Comparative Analysis of the 1976 ERDA

Plan and Program

May 1976

NTIS order #PB-254794
OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

DIRECTOR’S OFFICE

Emilio Q. Daddario, Director

Daniel V. De Simone, Deputy Director

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS TASK FORCE

MEMBERS

Don Kash, Chairman, University of Oklahoma

Michael Barker

American Institute of Architects

Tom Cochran

National Research Defense Council

Paul Craig

University of California

Albert Fritsch

Center for Science in the Public Interest

John Gibbons

University of Tennessee

Jerry Grey

Independent Consultant

Renal Larson

Georgia Institute of Technology

Robert Lundberg

Commonwealth Edison

Stanford Penner

University of California, San Diego

Alfred Perry

Institute for Energy Analysis

David Rose

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

George Seidel

Brown University

Robert Uhrig

Florida Power and Light

Alvin Weinberg

Institute for Energy Analysis

CONTRIBUTORS

University of Texas at Austin

Richard Bywaters Charles Kreitler

E. Linn Draper Michael Leesley

Charles Fergusson John Vanston

Gary Vliet

OTA ENERGY PROGRAM STAFF

Lionel Johns, Program Manager

Richard Rowberg, Project Leader

Audrey Buyrn Lisa Jacobson

Alan Crane Robert Jimeson

Patrick Gaganidze Joanne Seder

Linda Parker

. . . Ill
TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT BOARD Congress of the United States EM ILIO Q. DADDARIO

OLIN E. TEAGUE, TEXAS, CHAIRMAN

DIRECTOR

CLIFFORD P. CASE, N. J., VICE CHAIRMAN O FFICE OF TECHNOLOGY A SSESSMENT DANIEL V. DE SIMONE

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, MASS. MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZ. W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20510

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, S.C. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., CALIF.

DEPuTY DIRECTOR

HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, MINN. CHARLES A. MOSHER, OHIO

RICHARD S. SCHWEI KER, PA. MARVIN L. ESCH, MICH.

TED STEVENS, ALASKA MARJORIE S. HOLT, MD. May 27, 197 6

EMILIO Q. DADDARIO

Honorable Henry F1. Jackson

Chairman, Committee on Interior

and Insular Affairs

United States Senat e

Washington, D. C. 20510

Honorable Olin E. Teague

Chairman, Committee on

Science and Technology

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515

Gentlemen:

On behalf of the Office of Technology Assessment, we are pleased

to forward a report: Comparative Analysis of the 1976 ERDA Plan

and Program.

The report represents the culmination of OTA’s study of ERDA,

begun in 1975, and was prepared with the assistance of representatives of the six panels of experts which contributed to the

first OTA report, An Analysis of the ERDA Plan and Program. —..—— ..—. ---...-....— . . . . . .-—.-—— -------

The present study is an analysis of the program and plan which

is annually submitted by ERDA to the Congress, entitled: A

National Plan for Energy Research, Development and Demonstration:

Creating Energy Choices for the Future. This analysis compares

the 1976 plan and program to the issues identified by OTA in

the first

- report . This report is being made available to your

committees in accordance with Public Law 92-484.

Chairman Vice Chairman

of the Board of the Board

iv
TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT BOARD Congress of the United States EM ILIO Q. DADDARIO

OLIN E. TEAGUE, TEXAS, CHAIRMAN

DIRECTOR

CLIFFORD P. CASE, N. J., VICE CHAIRMAN O FFICE OF T ECHNOLOGY A SSESSMENT DANIEL V . De SIMONE

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, MASS. MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZ. W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20510

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, S.C. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., CALIF.

DEPUTY DIREcToR

HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, MINN. CHARLES A. MOSHER, OHIO

RICHARD S. SCHWEI KER, PA. MARVIN L. ESCH, MICH.

TED STEVENS, ALASKA MARJORIE S. HOLT, MD. May 27, 1976

EMILIO Q. DADDARIO

Honorable Olin E. Teague

Chairman of the Board

Office of Technology Assessment

Congress of the United States

Washington, D. C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

This report, entitled Comparative Analysis of the 1976 ERDA

Plan and Program, can be considered as the second in a series.

It builds upon an earlier report, An Analysis of the ERDA Plan

and Program, which examined the first ERDA Plan and Program,

and affords the opportunity to examine changes that have taken

place since the first version was submitted. The report was

prepared at the request of the Senate Committee on Interior

and Insular Affairs and the House Committee on Science and

Technology.

Special thanks are due to ERDA Administrator, Dr. Robert Seamans,

Jr. , and Assistant Administrator, Mr. Roger LeGassie, for the

cooperation provided by ERDA on this project. It should also

be noted that Dr. Seamans has again shown a high degree of

leadership, and we have confidence as a result that the significant progress ERDA has shown during its first year of

operation will continue in the time ahead.

