venture capitalists require such a high ownership level because of the difficulty of selling their

interest once the enterprise has become successful.

Whereas it used to be possible to sell a company for

30 times its annual earning, 10 times earnings

would be a more realistic figure today. Thus, to

make a return on investment acceptable to the
188 l Assessment of Technology for Local Development

venture capitalist, he or she must receive a larger

share of the ownership in exchange for providing

the same amount of capital. 32

This issue, as it relates to the AquaCell case in particular and to innovative technology enterprises in

general, is discussed at greater length in the section on financing in chapter 11.

Institutional Factors

The Hercules AquaCell project experienced relatively little opposition from local commercial interests. Some local builders opposed the proposal,

fearing that the introduction of a new technology

might cause delays in sewer hookups for new housing units. They urged the City Council to go the

conventional route by paying for the Pinole plant

expansion. Most such groups, however, saw the

same advantages for the community that motivated the City Council.

A far more serious barrier to the implementation of this technology has been the resistance of

Federal, State, and regional regulatory agencies.

State and regional agencies for water quality control and public health have tended to prefer the

12Jc)~n M. Smith, ]Cremiah J. McCarthy, and Henry L. L~ngest>

“Impact of Innovative and Alternative Technology in the United

States In the 1980’s,” presented at the Seventh United States Japan

Conference on Sewage Treatment Technology, Tokyo, May 1980.

Background

The Federal Government has provided grants

for the planning, design, and construction of

wastewater treatment facilities since the enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

of 1956 (Public Law 84-660). In 1972, the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (Public Law 92-500) were passed, setting a uniform national minimum effluent standard of secondary

treatment and authorizing an increase in the Federal share to 75 percent of eligible construction

costs.

Although the Act encouraged alternative technologies for waste treatment, no incentives were

provided. Most of the over $30 billion obligated to

conventional systems with which they were more

familiar. The California State Water Resources

Control Board, for instance, tends to judge wastewater projects by a set of criteria based on compact, mechanized conventional systems—activated

sludge in particular. This board is made up of civil

and sanitary engineers whose experience is rooted

in these mechanical systems.

These engineers, as well as public health officials, have also been resistant to systems that

reclaim wastewater for other uses and recycle

wastes and other system byproducts. The majority

of regulatory board members “believe in deep

ocean dumping, ” according to one former member; 33 and the State, regional, and county health

officials have made it clear that the facility will not

be given final certification until procedures for

handling solid wastes are demonstrated to their

satisfaction. 34 The comporting system at the Hercules facility was therefore vital, since for purposes

of disposal the local health department defined the

system’s harvested water hyacinths as “contaminated, ” undigested solid wastes.35

IJRC,Y Dodson, special consultant to the California Department of

Health Services and former member of the California Safe Water Resources Control Board, personal communication, Mar. 23, 1978.

Jqstephen &rfllng, president of Solar AquaSystems, Inc., in a letter

to the Hercules City Engineer, May 19, 1978.

‘

5

1 bici,

Policy

date has been used for the construction of conventional wastewater treatment facilities. With the

passage of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public

Law 95-217), Congress directed EPA to offer incentives for the use of alternative technologies for

municipal wastewater and other waste treatment

needs. In addition to the goals for clean water,

Congress placed special emphasis on the use of

technologies that:

●

●

●

●

●

reclaim or reuse water;

use recycling techniques, for example, recycling nutrients back to the land;

eliminate discharges into surface waters;

conserve or recover energy; and

lower treatment costs.
Ch. 8–Community Wastewater Treatment ● 189

Congress also required all applicants for municipal

waste treatment funds to fully study innovative

and alternative wastewater treatment

which meet these goals.

Innovative and Alternative

Technology Program

In October 1978, EPA established the

options

●

innovative and Alternative Technology Program (1/A

Program). This modification of the normal Federal

Construction Grants Program enabled EPA to offer several incentives to communities:

● Increased Federal portion.—Federal grants for

new treatment works using innovative or

alternative technologies are increased to 85

percent of design and construction costs, as ●

compared to 75 percent for traditional technologies. This means as much as a 40-percent

savings to the community, a considerable incentive even when initial capital costs for the

two options are the same.

Set-aside funds.-- special fund is set aside

from each State’s allocation that can only be

used to pay for the 10-percent grant increase

for innovative and alternative technologies.

This set-aside fund was 2 percent for fiscal

years 1979 and 1980, and 3 percent for fiscal

year 1981; at least 1/3 percent of each State’s

allocation must be set aside for innovative

technologies. These set-asides in effect make

more money available for innovative or alternative technologies and give a community

wishing to use them an extra advantage in the

State priority-setting process.

Cost preference. —Innovative and alternative

technologies can qualify for construction

grants even if they cost up to 15 percent more

Figure 33.—Generalized Classification of Innovative and Alternative Technology

Alternative technology

Specifically identified forms of treatment and

unit processes

Effluent Treatment

— land treatment

— aquifier recharge

— aquiculture

— silviculture

— direct reuse

(non potable)

— horticulture

— revegetation of

disturbed land

— containment ponds

— treatment and storage

prior to land

application

— preapplication

treatment

Sludge

Energy Recovery

— co-disposal of

sludge and refuse

— anaerobic digestion

with >90% methane

recovery

— self-sustaining

incineration

Individual and on-site

systems

— on-site treatment

— septage treatment

— alternative collection

systems for small

communities

— land application

— comporting prior to

land application

— drying prior to

land application

. - ‘. ,

v

Conventional concepts of centralized treatment

Generally defined biological or physical chemical

processes with direct point source discharges to

surface waters.

kil T — 150/. LCC reduction ‘,

— 200/0 net primary ,.

1 ‘

,, 1

energy reduction .<

SOURCE. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Innovative and A/ternatwe Techology Assessment Manua/, EPA 430/9-7 S~OOl, 1978.
190 . Assessment of Technology for Local Development

●

than conventional technologies. Thus, even

though the alternative treatment facility may

be more expensive, the increased Federal

share still allows the community to pay less

than it would for its larger share of the conventional facility.

Risk guarantee. —Communities that choose innovative and alternative technologies are eligible for 100-percent construction grants for

correcting or replacing the systems in the

event they fail. This provision removes all

financial risks to the community at least for

the duration of the I/A Program.

See table 23 for a summary of innovative and

alternative technology legislation and regulations.

The set-aside funds available under the I/A Program for fiscal years 1979 and 1980 totaled $84

million, which means that a maximum of $714

million in Federal construction grants were available for innovative and alternative technologies.

Waste treatment methods that qualify for the program range from individual and onsite systems to

innovative improvements in the traditional technologies used in large municipal treatment systems. However, the majority of technologies that

have been specifically encouraged by the program

thus far are appropriate for the needs of small

communities.

“Alternative” technologies under the I/A Program include proven methods of wastewater treatment that are not yet in extensive use. These technologies fall into four major categories (see table 24

for a complete list):36

effluent treatment, including land treatment

and aquiculture;

sludge, including land application and comporting;

energy recovery, including codisposal of sludge

and refuse; and

individual and onsite systems, including onsite

treatment and alternative collection systems

for small communities.

“Innovative” technologies, on the other hand,

are defined by EPA as “developed methods of

wastewater treatment not fully proven under the

Table 23.-Summary of Federal Legislation

and Regulations Relating to Innovative and

Alternative Technology

Legislation-Public Law 95-217, Dec. 27,1977

Sec.

201(d) Encourages the design and construction of

revenue-producing facilities

201(9)(5) Requires all applicants to study innovative and

alternative technologies -

201(i) Encourages energy consevation in the design

of all publicly owned treatment works

201(e) Encourages the reduction of total energy

requirements in the design of publicly owned

treatment facilities

201(j) Provides for 15% cost preference in the

cost-effectiveness analysis for ail innovative

and alternative technologies

202(a)(2) Increases Federal grant from 75 to 85%

202(a)(4) Limits grant eligibility to publicly owned

treatment works (excludes sewers and sewer

rehabilitation)

304(d)(3) Requires EPA to develop guidelines for

innovative and alternative technologies

205(i) Authorizes innovative and alternative funding

set-asides for fiscal years 1979, 1980, and 1981

Regulation--40 CFR35, Sept. 27,1978

Regulations

35.908

35.9i5

(a)(l)

35.915(e)

35.917-

l(d)(8)(9)

35.915(b)

35.930

(5)(b)

35.935-20

35.936-13

Describes innovative and alternative policy,

funding, priority scheduling and replacement

provisions of the Act

Describes State priority system

Provides for EPA review of State priority system

Requires innovative and alternative technology

and energy review

Provides for establishment of State reserve

set-asides to increase Federal share of cost

from 75 to 8570

Provides for 75 to 85% grant increase for new

and replacement innovative and alternative

projects

Provides for EPA postconstruction evaluation

and inspection for 5 years

Provides exclusion to nonrestrictive

specifications for certain innovative and

alternative technologies and “buy American”

provisions

SOURCE: John M. Smith, Jeremiah J. McCarthy. and Henry L. Longest. “lmpact

of Innovative and Alternative Technology in the” United-States in’ the

1980’ s,” presented at the Seventh United States/Japan Conference

on Sewage Treatment Technology, Tokyoj Japan, May 1980.

circumstances of their intended use.”37 These technologies (in which category the AquaCell falls) are

eligible for funding if they show potential for

meeting one or more of the following criteria:

. improved operational reliability;

~T]nn@atlt,e and Ahernatit,e Technolo~, A Neul Approach to an old

Problem, brochure MCD-64, (Washington, D. C.: Environmental Protection Agency, March 1980).
Ch. 8–Community Wastewater Treatment ● 191

Table 24.—Alternative Technologies for

Wastewater Treatment

Effluent treatment systems

—land treatment -

—aquifer recharge

—aquiculture

—silviculture

—direct reuse (nonpotable)

—horticulture

—revegetation of disturbed land

—containment ponds

—treatment and storage prior to land application

—preapplication treatment

Sludge systems

—land application

—comporting prior to land application

—drying prior to land application

Energy recovery systems

—codisposal of sludge and refuse

—anaerobic digestion with > 90% methane recovery

—self-sustaining incineration

Individual and onsite systems

—onsite treatment

—septage treatment

—alternative collection systems for small communities

SOURCE: Environmental Protection Agency.

● improved toxics management;

. increased environmental benefit;

● 15-percent reduction in lifecycle costs; or

● 20-percent reduction in energy use.

Modifications of convention, centralized treatment methods that are not yet fully proven are

eligible for innovative technology funds only if

they meet the last two criteria, reductions in lifecycle costs or energy consumption.

The Status of the I/A Program.–The I/A

Program is a 3-year program, terminating at the

end of fiscal year 1981 unless extended by Congress. At the end of the first half of the program,

212 innovative and alternative projects had been

funded. 38 This amounted to only about 20 percent

of the $84 million fiscal year 1979 set-aside funds

available. Over 200 additional projects were

undergoing review .39

Most of the innovative and alternative projects

funded to date were already in the planning stage

at the beginning of the program. Communities ini-

‘8Quality Report–1/A Program Through March 31, 1980 (Washington, D. C.: Environmental Protection Agency, April 1980).

39 Robert Bastian, Innovative and Alternative Technology Program, EPA, personal communication, 1980.

tiating projects after the program started in October 1978 are just beginning to apply for design

funds. The alternative technologies have been

primarily for small communities; most projects involve some form of land application of wastewater

or sludge, but almost 40 onsite treatment systems

have been approved, and more than 10 projects

incorporate some form of energy recovery. Very

few projects have been approved as innovative (or

higher risk) technologies. Several systems incorporating land treatment have been classified innovative due to increased environmental benefit,

but most of the innovative projects that have been

approved has been energy- saving or cost-cutting

modifications of conventional systems. Few systems as unconventional as the Hercules AquaCell

has yet been funded.

Common to all alternative technology programs

is the problem of disseminating information about

the technologies and the program itself. To address this problem, the I/A Program has thus far:40

established a clearinghouse and technical support group in the EPA lab in Cincinnati; a

Small-Flows Technologies Clearinghouse has

also been established;

published an innovative and alternative technology assessment manual and distributed it

to over 6,500 engineers;

sponsored over 30 innovative and alternative

technology seminars and workshops across

the country; and

prepared brochures and movies to give

greater public exposure to the program.

The EPA Administrator has recently established an “active” I/A Program, providing extra

manpower for technical assistance and promotion

of the program. EPA is also considering a

mechanism for expediting specific, prequalified innovative and alternative technologies. A quicker,

simplified review procedure is being developed for

communities wishing to use these technologies.

The midway point may be too early to evaluate

the I/A Program’s effectiveness, but it appears

highly unlikely that the total funds appropriated

for the program will be spent before it ends. The

+ORobert Bastian, Jeremiah McCarthy, Terry Yolse of EpA, personal communications, 1980.
192 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

primary reason for this is that 3 years—the length

of the program—is a very short time in which to

successfully introduce and implement these new

systems, for the following reasons:

●

●

●

●

Time is needed to hire staff and develop

guidelines for the program, and to inform

States and communities about the program.

Conventional design procedures and standards, established in 1947 by the “Ten State

Standards” of the Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers, 41 have been slow to change. Before

alternative systems can effectively compete

with traditional approaches, consultants and

state engineers must acquire new design and

review skills, just as professional schools and

State review boards must be convinced to

give innovative and alternative systems a fair

hearing.

Performance data for alternative systems are

skimpy and often difficult to obtain. Land application systems are better researched than

most of the other alternative technologies,42

and only a few aquiculture systems are well

documented. EPA sponsors both R&D and

technology transfer programs at its Robert S.

Kerr Envionmental Research Laboratory and

Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, but these programs take time, money,

and manpower to become effective. Competition from other pressing, research efforts

is severe.

Because the I/A Program is funded for only 3

years some communities and consultants are

hesitant to pursue the program.43 From planning to construction of a wastewater treatment facility commonly takes 6 years under

the Construction Grants procedures (of

which the I/A Program is a part), and potential developers are concerned that the I/A

Program incentives may be discontinued

before their facilities are completed.

qlsmlth et al., op. cit.

4zJohn R. Benneman, “Energy From Aquiculture Biomass Systems,” report prepared for Office of Technology Assessment, U.S.

Congress, 1979.

43John Hickerson, Director, El Paso Water Facilities, personal communication, 1980.

Issues and Options

Two major questions are raised by the foregoing

discussions of the range of available wastewater

treatment technologies, the Hercules AquaCell

case study, and EPA’s I/A Program:

● What should be the goals for Federal involvement with alternative wastewater treatment

technologies?

● What types of programs (if any) should be established to accomplish these goals?

ISSUE 1:

The Goals of the Wastewater

Treatment Program in Relation to

Other Federal Programs and Goals.

Grants for the construction of wastewater treatment facilities represent the largest nonmilitary

public works program since the Interstate Highway System.44 One goal of the program (according

to the amendments of 1972) is to achieve water

quality that is clean enough for swimming and

fishing. The Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law

95-217) amended the earlier law to provide additional money for municipalities which use technologies that: eliminate surface discharge, reclaim

water or water pollutants, conserve energy, or

otherwise achieve cleaner water at a lower cost.

Some of these criteria are not traditionally

associated with wastewater treatment.

A number of often conflicting national goals are

related to wastewater treatment. Energy conservation and resource recovery, for example, are important goals, but they may divert funds from

technologies which more directly improve water

quality.

Some goals might be accomplished regardless of

Federal incentives; others may require active involvement. For example, cost reductions for conventional technologies can occur through the

workings of the marketplace. Elimination of surface discharge may not have the same economic

incentives, yet it may be an equally important national goal. Traditional engineering firms, when

given the option, are more likely to design lower

4qCopeland, op. cit.
Ch. 8–Community Wastwater Treatment ● 193

cost conventional technologies than to hire or

develop expertise in entirely new approaches to

wastewater treatment design.

Wastewater treatment can also have unintended effects on other programs. For instance, its

impacts often act as de facto zoning regulations:

conventional, centralized wastewater treatment facilities may encourage housing development along

sewer mains, but may limit development to

sewered areas alone. Community or onsite systems, on the other hand, allow more local control

over population growth but make regional planning more difficult. For example, one of the

reasons the City of Hercules chose to build the

AquaCell facility was to avoid regionally imposed

population growth restrictions.

Option 1: Determine the Extent of Federal Involvement.—Several degrees of Federal

involvement in alternative wastewater technology

are possible. These range from no involvement

other than nonincentive funding under the

pre-1977 Construction Grants Program, to providing community incentives such as the I/A Program. If Congress decides that the goals that can

be achieved by alternative wastewater treatment

deserve Federal involvement, the options for legislative action involve three major issues: information transfer, R&D, and community incentives

programs.

ISSUE 2 :

information Transfer—How Can

Communities and the Engineering

Profession Learn About Available

Alternative Wastewater Treatment

Technologies ?

This issue is generic to all types of alternative

technologies. For wastewater treatment, two types

of information are necessary:

●

●

technical information to local, State, and consulting engineers for design and review of alternative technolgoies4 and

nontechnical information to educate community leaders and citizens about the advantages

and disadvantages of the wide range of treatment alternatives.

Option 2: Clearinghouse and Technical

Support.–Reauthorization of the EPA’s I/A

Clearinghouse, technical support group, and other

information programs might be considered independently of the rest of the I/A Program. The information transfer accomplishments of the I/A

Program (see above) have been quite impressive,

given the short time the program has been in

existence.

ISSUE 3 :

R&D—How Can New Wastewate r

Treatment Technologie s

Be Developed?

R&D activities are taking place primarily in the

private sector. Some direct Federal support for this

research is coming from EPA, the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the

National Science Foundation, but this support is

not extensive.

Alternative wastewater treatment research is

funded by EPA’s Office of Research and Development under its Water Quality Public Sector Activities Program. Less than $15 million was available in fiscal year 1980 for the entire program.

Federal funds devoted to innovative and alternative construction grants also indirectly promote

research. However, consulting firms do not receive

direct compensation for research activities, and

must rely on the new markets encouraged by the

program for marketing their products.

An important factor for the successful introduction of new technologies is the mix of laboratory

research, pilot-scale projects, and full-scale demonstration. Full-scale demonstration projects are

the most costly, but they are necessary for professional acceptance. Engineers are often hesitant to

accept the results of small-scale research, precisely

because laboratory-scale results do not always accurately predict full-scale performance.

Option 3-A: Direct Federal Research

Funds.–Alternative wastewater treatment technologies may be given separate authorization in

EPA’s R&D budget.
194 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

Option 3-B: Demonstration Programs.—A

full-scale demonstration program might be established. One option is to establish a design competition, similar to architectural design competitions: communities could be chosen to represent a

range of population and geographical conditions,

and projects could be chosen to represent a range

of alternative technologies. Engineers and community groups would then have the opportunity

to inspect a variety of operational facilities.

Option 3-C: Evaluation Programs.–Evaluation of existing alternative wastewater treatment facilities could be separately authorized. Programs to evaluate the entire treatment process,

rather than just monitoring the final effluent can

provide valuable information on new designs. Innovative and alternative technology construction

grants can then fulfill more effectively the dual

purpose of meeting community wastewater treatment needs and furthering research efforts.

ISSUE 4 :

Community Incentives .

The financial incentives available to a community for using innovative and alternative technologies under the I/A Program were discussed

earlier. Several problems were also discussed, including the length of the program and the relatively small number of innovative technologies approved to date.

Option 4-A: Length of Authorization.–

Authorization for the incentives for innovative

and alternative technologies ends in fiscal year

1981. Because of the short length of the program

(3 years, as compared with 5 to 6 years from planning to construction), the program may not be

able to achieve its full potential. Authorization

could be continued for a specified number of

years, or based on “sunset” provisions that would

fund a predetermined number of alternative and

innovative projects in specific areas of the country

and of specific types.

Option 4-B: Risk Guarantees.–The Clean

Water Act provides for 100-percent construction

grants for correcting or replacing innovative and

alternative systems that fail. However, the

guarantee is authorized only for the duration of

the program. Communities are uncertain of funds

being available for replacement after the end of

the program, and are hesitant to assume the financial risk of failure. The guarantee provision could

be authorized for a specified number of years of

facility operation.

Option 4-C: Different Financial Incentives for Innovative v. Alternative Technologies.—From the viewpoint of the communities,

the financial incentives under the I/A Program are

identical for alternative and innovative technologies. Furthermore, consulting firms receive

few benefits for the additional work involved in

designing innovative technologies and are

therefore more likely to suggest proven alternative

systems. Providing different incentives for innovative v. alternative technologies may encourage the consideration of unconventional

wastewater treatment systems.

Option 4-D: Fast-Tracking Innovative and

Alternative Technologies.–Innovative and alternative technologies are currently subject to the

same administrative procedures as conventional

construction grants. EPA is considering streamlining some of these procedures, and congressional

action can further streamline the process by

removing some of the requirements stipulated by

the Clean Water Act. This can be done either by

providing exemptions for innovative and alternative technologies or by removing the I/A

Program from the Construction Grants Program.
Chapter 9

Community Energy Generation
Contents

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....197

Small-Scale Hydroelectric Technology. .. ..199

Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

Economics. ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., , ., ..., . . . 199

A Case Study of the Tremont Dam Project,

Wareham, Mass. . ....................20 1

Community Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...201

Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......202

Equipment. ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....203

Economics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........203

A Case Study of the Woonsocket Falls Dam

Project, Woonsocket, R.I. . ............204

Community Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....204

Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .205

Equipment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........205

Economics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . , .206

Page

Critical Factors . .......................20 7

Public Perception and Participation . . , . . . . . . . , .207

Essential Resources. . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . .207

Technical Information and Expertise. . .........209

Financing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., .. ....209

Institutional Factors . . . . ., . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . .211

Federal Policy.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..211

Background. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..211

Small-Scale Hydropower Programs . . . . . . . . ., ..211

Issues and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . 213

List of Figures

Figure No, Page

34. Low-Head Hydroelectric installation ., . , ....200

35. Hydroturbine Efficiency Curves. , . . , . . . . . . .203

36. Vertical- and Horizontal-Axis Hydroturbines, .208
CHAPTER 9

Community Energy Generation

Introduction

Water power has been a major domestic energy

source since the colonial era and was first used to

generate electricity commercially in Appleton,

Wis., in 1882. Today, hydropower is the most

widely used renewable source of energy to generate

electricity in the United States, with a total

generating capacity of about 64,000 megawatts

(MW), or between 13 and 15 percent of the Nation’s total supply of electrical energy.1 Hydropower is also a cheap source of electricity: existing

hydropower facilities produce electricity for as little as 3.5 mills (0.35 cents) per kilowatt-hour

(kWh) and newly installed hydropower will cost

between 1.5 and 8 cents/kWh, compared with 4 to

5 cents/kWh for nuclear power, 6 to 8 cents/kWh

for power from coal, and 10 cents/kWh or more

for electricity generated by combustion turbines.2

By contrast, electricity from wind-power generators costs an estimated 6 to 15 cents/kWh, and

electricity from photovoltaic cells an estimated 55

to 90 cents/kWh; however, these two renewable

sources are still in the development stage.3

Shortages and price increases for fossil fuels, as

well as environmental considerations, have made

hydroelectricit y increasingly attractive over the

last 10 years and have led to a new interest in developing the Nation’s hydropower potential. A recent survey by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

indicates that the Nation’s total hydroelectric

power potential is almost 513,000 MW, over eight

‘Paul A. Welnberger, “The Potential for Small-Scale Hydropower

Development In the U.S.,” Energy (Booz.Allen & Hamilton, Inc.),

spring-summer 1980, p. 7.

ZDonald B. Chubb, president, Safe Harbor (Pennsylvania) water

Power Corp., quoted by William J. Lanouette, “Rising Oil and Gas

Prices Are Making Hydropower Look Better Every Day,” Nat/ -1.,

Apr. 26, 1980, p. 685; Ronald A. Corso, director, Division of Licensed Projects, U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, quoted

ibid., p. 686.

‘Private commu mcatlon from Lou Devine, Department of Energy,

and the Solar Electric Corp., Rockville, Md. These cost calculations

assume a capital recovery factor of 0.15, with varying estimates of capital costs and capacity factors.

+u. s. Army Corps of Engineers, hiimina~’ hwnto~ O/ ~@o~owe~

Resources, 6 VOIS., July 1979; the report is based in part on an earlier

surve y conducted by the Corps in 1977.

times existing capacity. The Corps suggests that

installed capacity at the 1,251 existing facilities

might be supplemented—perhaps by early in the

next century—by almost 95,000 MW at 5,424 existing dam sites (either by adding more capacity or

by installing generators at dams that do not currently produce electricity) and an additional

354,000 MW generated at 4,532 sites that do not

yet have dam developments.

The Corps cautions that these figures are theoretical and perhaps overly optimistic: they do not

balance the potential for power generation against

the competing uses for dams, such as recreation,

flood control, irrigation, and drinking water; nor

do they take fully into account the engineering,

economic, and environmental factors that would

constrain the full development of this potential.

For instance, about 75 percent of this additional

capacity (over 338,000 MW) would come from undeveloped large-scale sites (25 MW or more) that

the Corps itself estimates would operate less than

30 percent of the time. Construction costs at these

undeveloped sites would be high, particularly compared to the expected returns for this low peakload utilization, and it is doubtful that public utilities would be willing to invest in these large-scale

developments even if they could find the capital to

do so.5 Furthermore, an extensive study of the environmental impacts of alternative sources of electricity generation indicates that new large-scale

hydroelectric facilities are probably the worst

choice, in terms of ecological damage, due for example to the flooding and loss of productive agricultural lands they will cause. c

The outlook for developing the Nation’s smallscale hydropower potential is somewhat brighter.

The 842 existing small-scale sites (under 15 MW)

‘George Grimes, engineering development program manager, Division of Small-Hydro Projects, Department of Energy, quoted by

Lanouette, op. cit., p. 687.

6Energy in Transition: 1985-2010, final report of the National

Academy of Sciences/Nuclear Regulatory Commission Committee

on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems (San Francisco: W. H.

Freeman, 1980), p. 476.

197
198 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

represent two-thirds of all U.S. hydropower sites

but only 5 percent of the Nation’s generating capacity, or about 3,200 MW. Estimates of the potential capacity of all small-scale sites range from

13,000 to 58,000 MW, although recent studies

tend to favor the lower figure. About half of this

potential is at existing dams. This includes dams

where there are no generating facilities, where existing facilities can be upgraded, or where generating facilities have been abandoned due to the

proliferation of large-scale power grids since World

War 11.7

A small but significant boom in small-scale hydropower development is currently taking place.

As a rule, investor-owned utilities have not been

interested in small-scale hydropower projects,

both because their capacities are too small to meet

generating needs and because the high financing

rates paid by utilities makes small-scale projects

economically unattractive. A number of private

entrepreneurs and industrial developers have applied for licenses to construct small-scale facilities,

either as a business prospect or as an alternative to

rising fuel and utility prices. But by far the largest

category of small-scale hydropower developers,

both now and in the foreseeable future, consists of

municipalities, cooperatives, and irrigation districts. These developers are favored by Federal licensing requirements and have access to low-cost

or tax-free capital for small-scale projects.8 Over 40

municipalities have license applications pending at

present, including such communities as Madison,

Maine, Springfield, Vt., Saugerties, N. Y., Paterson, N.J., Martinsville, Va., Columbus, Ohio,

Vanceburg, Ky., Muscatine, Iowa, New Roads,

La., and Gonzalez, Tex.9

Small-scale hydropower cannot, by itself, significantly reduce the Nation’s energy problems. It

can, however, contribute to the share of the Nation’s energy mix that is supplied by hydropower.

The capital-intensive nature of hydroelectric projects (both large and small) means that financing

costs have a major impact on the price of the

power they produce, sometimes as much as 90 percent of energy costs, 10 but the energy they Produce

is relatively immune to both inflation and rising

fuel prices. For communities located near existing

but undeveloped damsites, small-scale hydropower

may represent an economically viable alternative

that can address a number of local problems, including rising municipal energy costs.

This chapter examines small-scale municipal

electricity generation by focusing on two communities in New England—Wareham, Mass., and

Woonsocket, R.I.–that are planning to build

small hydroelectric powerplants at existing damsites. Wareham is developing a 250-kW electric

generating capacity at the Tremont Dam to produce power for sale to the local utility. Woonsocket plans a 1. 1-MW facility at the Woonsocket

Falls Dam, which would generate enough electricity to supply 90 percent of the needs of the regional

sewage and water treatment plants. These two

projects present some interesting contrasts and

similarities in planning and financing, as well as in

technologies.

Wareham and Woonsocket are characteristic of

the New England region in many ways. They have

a pervasive sense of history and visible reminders

of industries that once flourished. The abandoned

factories are tangible symbols of the high unemployment, low incomes, and physical obsolescence

in each town. Both communities also face rising

energy costs because of their dependence on fossil

fuels. The development of locally based solutions

to these problems is important to the people of

Wareham and Woonsocket because, like other

New Englanders, they pride themselves on their

“Yankee ingenuity” and a tradition of selfreliance.

7wein&rger, Op. cit., P. 7“

‘Ibid., pp. 8-9.

~Lanouette, Op. Cit., P. 689 ” Ioweinberger, Op. Cit., P. 9S
Ch. 9–Community Energy Generation ● 199

Small-Scale Hydroelectric Technology

Technology

Hydroelectric plants (see figure 34) transform

the potential energy of the water into electrical

energy in three basic steps: 1) water from a reservoir or diversion structure is carried through the

penstock to a turbine; 2) the falling water turns

the turbine, which is connected to a generator;

and 3) the high-speed rotation of the generator

coil generates electricity, which is then transmitted from the plant.

The water above a dam possesses potential energy because its level is higher than that of the water

downstream. The amount of energy in the falling

water is directly related to how many feet or meters it falls, a quantity called “hydraulic head. ”11

The amount of power (energy per unit time) that

can be extracted from the water is proportional to

the head and the flow rate of the water.

Small-scale dams–those with a rated capacity of

less than 25 MW12–are often referred to as “low

head” dams, although they could be located on

small but precipitous mountain streams that had

high head but a low flow rate. New England

streams, however, are large (high flow rate) but

with a gradual drop, or low head (usually less than

66 ft).

I I Actually, head consists of components due to the velocity and the

static pressure of the water as well as its height, and is given by the

Bernoulli Equation:

H=& + & +y

Zg g

where:

H = hydrauhc head

v = water veloc[ty

g = gravitatmnal acceleration (32.2 ft/secz)

P = wattc pressure

Y = height water falls

IZElectric pouter is the amount of energy used or produced wr unit

of time and is measured In watts, kilowatts (kW or 1,000 watts), megawatts (MW or 1,000 kW). Electric energy is the amount of power used

over time, and is measured in watt-hours, kilowatt-hours, and megawatt-hours (Wh, kWh, MWh). For example, if you ran a 100-W light

bulb for 10 hours, you would have used 1,000 Wh or 1 kWh of

energy.

Most large hydroelectric projects dam up a river

and store water in a reservoir behind the dam.

This allows the dam operator to buildup a supply

of water when the river flow is at its peak and then

release it when power is needed. Small-scale dams,

on the other hand, are often operated “run of

river.” This means that all of the water flowing

downstream at any given time will flow through

the dam or over the spillway; virtually no pond or

reservoir is created. Because a run-of-river dam

does not store up a large amount of water, its

power capacity varies with the changing flow rate

of the river.

A user whose need for power fluctuates in the

same manner is often difficult to find. In southern

New England, for example, most electrical users

have peak consumption during summer months,

when they run their air conditioning, and low

usage in the winter, when they heat their buildings

with oil. Unfortunately, river flows tend to peak in

the spring and are very low in the summer.13

There are, however, several kinds of municipal

loads that meet the constraints of run-of-river

hydropower. One example is public schools,

which have high usage from September to June

when school is in session and virtually no usage in

the summer. Another example is municipal street

lighting, for which demand is high on long winter

nights and low on shorter summer nights.

Economics

Water power played a major role in the early industrial development of New England, which is

dotted with hundreds of old dams–nearly twothirds of the existing but abandoned dams in the

United States. The capital costs of installing a

hydropower plant at one of these old river dams is

ljThe situation is more favorable in northern New England, where

river flows are more uniform throughout the year and where there is

less of an air conditioning load in the summer.
Figure 34.—Low Head Hydroelectric installation

Dam intake source

Spillway

Powerhouse

\ .“’

Ger

\.6---+--—<

1

SOURCE: Adapted from: Independent Power Developers’ brochure “Hydroelectric Power”. Adapted by: National Center for Appropriate Technology in Micro-Hydro

Power (U.S. DOE).
Ch. 9–Community Energy Generation 201

high, however, since they involve feasibility

studies, planning and design, and upgrading the

civil works, as well as purchasing and installing the

generating equipment. Low-head hydroturbines

tend to have higher equipment costs per installed

kilowatt of capacity than do high-head units.14

Operating costs are lower, however, because the

water is free and the dam requires little attention

or maintenance.

By far the largest direct benefit of municipal

low-head hydroelectric projects is the reduction of

14Th~ ~Xp~nS~ has to dO with the relationships between head, turbine diameter, and turbine speed. Given a constant flow rate, the turbine diameter required to extract a given amount of power from the

water WII1 Increase quite rapidly as the head decreases.

energy expenditures, but they also have important

indirect benefits. Hydropower from existing small

dams is an environmentally safe substitute for energy from more polluting sources, such as nuclear

power, coal, and oil. Restoration of a small dam’s

civil works could also be a labor-intensive activity

carried out by a public works job corps. The development of a local manufacturing industry for the

retrofitting of low-head generating equipment

could also stimulate the regional economy. Finally, the power produced by small-scale dams, if it

can be sold at rates lower than those of local utilities, could be offered as an incentive for new industry to locate in the area, creating more new

jobs and tax revenues.

A Case Study of the Tremont Dam Project,

Wareham, Mass.

Community Setting

Wareham is a town of about’ 16,000 people located in southeastern Massachusetts. Its economy

is based on the shipbuilding, fishing, and tourist

industries, and on the cranberry bogs which dot

the landscape and provide seasonal employment

at harvest time. The town, however, has been seriously affected by the industrial decline of the New

Bedford-Fall River metropolitan area, of which it

is part. The present unemployment rate is 15 percent or above—much higher than the rest of the

State. To alleviate its problems, Wareham has initiated a program of economic development, including the creation of an industrial park to provide sites for new industry that will bolster its tax

base. 15

The Tremont Dam was orginally built by the

Tremont Nail Works in 1845 as a source of power

for its plant on the Weweantic River. It was operated from 1920 to 1938 by a shoe manufacturer,

which sold electricity to the local utility company

(a forerunner of the present New Bedford Gas &

Edison Light (NBG&EL)) after its manufacturing

operation moved south in the late 1920’s. In 1938

I sData and information on the history of the project come primarily from conversations with Bob Packard (grants manager) and John

Healy (director of community development).

much of the generating equipment was dismantled

and moved with the shoe factory to South Carolina. In 1962, the Town of Wareham acquired the

damsite, including water rights, pond, and 12

acres of land below the pond.

In the early 1970’s, the Massachusetts Department of Public Works (DPW) issued several plans

for the deteriorating Tremont Dam, which had become an eyesore. The last DPW plan, issued in

1974, called for demolishing the powerhouse and

using the debris to permanently fill in the gates

which controlled flow to the turbines. It was unclear whether any DPW money was forthcoming,

however, and the Wareham Board of Selectmen

asked the town’s grants manager to investigate

other possible sources of funding for restoration of

the dam.

Interestingly, the early restoration plans were

not focused on the dam’s value as an energy project, but as an opportunity to provide temporary

jobs for seasonally unemployed local construction

workers. In 1975, Wareham secured a $400,000

Title X Public Works Job Opportunity matching

grant form the U.S. Economic Development Administration to restore the dam, with the town

putting up $100,000. The dam restoration occurred between February 1976 and July 1977, and

a 1978 CETA Parks and Rivers grant paid for the

74-435 0 - 81 - 14
clearing of the banks and riverbed below the dam

and the building of a small recreation area.

Development

In 1978, the United Technologies Research

Center of East Hartford, Corm., approached

Wareham about applying for a study grant for the

Tremont Dam under a Department of Energy

(DOE) program to fund 54 feasibility studies of

small-dam electricity production. A grant was

awarded in mid-1978, and in February 1979 the

study concluded that the site was feasible for

power production. United Technologies also approached NBG&EL about the possibility of purchasing of power produced by the dam, and

NBG&EL proved to be very interested in the project’s potential public relations value: the company

was moving its main office to Wareham, and involvement in the project would start its relationship with the town off on the right foot; in addition, the company had been criticized by local

antinuclear groups, and participation in the hydropower project would demonstrate its commitment to environmentally benign power sources. lb

In August of 1979, Wareham received a $25,000

grant from the Massachusetts Office of Energy

Resources for the purchase of turbines, but the

town still needs an estimated $160,000 to complete

the project. It rejected a grant from DOE that

would have paid 15 percent of remaining costs and

currently has an application before the Department of Labor for a 100-percent grant with which

to purchase and install power generating equipment. (See Critical Factors. )

IqqBG~L is aim Particlpatlng in a solid-waste-burning wwerplant (see ch. 7) and a windmill project, both within 10 miles of its

new office in Wareham.
Ch. 9–Community Energy Generation ● 203

Equipment

Very little additional work is needed to complete the whole project and begin producing electricity. The dam produces a hydraulic head of

about 22 ft and could be developed economically

to a capacity of 250 kW. The powerhouse is

equipped with two elbow draft tubes which

previously housed two Francis turbines. Although

the draft tubes need to be replaced, the configuration will be retained and two vertical-axis turbines

installed. Present plans are to install a modern

110-kW crossflow unit and a reconditioned 140-

kW Francis turbine. 17

The efficiency curves for the four turbine types

that were considered for the Tremont Dam are

presented in figure 35. The tube turbine has excellent partial-load efficiency and maximum efficiency, but for reasons that will be discussed later

it would be infeasible at Tremont Dam. The propeller turbine has very poor partial-load efficiencies and it would, therefore, have been a poor

choice for a dam that would experience seasonal

drops in flow rate. The Francis turbine has modestly good partial-load efficiency and a maximum

efficiency of over 80 percent. It will perform adequately in this site, but the major reason for

choosing it was that the original units in the

powerhouse were Francis turbines. It was felt that

the project would have greater demonstration

value if an older reconditioned unit could be run

side-by-side with a newer unit.

The crossflow design was chosen for the modern

unit because of its excellent partial-load efficiency,

which is almost as good as the tube turbine’s. This

means that the efficiency of the equipment

changes very little regardless of the flow rate, a

highly desirable characteristic if the streamflow

fluctuates greatly, as is the case in run-of-river

hydropower projects. Some sacrifice in efficiency is

experienced as the crossflow turbine approaches

full load, but operation in conjunction with the

Francis turbine will partially offset this deficiency.

ITA complete discussion of the equipment proposed for the Tremont Dam can be found in E. S. Wright and J. J. Mankauskas, Feasibility Study oj the Tremont Dam Power Project, United Technologies

Research Center, February 1979.

Figure 35.—Hydroturbine Efficiency Curves10

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

3 0

20

10

0

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1 0 0

Flow rate (percentage of full load)

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

Economics

Capital costs include $500,000 for restoring the

dam and penstocks and $185,000 for purchasing

and installing the turbines. The restoration costs

are unusually high for a dam this size because the

title X grant required a very high budget for labor;

much of the work which could have been automated was not, in order to create jobs. Costs for

feasibility studies, which should also be included,

are in the neighborhood of $50,000. The total

capital cost comes to $735,000, or $2,940 per installed kilowatt. An additional but probably insignificant cost is that of filing a licensing application. (Recent regulatory changes make available a

simple and inexpensive—less than $500-procedure for obtaining an exemption from Federal

licensing.)

First-year operating costs (excluding debt service) are projected to be $6,883. These costs include
204 ● Assessment oj Technology for Local Development

turbine and site maintenance ($0.004/kWh generated in the first year), depreciation, insurance

(1.5 percent of turbine value), and any energy purchased to operate the automated gates. Debt service would also be an operating cost if Wareham

had financed the project through a bond issue; dependence on grants, however, has created its own

set of problems (see Critical Factors, below).

Revenue will accrue to the project from the sale

of electricity to NBG&EL. Because the utility

company refused to let Wareham lease its transmission lines, the town was prevented from using

its hydropower directly for schools, street lighting,

or other municipal purposes. Wareham will simply

sell its power to the utility, which in turn will sell it

back to the town at a higher price. While no rates

have been agreed on, negotiations on first-year

rates indicate a range of 2.6 to 3.0 cents/kWh.

Strict comparison of these rates with present prices

that NBG&EL charges the town would be inappropriate, since the NBG&EL charges also include a demand fee, fuel surcharges, and taxes,

which may not be calculated on a per-kWh basis.