Early draft copies of this report were used to brief some of

the Committees of the Congress during their consideration of

authorization and appropriation legislation . This final versio n

will be provided to the Congress and made available to the public.

Although the final ERDA 1976 Plan (Volume I) was provided to

OTA for the purposes of this analysis, only the draft version

of the ERDA 1976 Program (Volume II) was available.

EMILIO Q. DADDARIO

Directo r

v
CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

CHAPTER I. OVERVIEW ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

OVERVIEW ISSUES LISI.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

The Nature of the National Energy Policy Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Overall Level of the Federal Budget for Energy R,D&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

The International Aspects of ERDA’s Plans and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Coordination of Programs Between ERDA

and Other Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Cooperation Between ERDA and State and Local Governments . . . . . . 19

Near-Term Energy Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Socioeconomic Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Balance Between Supply Versus DemandR, D&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

ERDA’s Basic Research program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Commercialization . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Resource Constraints. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

physical and Societal Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Overemphasis on Electrification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Methodology and Assumptions Used in Developing

the R, D&D Plan..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

ERDA Management Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Net Energy Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

CHAPTER II. FOSSIL ENERGY ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

FOSSIL ENERGYISSUES LIST . . . . . . . . + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Fossil Energy Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........+ . ........”””.”””” 47

Primary Oil and Gas Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Oil Shale Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........””.””””””” 51

Synthetic Liquid Fuels From Coal .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... ... . . . . . . 53

High-Btu Gasification of Coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Low-Btu Gasification for Industrial Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Mining Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57

Direct Coal Utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Low-Btu Gasification, Combined Cycle Powerplan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Advanced Fossil Fuel Combustion Programs. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . 60

Interagency Coordination: Coal Cleanup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Environmental, Social, and Political Impacts of Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Manpower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ” ” ” ’ ”””””..”” 65

Transportation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .””””..”” 67

Water Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

vii
CHAPTER III. NUCLEAR ISSUES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69

NUCLEAR ISSUES LIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

Standardization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Performance and Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75-

Floating Nuclear Powerplants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Helium-Cooled Reactor—Convertors and Breeders .......,. . . . . . . . . 78

Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Light-Water Breeder Reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Molten Salt Breeder Reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Nuclear Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Plutonium Toxicity,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Waste Disposal..,,.,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Safeguards for Nuclear Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,, .,..,,.. 89

Siting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .,. ... .,, OO ,.. . . . . . . . . . . 90

Uranium Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Uranium Enrichment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Fuel Recycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Public Understanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Controlled Fusbn .,..,,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Technologies for Fusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

CHAPTERIV. SOLAR, GEOTHERMAL, AND ADVANCED SYSTEMS ISSUES.. 103

SOLAR, GEOTHERMAL, AND ADVANCED SYSTEMSISSUES LIST . . . . . . 105

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10,

11.

12.

13.

140

15.

16.

17.

Setting Criteria for Program Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..,..... 107

Rationale for Funding of High-Risk Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Resource Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Organization of ERDA’s Research Program.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

ERDA Program Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Support for Study of Decentralized Solar Electrical Generation . . . . . . 115

Emphasis on Electric Energy Systems. .,..,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Emphasis on Solar Heating and Cooling of Buildings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Purposes of the Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Program. ., 120

Role of User Incentives in Solar Heating and Cooling of Buildings .. 122

Standards for the Measurement of Solar Heating and Cooling

Equipment Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Impact of Solar Energy on Utility Peak Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Biomass Energy and Food .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Legal and Institutional Constraints in Geothermal Energy . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Environmental Constraints of Geothermal Energy Development . . . . . . 131

Nonelectric Uses of Geothermal Energy and Geothermal Goals.. . . . . . 132

Variability of Geothermal Reservoirs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

COMMENTARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

. . . Vlll
CHAPTER V. CONSERVATION ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

CONSERVATION ISSUES LIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11$

12,

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

Importance of Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Program Management and Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Interaction With the Private Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Use of the Term “Conservation” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Need for Nontechnological Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Demand Modeling and Conservation Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Design Methods and Standards.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Development and Demonstration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Constraints in Building Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

Need for Thermodynamic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

Oil and Gas Substitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Use of Foreign Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Transmission and Distribution Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Active Load Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Orientation of Automotive Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

Cooperation With the Transportation Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

Nonhighway Vehicle Transportation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

Energy Recovery From Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

CHAPTER VI. ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ISSUES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ISSUES LIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

1.

2.

3.