Assuming that such a figure could be arrived at, it

would probably be somewhat higher than the 2.6

to 3.0 cents/kWh rate offered by NBG&EL to the

town, reflecting the utility’s reluctance to give the

town full credit for its power. Nevertheless, with

an annual output of just over 1,000 MWh, this

would yield revenues of $26,700 to $30,800, which

would significantly reduce the town’s electricity

bill. 18

IaWareham may receive substantially higher rates from NBG~L

when the State public utility commission implements the provisions

Cash flow summaries prepared by United Technologies, assuming debt service at 7 percent for 30

years on the remaining $185,000 for turbine purchase and installation, indicate that first-year net

revenue after debt service and all expenses would

be $7,203. The cash flow assumes that operating

costs will increase at a rate of 7 percent annually

and fuel costs at 8 percent; however, both of these

figures seem low, as does the spread between them,

which suggests that revenues could be substantially higher. But using these assumptions, the project

has an internal rate of return of 15 percent and a

10-year payback period. It must be pointed out

again that this figure includes only about 25 percent of the real capital costs of the project; it excludes the $500,000 cost of dam restoration and

another $50,000 for feasibility studies, both of

which were financed with Federal grants (see

above). If all costs are included, it would be difficult to say whether the project would be profitable at all; but by the same token, it would be difficult to put a dollar value on the benefits derived

from increased employment or a new recreation

area.

The project has already provided 70 full- and

part-time jobs for dam restoration and the creation of the recreation area. It has no adverse environmental impacts, and the town hopes it will

become an example of innovative technology that

will attract local officials and visitors from all over

the country.

of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (see Federal Polig). For

instance, under this Act the New Hampshire commission requires

utilities to pay between 7.7 and 8.2 cents/kWh.

A Case Study of the Woonsocket Falls Dam Project,

Woonsocket, R.I.

Community Setting

Woonsocket, R. I., is a city of 46,000 with pressing economic problems and low incomes. The city

is dominated by the large brick and stone mills

that were built along the edge of the Blackstone

River in the 19th century to tap the available

water power. These buildings are reminders of

New England’s industrial heritage, but although

some of the mills are still in marginal use, the peak

of activity has long since passed. Those who work

in the mills consider $3.75 a high hourly wage,

unemployment is severe, and one-third of the population has incomes below the poverty line.

The original dam at Woonsocket Falls stood until 1955, when it was destroyed by a flood. The

present dam was begun in the same year by the
—

Ch. 9–Community Energy Generation ● 205

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

Woonsocket Dam, Woonsocket, R.I.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as part of a local

flood protection plan. The city now owns the dam

and operates it according to Corps specifications. 19

Proposals to build a municipal hydroelectric

plant at the Falls date back to the 1960’s. At the

time, oil was cheap, there were no environmental

regulations, and the citizens of Woonsocket did

not take public power production seriously. The

soaring price of energy since 1973 has changed

their minds.

Development 20

In 1978, the Governor’s Energy Office urged the

city to apply to DOE for a grant to study the

I y]nter\,lcW.s ~,lth Joseph Anaxv and Leo M[llette of the U.S. Army

Corps of Eng[neers.

‘~he hlstor~’ of current hydropower inltlatlves comes primarily

from Interviews with Joel hfathew,s and Marvel Valols of the city

plannlng department.

feasibility of producing electricity at the dam, The

$66,000 grant was awarded to a study group from

the University of Rhode Island that also included

State energy and environmental officials, city

planning officials, and utility company representatives. The study was completed in January 1979,

and after considerable debate the City Council approved the plan. In November 1979 the voters approved the bond issue for it by an overwhelming

95 percent majority. An update of the feasibility

study has been completed, and the city has applied

to DOE for a grant to cover 15 percent of the construction costs.

Equipment

The Woonsocket Falls Dam has a hydraulic

head of only 18 ft, but because the dam is relatively new and well maintained it presents an excellent opportunity for hydropower development.
206 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

The city has chosen a vacant lot 300 ft downstream of the dam as the powerhouse site, and it

presently plans to develop the project to a capacity

of 1.1 MW.

Two turbine configurations are under consideration, both manufactured by the Allis-Chalmers

Co. The first is a standard 1.1-MW Kaplan tube

turbine. Its efficiency curve (see figure 35) shows

that to get any power at all from the unit, the turbine must operate above 30 percent of full load.

However, above this lower limit the partial-load

efficiency never drops below 75 percent, and maximum efficiency is above 90 percent; overall, this is

a highly efficient unit.

The city is also considering a second configuration with two 550-kW turbine units. The advantage of having two units would be that, during

periods when demand for power is low, one unit

can be turned off and the other operated at full

load for better efficiency. This is generally more

economical than running both generators at partial load, because efficiency decreases under partial

load conditions. For instance, a 25-percent total

load would not run a 1. 1.1-MW unit, but would produce close to 90-percent efficiency in a single 550-

kW unit.21

After considering several options, Woonsocket

has decided to use the project to provide power for

a regional sewage treatment plant and the city

water works. The sewage treatment plant is less

than 25 percent completed at present; when completed, it will have a peak demand of 4 MW and

will obviously need power from another source as

well. 22 However, at present it could absorb about

2,950,000 kWh from the hydroplane. The water

works will consume about 2,760,000 kWh, or 79

percent of its energy needs. The city is currently

ZIDescriptions Of the darn and proposed equipment can be found in

John S. Krickorian, Jr., “Hydroelectric Power Potential, Woonsocket

Falls Dam,” University of Rhode Island Center for Energy Studies,

January 1979; and John C. Halliwell, P. E., “Demonstration Project

Proposal for Woonsocket Falls Dam,” Halliwell Associates, Inc., Aug.

23, 1979. The Halliwell report also includes a cash-flow study.

Zzone reviewer su=ested that this sewage plant, too, should be

assessed for its appropriateness: “Why should sewage plants use so

much electricity?” See ch. 8 for a discussion of alternatives for community wastewater treatment,

negotiating an arrangement with Blackstone Valley Electric (BVE) to “wheel” power to these facilities over existing utility lines. (Wheeling is an arrangement whereby the city can transmit its power over the utility’s lines through a rental agreement—an agreement that the power company in

Wareham, Mass., refused to make.) The wheeling

rate will be determined on the basis of the utility’s

equipment amortization: that is, a percentage of

the capital costs of constructing the line.

Economics

Capital costs for restoring the dam, building

the penstock and powerhouse, and purchasing

and installing turbine equipment are projected at

$2,682,950, or $2,439 per installed kW. The cost of

the feasibility study, which was not included in

any of the cash flow projections, was $66,000, or

about $60 per kW. First-year operating costs are

estimated at $40,885, including wheeling charges

but excluding depreciation. Debt service is assumed to be $238,681 annually for a bond issue at

6-1/4 percent over 20 years.

Average annual energy production at the

Woonsocket Falls Dam is estimated at about

6,570,000 kWh, of which about 87 percent will be

consumed by the sewage treatment plant and

water works. The surplus power would be sold

back to BVE at day rates of 3.06 cents/kWh and

night rates of 2.43 cents/kWh, for an annual city

revenue of about $289,000.

Net revenue in the first year is projected at

$9,556, reflecting all costs except the feasibility

study. In following years, the city projects that

costs will increase 9 percent annually, while

revenues will increase with the price of energy at

13 percent annually .23 No rate of return was given

for the cash flow, but to give some idea of the profitability of the system, the projected net revenue

for the twentieth year of the project is almost $2.5

million.

ZjHalliwell, op. cit., p. 14; rates of inflation are based on recent data

from the Library of Congress, the Massachusetts Electric Co., and

the Narragansett Electric Co. and are considered “moderatel y conservative. ”
Ch. 9–Community Energy Generation ● 207

Critical Factors

Public Perception and Participation

A survey showed that most local citizens were

aware of the two hydropower projects and supported them, at least in principle. Most of those

surveyed, however, had little detailed knowledge

about the projects and were uncertain about their

purposes. Many thought that the power should be

used to deal with pressing local needs, and there

was almost universal agreement that hydroelectricity and/or the revenue it provides should be

used to reduce people’s energy bills in some way.

One common misconception was that the energy

generated at the dams could be applied directly to

space heating needs, despite the fact that heating

requirements in that region are met largely by oil

and some natural gas, not by electricity. In addition, many people overestimated the power-producing capacity of the projects; they spoke of generating enough electricity to meet the needs of all

local residents or of all municipal services.

Local citizens in both Wareham and Woonsocket also expressed frustration with their local

governments. They thought that they had not

been provided with enough information to allow

them to reach decisions intelligently, and often expressed irritation at the failure to hold town

meetings where they could ask questions about the

projects and discuss what they really meant for the

communities. In addition, some residents said that

a few influential people controlled the local decisionmaking process and that, as a result, these

decisions did not always coincide with basic development needs. Despite these criticisms, however, the majority of those interviewed firmly

agreed that hydropower is a valuable local resource, one that could provide significant benefits

and deserves serious exploration.

Essential Resources

A potential constraint identified in these case

studies concerns the availability of low-head turbine equipment. Hydroturbines can be broadly

classified into two categories: those with vertically

mounted shafts and those with horizontally

mounted shafts (see figure 36). Vertical turbines

were used frequently in New England in the early

part of this century, and the two units most often

utilized today are the Francis turbine and the propeller turbine. The horizontal or “tube” design,

which was developed later, improves the efficiency

of the system by permitting simpler draft tubes

and smaller powerhouses. The resulting capital

cost savings make the horizontal-axis turbine a

logical choice when building a new powerplant or

extensively modifying existing works.

Many existing dams, however, particularly the

older ones in New England that have produced

power in the past, have vertical-axis draft tubes

that require little or no renovation. In these older

dams, vertical-axis turbines may be more cost effective, despite their lower efficiencies and higher

cost, because new draft tubes need not be built.

This was the case in Wareham, where installation

of a horizontal-axis tube would have required unjustifiably expensive modifications to the dam and

works.

Unfortunately, there are few small-scale hydroelectric equipment manufacturers worldwide, and

even fewer in the United States. When engineers

in Woonsocket were looking at tube turbines, only

one American manufacturer (Allis-Chalmers) produced a standard unit that met their specifications. (A second U.S. manufacturer—TampellaLeffel-has recently entered the market.) The city

also investigated the possibility of purchasing a reconditioned unit, but decided not to because of

the limited experience of the firm. Several Japanese and West German firms produce a variety of

tube turbines, but the city’s construction grant

from DOE indicated a preference for Americanmade equipment.

The situation in Wareham was somewhat different. The original equipment in the dam was two

Francis turbines manufactured by an American

firm. Fortunately, there are a large number of

these units in abandoned small-scale hydroelectric
208 ● Assessment o/Technology for Local Development

Figure 36.- Vertical and Horizontal Axis Turbines

—.——.

-..- - -

-—-

-—

—

—..

- —. — 9/A !i=vl

Vertical axis

turbine

—.

——. .—.

--

-—

— --

—.

—- —-—

--

%

— -—

——

r

v

Horizontal axis

turbine

i

(slightly sloped)

- —b-l

4-–I

--~=-–L

— . — -- h—. —

—.—- —4’ - —

/ ——

—.

. —

— —-———

.

/

——.

-—

— —-

.-—

—

—-

—

—J&—— - – - — u—- — —

/

—- — .—

—— —- — - —

-—~

/

— — -—

-—

- —

.—.- —

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.
Ch. 9–Community Energy Generation ● 209

plants all over the United States, and engineers

located one that is compatible with the Tremont

Dam site. Reconditioning these abandoned units

could be a profitable business opportunity for

some American firm.

The second turbine unit at Wareham will be

a modern crossflow unit. Again, there are few

American manufacturers of crossflow turbines,

with the Bell Co. being the leader; worldwide, the

largest manufacturer of crossflow equipment is the

Ossberger Co. of West Germany. Wherever this

turbine is purchased, however, it will have to be

engineered to specification and will thus cost

more. United Technologies favored customized

turbines, arguing that flow and head conditions

vary so widely from site to site that standard units

usually result in less than optimal equipment.

Technical Information and Expertise

One of the most serious constraints on the development of a municipally owned small-scale hydropower project is the depth of engineering expertise required to implement the project. Because

the small-scale hydropower industry went into

decline earlier in this century, few engineering

firms have experience in this field. Those that do

have hydropower experience tend to be familiar

only with large-scale systems and are either

uninterested in the small returns from a small

system or are unfamiliar with modern small-scale

technologies.

One solution is to hire a consultant. Wareham

has contracted with the research branch of United

Technologies, a high-technology firm with little

hydropower experience, feeling that the firm’s lack

of direct experience would make it less biased in

the selection of equipment or manufacturer.

(There are, however, several reputable consulting

firms in New England that have both hydropower

expertise and a reputation for providing reliable

advice.) The original feasibility study for the

Woonsocket Falls Dam was the effort of a team of

faculty and students from the University of Rhode

Island, working with a task force of State and local

officials and representatives of the utility company. Dr. Krickorian, the study team leader, has

developed a computer model which might be useful to other municipal officials in getting a rough

estimate of the feasibility of the proposed hydropower project.

Another technical problem is evaluating the resource base; in the case of a hydropower project,

this means compiling an accurate streamflow record. Because streamflow can vary substantially

from day to day, month to month, and year to

year, this record should consist of frequent readings over many years. The U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS), which maintains gauging stations

throughout the country, is often the best source of

these records. For many damsites, however, historical streamflow data is unavailable, and the lack

of this data at the outset can add substantial cost

and uncertainty to the project. At the Tremont

Dam, for instance, two estimates of streamflow

were available, but neither was based on records

obtained at the damsite: one estimate extrapolated

data from a nearby river; the other used rainfall

records and assumed runoff to estimate streamflow. When United Technologies took several

months of streamflow measurements in 1978,

neither estimate was found to correspond to the

actual data. Instead, United Technologies examined all USGS records from gauging stations

within 25 miles and a station whose hydrological

conditions seem to approximate those at the Tremont Dam. Even after all of this effort, however,

there is still uncertainty as to the accuracy of the

data.

Financing

Energy generation projects require a variety of

capital throughout their development. The first

capital requirement involves funding a feasibility

study and other preliminary planning. Feasibility

studies for small-scale hydropower projects can be

quite expensive because of the depth of engineering expertise they require: costs are typically between $30,000 and $75,000, and they seem to be

unrelated to. the size of the project. This expenditure also entails a high level of risk, since there is

no guarantee that the project will prove feasible or

that the money will earn any return. Private enterprises routinely undertake this kind of risk, but

municipalities do so only if the project is absolutely necessary, like new schools, or if it has the

potential for considerable local benefits.
210 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

For this reason, some innovative projects will

find it difficult to obtain municipal financing for

feasibility studies, and another approach must be

sought. DOE’s hydropower study grant program,

which funded 54 feasibility studies (including both

Woonsocket and Wareham), is no longer available, but DOE has established a low-interest loan

program in order to fund additional feasibility

studies. The loans cover 90 percent of study costs

and bear interest at 71/B percent over a 10-year

term; however, no payments are due during the

first 3 years of the loan, and if the project proves

infeasible the loan will be forgiven. DOE and

other agencies also perform “reconnaissance analysis,” a quick and inexpensive evaluation of a

damsite’s potential, and the Corps of Engineers

has issued a manual, Feasibility Studies for SmallScale Hydropower Additions, which reportedly can

be used even by those with little or no experience

with hydropower.

By far the largest capital needs for a municipal

energy project, however, come during the construction phase. At that point, since the project

will presumably provide revenue after completion,

debt financing becomes a reasonable option for

the municipality. However, some communities

(such as Wareham) still look for grant financing.

This has several drawbacks. First, grants are often

restricted in use and, as a result, several grants

(from different agencies and for slightly different

purposes) will have to be assembled in order to

complete the project. This creates delays and financial insecurity, since projects can be left halffinished if one grant doesn’t come through. Restricted-use grants, like the title X funds for the

Tremont Dam, can also cause the project to be

much more labor intensive than necessary and

thereby drive the total cost of the project up.

Another characteristic of grant financing is that

few grant programs will cover the total cost of the

project. Wareham’s title X grant provided 80 percent of the cost of restoring the dam, with the city

putting up $100,000. For the purchase of turbines,

Wareham received a $25,000 grant from the Massachusetts Office of Energy Resources and planned

to apply to DOE for the remaining $160,000. The

city found, however, that DOE would only cover

15 percent ($27,500) of these costs. DOE feels that

debt capital is available for these projects and

hopes the communities will use the 15-percent

grants as seed money to attract private capital.

(For rural communities, funds may be available

through the Rural Electrification Administration.)

Woonsocket has approached construction financing differently and has been able to proceed

much more rapidly. Total project costs are estimated at $2.68 million, but cash flow projections

are very favorable and for this reason the city has

received permission from both the State of Rhode

Island and its own residents to raise the construction capital through the sale of general obligation

bonds. (Unlike Wareham, Woonsocket also applied for the 15-percent construction grant from

DOE.) Because the project shows a profit, after

debt service, every year over the life of the loan, it

looks like a good candidate for revenue bonding.

But the profit margin in the project’s early years

may be too tight to count on, and the cash flow

projections include assumptions about capital

costs and energy price increases which might not

prove accurate.

24 In view of these problems, general obligation bonds appear to be a safer approach.

Although Woonsocket city officials appear confident in their ability to sell their bonds, they must

first obtain a firm commitment from BVEC on

wheeling charges and buyback rates, and this

agreement must specify conditions for future price

increases. DOE has encouraged projects that do

not show a profit after debt service in early years

to offer their power to local utilities at a flat rate

that does not increase over time. A utility may be

willing to pay a price that is higher than present

replacement costs if it is assured that the price will

not rise in the future, this would give the municipality sufficient revenue in early years to cover

Z4An examp]e of this problem faces Woonsocket at present. It Was

initially believed that power from a recently completed facility in

Quebec would be available to BVE at rates lower than the cost of producing that power at oil-fired powerplants. Recent projections indicate that although the Quebec project could provide a more stable

source of energy than foreign oil supplies, its cost will not differ greatly. However, instability in world oil markets has affected projected

revenues to the project so dramatically that the project may ultimately be restructured entirely. Increasing oil prices have increased the

buyback rates the utility company is willing to pay for power purchased from the dam so greatly that the city now wishes to wheel

smaller amounts of power to its two electrically heated schools (both

of which have more favorable demand profiles given the load profile

for the dam) and sell more power to BVE. Updated cash flow summaries for this option were not available for inclusion in this assessment.
Ch. 9—Community Energy Generation ● 211

debt service on a revenue bond issue. Unfortunately, this approach denies the municipality the

full value of its power, and local utility companies

justly fear that if fuel prices continue to rise as

rapidly as they have in the past, a flat-rate deal

would be a politically untenable arrangement. In

general, the municipality will derive the greatest

value from the power it generates if it uses it to satisfy its own energy needs, rather than selling it to a

utility. This problem may be resolved by the implementation of the Public Utilities Regulatory

Policies Act in early 1981 (see Federal Policy).

Institutional Factors

Unless energy generated at a hydroelectric plant

is to be used onsite, it must be transmitted to its

point of use. Because transmission lines represent

a large additional investment, most municipalities

(like Wareham and Woonsocket) will probably

either seek wheeling arrangements with local

public utilities or sell their power to the utilities.

The utility companies, however, are reluctant to

wheel power, first because they lose revenue when

customers drop electric service, and second because it is difficult to determine a fair wheeling

rate, since there is no precedent for this service

and it is not regulated by public utility commissions. In the future, with increasing numbers of

small power producers, wheeling may become a

more common and standardized process; but

whether the majority of utility companies would

be receptive to such a situation is questionable.

The State of New Hampshire is considering legislation that would set wheeling rates and force utility

companies to comply, and Congress has recently

enacted legislation that deals with this issue (see

below).

Federal Policy

Background

Water power became the primary source of energy for American industry in the early 19th century, and, because there were few restrictions, the

development of this energy source was relatively

simple for the growing manufacturing economy. It

presented problems, however, for future use of

water resources by other sectors, particularly

agriculture. Public policy regarding hydropower

evolved, therefore, from a desire to ensure that

such development on navigable streams was in the

public interest of a growing Nation with diverse

and growing needs.

A fear of private monopoly and the loss of public control of a vital natural resource prompted

congressional action to slow private development

in the early 1900’s. The policy of Government

control through licensing was embodied in the

Federal Power Act of 1920, which established the

Federal Power Commission to issue licenses for the

construction, operation, and maintenance of

dams, reservoirs, powerhouses, and transmission

lines. A series of laws enacted between 1920 and

1950 increased Federal involvement in the development and operation of hydropower facilities

and the sale of hydropower. These laws included

amendments to the Federal Power Act, the Boulder Canyon Act of 1928, the Tennessee Valley

Authority Act of 1933, the Public Utility Act of

1935, the Bonneville Act of 1937, and the Flood

Control Acts of 1936, 1938, and 1944. Today, a

complex set of rules, regulations, and institutions

govern the development of hydroelectric power.

The rise of the environmental movement and

the demand for more efficient Government operations led to attempts during the 1960’s and 1970’s

to integrate water resource activities into a comprehensive package of resource development and

conservation. This effort was guided by the

passage of such legislation as the Wilderness Act of

1964, the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965,

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, and the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Small-Scale Hydropower Programs

Until the 1970’s, most people thought of hydropower as big dams and large-scale generating facilities. Shortages of fuel and other resources, rapid

increases in oil and gas prices, the 1973 Arab oil

embargo, and mounting pressure from environ-
212 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

mentalists have led to increased interest in alternative forms of hydropower, including the restoration of existing small-scale dams and hydroelectric

equipment.