4$

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Environmental Impacts of High Voltage Transmission Lines . . . . . . . . . 181

Ground and Surface Water Contamination From Surface Mining. . . . . 182

Energy Consumption and Inadvertent Climate Modification . . . . . . . . . . 185

Variance on Environmental Standards During Development . . . . . . . . . 186

Energy Modeling and Data Bank Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

Site and Technology-Specific Nature of Cause-Effect

Relationships in Environmental Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Integration of Environmental, Health, Social, and Institutional

Research Into Technology Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Energy Impacts of Air and Water Pollution Control Regulations . . . . . . 193

Competing Demands for Water in Western River Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

Need for Social Research in Offshore Energy Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Effect of Public Attitudes on Program Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

Program Focus in Fossil Fuel Health Effects Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

Inadequate Inventory of Skills and Techniques in

Health Effects Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

Atmospheric Sulfates as a Potential Constraint on ERDA’s

Fossil Fuel Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

ix
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In the year since ERDA’s formation, domestic production of natural gas

declined 6.9 percent and crude oil 4.5 percent. At the same time,

petroleum imports accounted for 37 percent of the Nation’s total

petroleum consumption in 1975 and are now approaching 40 percent.

Achieving energy independence by 1985 has become all but impossible.

Even to hold import dependence to the present levels through 1985

would be a formidable achievement. The energy situation is serious and

continues to deteriorate. In addition to Federal action, a sense of

urgency, public awareness, and participation is required. These factors

affirm the need for a national energy policy and a crucial role for ERDA in

the years ahead.

The Office of Technology Assessment, in its

1975 analysis of ERDA’s initial plan and program, cited two major areas of weakness. The

first was ERDA’s pursuit of technological

options, while neglecting consideration of the

broader aspects of energy production, delivery,

and use, In particular, OTA indicated that the

realization of technologically established energy

options may be prevented by nontechnical

constraints such as transportation, resource,

manpower and capital availability; public

acceptability; and institutional, jurisdictional,

economic, and environmental compatibility.

ERDA has made significant progress in this area

as reflected in the updated Plan and Program

(ERDA 76-l). ERDA has more aggressively interpreted its role in meeting the Nation’s energy

goals by expanding its efforts to deal with nontechnological constraints. It is apparent that

ERDA has begun to orient its Research, Development, and Demonstration (R, D&D) program

more toward solving energy problems rather

than just creating technical options.

The second deficiency was found in the

emphasis of both the ERDA Plan and Program on

options directed toward increased energy supply,

relative to the programs in end-use demand

reduction. Supply programs were over conservation programs by a ratio of 49 to 1. ERDA has

now increased the role and priority of conservation to the same level as the highest priority

supply options in meeting the Nation’s near-term

energy needs.

Though the updated ERDA Plan and Program

represents substantial progress in their

approach to achieving the Nation’s energy goals,

other serious concerns deserve attention.

Of particular importance is the observation

that important, potential near- and mid-term

sources of domestic energy supply from firstgeneration technologies are not adequately

pursued. The principal focus of ERDA’s R, D&D

programs in synthetic fuels is on secondgeneration technologies with mid- and long-term

payoffs. A key strategy for commercialization of

first-generation technologies in high-Btu gasification, liquefaction, surface retort of oil shale, and

other alternative energy source programs is the

synthetic fuel-loan guarantee legislation

presently before Congress. Whether commercialization strategies involve loan guarantees, price

supports, cost sharing, import tariffs or combinations thereof, early resolution is imperative.

Presumably, alternate strategies for near- and

mid-term commercialization will not be available

until congressional action is completed either

accepting or rejecting the proposed legislation.

1
ERDA does not sufficiently convey the urgency

required to address the near-term energy

problems. The framework for a procedure to

accomplish this objective exists within ERDA

through its new 5-year forward planning system

which focuses on technology available in that

period. A set of annual milestones to meet

near-term energy objectives and annual reporting of progress in meeting those milestones

would be very useful. They would give the

Congress and the public the opportunity to

evaluate progress in the achievement of the

milestones. That evaluation, debate, and

resultant action could assist in informing the

American public of the serious energy problems

and choices facing this Nation in the decade

ahead. Executive and legislative support, to

achieve these program milestones, would help to

establish a sense of urgency and action.

ERDA has made substantial progress in its

first year of existence toward the establishment

of an effective energy research and development

program, which represents a critical component

of national energy policy.

ISSUE HIGHLIGHTS

Overview

The Energy Research and Development Administration has taken a number of significant steps

in resolving the 16 overview issues set forth in

the OTA analysis. The principal changes are

summarized as follows. Each point is dealt with

in more detail in the Overview chapter.

ERDA has expanded the interpretation of

their role in achieving the national energy

goals. These goals are the same as set

forth in ERDA-48. ERDA has broadened

its approach by increasing emphasis on

conservation and on the nonhardware

aspects of the energy problem.