By itself, small-scale hydropower cannot significantly relieve the Nation’s energy problems. The

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

estimates that the undeveloped hydroelectric

potential at existing dams with a capacity of less

than 5 MW would total no more than 26,600

MW. Nevertheless, this represents a savings of 139

million bbl of oil,25 or about 3 weeks’ imports at

current rates. Because energy generated at smallscale hydropower sites is immune to rising fuel

costs, it will also be increasingly competitive with

other sources of electricity. For communities

located near existing but unused hydropower sites,

therefore, small-scale hydropower may represent

an economically viable alternative that can help in

addressing a wide range of local problems, including rising municipal energy costs.

President Carter publicly recognized the potential for small-scale hydropower projects in 1977,

and Congress took an active role in the promotion

of these projects by appropriating an initial $10

million to establish a small-scale hydropower program in DOE. Since then, the DOE demonstration grants program has funded $50 million in

studies and construction, and funding is also

available through other programs in the Departments of Energy, Agriculture, Labor, and Commerce, as well as the Community Services Administration (CSA).

Major legislation that affects small-scale hydropower projects includes the following:

● Federal Power Act of 1920 (41 Stat. 1063), as

Amended in 1935.—This law contains a provision (sec. 7A) which, according to some critics, may discourage private development of

small-scale hydropower. Section 7A concerns

competing applications: under its provisions,

a public body such as a municipality will be

granted preference over a private developer in

securing the licenses for a hydropower site,

Z5Mary M. Allen, “A Report on the Potential Use of Small Dams to

Produce Power for Low-Income Communities,” prepared for the

Commumty Services Administration, contract report No. B8B-5584,

Aug. 4, 1978, p. 1-15.

regardless of the order in which the applications are submitted and regardless of the

capital already invested in the site by the

private developer. For example, a private developer who had developed and operated a

site under Federal license for a period of years

might still lose license at the time of renewal,

if a public body chooses to apply for a license

to operate the same site.

Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act of 1978

(Publi c Law 95-617).–This law streamlines

the licensing process for small-scale hydropower projects; provides cost-sharing funds

for feasibility studies, for license application

costs, and for architectural, engineering and

construction costs; declares them not to be

utilities and therefore exempt from local utility commissions; and requires local utilities to

allow them to use their power grids and to

purchase power from them at rates to be set

by State utility commissions by February 1981.

Energy Security Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-

294) V-This law further streamlines the licensing process for small-scale hydropower by exempting projects under 5 MW from FERC

licensing. This exemption does not extend to

review and processing by other Federal agencies, however, and some procedural problems

remain. (See the discussion of this issue

below.)

Major legislation introduced in the 96th Congress includes amendments to the Internal Revenue Code to provide tax credits for equipment

used at small dams to produce hydroelectric power, to extend tax-free financing, and to make

small-scale hydroelectric property eligible for

residential energy credits. Other proposed bills

cover items such as a trust fund for R&D in alternative energy resources, increases in funds for

feasibility studies, provisions for surveying and

other technical assistance, provisions for construction of small hydroelectric projects not specifically

authorized by Congress, permission for Federal

agencies to enter into agreements with States to

avoid duplication of and delay in licensing procedures, and changes in the definition of smallscale hydropower.26

Zbwarren VieSSman, Jr., and Christine DeMoncada, “water Resources: Small-Scale Hydroelectric Power, ” Library of Congress,
— —

Ch. 9–Community Energy Generation Q 213

Issues and Options

ISSUE 1 :

Coordination of, and Community

Access to, Federal Assistance

Programs .

Despite the number and variety of Federal programs for small-scale hydropower projects, there

are complaints about the adequacy and coordination of Federal assistance. These problems have to

do with the definitions and objectives of the programs themselves, the application procedures for

licensing and financing, the regulatory structure

for public utility rates and wheeling arrangements.

One difficulty arises from confusion over what

exactly constitutes a “small scale” hydropower

project. DOE, for instance, defines a small-scale

project as a site with a head of less than 66 ft and a

power potential of between 50 and 15,000 kW.

The Corps of Engineers, on the other hand, defines small dams as structures less than 40 ft in

height with a potential capacity of less than 5,000

k W .

27 As a result, a project may be eligible for

funding under one program’s small-scale criteria,

but not another’s. Because the funding from a

single program rarely covers the total cost of any

given project, multiple sources will usually be required, as was the case in both of the projects

studied in this chapter. Consequently, these differing sets of criteria complicate the application process, increase the time and expense involved, and

may in some cases bring the project to an impasse.

A related problem has to do with the differing

objectives of the various Federal small-scale hydropower programs. Often these programs dictate the

objectives of the grant and the uses to which the

funds can be put, but these requirements differ

from act to act, from agency to agency, and from

program to program. These requirements can

sometimes conflict with one another or with the

objectives of the local community, and these conflicts can distort the results of a project or increase

Congressional Research Serwce, Issue brief No. IB 78035, May 12,

1980, pp. 4-7; Wendy H. Schacht, “Appropriate Technology: Alternative Domestic Technologies, ” Library of Congress, Congressional

Research Service, issue brief No. [B 77090, Jan. 13, 1980, pp. 8-10.

ZIA]len, op. cit., p. 11-2 .

its costs. For instance, the grant for the Tremont

Dam project in Wareham specified how much of

the money should be used for jobs and how much

for materials. As a result, the project was far more

labor intensive than necessary, and it probably

cost both Wareham and the Federal Government

more than it should have.

A similar complaint concerns the burden placed

on the limited resources of small communities by

the complicated and time-consuming procedures

for obtaining permits and licenses for hydropower

projects. Statutes that affect the licensing process

include the National Environmental Policy Act,

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Endangered

Species Act, Historic Preservation Act, Water

Pollution Control Act, Water Quality Improvement Act, Wilderness Act, Wild and Scenic Rivers

Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, and Federal

Land Policy and Management Act. FERC licenses

all non-Federal development on Federal lands or

navigable rivers that affect interstate commerce,

but the Commission’s jurisdiction has been defined so broadly by the courts that it covers virtually all hydropower projects.28 FERC introduced

new application and licensing procedures in 1978

to reduce paperwork and accelerate approval for

projects under 1.5 MW,

29 and these procedures

were further streamlined by the Energy Security

Act of 1980, which authorized FERC to exempt

hydropower projects under 5 MW from licensing.

This exemption will not necessarily ease the regulatory burden, however, because small-scale projects still remain subject to review by agencies other

than FERC. According to one official, it does little

good to require one of the agencies—i.e., FERC—

to streamline its review and licensing procedures

unless the remaining agencies are also required to

do so.30 For example, the Corps of Engineers has

jurisdiction over all navigable rivers, including

changes to the streambanks, streambeds, or

streamflows. As with FERC, legal rulings give the

Corps control over even the smallest streams; but

many interpretations and rulings are left to the

Corps’ regional offices, and some differences re-

‘

8

1 bid., p. V-5.

ZgVleSSman and DeMoncada, OP. Cit., p. q.

~ORona]d A. CorSO, Dlvkion of Hydropourer Licensing, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, personal communication, July 30,

1980.
214 . Assessment of Technology for Local Development

portedly exist among these offices. 31 Special reports and consultations are also required by different bureaus within the Department of the Interior, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and State historic preservation offices, and

the Department of Agriculture.

When conflicts arise in the above procedures,

hearings are sometimes necessary, which entail

more expense and time and may lead to long delays. Even without conflicts, however, the substantial amount of manpower and legwork involved in obtaining financing, licenses, and regulatory permits is a burden on small communities

and a serious barrier to the implementation of

their projects.

Option 1-A: Designate a Central Clearinghouse for Information on Low-Head Hydropower.—At present there is no central location to

which communities can go for information on the

various Federal programs, their objectives and

their eligibility criteria. Communities seeking aid

would be helped immensely by having a compendium of these programs, regulations, and requirements readily available. The National Center for

Appropriate Technology, the Library of Congress,

or the agricultural and energy extension services

might be logical clearinghouses for such information. Technical data, which is also needed by interested communities, might also be distributed

through the same outlet.

Option l-B: Establish Agreed-On Definition of Smal1-Scale Hydropower and Further Streamline Licensing Process.—In view

of the confusion created by the different definitions of “small scale” hydropower employed by

various Federal agencies, it would be useful if some

organization, such as DOE or the Corps of Engi31 Ron Alward, Sherry Eisenbart, and John VOllman, “MiCrOHydro Power: Reviewing an Old Concept,” prepared by National

Center for Appropriate Technology for Department of Energy, report

No. ET-78-S-07- 1752, Jan. 1, 1980, p. 47.

neers, were to devise a standard definition of

small-scale hydropower; this would simplify data

collection and aid in the licensing process. While

some effort already has been expended to streamline these procedures, it appears to be taking place

on an agency-by-agency basis. It may be helpful

for Congress to review the total licensing process

with an eye toward bringing about a more coordinated and thorough streamlining of the process.

ISSUE 2 :

Technical Assistance .

As discussed above, municipal hydropower

projects require a considerable range and depth of

technical expertise, particularly in the evaluation

and planning stages. This expertise is often

beyond the resources of a small community.

Option Z : Make Technical Assistanc e

More Accessible to Local Governments.–

The Corps of Engineers has conducted a comprehensive survey of potential hydroelectric sites

and has also issued a guidebook for simplified

feasibility studies at small-scale sites. USGS could

assist municipalities in evaluating their resource

base by preparing estimates of average monthly

streamflow at existing damsites. FERC has

prepared manuals for local officials on how to

plan, develop, and manage a small-scale hydropower project; similar efforts have also been

undertaken by the Corps, DOE, and CSA. Widespread dissemination of these planning aids to

State and local governments might encourage additional projects by making the first steps in a

community hydropower development simpler and

less risky. A seminar program for engineering professionals from both the public and private sectors

would be useful in disseminating information, in

focusing on new developments in the field, in encouraging conventional engineering and consulting firms to enter the field, and in establishing a

network of contacts between communities and between sectors.
Chapter 10

Health Care Systems
Contents

Page Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + . ......217 Public Perception and Participation . ...........223

A Case Study of the Hyde Park-Kenwood

Essential Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....225

Community Health Center. . ...........219

Technical Information and Expertise. . . . . . . .. ..225

Financing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........225

Community Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .219 Institutional Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........226

Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......219

Medical Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...220

Costs and Modes of Payment . ...............221 Federal Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......222

Background . . . . . ........................227

Legislation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........228

Critical Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...223 Issues and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229
CHAPTER 10

Health Care Systems

The cost of health

the last decade, and

Introduction

care has increased sharply in

many of the Nation’s 7,000

existing hospitals are in serious financial trouble.

As many as 1,400 hospitals–20 percent of the total number—showed deficits in 1977-78 and may

be forced to close within the next 5 years; of these,

perhaps 100 are in communities that have no

other medical facilities, including about 30 large

public hospitals in major metropolitan areas.1 In

response to these conditions, some hospitals have

resorted to promotional campaigns to attract additional doctors and patients; critics point out, however, that such tactics may further inflate hospital

costs by creating artificial demand and overuse of

facilities. 2 Other hospitals are using market research as a means of avoiding the duplication of

services and unnecessary competition for the declining numbers of patients. Some medical centers

have begun to investigate the cost effectiveness of

expensive procedures that may have only marginal

benefits for patients or society at large.3

Similarly, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has begun to investigate the

costs and benefits of a number of new medical procedures. Its Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), which administers the medicare and

medicaid programs, is required by law to pay for

all “reasonable and necessary” medical services,

but in the past this has been interpreted to mean

all procedures that were medically safe and effective. Alarmed by the rising costs of these programs, 4 however, and by the possibility that they

I Spencer Rich, “U.S. Begins Program to Bail Out Hospitals Serving

Poor Areas,” Washington Post, June 25, 1980, p. A18; Cristine Russell,

“Hospital Assistance Plan Starts With $15.4 Million Project in

N. Y.C.,” Washington Scu~, June 25, 1980, p. A9.

‘Joann S. Lublin, “Hospitals Turning to Bold Marketing to Lure

Patients and Stay in Business,” Wall Street .loumcd, Sept. 11, 1979, p.

33.

3Victor Cohn, “Can the U.S. Afford the New Medical Miracles?”

Washington Post, May 9, 1980, p. A lO.

4For example, Congress directed medicare to begin paying for

dialysis treatments and kidney transplants in 1972. At that time, it

was estimated that the cost would be $250 million per year; but by

fiscal year 1981 the cost had risen to $1.5 billion, and it is expected to

reach $2,7 billion per year by 1984.

74-435 0 - 81 - 15

are diverting resources from large numbers of

other patients who might be helped more by the

same amounts of money, DHHS has directed

HCFA to develop a new definition of “reasonable

and necessary” services that considers a wider

range of “medical, social, economic, and ethical

consequences. "5

Another approach to the containment of health

care costs is the health maintenance organization

(HMO), which has occupied a prominent place in

Federal health policy during the last decades As

defined by the Health Maintenance Organizations

Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-222), an HMO is both

an insurer and a provider of health care: it provides a comprehensive package of ambulatory and

hospital services to a defined, voluntarily enrolled

population that pays a fixed annual per capita premium independent of the actual use of those services. Because the HMO exists in a primarily feefor-service environment, it must compete for both

enrollees and physicians; this means that the

HMO must try to provide benefits and services

comparable to those offered by its competitors.

But because the HMO assumes at least part of the

financial risk (or gain) of delivering services within

a fixed or constrained budget, it has a direct financial incentive to provide those services more efficiently and to provide fewer unnecessary services;

this will result in higher profits for the HMO, or

lower premiums for its enrollees, or both.

Proponents of HMOS feel that they represent a

“cost-effective” way to provide health care and a

promising strategy for both controlling health care

costs and encouraging a more rational allocation

of resources to the Nation’s health care needs. As

such, claim their advocates, HMOS offer a “competitive market alternative” that is more desirable

Svlctor Cohn, “U.S. indicates Some Medicine May Be TOO Cosch,

Washington Post, June 13, 1980, p. A2.

bThe following discussion is based on a recent OTA report, The ZrnPlications oj Cost-Ejjectiueness Analysis oj Medical Technology (Washington, D. C.: Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress,

August 1980), OTA-H-126, especially ch. 10, “Health Maintenance

Organizations,” pp. 123-140.

217
218. Assessment of Technology for Local Development

than increased Federal regulation for achieving

these goals.7 Evidence does indeed show that

HMO enrollees pay between 10 and 40 percent

less in total health costs than comparable conventionally insured groups;8 almost all of these

cost savings are due to lower hospitalization rates,

which are 25 to 35 percent below those of comparison groups. 9 A cost-benefit analysis of Federal

assistance to new HMOS, conducted for the Office

of Health Maintenance Organizations in 1979,

found that Federal assistance costs are recovered

(in the form of community health care savings)

after 8 years of HMO operation; and the study

projected even more substantial future savings.l0

The Federal HMO program has been responsible for a great deal of the expansion in prepaid

plans over the last decade, but the growing momentum of HMO development has also involved a

“substantial private initiative.”11 This in turn reflects a growing concern with the quality as well as

the costs of health care. As the delivery of health

services became increasingly bureaucratized in the

1960’s, it came under criticism from a number of

client and consumer groups. Middle-class populations were displeased by the increasing depersonalization of medical care; minority and poverty

groups complained of being discriminated against

by practitioners and health care organizations;

and health care in general was criticized as overspecialized, fragmented, and inaccessible, as well

as too expensive. As a result, a broad social movement has developed with the aim of increasing

consumer and community involvement in the delivery of health care.

TKenneth E. Warner, “Health Maintenance Insurance: Toward an

Optimal HMO,” Policy Sciences, vol. 10, 1978-79, p. 121; The Zmp/ications of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Medical Technology, op. cit., p.

124.

a~e implications of cOSt-Effectiveness Analysis of Me~ical TeChnOkn,

op. cit., pp. 123.

‘Ibid pp. 124, 127.

lwc& ~ne~t Analysis of Federal Assistance for HMO Develo~

ment,” prepared for Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,

Washington, D.C., Apr. 5, 1979; cited in The Implications of C%stEffectiventzss Analysis of Medical Technology, op. cit., p. 124, note 2.

I l~blic Health ~rvice, Ofhce of Health Maintenance Organizations, National HMO Development Strategy Through 1988 (Washington, D.C.: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,

September 1979); cited in The Implications of Cost-Effectiveness

Analysis of Medictd Technology, op. cit., p. 125.

The first major mandate for public participation

in health care was contained in the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-452), which

authorized the establishment of Neighborhood

Health Centers in which community residents

were to participate in formulating and implementing policy. The HMO Act also contains provisions

calling for increased community participation the

planning and operation of HMOs, and in recent

years Congress has mandated programs to encourage public participation in emergency medical

services, health planning agencies, and community mental health centers. Consumer participation

has also been encouraged at the State and local

levels and by the private sector.

In some of these programs, participation is open

to actual consumers of medical services, or to

those whose enrollment in prepaid plans entitles

them to those services; in others, participation is

open to community residents at large, whether or

not they are clients of the health center. Participants may have purely advisory roles, or they

may be given some formal decisionmaking powers.

These efforts have had varying degrees of success

in encouraging public participation in health care

delivery; it is not clear, however, whether they

have resulted in actual community control or

whether such control has had any specific impact

on the quality, effectiveness, or costs of local

health care services. (For a further examination of

this issue, see the discussion of public participation

and institutional factors that follows the case

study.)

The following case study focuses on one community’s experience in developing a communitybased HMO–the Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Health Center in Chicago, a not-forprofit, consumer-governed group health care

center. The case study deals primarily with three

central aspects of this local development project:

1) the impact of three payment systems (fee-forservice, prepaid health plan, and Government

assistance) on health care costs and methods; 2)

the degree to which the organizers have succeeded

in involving community representatives in the

management of the health care center; and 3) the

implications of the Hyde Park-Kenwood experience for similar community projects elsewhere.
Ch. 10–Health Care Systems 219

A Case Study of the Hyde Park- Kenwood

Community Health Center

Community Setting

Hyde Park-Kenwood is a diverse community of

46,000 on Chicago’s South Side. The area is primarily middle-class, although it also has a large

number of low-income households and more than

20 percent of its inhabitants receive some form of

Government aid. It is also a racially mixed

area—58 percent white residents, 38 percent black,

and the remainder oriental—but it exists in economic and social separation from the black ghettos that surround it on three sides.

The community is dependent on a few large local institutions, the most influential of which is

the University of Chicago, which has spent millions of dollars over the past two decades on development projects in the area. The university also

employs many local residents, provides a cultural

base, and attracts people with technical expertise

into the community.

Hyde Park-Kenwood has a long-standing tradition of political independence, social involvement,

and organized citizen activism. Unlike neighboring communities, it has resisted urban renewal,

and local citizens once chained themselves to trees

to prevent the construction of an expressway. It

also supports a number of successful consumer-run

institutions, the most venerable of which is the 30-

year-old Hyde Park Co-op, a large cooperative

supermarket.

In spite of its relative affluence and influence,

however, the Hyde Park-Kenwood area had suffered from a shortage of primary health care for at

least two decades. Many of the neighborhood’s

doctors had retired or moved their practices, so

that only a small number of physicians remained.

Local residents obtained primary care from downtown physicians or from the emergency rooms and

clinics of the nearby Michael Reese and University

of Chicago Hospitals. Residents on State aid, in

particular, were almost entirely dependent on hospital emergency rooms and clinics for primary

care. Some local physicians were disillusioned with

traditional health care delivery, and they were

eager to participate in a project

alternative.

Development

that offered an

The original initiative for a community-based

health care system came from a Hyde Park mother

whose visits to her pediatrician had left her increasingly concerned about the unequal relations

between doctors and patients. She and two other

academics from the University of Chicago came

together to work under the auspices of the Health

Committee of the Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference, a community organization

with a membership of 2,000 local residents.

The Conference had become involved in health

care when the Mid-South Health planning Organization, an agency of the former Department of

Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), approached it in the early 1970’s with the idea of

developing a network of health care facilities

throughout the South Side of Chicago. The Conference formed its Health Committee to keep

abreast of the activities of the Mid-South Organization and to develop proposals for an alternative health care delivery facility for the Hyde

Park-Kenwood community. Said one member of

the Health Committee:

We wanted an alternative to fragmented and inadequate health services, to individual physicians

in private practice, to hospital emergency rooms

for primary care. We envisioned a community-controlled health center, but we had no idea what

form it might take.