The supply-demand balance in the revised

ERDA Plan and Program has improved.

ERDA has placed conservation at a priority equal to the highest priority supply

options. Conservation is now considered

the principal strategy for attacking the

near-term (to 1985) energy problem.

Emphasis on socioeconomic and environmental research has increased. T h e

revised Plan and Program indicates the

importance of including socioeconomic

and environmental considerations with

technology development. Efforts to incorporate socioeconomic analysis ar e

described in each program area, and

environmental review is to be a major

part of the ERDA planning process.

ERDA has taken steps to develop a commercialization strategy. A key element in

this process is the establishment of the

Office of Commercialization which has the

responsibility of formulating these

policies. Details need to be worked out

and no judgment as to the effectiveness

of the program can be made at this time.

Greater emphasis is placed on international considerations in the revised

Plan and Program. A planning activity is

underway in ERDA to establish “courses

of action” for international cooperation.

Each program area describes international activities related to its various

projects.

ERDA is taking steps to increase the

effectiveness of their planning and management structure. ERDA is developing

the Planning, Programing, Budgeting, and

Review (PPBR) system to establish R,

D&D priorities and strategies.

While these represent substantial accomplishments, there remain unresolved points in each of

the overview issues. The principal areas of

concern can be summarized as follows:

● A sense of urgency is needed in addressing the near-term energy problem.

Although enhancing the role of conservation, ERDA has still not adequately

addressed the immediate problem of the

Nation’s increasing dependence on

foreign oil. The 5-year planning system

being instituted by ERDA, if properly

supported by legislative and executive

action, can do much to rectify this shortcoming.

● There remain limitations with the conservation program which could seriously

reduce its potential contribution, T h e

budget for conservation represents just 3.8

percent of the total ERDA energy overall

2
●

●

●

●

Fossil

R, D&D budget compared to 3.0 percent in

FY 76. Further, ERDA has virtually ignored the long-term, lasting potential

of energy conservation by excessive concentration on its near-term impact.

A gap remains between the scope of the

basic research program and the needs of

the energy technology programs. The basic

research program remains weak in a

number of important energy-related fields

such as heat transfer, thermodynamics,

and combustion processes. In addition,

very little basic research can be identified

in the solar, end-use conservation, fossil,

and geothermal programs.

Alternative energy R, D&D budget strategies have not been defined. ERDA has

apparently not investigated the effects of

various R, D&D budget levels on achieving

the Nation’s energy goals.

Nonelectric energy technology development is still underemphasized. Although

OTA does not imply reemphasis of programs directed toward electrification, it

does appear desirable for ERDA to place

greater emphasis on direct thermal use of

solar and nuclear energy sources. This

appears to a limited extent with solar and

geothermal and is partially responsive to

the prior critique.

Interaction between ERDA and Federal

energy related regulatory agencies needs

definition. The profound effect that regulatory agencies have on energy resource

development, delivery, and use will influence the implementation of ERDA’s R,

D&D program. An effective coordination

effort depends to a large extent on the

establishment of a clear national energy

policy.

Fuel

In the fossil-fuel area, the original OTA

analysis identified 16 areas of concern. The OTA

examination of the FY 1977 ERDA budget and

revised program, as reflected in ERDA 76-1,

Volume Z, indicates that ERDA is striving to be

generally responsive to the concerns through the

proper application of funds and intensified

efforts. Contingencies have caused certain

deficiencies to remain. These are, in large part,

due to the lack of an expected clear national

directive to accommodate the commercial

development of currently available and future

fossil-fuel technologies. The deficiencies are

compounded by cuts in the Division and ERDA

budget requests before they were submitted to

Congress.

The OTA comparative analysis found that

ERDA’s approach to a number of issues under

the fossil-fuel program was substantially improved over last year. These include: (1. )

synthetic liquid fuels from coal; (2. ) low-Btu and

low-Btu, combined cycle systems; and (3.) direct

coal utilization. Early transition of these technologies to commercial reality are of major

importance for some measure of energy independence and stabilized fuel supply. ERDA has

initiated a demonstration plant for coal liquefaction, and it has consolidated the various components of the low-Btu, combined cycle powerplant into an integrated and well-coordinated

program, It has reduced its expectations of shortterm payoff from fluidized bed combustion and

added a program on coal-oil slurry.

Four concerns identified in the previous OTA

analysis still remain and are particularly worth

citing:

• In the area of primary oil and gas recovery,

ERDA’s program identified an intention to

initiate advanced exploration and extractive techniques both onshore and offshore.

However, there is no indication of work

designed to improve oil spill clean-up for

Outer Continental Shelf operations, or to

provide satisfactory answers to other

environmental and institutional issues that

have the tendency of holding up adequate

development.

● Enhanced oil and gas recovery could contribute significant quantities of oil and gas

in the short run. ERDA in its original

request for increased funds recognized the

need identified by OTA for a program of

80 to 150 field tests and demonstrations.

The reduction of ERDA’s request before

submission to Congress will limit the

number of tests to the 33 now planned by

ERDA.

● In the area of oil shale processing, the

ERDA program has been partly responsive

to needs. OTA identified in ERDA’s earlier

3
program an excessive concentration on the

Bureau of Mines, in-situ, horizontal process

and also indicated that there was no

program at all for mining plus above-

-ground retorting. The FY 1977 budget

appears to have broadened the scope of

the in-situ work to include other processes. The budget was not responsive to

the mining plus the above-ground retorting

issue probably due to the failure to pass

commercialization legislation in 1975.

• In the field of high-Btu coal gasification,

OTA initially identified a need for a firstgeneration, commercial-size plant. The

ERDA program and budget remain focused

solely on the development of second-generation technologies that can provide midterm gas supply. The budget reduction in

ERDA’s budget request before submission

to Congress does nothing to meet the concerns for first-generation plant development and lessens the support for even

second-generation technologies needed for

mid-term gas supply.

Nuclear

The nuclear program delineated in ERDA 76-1

is a constructive attempt to deal with many of

the problems of the nuclear enterprise. In particular, the critical issues of waste disposal,

safeguards, and uranium resource assessments

have been accorded a new sense of urgency and

substantially increased funding. In other areas

such as closing the fuel cycle and developing the

Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor, ERDA seems

determined to do whatever it has to in order to

assure a workable system. In some areas,

however, ERDA’s efforts seem inadequate to

ensure the development of potentially desirable

technologies. The High-Temperature Gas

Reactor and the Floating Nuclear Powerplant

are examples. The following items seem particularly crucial and deserve particular consideration by ERDA:

● Improving Light-Water Reactor (LWR) Technology. Since our entire short-term nuclear

option depends on the success of the LWR, a

strong effort is warranted to keep this technology

healthy, Problems with the LWR energy system

have been identified often and in detail. ERDA’s

interest, as expressed in ERDA 76-1, in improving

LWR technology is promising but program

definition is only beginning to emerge.

4

. Siting of Liquid-Metal Fast Breeder

(LMFBR). ERDA has no serious plans

nuclear energy centers for LMFBR’s,

decision as to collocation of LMFBR’s is

Reactor

to study

yet the

possibly

the most important single long-range decision in

nuclear energy. ERDA must launch a serious

examination of LMFBR collocation.

. Cancellation of Molten Salt Breeder. ERDA

has dropped the molten salt breeder without

giving any clear justification. This action reduces

the number of long-range nuclear options available to the United States. In particular, the only

thorium cycle breeder still under development is

the Light-Water Breeder Reactor, an option

which may have very limited application even

though near demonstration.

Solar, Geothermal, and Advanced

ERDA has made improvements in their solar

program in addressing some of the issues raised

in the OTA analysis. There has been increased

attention paid to setting program priorities and

making decisions on high-risk projects. Further,

the revised ERDA Program places greater

emphasis on the nontechnological aspects of solar

energy development. These improvements are

limited in scope. However, it must be noted

that, to some extent, ERDA cannot be faulted for

this because budget and personnel constraints

preclude a more adequate response. Indeed,

there are cases (discussed below) where the

budget requests submitted to Congress tend to

run counter to a more positive response to an

issue as described in the ERDA Program.

The principal findings of this comparative

analysis are as follows:

●

●

●

Solar heating and cooling are still underemphasized relative to solar electric. This

appears to be due in part to reductions of

ERDA’s budget requests in the budget

submitted to Congress. The Solar Heating

and Cooling and Agriculture and Industrial Process Heat Subprograms’ budget

as prepared by the Solar Division were

increased a greater percentage than for

the solar electric subprograms.

Steps have been taken to develop systematic mechanisms for setting program

priorities.

The ERDA solar program management

process has not noticeably changed
since the original OTA analysis. A major

reason for the present management

structure is the limited number of personnel in the Solar Energy Division. In this

connection, the ERDA request for additional staff was reduced from 31 to 5.

● Decisions on high-risk projects appear to

be under better scrutiny, Decision methodology has yet to be put into operation.

. The standards and incentives components

of the solar heating and cooling programs

have received increased emphasis, but

there is still no systematic means to

integrate them into the program and to

assist in their implementation.

● Little change is evident in the structure of

ERDA’s research program with regard to

enhancing the interaction between the

basic science functions and the engineering, nontechnological, and commercialization functions of ERDA.