In 1971, committee members met with several

local physicians who were interested in setting up

a group medical practice, and found that the y

shared similar views on the problems of health

care delivery: outpatient medical services were insufficient, and the traditional, hierarchical doctor/patient relationship meant that the patient’s

real needs did not always receive proper consideration. The Health Committee also held additional

discussions with other neighborhood physicians to

elicit their suggestions and possible participation.
220 . Assessment of Technology for Local Development

The Health Committee became convinced that

the problems of health care delivery could be

solved only by replacing the fee-for-service system

with some kind of prepaid plan. Accordingly, it

applied for and received a $40,000 grant from the

Illinois Regional Medical Program, another health

planning agency of HEW, to study the feasibility

of setting up a prepaid group practice in Hyde

Park. The full Conference then formed a Health

Task Force and hired a fill-time health planner.

In 1972, the Health Task Force met with the

Mid-South Planning Organization and considered

joining a local center, funded by the Office of

Equal Opportunity, that would serve several

surrounding black communities in addition to the

Hyde Park-Kenwood area. Given the disparate nature of the communities, however, this plan did

not come to fruition. The Hyde Park-Kenwood organizers wanted to design a center more appropriate to the specific needs and desires of their particular community.

Consultations were then held with the Illinois

Regional Medical Program of HEW, community

groups from adjacent neighborhoods, the University of Chicago, insurance companies, the Health

Maintenance Organization Program of HEW, and

the Group Health Association of America. In the

course of these consultations, the Task Force was

advised that its goal of a self-contained prepaid

plan for the Hyde Park-Kenwood area was not feasible: the community was too small, and it had too

few employers to establish the needed enrollment

base. In addition, some local doctors who were

willing to join a health center refused to do so unless they could also continue to serve their private

patients on a fee-for-service basis.

In view of these problems, it was decided that

the Health Center would not establish its own prepayment system. When it opened in June 1975,

therefore, the Center offered health services to feefor-service patients and those covered by Government aid. Later, when the Center was financially

stable, it also contracted with existing prepaid

plans in Chicago.

The Health Committee organizers had concluded, in the course of their investigations, that

prepayment was a desirable financial mode, but

there seems to have been little interest in or support for that goal outside the Committee. The

physicians, for instance, were interested in group

practice or preventive medicine, only one of them

advocated prepayment. The decision against prepayment also appears to have been consistent with

prevailing community sentiments. Whether the

community should support prepayment is not the

issue here—the evidence suggests that it did not,

and the Committee’s decision to use a mix of payment modes was therefore consonant with local

values as well as the advice of outside experts.

Medical Services

The Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Health

Center opened in June 1975 on the second floor of

an older rehabilitated building in the central part

of the community, and it now provides primary

health care to 9,500 people. It is run by a Community Board of Directors, elected by the people

who use the Center. The Board is responsible for

setting policy and for administering the Health

Center through an appointed executive director.

It contracts with a separate Medical Group to provide health care services.

The 34-person Health Center staff, most of

whom are local residents, consists of 8 physicians,

1 nurse practitioner, 1 nurse, 2 lab technicians,

5 medical assistants, 1 nutritionist, 1 health

educator, and 15 administrative and clerical

employees.

Medical services include general family practice,

internal medicine, pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, and dermatology. The Health Center also

contracts with outside specialists to provide certain medical services not available through its own

staff. Physicians on the staff are affiliated with a

number of Chicago hospitals, to which each may

send his patients when necessary. In addition, the

Center has a working relationship with nearby Illinois Central Hospital for secondary care and certain outpatient services for prepaid subscribers.

The Health Center currently contracts with two

prepaid plans to provide all primary care, pediatrics, and ob/gyn; most secondary or specialized services; and certain hospital outpatient

services for their subscribers. In return, the two

plans handle the marketing of the benefits package

to employers, collect the premiums, and reimburse
Ch. 10–Health Care Systems ● 221

the Health Center monthly on a “cavitation”

basis–a fixed amount for each enrollee, multiplied

by the total number of enrollees. If services to

enrollees cost the Center more than the cavitation

received, the Center is at financial risk; if services

cost less, the Center may use the surplus revenues

as it wishes. This method of reimbursement (like

that of all HMOs) is intended to give the Center

an incentive for avoiding unnecessary services and

practicing preventive care, thereby avoiding

overutilization and incurring fewer health center

visits by enrollees, while at the same time keeping

them healthy.

Hospitalization costs for enrollees are paid directly by their plans, although the Health Center

gets a rebate from the plans when the total number of hospital days used by enrollees falls below a

preset figure based on average hospitalization rates

for the State of Illinois.

Thus, in its prepaid aspect, the Health Center

serves as the delivery outlet of an HMO system,

and it currently serves more prepaid subscribers

than any other delivery outlet on Chicago’s South

Side. 12 Because of the scarcity of similar outlets in

other neighborhoods, prepaid users come from a

wide geographic area to use the Center. Only 25

percent of the prepaid users of the Center live in

the community, compared to 70 percent of those

who pay on a fee-for-service basis and 30 percent

of those who pay through medicare and medicaid.

From its inception, the Center has put strong

emphasis on comprehensive health maintenance

and preventive care. It offers a number of health

education classes stressing “well care, ” such as La

Maze, care of newborns, nutrition, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Consumers are encouraged to participate in these health education programs, which reflect a philosophy made explicit in

the Health Center’s statement of operating principles:

The Health Center will foster innovation in

such areas as health education, fuller use of health

personnel, greater role of the consumer in conl~some HMOs are self-contained, with prepayment plan and delivery functions in a single administrative structure. In other cases,

the plan handles the marketing and the assumption of financial risk,

but contracts with an independent medical group to dellver the

health benefits package. The Hyde Park-Kenwood Community

Health Center is an example of the latter.

tinuity of care, and increased physician-community partnership in decisionmaking.

Costs and Modes of Payment

The Health Center became operational with less

than $100,000 in startup grants, $40,000 of which

came from the Federal Government. Another

$110,000 was raised by selling debentures, in

amounts of $100 or more, to members of the community. By fiscal year 1979, the Center was in

the black, with an operating budget of $643,365.

Consumers pay for their health care in one of

three ways: fee-for-service, Government assistance, or prepayment. On a fee-for-service basis,

they are billed directly each time they use the Center, according to preestablished fees for each service provided; these fees are usually equal to or less

than those charged by other health centers and

private physicians in the area. Government assistance is provided through medicare (title XIX)

for those eligible under social security, medicaid

(title XVIII) for the medically indigent, or both for

the elderly who are also medically indigent.

Service to prepaid users under the Federal

HMO program did not begin until 1976, by which

time the Center was in a better financial position

and was able to hire an obstetrician-gynecologist,

thereby meeting one of the requirements of the

HMO legislation. By paying a fixed premium, individuals and their dependents who voluntarily

enroll in a health plan through their employers,

unions, or associations are entitled to health care

benefits at no extra charge.

Enrollment in HMOs expanded throughout the

Nation in 1975, when the Federal Government required that all employers of 25 or more workers

who offered health plans must offer a “dual

choice” between traditional health insurance and

the HMO option, in locations where HMO plans

existed. Because the HMO program was new and

untried, the Center’s financial expectations from

prepaid care were uncertain. Few of the organizers

thought that prepaid care would be profitable for

the Health Center, let alone more profitable than

fee-for-service. However, early returns showed

that income from prepaid users, after subtracting

outside services and administrative costs, was

$18,882, or 300 percent above projections; had the

74-435 0 - 81 - 16
222 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

same patients used the Center on a fee-for-service

basis, the net income would have been only

$15,000.

In view of this, the Board decided to gradually

increase the number of prepaid users. In 1977 the

Center was certified as a delivery outlet by HEW

and the Illinois Department of Health, enabling it

to contract with other federally certified plans.

The number of prepaid users increased by 1,900

from 1978 to 1979, or from 14 percent to 33 percent of all users. During the same time, the number of fee-for-service users rose by only 24 persons,

and as a percentage of all users declined from 68 to

53 percent.

Recent financial statements show that the Center continues to be more profitable in its prepaid

sector than in its fee-for-service sector. This is consistent with the experience of other HMOs which

have demonstrated lower total health costs for

prepaid users than for conventional health insurance plans. 13 One reason for this financial success appears to be the lower number of clinic visits

and hospital days per prepaid enrollee: for 3

straight years the hospitalization rate for the

Center’s prepaid subscribers has been below the

assumptions of their respective plans. As a result,

the Center has received substantial rebates from

the plans; for the year ending June 30, 1979, these

rebates totaled $93,367.

A second reason, which is related to the first

and may in fact explain it, is the financial structure of cavitation and prepayment, which gives

the physicians an economic incentive to avoid excessive hospitalization by practicing preventive

medicine and by encouraging self-care. Other

possible explanations include the superior health

status of prepaid enrollees, broader ambulatory

care coverage, and the collective norms of group

practice; opponents of prepayment also point to

organizational arrangements that discourage prepaid enrollees from using services when they want

to.

Nevertheless, while it would appear that the

Health Center is prospering from its prepaid clientele, it is also dedicated to serving local residents

I ~George B. Strumpf, Frank H. Seuhold, and Mildred B. Arrill

“Health Maintenance Organizations, 1971-1977: Issues and Answers,” J. oj ~ommumty &a/rh, vol. 4, fall 1978, pp. 33-54.

better. As a result, it has recently decided to limit

the number of its prepaid consumers in order to

provide better service to members of its own

community.

Organization

The Health Center was established as two different corporations: the Community Health Center, governed by a Community Board of Directors

that appoints an executive director to handle the

administration of the Center, and the Medical

Group, headed by a medical director. This dual

organization was adopted in order to conform

with the Illinois medical practice law, which forbids the employment of physicians by “laymen.”

The Board has 27 directors, 24 of whom are

elected by the dues-paying membership of the

Health Center; the 3 other positions are filled by

representatives of community organizations designated by the Board. All Board members must be

dues-paying members of the Center, and a majority of the Board must also be users of the Center.

Thus far, all Board members have been community residents. All prepaid and fee-for-service

users are eligible for membership in the Health

Center, as are all residents of the Hyde ParkKenwood community. Annual membership dues

are $5 for an individual and $8 for a family. However, although the Center’s principles include consumer participation in policymaking, only 150 of

its users are dues-paying members; and only members are entitled to vote for (or serve on) the Board

and participate in Health Center Committees. A

staff member is now working full time to increase

membership, which also entitles the user to receive

the Center newsletter and to enroll in health

education courses at reduced rates.

The Board hires and fires and sets salaries for

the staff. It also sets fees for health care, establishes

programs in health education, chooses needed

specialties, and determines the scale of services

and facilities. When the decisions of the Board

pertain to medical personnel, it must obtain the

agreement of the medical director.

In 1978, three issues required cooperation between the Board and the Medical Group: the evaluation of each physician, the creation of a physicians compensation policy, and the hiring of a
Ch. 10–Health Care Systems ● 223

new executive director. One of the physician evaluations was negative: the doctor was criticized for

a lack of productivity and the type of health treatment he proposed. The two directors agreed that

the physician would be offered a contract for 1

year rather than the usual 3, and that during that

year he would seek another position. However,

the medical director subsequently modified the

evaluation process so that future evaluations

would take place within the Medical Group itself,

with the medical director reporting its conclusions

to the Board for its final action.

In February 1978, a formal physicians’ compensation policy was worked out jointly by the Board,

the executive director, and the medical director. It

established the range for salaries and additional

benefits for physicians, as well as the criteria to be

used by the executive and medical directors in

evaluating each of the physicians. These two evaluations were to be used together in establishing

any increase in salary, and the range of salaries

was to be reviewed in the first quarter of each

calendar year in the context of prevailing market

values. This policy was a mutual undertaking of

representatives from both corporations, apparently without disagreement.

When the executive director indicated her wish

to resign, it was necessary for both groups to agree

on the choice of a replacement. This process

elicited heated disagreement: of the three final

candidates, the Board preferred one and the

Medical Group another. Both candidates were

members of the community; the Board’s choice

was experienced and highly regarded in the health

field; the Medical Group’s choice had limited experience, but he was perceived by the physicians

(some of whom were friends) to be charismatic and

potentially excellent at grantsmanship and community outreach. In the end, the Medical Group

chose not to veto the Board’s choice, but the

disagreement left a residue of resentment that

emerged in the next confrontation between the

two groups.

When the time for contract review came in

1979, the medical director presented salary requests that violated both the guidelines of the phy

-

sicians’ compensation policy and the agreement

on evaluations of individual physicians. The medical director proposed that the Health Center

should allocate salaries in a lump sum to the Medical Group, which would, through internal peer

review, evaluate one another’s merits and determine individual salary increases. The doctors

were prepared not to come to work if their demands were not met.

The Board took an equally strong position,

maintaining that all prior agreements must be

honored and that it would not be fulfilling its responsibility to the consumers if it were to relinquish its power to evaluate and reward individual

physicians. The two groups eventually compromised, agreeing on temporary salaries while negotiating teams reviewed the physicians’ compensation policy. More will be said about this conflict

in the discussion of institutional factors, below.

Critical Factors

Public Perception and Participation

The organizers of the Hyde Park-Kenwood

Community Health Center had relatively little

difficulty in gaining access to public forums and

decisionmaking bodies. They were, in fact, greatly

aided in their efforts by the existence, approval,

and active support of both local community

groups and Federal health planning agencies. The

Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference had

already formed its Health Committee to investigate alternative health care systems, and similar

efforts were being undertaken by the Woodlawn

and Kenwood-Oakland Community Organizations, citizens’ groups in adjacent neighborhoods.

The Health Committee had been formed in response to an initiative from HEW’s Mid-South

Health Planning Organization, and the efforts of

the Health Center Task Force were also greatly assisted by the cooperation and encouragement of

two other HEW agencies, the Illinois Regional

Medical Program and the Office of Health Main-
224 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

tenance Organizations. To a lesser degree, their efforts were also supported by the tradition of activism in the community and the example of its

well-established cooperative supermarket.

Although the project was initiated by local residents, however, and although all of the subsequent members of the Board of Directors and most

of the Center’s staff have likewise been residents of

the community, underrepresentation of the local

community has led to concern about whether the

consumer’s interest is being adequately represented. While the community generally accepts

and supports the Center, only about 10 percent of

the population of Hyde Park-Kenwood uses the

Health Center, and less than half of its total users

are local residents.

Only 150 of the Center’s 9,500 users are duespaying members. Prepaid users account for more

than a third of the Center’s patient visits and income, but 75 percent of these users live outside the

Hyde Park-Kenwood community and they, too,

have been consistently underrepresented in

Health Center governance. Furthermore, medicare and medicaid patients—whether local residents or not—are ineligible for membership in the

Center and are therefore completely excluded

from governance. Use by fee-for-service patients

(most of whom are local residents) has also been

declining. Many local residents who would like to

belong to the Center on a prepaid basis are ineligible for such coverage, precisely because the Health

Committee decided not to establish its own prepayment plan.

It should be noted, however, that very few complaints about the Center have been registered with

the HMO headquarters for Illinois. A survey of

prepaid users indicated that they are satisfied with

the Center, despite the fact that they are a “captive audience” due to the scarcity of other prepaid

outlets in Chicago. Nevertheless, there is a growing feeling at the Center that the rising number of

prepaid users is in conflict with the practice of

community control, and the Board has recently

decided to limit their numbers. It is not immediately clear, however, why service to nonresident prepaid enrollees necessarily conflicts with

the goals of the Center. Its facilities are not overcrowded, nor are community residents who want

service being turned away.

If the purpose of community control was to

bring about specific local goals—such as community cohesion, creating a training ground for local

leaders, building confidence among the disadvantaged, or responding to the unique health needs of

the area14—then it might be argued that such goals

are potentially threatened by the large number of

prepaid users who are not local residents. The purpose of community control at this Center,

however, was to provide accessible ambulatory

care to those members of the community who

wish it, and in so doing to reduce the customary

social distance between doctor and patient, to encourage self-help and prevention, and to eliminate

the profit motive as the exclusive basis for the

physician’s interaction with patients. None of

these more limited goals seems impaired by the

present arrangement.

It is also possible that consumers and community representatives could work together effectively

in Center governance. One study of hospital

boards has shown that mixed boards of consumers

and community representatives have greater influence on hospital operations than do boards

made up of only consumers or only community

representatives. 15 Community representatives

bring an external perspective: they know who lives

in the area and what their needs are; they also

serve as a channel for local opinion; and they help

to give the Center legitimacy in the community.

Consumer representatives, on the other hand,

bring an internal perspective: they know particularly well how the Center actually works, and

how it might work better. These different interests

and abilities could mesh on the Board in such a

way as to improve both the Center’s health care

delivery and its service to the community.

Membership patterns and their influence on

public participation are a legitimate concern for

the Center, its users, and the community at large.

Similar election patterns may exist in other situations, such as local school boards or State legislatures, and the principle of community govern14Melvin Mogu]of, “Advmates for Themselves: Citizen Participation in Federally Supported Community Organizations,” Community

Mental Heahh.1., vol. 10, 1974, pp. 66-76.

15Jonathan M. Metsch and James E. Vew, “A Model of the

Adaptive Behavior of Hospital Administrators to the Mandate to

Implement Consumer Participation,” Medical Care, vol. 12, April

1974, pp. 338-350.
Ch. 10–Health Cure Systems ● 225

ance remains valid regardless of how many citizens

chose to participate in the process. Nevertheless,

when less than 2 percent of the Center’s clients actually participate in governing the organization

that serves them, it leaves what should be a

democratic institution open to charges of elitism.

To correct this situation, the Center has hired a

full-time staff member to encourage both consumers and local residents to become members of

the Center. A further step that might be taken is

to open membership to those receiving Government assistance, who represent 20 percent of the

community and 30 percent of the Center’s consumers, by offering reduced membership fees for

medicaid patients and free membership for senior

citizens.

Essential Resources

The Health Center had little difficulty in acquiring the needed material resources, and it was

particularly fortunate to be located in a community rich in the needed human resources. The Center is located in a rehabilitated building rather

than in a newly constructed facility. Medical

equipment was provided by the physicians in the

Medical Group, many of whom had existing practices in the area. Assistance in planning and organizing the Center was provided by community

volunteers who conducted a market survey,

drafted legal documents, wrote grant proposals,

prepared budget projections, and designed sales

brochures. Health professionals, bankers, lawyers,

architects, and physicians—all of them local residents—also contributed their professional skills.

Two internists practicing in the community

helped during the organizational stages and later

joined the staff, bringing along their patients, most

of whom were also members of the community.

Similar resources would be available in few lowincome communities.

Technical Information and Expertise

As noted above, the Hyde Park-Kenwood community is very rich in both citizen action and professional skills. Physicians and other health care

professionals living in the area participated in the

development and operation of the Health Center,

technical information and management knowhow were also readily available, in large part because of the presence of the University of Chicago.

This was fortunate for Hyde Park-Kenwood, but it

raises serious questions about the transferability of

their experience and methods to other, less

favored communities. Theirs was not a unique

case, but neither was it typical of the low-income

rural and inner-city communities where the need

for primary care facilities is greatest.

Financing

Funds for the Center were first allocated by the

Illinois Regional Medical Program, a now-defunct

agency of HEW, in the form of a $40,000 planning

grant. When those funds were nearly exhausted,

volunteer fundraisers were able to raise a total of

$110,000 by selling debentures (in denominations

of $100 or more) to local residents and employees

at the nearby University of Chicago. Additional

funds were secured in 1977 from the Robert Wood

Johnson Foundation.

One of the innovative features of this project

was the manner in which the local community

participated directly in its funding through the

purchase of debentures. The Health Committee

had the creativity and the courage to try this

unique approach; and the community had the

funds with which to respond, as well as enough

confidence in the venture to do so. Perhaps the

community’s prior experience with cooperatives

gave legitimacy to this funding approach, by the

same token, it is possible that bank financing

would also have been available because of the

credit-worthiness and management capabilities of

the organizers.

The applicability of this technique may be

limited to middle-class areas, and this once again

raises questions about the transferability of the

Hyde Park-Kenwood experience. Where the technique is appropriate, however, it provides an opportunity for community residents to finance as

well as develop their own institutions. One question not addressed in the study team’s report is the

terms under which these loans are to be repaid

and how those terms might affect the finances and

operations of the Health Center.
226 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

Institutional Factors

Opposition to community control of health care

delivery has come primarily from inside rather

than outside the Health Center. It was not opposed by health insurance companies, in fact, it

was the initiative of Blue Cross of Chicago in

devising HMO plans that could be serviced in a

variety of health facilities that enabled the Health

Center to develop an HMO outlet for South Side

residents. Its development has decreased the

number of patients seeking primary care in local

hospitals, to which the Center still sends patients

for secondary and specialized care.

However, some observers from outside the Center—private physicians and representatives of conventional health facilities—have criticized the concept of community control on the following

grounds:

●

●

●

●

●

●

The profit motive produces better health care

by allowing the marketplace to work: consumers are the best judges of the health care

they receive, and they can exercise influence

by giving or withholding patronage of a physician or health facility.

Community control puts politics before

health, it is cumbersome, slow, and results in

less efficient health care.