Geothermal Program. Substantial strides

have been made in treating the issues raised by

the OTA analysis. Major subprogram elements

are presented in the ERDA Program document

which considers nearly all the points raised in

the issues relevant to geothermal energy development. This program appears to be very well

organized and to treat the entire problem rather

than deal solely with the technology.

The only major concern with the Geothermal

Program is that the budget request, made by

ERDA to OMB, was reduced when submitted to

Congress by a higher percentage than the other

major programs within ERDA. This is not consistent with the high degree to which the Geothermal

Program has responded to the OTA issues.

Conservation

In general, the subprogram elements of the

Conservation Program have been responsive to

the issues identified in the OTA analysis insofar

as the ERDA Plan and Program is concerned.

Activities are described which account for most

of the points raised in the issues when relevant.

The ERDA Plan and Program presents a more

vigorous approach to energy conservation and

places it with their highest R, D&D priorities.

ERDA has also expressed an increase in their

efforts to deal with the social, political, economic,

and environmental issues associated with the

implementation of energy conservation technologies. Finally there is a greater emphasis

placed on interaction with the private sector.

This has become a principal component of the

strategy outlined in the Program document.

There remain, however, some major concerns

with the ERDA Conservation Program as determined by the comparative analysis. Chief among

these are as follows:

●

●

●

●

●

In many instances, efforts are described

in the various subprograms which resolve

points raised in the issues, yet, budget

requests delivered to the Congress appear

inadequate to effectively carry out these

efforts.

ERDA’s use of the term ‘conservation’

remains too broad. It should be limited to

subprograms which are principally

oriented toward saving energy in a costeffective way (Buildings, Industry, Transportation). By also including subprograms

that deal principally with the storage and

delivery of energy (Electric Energy

Systems, Energy Storage), a distortion

occurs that is both unnecessary and unfortunate in that it makes the evaluation

of each category more difficult and gives

the appearance of greater effort in conservation than there actually is.

The problems of integration of new electric energy sources into the existing grid

deserve a higher priority in the Electric

Energy Systems and Conservation Research and Technology (Energy Storage)

subprograms. There is a need to develop

flexible systems which allow the use of

small, total energy systems.

Basic research on innovative energy conservation technologies, which have a high

potential for energy savings in the long

term, do not appear to be given sufficient emphasis in the ERDA Conservation

Program.

The Conservation Program has no apparent overriding sense of direction. A conservation strategy needs to be articulated

so the program elements are viewed as

parts of a whole.

5
—

Environment and Health

The revised ERDA program for Environmental

Research and Safety represents a significant

improvement over the planning and implementation programs in ERDA-48. ERDA has made

significant progress toward augmenting its

environmental efforts and, even more important,

toward integrating an awareness of environmental, health, and socioeconomic considerations

into its technology groups. In some cases the

improvement may simply be a matter of more

thorough description of existing programs. The

program structure in the area of health effects

of atmospheric sulfates is a significant example

of this. Most of the many individual studies

described either in the program document or in

the budget are continuing efforts which existed

at the time ERDA-48 was written. These, and

other programs relating to health effects and to

water contamination, are much more thoroughly

defined in ERDA 76-1 than in ERDA-48. New, or at

least significantly increased, efforts are evident

in the areas of nontechnological research and

technological evaluation in modeling, date compilation and characteristics of potential energyimpact regions.

With respect to the remaining issues, ERDA’s

response has not been adequate. The principal

concerns can be described as follows:

. There is the need for a better definition of

the competition between energy and nonenergy sectors imposed by finite water

availability in the arid but resource-rich

Western States. ERDA has taken only

small steps into this area; most of their

concern relates to the siting of nuclear

facilities, especially nuclear parks.

● The Biomedical and Environmental

Research (BER) budget request has

increased 4.70/o from 1976 compared to a

320/o increase for ERDA as a whole. The

BER budget does not appear to be adequate to meet the problem of U.S. energy

self-sufficiency with adequate protection

of environmental goals.

● The program of social research in offshore energy development is structured

too coarsely to cover this topic in the

detail suggested by the issue. Further, in

some cases, background work is not

developed enough to provide an adequate

attack on problems such as variances on

environmental standards for demonstration plants.

. ERDA’s budget for promotion of education

and training in critical energy skills sustained an actual reduction. And there is

little or no attention to the study of potential climate modification at the national or

global scale.
Chapter I

Overview Issues

7

72-169 0 - 76 -2
OVERVIEW ISSUES LIST

1. The Nature of the National EnergyPolicy Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

The national energy policy goals stated by

ERDA deserve review and clarification.

2. Overall Level of the Federal Budget

for Energy R, D&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

The overall level of the Federal budget for

energy R, D&D (about $2.3 billion for FY 76)

appears to bean outgrowth of decisions made

prior to the Arab oil embargo and should be

re-examined.