The essential relationship in health care is between doctor and patient; any attempt to interject a community board or other intermediary into this relationship destroys mutual

concern and respect.

Community control diffuses medical responsibility; if physicians are to be ultimately responsible for the health care they deliver,

they should also have full control over the

policies for delivering that care.

It is unfair to make doctors, who have invested so much time and money in their education and experience, submit to the authority of a community board.

A community board may give the impression

of community control, but it is often controlled by an elite few, worse yet, such a

board can be coopted by the very people it is

set up to control, leaving the consumer with

less representation than before.

Other critics supported the concept of community control but differed over exactly what the

concept should mean. Some pointed out that community control does not need to be formalized: it

can be exercised through many established channels, including civic organizations, church groups,

and newspapers. Others suggested that health care

facilities can interact with the community in terms

of both input and outreach, and that they serve

the community best through health education

programs or teen counseling in the schools. A few

admitted that community involvement is important during the formative stages but insisted that,

once the facility is operational, all decisions should

be left to health professionals; a community board

is desirable, but should serve only in an advisory

capacity.

Within the Hyde Park-Kenwood Health Center

itself, the executive director felt that the Board

should be involved in financial planning, policymaking, soliciting community input, and initiating and evaluating programs, but should not

concern itself with implementation of these plans,

policies, and programs. A number of Board members, on the other hand, felt that they should be

less complacent and passive, and more active in

initiating programs and fighting for the interests of

the community. The prevailing feeling among

these Board members was that the physicians have

not grasped the meaning of community governance, nor do they understand that in exchange for

giving up certain privileges (including unlimited

income and the ability to set their own hours) they

gain certain rewards (including regular hours and

freedom from insurance paperwork, financial

recordkeeping, and personnel problems).

The manner in which medical professionals and

consumers share power, however, is an ongoing

problem, and in this regard the struggle at the

Health Center is not unique. In studies of other

health care centers, researchers have found that

physicians usually seek to control the conditions

of their work. l6 The efforts of the Hyde Park-KenlbE]lot Friedson, The Profession oj Medicine (New York: Dodd,

Mead, 1970); and Marcia Steinberg, “Multiple Leadership in Prepaid

Group Practice: Interaction Among Administrators, Physicians, Consumers, and Community Members,” presented at the annual conference of the Group Health Institute, New York, June 1978.
Ch. 10–Health Cure Systems ● 227

wood physicians to do so by setting salaries, controlling the evaluation of their colleagues, and deciding which physicians to hire is typical of physician behavior in traditional organizational settings. These settings—e.g., conventional hospitals—provide a system of professional authority

in which physicians control both the content and

the conditions of their work. The entry of consumers into decisionmaking roles thus destabilizes

arrangements already in existence between physicians, administrators, and other groups.

It is still too soon to say what a new division of

authority would look like, since the widespread involvement of community groups only dates from

the first legislation authorizing Neighborhood

Health Centers in 1964. However, it is possible to

see the probable shape of the new patterns by

looking at sites where consumers have policymaking or advisory authority, such as the Neighborhood Health Centers, some group practices,

and some hospitals. As the consumer or community board carries out its role, disagreements

tend to occur with administrators, physicians, and

other parties with decisionmaking powers, such as

Government agencies. Issues of concern include

the hiring and firing of the medical staff and the

executive director, decisions about what new services are to be offered, and budget allocations. As

the parties try to resolve their differences, a new

distribution of authority develops, and the distinction between physician and nonphysician reappears. In the end, physicians usually obtain effective control over salaries and medical staff, with

some limited form of review by the community

boards. The board exercises advisory or decisionmaking roles over matters pertaining to organizational policy, particularly the selection of services

to be offered, but seldom penetrates areas of

organizational decisionmaking that have traditionally been controlled by physicians. 17

If experience is a guide, therefore, eventual resolution of the disagreements between the Board of

Directors and the Medical Group at the Hyde

Park-Kenwood Health Center will probably be

one which grants the Medical Group the authority

it seeks.

ITLawrence Kowki and John M. Hayakawa, “Consumer Participation and Community Organization Practice: Implications of National

Health Insurance,” Medical Care, vol. 17, March 1979, pp. 244-254;

Milvoy S. Seacat, “Neighborhood Health Centers: A Decade of Experience,” J. oj Community Heakh, vol. 3, 1977, pp. 156-168; Steinberg, op. cit.; Marcia Steinberg, “The Relative Emphasis Upon Physician Practice and Organizational Affairs of a Consumer Council in

a Prepaid Group Practice Health Plan,” J. of Community Health, vol. 4,

summer 1979, pp. 3 12-320; Ann Stokes, David Banta, and Samuel

Putnam, “The Columbia Point Health Association: Evolution of a

Community Health Board,” Am. -). ojPub. Health, vol. 62, September

1972, pp. 1229-1234; and Daniel I. Zwick, “Some Accomplishments

and Findings of Neighborhood Health Centers,” Ml/bank Memorial

Fund Quarterly, vol. 50, pt. 1, October 1972, pp. 387-420.

Federal Policy

Background

Over the last 10 to 20 years the primary focus of

Federal health care policy has shifted from the

availability of health care to its costs. About 26

percent of the Nation’s health care costs were paid

through medicare or medicaid assistance in 1977,

when the total expenditures added up to $142 billion. By 1979, expenditures had risen to about

$206 billion–a little more than 9 percent of the

gross national product. At the present rate of increase, health care costs will double in less than 5

years, a rate of increase far in excess of general inflation. This pattern has held for 30 years: between 1950 and 1978, while overall inflation was

171 percent, physician costs rose 304 percent and

hospital costs jumped 997 percent. 18

The rapid increases in health care costs has led

to a concurrent rise in Federal expenditures

through the medical assistance programs of medicare and medicaid. In addition, the many lowincome families who remain ineligible for such aid

have become more vulnerable to catastrophic

medical expenses: 7 million families have uninsured health care expenses in excess of 15 percent

of their incomes; between 10 million and 20 milIsSen, Edward M. Kennedy, “A National Health Insurance: A plan

to Control Medical Costs and Improve Care,” Pht Kappa Phi -1., vol.

60, No. 2, spring 1980, p. 30.
228 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

lion Americans have no health insurance at all;

and as many as 65 million have insurance that is

inadequate to cover office visits or routine tests. 19

Families with incomes below $10,000 are twice as

likely to be without health insurance as families

with larger incomes, and one-third of those not

covered by insurance are fully employed heads of

households—10 percent of the U.S. work force.20

Collectively, low-income people seem to be in

poorer health than middle- and high-income

groups, and continued ill health can lead to low

productivity, high absenteeism, unemployability,

and chronic dependence on public assistance programs.

21

Cost is not the only barrier to adequate health

care. Availability of physicians, facilities and

specialized diagnostic and treatment equipment remains a problem in many communities. 22 T h e

combination of these factors can, in some cases,

bring about a situation in which medical services

are in effect “rationed.”23 And while the primary

focus of many Federal programs remains on the direct containment of costs, many people now feel

that the current voluntary cost ceilings, while

needed, are not the only way to address the rising

costs and declining availability of health care.

Among the alternatives that have been included

in recent Federal legislation and assistance programs are preventive medicine, including improved nutrition; self-care and well-care, as opposed to crisis care; and community participation

in the planning and operation of local health care

delivery.

Legislation

Previous Federal involvement in health care delivery is typified by the Hospital Survey and Construction Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 1040, as amended),

‘gIbid.

Zosen. Robert Dole, “catastrophic Health insurance: A Practical

Alternative,” Pkl Kappa Phi -1., vol. 60, No. 2, spring 1980, p. 29.

zlcharles E. ~wis, Rashi Fecir, and David Mechanic, A Right to

I-lea/tIt: The Problem of Access to Primary Medical Care (New York:

John Wiley, 1976), p. 165.

zzFor a more thorough discussion of these factors, see the previous

OTA reports, The Zmp/ications oj Cost-Effectiveness Analysis o~ Medical

Technolon (OTA-H-126, August 1980); Forecasts of Physician Supply

and Requirements (OTA-H-1 13, April 1980); Assessing the Ej/icacy and

Sajety OJ Medical Technologies (OTA-H-75, September 1978); and Development of Medical Technology: Opportunity for Assessment (OTAH-34, August 1976).

z3Lewis, Fecir, and Mechanic, op. cit., P. 15.

which initially authorized $75 million for grantsin-aid to the States for the construction of hospital

facilities. Since its beginnings in the 1940’s, this

program has disbursed over $4 billion in Federal

funds for more than 12,000 projects, involving

7,000 medical facilities in over 4,000 communities.

The program is administered by the Bureau of

Health Facilities of DHHS, which is also responsible for the programs of direct loans and loan

guarantees authorized by the Public Health Service Act of 1944 (58 Stat. 682, as amended), as well

as the hospital mortgage insurance program authorized by the National Housing Act (48 Stat.

1246, as amended), formerly administered by the

Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Increasingly, however, due to subsequent amendments and funding changes, the Bureau of Health

Facilities has ceased to fund large amounts of new

hospital construction. It has instead become responsible for monitoring the economic viability of

existing hospitals and enforcing compliance with a

section of the Public Health Service Act that requires health care facilities (in exchange for Federal financial assistance) to provide community

services and certain categories of uncompensated

care for their low-income patients.24

As was mentioned in the introduction to this

chapter, the central piece of legislation dealing

with public participation in health care was the

Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (Public Law

88-452). This Act authorized the establishment of

Neighborhood Health Centers and required the

participation of local residents in the formulation

and implementation of policies in these centers.

Another section of the Act established the Community Food and Nutrition Program of the Community Services Administration; this preventivecare program is discussed at length in the Federal

polic y section of ch. 4.

Other legislation mandating consumer and

community participation in health care delivery

are the Health Maintenance Organizations Act of

1973 (Public Law 93-222), which authorized the

creation of community-based HMOs; the National Health Planning and Research Developz4See Florence B. Fiori, director, Bureau Of Health Facilities,

“Bureau of Health Facilities’ increasing Responsibilities in Assuring

Medical Care for the Needy and Services Without Discrimination,”

Pub. Heakh Reports, vol. 95, No. 2, March-April 1980, pp. 164-173.
Ch. 10–Health Care Systems ● 2 2 9

ment Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-641), which

established local health system agencies and State

health coordinating councils like those that contributed to the creation of the Hyde Park-Kenwood Health Center (see above); and title 111 of the

Community Mental Health Center Amendments

of 1975 (Public Law 94-63). Congressional concern

with the costs and benefits of medical care, particularly new techniques and equipment, is also

reflected in the passage of the Health Services

Research, Health Statistics, and Health Care

Technology Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-623). This

Act provides for the establishment of a National

Center for Health Care Technology, under the

auspices of DHHS, charged with undertaking and

supporting a variety of programs aimed at identifying potential issues and consequences of the

development and application of new health care

technologies.

Issues and Options

User and community participation in health

care delivery seems to be widely accepted as a matter of Federal policy, but the implementation of

this policy—through the establishment of local,

consumer-run delivery systems like the Hyde ParkKenwood Community Health Center–will be affected by two larger issues:

● the relationship of Federal and State health

care efforts; and

● the effectiveness of preventive medicine and

other innovative, low-cost health care techniques.

ISSUE 1 :

Conflicts Between Federal and State

Health Care Efforts.

Federal legislation has established a number of

programs for achieving U.S. health care goals, but

interviews in Hyde Park-Kenwood and other communities as well as in Washington, D. C., suggest

that in some cases these Federal programs may not

be adequately coordinated with related State programs. In addition, there seems to have been no

specific attempt to coordinate the local efforts of

Federal programs in health care with related programs such as nutrition or food production (see

chs. 4 and 6). In other cases, however, State laws

appear to be barriers to some specific programs

and contradictory to Federal intentions generally.

State medical practice laws can, in some instances, be impediments to effective community

participation in health center governance and

health care delivery. In the Hyde Park-Kenwood

case study, for instance, Illinois law prohibited the

hiring of physicians by laymen. The resulting dual

organization of the Center has led to internal conflicts that may jeopardize the goal of community

participation that is embodied in the Economic

Opportunity and HMO Acts. Virginia law also

makes it illegal for nonphysicians to engage in “the

prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of human

physical or mental ailments, conditions, diseases,

pain or infirmities by any means or methods.”25

This and similar State medical practice laws may

restrict the use of well-care and other preventive

medicine techniques administered by nurse practitioners or health care paraprofessionals.

Option 1: Review of State and Federal

Health Care Laws and Programs.—Congress

may wish to identify these potential conflicts by

directing DHHS to expand its annual review of

State and Federal health care legislation to include

a more detailed examination of the following

points:

● the goals of the various laws and programs,

the priorities (explicit or implicit) among

these goals, and the areas in which State law

is in potential conflict with Federal policy;

and

s the degree and adequacy of communication

and coordination between Federal programs

and State health care efforts.

ISSUE 2:

Community Health Centers and

Innovative Health Care Techniques.

The innovativeness of the Hyde Park-Kenwood

Community Health Center was medical as well as

organizational. Their well-care programs include

encouraging the patient to participate in his own

treatment and encouraging community members

to participate in health education classes on such

ZsLori B. AndreWs and Lowell S. Levin, “Self-Care and the Law,”

Social Polic-v, vol. 9, No. 4, January-February 1979, p. 44.
subjects as nutrition, child care, and personal

health maintenance.

Other health care centers have also begun to include self-care instruction in their regular services.

The Midpeninsula Health Service in Palo Alto,

Calif., offers a daily telephone call-in hour to

eliminate unnecessary clinic visits and to minimize

the use of lab tests, equipment, and drugs. At

Helping Hand, a community clinic in St. Paul,

Minn., patients are given a pamphlet describing

their condition and its treatment or are referred to

an appropriate health education class. Other

clinics offer rebates to their patients for taking

courses in self-monitoring skills, such as taking

their own blood pressure or preparing throat and

stool samples.

The principal goal of these and other well-care

and self-care techniques is to help the members of

the community to improve their general health.

There is as yet no conclusive proof of the value of

these techniques or their impact on future medical

needs and costs. Secondary effects of preventive

medicine, however, might include a reduction in

the number of subsequent clinic visits; a resultant

increase in the efficiency with which existing

health care services are utilized; and–ultimately–

a potential reduction in health care expenditures

for the individual, the local community, and the

Nation. As noted above, however, some State

medical practice laws may effectively bar the adoption of these techniques by forbidding community

members from participating in the delivery of

clinic services or the teaching of health care in the

school system.

Option 2: Investigate the Potential Benefits of Preventive Care Techniques and the

Barriers to Their Adoption in Community

Health Centers.–Congress may wish to investigate the potential benefits—both medical and

economic—of self-care and other preventive techniques as part of a comprehensive, communitybased health maintenance program. In parallel

with such an investigation, the legislative and program review proposed above might also attempt to

identify potential barriers to the adoption of these

techniques by local health care centers. It has also

been suggested that broadening the HMO prepayment package to include both life and morbidity/disability insurance, as well as medical insurance, would provide insurers with a financial incentive to learn the value and effects of health

education and preventive care. 26

Zbwarner, op. cit., p. 127.
Chapter 11

Overview
Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Profiles of the Case Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page Page

b . 233 CriticalFactors . .......................240

Public Perception and Participation . . . . . . .. ....241 233 Technical Information and Expertise. . .........241 Resource-Efficient Residential Architecture . . ...~~233

Food-Producing Solar Greenhouse . ...........234 Essential Resources. ..., . . . . . . . . . ..., , ..., .241

Small Farm Systems . ..................,...235

Financing. ..,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,. .,. .., ,.241

Farmers’ Markets . ........................23 5

Institutional Factors . . . . . , , . . . . . . ., ., ..., ..242

Resource Recovery From Municipal Solid Waste. ..236

Community Wastewater Treatment. . ..........237

Community Energy Generation . .............237

Health Care Systems. . .....................238 Federal Policy . . . . . . . . .................243

The Technologies From a Local Perspective 238 Data Gathering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,., ,..243

Information Dissemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 244

The Technologies From a National Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..245

Perspective. . . . ......................23 9 Financial Assistance. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .246
Chapter 11

Overview

Introduction

The treatment of the case studies in the preceding chapters derives less from an interest in any

one specific technology than from an interest in

the process by which the technologies were identified and adopted by particular communities,

their impact on the communities, and the factors

that might have an influence on their wider adoption and diffusion. The case studies focus on three

substantive areas:

. energy conservation, particularly methods for

increasing the energy efficiency of private

housing;

● agriculture, particularly the survival of the

small family farm; and

● the delivery of community services, including

health care and social services as well as waste

management.

It should be noted that the cases do not include

examples in the industrial or manufacturing sector. Nonetheless, these three areas include some of

the most important and intractable problems facing the Nation.

Each chapter also includes an analysis of relevant Federal policy and programs, but this should

not be taken to mean that expanded Federal involvement is necessary or even desirable for the

local development of these technologies. In several

cases, notably energy-efficient housing and farmers’ markets, local adoption seems to be going

Profiles of

Resource= Efficient Residential

Architecture (ch. 3)

forward without direct Federal involvement; in other

cases, existing Federal programs have been quite

effective and appear to need no major alteration.

Federal policy has been a focus for analysis, rather,

because this report is designed for Congress, one

of whose responsibilities is the evaluation and improvement of Federal programs that encourage

and assist community development.

Because of this Federal interest, it has been

necessary to consider not only the local impact of

these projects but also the likely effects of widespread replication by communities throughout the

Nation. The projects are of interest precisely

because they tailor technology to local needs and

resources, and most of them have been relatively

successful in achieving local goals. In some cases,

however, the local resources are sufficiently

unique that it is uncertain whether the projects

could be replicated elsewhere. Nevertheless,

enough similarity exists across the cases to draw

several general lessons about the factors that aid or

impede the process of community adoption.

This overview chapter will present thumbnail

profiles of the case studies and then comment on

their significance, first from the local perspective

and then from the national. This will be followed

by a summary of the critical factors affecting the

success of these projects, and steps that might be

taken to promote similar projects elsewhere.

the Case Studies

heat-retentive houses that hold great promise for

the future.

These projects, developed in communities as Local and National Significance.–The

diverse as an Eskimo village in Alaska and the striking diversity of the applications—in cost and

middle-class exurbs of Connecticut, involve the complexity, as well as performance—is both a

application of a wide spectrum of technologies that strength and a problem. On the one hand, they

make considerable energy savings possible for in- represent solutions to the problem of energy condividual families. The technologies range from servation that can be adapted to every region of

well-known solar designs to new, highly efficient the United States. On the other hand, because

233
234 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

such a large variety of approaches have been developed in so many locations, no “preferred” solutions have yet gained nationwide acceptance from

financial institutions, homebuilders, and the general public. Low-cost retrofits, notably the attached solar heating greenhouse, are being built

by individual homeowners, and local initiatives

have been effective in encouraging these individual efforts, the community workshop appears to be

a particularly effective mechanism for promoting

more widespread adoption of this technology. The

higher initial costs of the passive solar and doubleenvelope houses, however, are such that they are

being built primarily by middle- and high-income

families. From a national perspective, this may

mean that lower cost options, like the Bethel and

Conserver Homes, will be more appropriate for

energy-saving tract houses and low-income housing.

Critical Factors.—In several of the case

studies, large numbers of people have turned out

to inspect the houses, but thus far there has been

less acceptance from financial institutions than

from the general public. One housing developer

commented that his first solar development

“would never have happened if we had not been

able to do the design, the financing, the land

development, and the construction ourselves. ”

From these case studies it would appear that one of

the most significant barriers to the widespread

transfer of these technologies from the custom

housing market to the mass housing market is the

lack of reliable data on the cost and performance

of the various energy-efficient designs. The Bethel

house, which was developed in part to influence

the design of low-income housing in rural Alaska,

has had some local success in this regard.

Federal Policy. –Federal programs could assist the diffusion of these technologies by making

data gathering a required part of sponsored projects and by making detailed local microclimate

data available to prospective developers and owner-builders. Increased Federal encouragement of

“networking,” community workshops, and other

locally based dissemination mechanisms could also

be useful; these approaches have proven to be successful in several of the projects described in this

and other chapters.

Food= Producing Solar Greenhouse

(ch. 4)

The Cheyenne Community Solar Greenhouse

appears to be an effective mechanism for delivering social services, such as productive activities for

the elderly and youth offenders. It also seems to

have contributed to a local program to encourage

residential energy conservation. It has not, however, been cost effective in its role as a food-producing greenhouse, and since it cannot be operated as a research facility, it has been unable to

collect sufficient performance data to establish its

economic feasibility.