3. The International Aspects of ERDA’s

Plans and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . 15

The ERDA Plan does not place sufficient

emphasis on international considerations.

4. Coordination of Programs Between

ERDA and Other Federal

Agencies ● *********.*.*******.* 17

ERDA’s plans for coordination with other

Federal energy agencies need to be more fully

developed.

50 Cooperation Between ERDA and

State and Local Governments . . 19

Success of the ERDA program will depend

largely on close and continuous coordination

with State and local governments. The ERDA

Plan includes neither procedures nor

mechanisms for accomplishing this coordination.

6. Near-Term Energy Problems . . . 21

The ERDA Plan gives very little attention to

near-term (to 1985) energy problems.

7. Socioeconomic Research . . . . . . . 23

ERDA’s program of R, D&D does not give

enough attention to socioeconomic analysis

and research in addressing the Nation’s

energy problems.

8. Balance Between Supply Versus

Demand R, D&D ● * * . * * *****...* 25

ERDA’s program overemphasizes energy

supply technologies relative to energy consumption.

8. ERDA’s Basic Research Program 27

The goals of ERDA’s basic research program

have not yet been established. Considerable

effort is required to organize a pertinent

program of basic research.

10. Commercialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

The development of effective commercialization policies and procedures is not adequately addressed in the ERDA Plan.

11. Resource Constraints . . . . . . . . . . 32

Careful attention should be given to assessing energy resources, since they represent

assumptions basic to the ERDA Plan.

12 Physical and Societal Constraints 33

Numerous physical, institutional, and social

constraints may limit the orderly development and implementation of the ERDA

energy plan.

13. Overemphasis on Electrification 35

The ERDA Plan appears to lean toward an

overemphasis on electrification. This lack of

diversity, especially in the long-term “inexhaustible” sources, may not be the most

effective approach. .

14. Methodology and Assumptions Used

in Developing the R, D&D Plan . 37

The ERDA Plan relies on a methodology and

assumptions for developing R, D&D

priorities that appear to bias the priorities

toward high technology and capitalintensive energy supply alternatives and

away from end-use technologies.

CHAPTER I 9
15. ERDA Management Policy ● .*** 39 16. Net Energy Analysis ●  ..** ** 41

ERDA’s present management policies could Net energy analysis can aid indecisions as to

hinder achievement of its goals. which existing and developing technologies

deserve emphasis, but this methodology

must be employed with caution.

10 CHAPTER I
1. The Nature of the National Energy Policy Goals

ISSUE

The national energy policy goals stated by ERDA deserve review and

clarification.

SUMMARY

ERDA’s R, D&D plan, as outlined in ERDA-48, volume I, states five national

energy goals to which energy R, D&D should contribute. Heavy emphasis on selfsufficiency as opposed to environmental concerns will have major consequences in

the quality of life and economic well-being of the American people. Similarly,

emphasizing self-sufficiency rather than international cooperation will have major

impacts on our foreign policy. Emphasis among these goals warrants congressional

review. Unless there is agreement between the Administration and the Congress on

the priorities given different national energy goals, ERDA’s development of an R,

D&D program is made more difficult.

A congressional review of the priorities assigned to the five goals takes on

particular importance because energy is so central to other policy areas. Other

Government agencies will be planning programs ranging from foreign trade to

welfare based on their perceptions of these priorities. For these reasons maximum

clarification of priorities will be beneficial.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The draft of ERDA 76-1 assumes precisely the same set of five national energy

policy goals (and also the same set of eight energy technology goals) as did the

first ERDA Plan, ERDA-48. The original issue declared that ERDA had interpreted

these goals too narrowly. Several paths were suggested that ERDA could follow

which would expand their role. These were presented more to call ERDA’s

attention to the issue rather than expecting them to have developed responses

along these lines in the short time since its creation. ERDA 76-1 indicates that

ERDA has expanded their interpretation of the national goals. Although they have

not gone as far as suggested in the OTA analysis, ERDA is focusing their efforts

more in the direction of solving energy problems rather than just developing

technology options. The principal evidence for this is ERDA’s increased emphasis

on conservation. In the revised Plan, they state that “reduction of unnecessary

waste in energy consumption” is required for successful achievement of the

national goals.

ERDA is also devoting attention to nontechnological issues and physical and

societal constraints. The “close coordination of technology development with

socioeconomic and environmental factors” is to be emphasized in ERDA planning,

As indicated in the OTA Overview issues 7 and 12, this attention falls somewhat

short of resolution of these issues. However, ERDA’s plans as expressed in the

revised Plan and Program represent a significant step in its efforts to meet the

mandate of P.L. 93-577.

CHAPTER I 11
1.