Local and National Significance.–The

project is notable for the extent of public participation in the construction, operation, and management of the greenhouse. It offers activities for the

elderly and the handicapped, job training and

work experience for the unskilled, alternative service for youth offenders, and educational activities

for children. In addition, this highly visible demonstration may have contributed to the widespread adoption of smaller attached solar heating

greenhouses in Wyoming, which now has more

such retrofits relative to its population than any

other State. However, the capital and operating

costs of the greenhouse are rather high, and as

presently used it may not be the most cost-effective

mechanism for delivering social services. Neither is

it an effective means of demonstrating the feasibility of large-scale solar greenhouse horticulture,

Crop yields have been low by commercial standards, but the project has neither the staff nor the

resources to carry out scientific research on plant

varieties and production techniques for solar

greenhouses.

Critical Factors.—The technical problems encountered in Cheyenne point out the need for expert advice on solar greenhouse design and construction. More reliable information on costs, energy savings, production methods, and crop yields

will also be required if the technology is to be

adopted by communities, cooperatives, or commercial growers on a widespread basis.

Federal Policy.—Existing Federal programs

include construction grants for community food

production projects and a few monitoring projects
Ch. 11–Overview ● 235

that should produce needed information on greenhouse performance. Additional Federal efforts to

promote the technology might include programs

to disseminate this new information, as well as

selective tax credits to individuals or subsidies to

community groups.

Small Farm Systems (ch. 5)

The New Life Farm (NLF) in Missouri and the

Small Farm Energy Project (SFEP) in Nebraska are

community-based attempts to improve the economic viability of small-scale farming in their

regions. NLF is a local initiative by young farmers

to develop a promising new renewable energy

technology—manure and phytomass digesters that

produce methane from farm wastes. SFEP has established a particularly successful program of technical assistance and cost sharing that has encouraged local farmers to apply proven technologies to

the energy needs of their own farms.

Local and National Significance.–Of the

two projects, SFEP seems to have had a broader

impact on local farmers, largely because the

farmers were allowed to select and build their own

projects. But although self-selection has led to a

variety of innovative solar applications, it has not

always led to maximum energy savings, since the

farmers often failed to pick the most promising

combination of technologies or installations.

NLF’s concept of an integrated “system” of farming techniques shows more potential in this regard, but the technologies themselves are still in

the development stage. Both projects, however,

demonstrate that farmers and other local groups

are capable of developing and installing low-cost,

energy-saving technologies that are appropriate to

the needs and resources of their particular farming

operations. Widespread replication of these projects might make a significant contribution to the

related national goals of conserving energy, making more efficient use of available resources, and

aiding the survival of the small family farm,

Critical Factors.–The local success of SFEP

results from its project design, which encourages

public participation through self-selection and a

comprehensive program of workshops, seminars,

and individual technical assistance. Cost sharing

also appears to be an effective form of financial

assistance, but a number of local farmers (participants and nonparticipants alike) undertook projects on their own. NLF has also held workshops,

but its primary efforts have been in developing the

biogas digester; its inability to involve large

numbers of local residents may pose a problem for

the local dissemination of this technology in the

future.

Federal Policy.–Widespread dissemination of

the results of these and similar projects through

the Agricultural Extension Service would promote

the spread of these technologies, as would the encouragement of networking among local and regional groups with related interests and activities.

Further research is needed on the effectiveness of

integrated farm systems, the performance characteristics of biogas digesters, and the nutrient value

of digester sludge. Federal funds for establishing

model farms at State agricultural centers might

contribute to this type of research, as well as providing local demonstrations that could increase interest in these systems among the Nation’s smallscale farmers.

Farmers’ Markets (ch. 6)

Farmers’ markets and other direct marketing

strategies represent the revitalization of a food

distribution system that, having fallen into disuse

after World War 11, has become attractive again

due to rising energy costs. They can benefit farmers and consumers alike, and by encouraging local

agriculture they can contribute to the conservation of energy and the security of local food supplies.

Local and National Significance.–The case

studies include farmers’ markets established

through the initiatives of a variety of local

groups—farmers, consumers, businessmen, and

municipal governments. By creating a local market where none had existed before, these markets

improve the economic viability of small-scale

agriculture and encourage local farmers to diversify their crops and keep their land in production.

All of the farmers’ markets appear to have promoted local development, although the redevelopment of the Pike Place Market in Seattle seems to

have had a negative impact on the availability of

low-income housing and low-cost produce. Widespread development of farmers’ markets throughout the United States could result in considerable
236 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

energy savings and should contribute significantly

to the survival of the small family farm and the

retention of agricultural land near urban areas.

Critical Factors.–All of the markets depend

vitally on the participation of the local producers

and consumers. In Morehouse Parish, La., the

market was established and managed by the farmers themselves, but a network of interest groups in

Boston proved to be an equally effective way of

organizing markets. Where the markets were part

of a larger educational and technical assistance

program, like the one initiated by the county extension agent in Morehouse Parish, the benefits to

the local farmer have been further increased. The

financing required for the markets is minimal and

most of them are self-supporting. Large-scale urban redevelopment projects like the Pike Place

Market may not be the most cost-effective means

of encouraging local agriculture or making lowcost produce available to local consumers.

Federal Policy.–The success of the comprehensive program in Morehouse Parish suggests

that similar efforts elsewhere by the Agricultural

Extension Service could be useful in promoting

the widespread development of farmers’ markets.

Reenactment of the Farmer-to-Consumer Direct

Marketing Act of 1976, which expired in 1980,

would also allow the U.S. Department of Agriculture to complete its State-by-State surveys of current farm marketing programs and to expand its

existing programs of technical and financial

assistance to farmers’ markets and marketing cooperatives throughout the Nation.

Resource Recovery From Municipal

Solid Waste (ch. 7)

These two case studies of alternative technologies for waste management and resource recovery

illustrate not only the contribution they can make

to the redevelopment of deteriorating urban areas,

but also the crucial problems and constraints

posed by the size and quality of the “waste

stream. ”

Local and National Significance.–The Recycle Energy System (RES), which uses combustible wastes as fuel to produce steam for space

heating and industrial uses, has made an important contribution to the revitalization of downtown Akron, Ohio. Replicated on a nationwide

basis, this technology could produce almost 2 percent of annual U.S. energy consumption, in addition to recovering significant amounts of glass,

aluminum, iron, and steel. The Bronx Frontier

Development Corp. (BFDC) converts vegetable

wastes from a large produce market into compost

for parks and community gardens in the South

Bronx, and this technology may also have potential for comporting sludge from sewage treatment

plants. Both technologies could, if widely adopted,

contribute to the national effort to recycle

materials, conserve energy and other resources,

and reduce the environmental problems caused by

waste disposal.

Critical Factors.–The Akron RES was almost totally an undertaking of the municipal

government and its consultants; greater public

participation might have made a difference in the

size and/or development of the project. BFDC, on

the other hand, has experienced some opposition

from the traditional political leaders of the community, and it is not clear that local residents have

had an effective voice in the project. The “consortium financing” developed by BFDC freed it

from some of the constraints imposed by the

grants economy, but the project could improve its

finances considerably by charging competitive tipping fees to haulers or by increasing its income

from the commercial sale of compost. The principal constraint on the feasibility of both these

projects is the quantity and quality of the waste

stream. To assure itself of an adequate supply of

combustible waste, and thereby reduce financial

risks, Akron was forced to pass an ordinance

(since challenged in court) requiring private

haulers to dump at the RES facility. The BFDC

operation, on the other hand, requires a relatively

uncontaminated supply of organic wastes, and its

organizers too feel that it may be necessary to require source separation by means of legislation.

The institutional problem of overlapping jurisdictions further complicates the issue of control over

the waste stream.

Federal Policy.—Existing Federal programs

provide funds for research, development, and

technical and financial assistance for waste management and resource recovery. Federal policy has

not yet addressed the overarching issue of control
— —

Ch. 11–Overview ● 237

over the waste stream. If the Supreme Court decides against the city of Akron in their pending

case, Congress may wish to investigate the desirability of permitting municipal control over the

waste stream, including passage of enabling legislation if necessary.

Community Wastewater Treatment

(ch. 8)

The General Accounting Office has recently

concluded that, due to the scope and enormous

costs of upgrading the Nation’s sewage treatment

system, it is imperative that lower cost approaches

be found for providing this municipal service. The

Solar AquaCell system is one of a number of alternatives that have the potential for reducing the

operating costs of secondary treatment, as well as

for reducing both the capital and the operating

costs for more advanced wastewater treatment.

Local and National Significance.–From

the local perspective, an important benefit of this

wastewater treatment facility is that local control

of the technology has also given the town control

over its future growth by freeing it from the constraints of regional sewage planning. From the national perspective, such local treatment plants may

serve to remove one of the few effective means of

regional planning. At the same time, however,

this and other new treatment technologies offer a

badly needed, lower cost approach to expanding

and upgrading of the Nation’s sewage treatment

facilities.

Critical Factors.– The Hercules AquaCell facility was a municipal undertaking, and like some

of the other projects examined in this report it has

involved relatively little participation by local

residents. General acceptance of this technology

by the engineering profession will require reliable

data from a full-scale facility like the one at Hercules, and widespread adoption by other communities will be contingent on its proven reliability

and competitive costs. At present, the AquaCell

system involves sufficient risks that it might not

have been adopted even in Hercules were it not for

the town’s large revenue base and its desire for

greater control over its future population growth.

Federal Policy.–Federal policy has promoted

the adoption of alternative wastewater treatment

74-435 0 - 81 - 17

technologies since the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Innovative and

Alternative Technology (1/A) Program in 1978.

Congress may wish to extend this program, which

is due to expire at the end of fiscal year 1981, or to

expand the financial incentives it has made available to municipalities and regional sewage agencies. In particular, only $15 million has been

earmarked for R&D under the I/A Program; increased research, full-scale demonstrations, and

information dissemination would be desirable

features of an expanded I/A Program.

Community Energy Generation (ch. 9)

Small-scale hydroelectric projects can make a

potentially significant contribution to the Nation’s

energy supply. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

estimates that U.S. hydroelectric capacity could be

increased almost threefold simply by installing additional capacity at existing sites and installing

new generating equipment at dams that currently

produce no electricity.

Local and National Significance.–Locally

developed energy sources, like the recommissioned

damsites in Wareham and Woonsocket, represent

the revitalization of local resources that have

fallen into disuse. The electricity generated by

these projects can be applied to local energy needs,

either for cutting the costs of municipal services

(such as streetlights, schools, and sewage treatment), for attracting industry to the area, or for

sale to local utility companies. In Woonsocket, the

nearby Tupperware plant has also begun plans to

renovate their own dam for industrial purposes.

Critical Factors .—Public participation does

not seem to have been a critical factor in either of

the case studies, although the Woonsocket project

required local voters to approve a bond issue. Both

projects have general support from local residents,

but misconceptions about the size and potential

uses of the projects have been widespread in both

communities. Both towns had existing damsites,

which gave the projects a sizeable capital cost advantage. Woonsocket also made effective use of

Federal grants as seed money for attracting conventional financing. Wareham, on the other

hand, has held out for almost total grant financing, and this has held up the completion of the
238 ● Assessment of Technology/or Local Development

project. The economics of local hydroelectric projects, in these communities and elsewhere, will also

be affected by the rates paid by local utility companies for the power they produce. Recent Federal

legislation will help to assure equitable rates.

Federal Policy .–Existing Federal programs of

technical and financial assistance for feasibility

studies, planning, and construction seem to be

working effectively, particularly when the grants

are used as seed money to reduce risks and attract

conventional financing. The Corps of Engineers

has conducted an extensive survey to identify

damsites that might be converted or recommissioned; it has also issued a manual to assist communities in performing preliminary feasibility

studies. The Public Utilities Regulatory Policies

Act of 1978 requires public utilities to buy or

wheel power from these projects, but the economic

viability of the projects will be vitally affected by

the wheeling and purchase rates that are to be

established by State utility commissions by February 1981. In addition, current Federal policy

favors the development of hydroelectric sites by

municipalities and cooperatives. This may constitute a disincentive to the development of some

sites by industry and investor-owned utilities,

although they too are eligible for Federal grants

and considerable private development has been

taking place.

Health Care Systems (ch. 10)

Local health centers, prepaid health plans, and

well-care programs may be able to reduce the costs

and increase the effectiveness of health care

delivery in communities throughout the Nation.

Local and National Significance.–The

organizers in Hyde Park-Kenwood wanted to develop a community-controlled health care center

as an alternative to the fragmented and inadequate health services on Chicago’s South Side.

Although the issue of community control is still

unresolved, they have achieved some of their objectives—notably those of increasing the availability of primary health care and reducing its costs. In

addition, their programs of preventive medicine

and health education could help to improve the

general health of the community. Widespread creation of health maintenance organizations in

other communities could have a significant impact

on the enormous cost of health care in the United

States. The resources available in Hyde Park-Kenwood would not be available in most inner-city

areas, however, and entirely different approaches

will probably be required in rural areas.

Critical Factors.—Public participation was

important to the development of the center, particularly in its financing: the organizers were able

to raise $110,000 through the sale of debentures to

community residents. The center is now operating

in the black, largely due to the cost-cutting incentives offered by prepaid health care plans. There

remains some conflict over community versus

medical governance of the center, and there are

problems in this and some other locations due to

State medical practice laws that discourage community control of health care organizations.

Federal Policy.—Existing Federal programs

have effectively encouraged the establishment of

health maintenance organizations in a large number of communities. However, there has as yet

been no review of the impact of the public participation requirements of the Health Maintenance

Organizations Act of 1973, Congress may also

wish to investigate means of addressing the barrier

posed by State medical practice laws.

The Technologies From a Local Perspective

The preceding profiles show that the projects Viewed broadly, local development is not

had widely varying objectives and suggest that always simply a question of economic growth as

their significance can be quite different when conventionally measured. Efficient and cost-effecviewed from the national perspective instead of tive municipal services—the goal of several of the

the local. Thus, no simple judgment of “success” projects—are a necessary underpinning to local deor “failure” can be applied: each case must be en- velopment, as is the availability of health care and

amined from both points of view. a healthful, pleasant environment. Similarly, it is
not sufficient to ask whether the projects created

new employment. In one case study, jobs have

been saved that otherwise would have been lost–

certainly as important as the creation of new jobs.

Other projects have aided the continued operation of existing enterprises—the small family farm.

Creating employment and new industry was not

the principal objective of the projects examined.

Nevertheless, some of the projects provided help

in severely depressed areas by creating jobs and by

providing training or retraining for the unemployed. Often, however, these jobs and training

programs were limited to the construction phase of

the projects and did not represent permanent

employment opportunities. Some of the projects

did improve the viability of existing enterprises

(small farms). Others could create significant opportunities for small business—the home-improvement and construction sector is notable in this

connection.

One real significance of these projects from a

local perspective is their potential for reducing—or

at least stabilizing—the real costs of community

services. The following are some examples taken

from the case studies:

1. Waste management and resource recovery.—

● reduce the operating costs of secondar y

wastewater treatment;

. use municipal solid waste as a fuel to generate steam for use in the downtown area;

● recover materials from municipal wastes }

including compost and water as well as aluminum, glass, iron, and steel;

● reduce the volume of sludge and other residues that must be disposed of; and

. reduce the air, water, and land pollution

associated with waste management.

2. Energy.–

● reduce the energy consumption of wastewater treatment facilities;

● develop new sources of energy for municipal services and local industrial use; and

. recommission abandoned or underutilized

energy-generating facilities for local use.

3. Health care and social services.—

●

●

●

The

increase the availability of primary health

care;

reduce the cost of medical services; and

provide community activities for the elderly and the handicapped.

technologies for residential housing address

the energy efficiency of the local housing stock,

thereby reducing the costs of owning or renting a

home. The technologies for small-scale agriculture

address the variable costs—energy for machinery

and farm buildings—that farmers have the most

control over. By stabilizing or reducing the farmer’s production costs, these technologies might

make the difference in helping to keep him in business. The farmers’ market and other direct-marketing strategies, by creating or expanding local

markets, likewise improve the farmer’s return on

investment and thereby improve the economic

viability of the small family farm.

The Technologies From a National Perspective

Perhaps the most important aspect of these technologies from a national perspective is their transferability–the degree to which a technology that

was successfully developed in one community can

be replicated in other communities throughout the

Nation. This preliminary study includes only a

few case studies, and for this reason it is difficult to

draw any firm conclusions on this subject. Several

of the case studies suggest that the success of some

development projects was due to unique local resources; but even in those cases it is possible to

learn valuable lessons about the factors that might

be important to the success or failure of similar

projects elsewhere. These critical factors will be addressed in the next section.

If the development projects examined in the

case studies were replicated by a large number of

communities throughout the Nation, their combined effects could make a significant contribution

to achieving national goals in the following three

sectors:

● Community services. —The correction, upgrading, and expansion of the Nation’s waste-
240 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

●

water treatment facilities through conventional approaches may be beyond the resources currently available to the Federal,

State, and local governments. Alternatives

such as the Solar AquaCell may provide

more cost-effective solutions. Similarly, the

contribution of hydroelectric power to the

Nation’s energy supplies could be substantially increased by installing additional capacity

at existing small-scale damsites like Woonsocket’s that are currently unused or underutilized. The staggering costs of health care,

which may soon consume 15 percent of the

gross national product, might also be cut by

prepaid health care plans and the diffusion of

community health care centers such as Hyde

Park-Kenwood.

Residential energy conservation.—The residential sector accounts for over 20 percent of annual U.S. energy consumption. Americans

have already responded to the changing energy situation by reducing the direct consumption of energy in their homes, but dramatic

further savings are possible: conservation

measures that are cost effective against current energy prices could save the energy

equivalent of the total production rate of

Alaska’s North Slope. This potential energy

savings is particularly important in view of

the number of new houses that must be built

in the next 20 years, but considerable savings

are also possible for existing housing stock

through energy-saving retrofits such as attached solar heating greenhouses. By reducing the demand for energy in this important

sector, technologies like those examined in

this study could, on a national level, not only

help to stem the rise in the total costs of housing but also reduce the need to develop costly

new sources of energy.

Small-scale agriculture. –By reducing energy

and other production costs, and by increasing

the prices that farmers receive for their produce, these production technologies and marketing approaches can improve the economic

viability of the small family farm. They can

also help to promote agricultural land retention and help to ensure local food supplies in

the event of an oil embargo, natural disaster,

or war.

From a national perspective, the potential bill

for some of the services examined, such as

wastewater treatment, is so high that any reduction in their cost might free up significant

resources for other national needs. In several other

cases, the technologies represent an updating of

approaches that were in use before the era of

cheap and plentiful energy supplies. While they

are unlikely to become more than a partial alternative to centralized or large-scale technology,

they can help to broaden and diversify the Nation’s “technology mix. ”

Critical Factors

The relative uniqueness of some of the projects,

which might limit their transferability, is largely a

result of special conditions or community resources. In some instances the resources were

financial: passive solar houses, for instance, are being built primarily in the custom housing market

for middle- and high-income families; similarly,

the Solar AquaCell wastewater technology involves substantial risks, and might not have been

built had it not been for the city’s revenue base. In

other cases the special resources were human: the

Hyde Park-Kenwood organizers, for instance,

could draw on the considerable resources available

through the University of Chicago community

and the local tradition of cooperative action; in

the case of the New Life Farm, the success of the

project depended in large part on the special contributions made by a charismatic leader. In still

other communities, the special resources were material: Wareham and Woonsocket both had existing damsites at which to install hydroelectric

generators, and Akron had an existing distribution system for the steam created by burning

refuse.

Despite the unique elements found in some of

the projects, however, a number of common factors seems to be important in the success or failure
Ch. 1l–Overview ● 241

I

of each case, as well as in their likely transferability

to other communities.

Public Perception and Participation

In municipal undertakings, such as the Akron

RES, the low-head hydroelectric projects in Wareham and Woonsocket, and the Hercules AquaCell

facility, public participation was not a major factor. Greater participation by local residents in the

planning of the projects, however, might have encouraged consideration of alternative approaches;

for example, Akron might have decided on a turnkey development rather than assuming the risk

itself. Public participation seemed to be important

to the success of such community undertakings as

the health care center in Hyde Park-Kenwood and

the various farmers’ markets. In the case of individual undertakings, such as the solar applications in the Small Farm Energy Project, the passive solar houses, and the attached solar greenhouse retrofits, a high degree of public interest and

participation was—almost by definition—essential

to the success of the projects.

Technical Information and Expertise

Availability of technical information and expertise was found to be crucial to the successful planning, construction, and operation of all the projects. The Cheyenne Community Solar Greenhouse offered an example of the difficulties that

can arise when this information and expertise is

lacking.

In the larger projects, city planners and consulting engineers demanded reliable data on the

capital costs and technical performance of the

technologies. Where such detailed information is

not yet available, as was the case with the AquaCell, high contingency fees and difficulties in

securing financing must be expected. For less complicated community projects, on the other hand,

the needs for information are simpler and can

often be met through “networking,” as was the

case in the organization of the farmers’ markets in

the Boston area, In the case of individual undertakings, the greatest need is for personal, hands-on

experience in the design and construction skills

needed to build the installation. This experience

was provided effectively by community workshops

in the case studies of solar heating greenhouses in

New Mexico and farm energy systems in Nebraska. Comprehensive programs of instruction, practical experience, and individual technical assistance—used in Morehouse Parish, La., as well as

Cedar County, Nebr.–appear to be the most effective mechanism for transferring technical information about the simpler technologies.

Essential Resources

The availability of essential resources—material

and human, tools and labor—was found to be the

most unique factor in these projects. For this

reason, it is also likely to affect their transferability

to other communities. The apparent lack of resources in a community, however, is less of a barrier to the development of these projects than it

might at first seem. The unpromising resources in

Morehouse Parish (almost total reliance on cotton)

and Rutland (very little local vegetable production) were eventually overcome through the efforts

of determined and imaginative organizers. This is

not quite a case of pulling a rabbit out of a hat,

however; only an outsider would conclude that

necessary resources are not available. The lesson

seems to be that a great deal can be done if resources are developed and managed from within

the community, and in some cases—the manure

digester, for example–a promising technology can

be based on what might seem the least promising

resource base (hog manure and depleted farmland).

Financing

The forms of financing used in the projects were

as varied as the financial needs involved. Grantfinanced projects appear to work best where initial

seed money is required, either to attract more conventional financing (as in the case of Woonsocket)

or to allow the project to become self-supporting

(as in the case of the farmers’ markets). The projects were less successful, or encountered a new set

of problems, when they became dependent on

total or continued grant financing. For one thing,

they have a continuing need to attract new grants,

which may require the staff to invest its time in

fundraising instead of project management; for

another, grant funding is frequently tied to specific
242 ● Assessment of Technology for Local Development

projects rather than being available for general

and administrative expenses. The latter may cause

the project staff to become involved with a

number of disparate efforts, instead of concentrating its time and attention on the success of a

central program. The Bronx comporting project

encountered both of these problems, but the organizers were able to overcome them (to some

degree) through “consortium funding’’-by seeking smaller grants from a large number of donors,

they avoided becoming too dependent on a single

source. In Wareham, on the other hand, the organizers’ insistence on financing their whole project through grants has led to delays in the completion of the hydroelectric project.

In the smaller scale projects, the success of the

Small Farm Energy Project shows that cost-sharing funds can be very effective in encouraging the

adoption of some technologies. This and other

projects also demonstrate that grant funding for

community workshops can be highly cost effective, because of the high leverage they achieve in

disseminating information and practical skills and

in encouraging independent efforts within the

community. Many of the residential projects were

financed out-of-pocket by individuals, and tax

credits and low-cost loans (including loans from

utility companies) can effectively encourage these

investments.

The development of larger scale technologies,

like the Solar AquaCell, can be impeded considerably by the current state of the venture capital

market. In large municipal projects, such as centralized resource recovery or small-scale hydropower or wastewater treatment, intervention may

also be required to reduce financial risk in order to

attract conventional financing. These, too, are

cases where Federal and other grants can be productively used as seed money.

Some of the projects became self-supporting in a

fairly short time; the farmers’ markets are the best

example of this, but they also have much smaller

capital requirements than most of the other projects. Other projects—notably the Bronx Frontier

Development Corp.–have the potential to support themselves in time, although in the case of

the Bronx this probably will require raising tipping fees to competitive levels. Some projects, on

the other hand, are not profit-oriented and are

unable to become self-supporting. Community

service projects like the Cheyenne solar greenhouse are the best example of the latter, and their

cost effectiveness must be evaluated in comparison

with alternative mechanisms for delivering the

same social services.

Institutional Factors

Some of the projects were opposed, at least initially, by professional and commercial interests;

others encountered difficulties due to institutional

resistance or outright opposition. Professional resistance seemed to derive from a demand for better

and more reliable performance data; the reluctance of the engineering profession to accept

the AquaCell technology is a good example, as is

the building industry’s reluctance to accept new

housing designs. In other cases, local commerical

interests opposed a project that they thought

might become a competitor (as in the case of a

greenhouse operator in Cheyenne) or might be

detrimental to local business (as in the case of the

Rutland farmers’ market); these fears usuall y

proved unfounded, however, and in other cases

(notably Ravinia) the business community was an

important promoter of a project. Financial institutions were hesitant about financing some of the

projects, particularly resource-efficient housing.

Some of the projects also experienced opposition

(or at any rate insensitivity) from regulatory and

other government agencies; building codes and

waste-management guidelines are a particular

source of difficulty for some technologies.

One institutional arrangement that can promote the adoption and diffusion of these technologies is networking—establishing links between

existing delivery systems and public interest

groups—which was used successfully by city and

State agencies in Boston and Baltimore. In most

cases, the assistance of the Federal Government

was effective, although in some cases it could have

been improved, as will be discussed below.
Ch. 11–Ovreview ● 243

Federal Policy

A wide variety of Federal policies and programs

have contributed, directly or indirectly, to the development and adoption of these technologies; the

individual chapters contain extended discussions

of these programs. Criticisms of these Federal programs concern the extent, coordination, and

management of these programs, rather than their

formal objectives. These criticisms, and proposals

for addressing them, are also discussed in the individual chapters.

The pattern that emerges from the case studies

suggests that there are four principal areas in

which Federal programs for local development

might be modified and improved:

● data gathering and analysis;

. information dissemination;

● technical assistance; and

● financial assistance.

Data Gathering

The technologies examined in the case studies

were found to be at varying stages or development,

but they all seemed likely to profit from a more

concentrated effort to gather reliable data on the

design, cost, performance, and/or reliability of the

technology itself, as well as on the particular community’s experience in applying it. In the case of

technologies that are still in the experimental

stage, this information is vital to their further development; the gathering of such data was seen to

be the central objective of several of the projects,

including the Solsearch Conserver Home and the

New Life Farm biogas digesters. Other case studies

involved technologies that had been successful in

laboratory- or pilot-scale demonstrations, but were

being applied for the first time in a full commercial- or municipal-scale facility; in these cases—

which included the food-producing solar greenhouse, Recycle Energy System, large-scale composting, and Solar AquaCell wastewater treatment—the acceptance of the technology by other

communities will depend on the demonstrated reliability and cost-effectiveness of the pioneer

installations. In still other cases, the local development project involved the innovative application

of a proven technology, as in the onfarm solar

applications. Finally, some of the projects involve

variations on technologies that have been in use

for some time, and which could productively be

subjected to a comprehensive comparison with

one another and with more conventional approaches; the future dissemination of this category

of technologies, which includes several varieties of

passive solar houses, farmers’ markets, and health

maintenance organizations, could be assisted by

this kind of evaluation and comparison.

It should be noted, however, that most of the local development projects that were examined in

this study were not designed with the specific purpose of providing technical demonstrations of the

technologies involved or gathering technical and

other data on those technologies. In addition,

there are special difficulties involved in the gathering of reliable data at facilities that are currently in

use by the community or, in the case of projects

undertaken by individuals, currently occupied.

The behavior of the occupants has a considerable

influence on the performance of energy-efficient

houses, for instance; similarly, the staff of the

Cheyenne greenhouse, like the busy farmers in

Cedar County, Nebr., have had neither the time

nor the equipment to conduct detailed monitoring

of their solar installations.

Options.–There are a number of steps that

can be taken by Federal agencies and local project

organizers to ensure that adequate data gathering

and analysis is in fact carried out. These steps include, but are not limited to, the following:

●

●

Modify project design. -Federal agencies can

encourage grant applicants to include a

strong data-gathering component in the design of their projects, where possible. In some

cases this may require additional funding or

the earmarking of a portion of the project’s

funds specifically for data-gathering.

Redirect existing research.–In some cases what

is needed is not more data but a different kind

of data, particularly social science data. Human behavior is a significant but uncontrolled variable in some projects. Occupants

of solar-heated houses, for instance, may have

to open and close vents or tolerate wide tem-
244 ● Assessment o/Technology for Local Development

perature swings. Similarly, Federal research

has traditionally been oriented toward the

science and engineering underlying resource

recovery; future efforts might productively investigate the human aspect, such as incentives that would promote source separation

by individual households.

● Support and expand Federal monitoring projects.—The National Center for Appropriate

Technology has begun two projects to monitor the performance of different solar greenhouse designs. Similar projects might be

undertaken by other Federal agencies to provide assistance for monitoring the performance of other projects, including direct-marketing strategies and energy technologies for

small-scale farmers.

Information Dissemination

Even when a technology is fairly well developed

and data have been gathered by one developer, its

diffusion can be impeded if other potential developers are unaware of the project or unable to

obtain detailed information on design, costs, and

performance. In some cases this will cause communities to overlook a promising alternative or to

waste time and money in an unnecessary duplication of efforts that have already been carried out

elsewhere. In other cases it will result in resistance

from engineers and financial sources who, in the

absence of reliable technical and economic information, consider the project too risky. In a few

cases this might cause the failure of a project because its organizers were unaware of the problems,

and solutions, that have been discovered in similar

projects elsewhere.

Options.–The problem of information dissemination can be addressed through a number of

measures—local, regional, and national—including but not limited to the following:

● Encourage networking. –The establishment of

networks, through which local and regional

groups with related interests are able to share

information and expertise, has been effective

in organizing farmers’ markets in the Boston

area and for disseminating information on

small farm systems in Nebraska. Federal agencies, particularly those like the Agricultural

Extension Service and Community Services

●

●

Administration that have extensive local representation, are in a good position to encourage the establishment of similar networks

to spread information and share experience

among local groups, State agencies, and Federal programs throughout the Nation.

Establish regional demonstration Projects.—The

case studies have shown that local demonstration projects are particularly effective in

stimulating a community’s interest in innovative technologies and, more significantly, in promoting the adoption of those technologies by other local residents. This was

particularly true in the case of the Small Farm

Energy Project in Nebraska, but could also be

seen in the interest stimulated by several of

the resource-efficient houses. The creation of

regional research and demonstration centers,

such as model energy-efficient farms at State

experimental stations, could also help to

generate information on the effectiveness of

integrated systems of farming techniques and

farm energy technologies.

Encourage information exchange.-The Federal

Home Loan Bank Board has conducted four

workshops on energy-efficient housing as part

of its efforts to encourage local savings and

loan associations to include conservation requirements in their home loan programs; this

program, however, had no legislative mandate. The Resource Recovery and Conservation Act of 1976 called on the Environmental Protection Agency to organize a

similar program of information exchange between different levels of government, and between government and private industry, on

the performance of available resource recovery systems; however, sufficient funds

were not appropriated to implement this program. The Federal Government could contribute to the diffusion of a number of these

technologies by creating and funding a more

extensive program of regional panels and

seminars at which local bankers, homebuilders, engineers, urban planners, and

other interested parties could be exposed to

recent developments in their fields. By disseminating the necessary information on design, reliability, and costs, this approach

could be useful in overcoming institutional
and financial barriers to the adoption of the

technologies by other communities.

Technical Assistance

Even when reliable design and performance

data are available, the development of a particular

project will not be possible unless and adequate

skill base exists, or can be developed, in the local

community. This can be a problem even with the

simplest of projects, although the skills needed for

planning and building an attached solar greenhouse, for instance, can be taught rather easily.

Often, however, these skills are relatively complex, and difficulty of acquiring them can be a barrier to the success of the project. In the case of the

larger municipal projects, even the expertise

needed for planning the project or determining its

feasibility are beyond the means of a given community.

Options.—There are two basic approaches to

this problem: technical assistance and skill transfer. The former usually involves greater Federal involvement and greater expense; the latter usually

costs less and benefits the community more, since

the skill base will remain in the community after

the completion of the project. The following represent

●

●

a range of options for technical assistance:

Workshops.—For the simplest of the projects,

particularly those that are to be built by individual homeowners or farmers, the community workshop approach is highly effective. This was the case with the attached solar

greenhouse in both New Mexico and Wyoming, where small groups of neighbors can

together to learn by doing: they planned and

built a greenhouse on the home of one of the

group members, thereby learning the skills

that they would need to plan and build their

own greenhouses later. This approach was

also successful in demonstrating the technology in the local community, and it was

often the stimulus for additional installations.

Training programs and seminars.--The Small

Farm Energy Project in Nebraska demonstrated the effectiveness of programs of lectures, seminars, and discussion groups in exposing local residents to a wide variety of potential applications for their farms. The training programs conducted by the organizers of

●

●

●

the Cheyenne greenhouse allowed local

residents to plan and build their own facility;

it also provided marketable skills and work

experience for local high school students. A

similar program in Bethel, Alaska, was part of

the curriculum of Kuskokwim Community

College.

One-on-one technical assistance.—Personalized,

individual attention from organizers and outside experts was useful in providing specific

help to farmers both in building solar installations in Nebraska and in organizing a farmers’ market and ancillary projects in Morehouse Parish, La. The existing extension program of the Departments of Energy and Agriculture could be used as a mechanism for

this form of assistance.

Computer models and other planning aids.–

Some communities lack the expertise for

planning large municipal projects, and for

other communities the expense of detailed

feasibility studies may be prohibitive. Technical assistance in these cases might include

manpower for conducting site evaluation and

other preliminary studies of the local resource

base. However, the same assistance can be

provided in the form of handbooks showing

how local groups and municipal governments

can conduct a low-cost, “quick and dirty”

feasibility study. In some cases, notably that

of small-scale hydropower projects, computer

models have been developed for this purpose;

Federal agencies have also prepared feasibility

and planning manuals for farmers’ markets

and community health care centers. Local

groups could be assisted greatly by the development of similar technical and organizational guides for energy-efficient housing and farm systems, resource-recovery systems, and wastewater treatment facilities.

These aids would allow local communities to

conduct their own evaluations and planning,

without the need for extensive Federal

involvement or funding.

Expert assistance panels.—The Resource Recovery and Conservation Act of 1976 directed the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) to provide State and local governments

with teams of technical, financial, marketing,

and institutional specialists to assist them in
246 Ž Assessment of Technology for Local Development

developing comprehensive plans for waste

management and resource recovery. EPA’s

Technical Assistance Panels Program provided staff and consultant expertise in these

areas to over 160 communities in 1978 and

1979. A similar program has been planned for

DOE’s Energy Extension Service. The establishment of similar assistance programs by

other agencies might be useful in promoting

the consideration, adoption, and construction of local projects for wastewater treatment, energy generation, and health care.

Financial Assistance

Some of the technologies had the virtue of low

cost, which allowed them to be developed by local

communities without major Federal assistance. In

several of the case studies the costs of the project

were minimal and the project rapidly became selfsupporting. This was particularly true of the

farmers’ markets and some of the energy-saving retrofits for residential and farm buildings. Other

projects, although they promise to cut total costs

over the life of the installation, required initial

investments that might be beyond the resources of

some communities or involved technical and economic risks that could make conventional financing difficult or impossible to obtain. This was

found to be true in the case of the larger municipal

projects, such as resource recovery, wastewater,

and hydroelectric installations. Given the potential expense of these municipal services on a national level, and the potential benefits of developing innovative methods of delivering them, it

might be appropriate that the Federal Government intervene to reduce the financial risks and

burdens they might impose on local communities.

At issue is the form that this intervention should

take.

Options.–Several of the local development

projects examined in the case studies could be replicated by other communities without Federal financial assistance. But even in cases where Federal

assistance is necessary, there are several ways in

which the degree or amount of this assistance can

be held down. These measures include, but are not

limited to, the following:

c Technical risk reduction.—Federal efforts to

gather and disseminate reliable information

on the technologies (see above) can also

reduce the financial risks of the projects

and prevent costly planning errors. Datagathering efforts might include programs to

determine the capital and operating costs of

existing installations; this information could

then be disseminated to financial institutions

through regional workshops like those conducted by the Federal Home Loan Bank

Board. Particular attention—and where necessary, expert assistance—should be given to

the collection of cost-benefit and lifecycle cost

information.

Financial risk reduction. –Current Federal programs for innovative and alternative wastewater systems include risk guarantees for the

correction or modification of facilities that do

not work properly, at no cost to the local government. Similar guarantees might encourage

the consideration of other alternative technologies. Tax-free bonding would also improve the financial profiles of some municipal

undertakings.

Earmarked and set-aside funds.-Federal appropriations for research, development, demonstration, and construction of municipal facilities might set aside a certain portion of the

funds specifically for the adoption of innovative and alternative technologies.

Subsidzed loans.—The Solar and Conservation Bank, recently established within the

Department of Housing and Urban Development, provides low-cost loans for conservation retrofits and solar features in new housing. The Farmers’ Home Administration provides similar loans for rural housing, and the

Federal Home Loan Bank Board encourages

local savings and loan associations to include

energy-efficiency requirements in their home

loan programs. These efforts might be expanded and/or extended to include other

technologies.

Tax credits and other incentives. –Eligibility for

Federal tax credits, such as the Residential

Energy Credit, might encourage the adoption

of several of the smaller technologies. Current

Internal Revenue Service guidelines do not

allow credits for attached solar greenhouses,

for instance, and extension of the credits to

include farm installations might also promote
Ch. 11–Overview ● 247

the more rapid adoption of biogas digesters guidelines, such as those promulgated for reand onfarm solar installations like those de- cycled steel, might ensure a market for locally

veloped in the Small Farm Energy Project. grown produce or for materials recovered

● Stimulate markets.-Federal procurement from municipal waste.
Appendix— Members of the

Appropriate Technology Workshop,

Study Teams, and Task Force

The Workshop on Appropriate Technology Department

of City and Regional Planning Harvard University

Beldon Daniels, Faculty Advisor

Lee Bourgoin Richard DeSanti

Teresa Canfield Jonathan Feld

Randall Constatine Michael Fischer

Katherine Day James Greenwood

The Community

Small Farm Energy Project

(Cedar County, Nebr.)

Marie Arnot, Coordinator

Gary Arndt Gerald Miller

Richard Frey Leonard Miller

Clarence Johnsen Vince Rossiter

Joe Keiter LaVern Truby

Martin Kleinschmit Merle Wohlman

Melvin Lammmers Mike Wortmann

Chris Miller

Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Health

Center (Chicago, Ill.)

Katie Frankle, Coordinator

Simon Gross Barbara Snoke

Pamela Haley Ruth Surgal

Jody Howard Parsons Judith Yacker

Mary Sims

Health Care Institute (Detroit, Mich.)

Patrick Heron, Coordinator

Ramona J. Clark Brunhilde Merk

John E. Collins Violet E. Ponders

M. Joan Fields Roger Towne

George Gaines James Warden

Grant G. Gillespie Gerald Wehmer

Leona Glover

Study Teams

New Mexico Solar Greenhouse Study

(Statewide)

Claire Reiniger/ Scott Morris, Coordinators

Bruce Allen Susan Nichols

Vince Burns Scott Noll

Scott Clark Buck Rodgers

Michael Coca Greg Shenstone

Able Davis Bristol Stickney

Lesley Lazar Ed Tyson

Kevin Lear\ Frances Tyson

Joan Loitz Paul Wickerson

Beverly McGinnis Alex Wilson

David Miller Ann Wonders

Pike Place Market (Seattle, Wash.)

Care] Ludden, Coordinator

Susan Appel Mary Herrman

George Bartholick Lorabeth Lawson

Ralph Bolson Gerald Schreuder

Collene Clark Anne Tood Sharar

Stephan Crane Frankie Whitman

Michelle Hafncr
Task Force on Appropriate Technology

Lola Redford, Chairperson

President, Consumer Action Now

Tom Bender

Freelance Writer, Energy & Technology

Robert S. Browne

Director; President of the Board

Black Economic Research Center

Wilson Clark

Energy Advisor

The Governor’s Office

State Of California

Kye Cochran

Coordinator

Alternative Energy Resources Organization

John Cole

Author & Contributing Editor

Cecil E. Cook, Jr.

Senior Associate

Inter-Culture Associates

Nicholas Georgescu--Roegen

Distinguished Professor- Emeritus

Vanderbilt University

Jerome Goldstein

Editor and Publisher

The J. G. Press, Inc.

Karl Hess

Author, Comunity Technology

Joyce A. Hughes

Professor of Law

Northwestern University School of Law

Elizabeth Kingman

Consultant in Energy & Communication

Thomas Sheridan

Professor of Engineering and Applied Psychology

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Henryk Skolimowski

Professor of Philosophy

Department of Humanities

College of Engineering

University of Michigan

Barry Stein

President

Goodmeasure, Inc.

Charles B. Tisdale

Federal Coordinator

Cities in Schools Program

Nancy Jack Todd

Codirector

The New Alchemy Institute

Ex Officio:

Hazel Henderson

Member, Technology Assessment Advisory Council

of OTA

Byron Kennard

Community Organizer

Merle Lefkoff

Senior Partner

Eplan, Roark, Lefkoff and Allen

Arthur S. Obermayer

President; Chairman of the Board

MOLECULON Research Corp.