2.

3.

The issue on National Energy Policy Goals also expressed concern with the

relative emphasis among the goals, At this time there is still no national policy

which assigns priorities to the five national goals, Therefore, the potential

problems raised in the issue, such as the impacts caused by emphasizing

self-sufficiency rather than international cooperation, remain valid. An assessment of these impacts would assist in determining whether the goal of selfsufficiency, a fundamental assumption in ERDA’s energy projections, is reasonable. Similar analysis should be performed for the other goals. The lack of a

national energy policy which would place priorities among these goals and clarify

these impacts makes it difficult for ERDA to develop an R, D&D program,

A final consideration worth noting is the absence in the revised Plan of any

discussion of the influence of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 on

the national goals. Although the Federal Energy Administration is the principal

implementing agency in the Act, it has provisions, primarily in conservation,

which will affect ERDA’s activities.

QUESTIONS

How were the goals determined?

Did representatives of agencies responsible

for economics, international affairs, the

environment, and natural resources have

an opportunity to participate in the formulation of the goals?

What are the implications for other important problems relating, for example, to high

levels of production and

security, international trade

abatement of environmental

oceans?

employment,

and finance,

pollution, the

4, What are the implications of an energy

independence goal on our major allies in

Europe and Asia, who presumably will

remain dependent upon imported oil

into the foreseeable future? What are the

implications for the oil-exporting nations?

5. How can Federal research, development,

and demonstration programs in support of

national energy goals be evaluated? What

criteria and standards of measurement can

be introduced early in the planning

process to assist in determining later the

relative success or failure of such programs?

12 CHAPTER 1
Z. Overall Level of the Federal Budget for Energy R, D&D

The overall level of the Federal budget for energy R, D&D (about $2.3 billion for

FY 76) appears to be an outgrowth of decisions made prior to the Arab oil embargo,

and should be reexamined.

SUMMARY

In theory, the overall Federal budget for energy R, D&D is established by

developing a budget need for each component and then summing the components.

In practice, however, the development of budgets for each component and the

choices among components are greatly influenced by what is perceived to be the

limit on the overall scale of the budget. The FY 76 Federal budget for energy R, D&D

of $2,3 billion is largely influenced by decisions taken in 1973 before the Arab oil

embargo had committed the United States to a policy of energy independence.

ERDA should prepare R, D&D programs for higher overall budget levels (e.g., $20

or $3o billion for the 5 years beginning in FY 76).

BUDGET SUMMARY*

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

Budget FY 76 ERDA Request to FY 76-77

Category Appropriations Request Congress Change

ERDA Energy

R, D&D Budget 1,600.0 2,975.0 2,180.0 580.6

The request to Congress represents a 30.3-percent increase over FY 76,

However, ERDA itself asked for an 86-percent increase. If one assumes ERDA, as

the lead agency in determining the R, D&D necessary to achieve the Nation’s

energy goals, is best able to judge the requirements for reaching these goals, then

the budget finally submitted to Congress falls short of these needs.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

ERDA presents an extensive justification of the FY 77 budget in their revised

plan, Their justifications are presented in terms of objectives set forth in the

President’s energy message, national priorities in the revised Plan, and the

perceived roles of the public and private sectors. To this extent, ERDA has

addressed the points raised in the issue. The suggestion of preparing alternate

budgets has not been acted upon, however, and the Plan lacks a discussion of

whether the budget decided upon is the most effective in achieving the national

energy goals.

*Unless otherwise noted, all figures are Budget Authority Operating Expenses.

CHAPTER I 13
There is, of course, no intrinsically correct answer to this important question.

The answer arrived at depends upon the assumptions made relative to a number

of important determinants which influence the preferred budgetary levels. These

include in addition to those cited above in ERDA’s justification:

1) The importance of the energy problem compared to other important

national problems.

2) The role assumed for energy R, D&D, compared to other energy programs.

3) Future levels of demand for, and prices of, energy.

Depending upon the assumptions made about such determinants, widely

varying estimates of the optimal size of the Federal energy R, D&D budget can be

logically supported. The proponents of a larger budget can cite such evidence as

the enormous and increasing costs of oil imports, the projected inadequacy of

private investment for energy purposes, the continuing strength of OPEC, and the

fact that current budgetary levels were originally envisioned prior to the energy

crisis of late 1973.

Conversely, the proponents of a smaller energy R, D&D budget can support

their views by assuming:

1)

2)

3)

As

Goals considerably less ambitious than energy “independence,” often

referring to these as “insurance” goals.

Greater emphasis on alternative policies, such as:

a) Regulatory actions; and

b) More reliance on incentives to private enterprises and less reliance

on governmental action.

Lower future projections of demand based on assumptions of greater

demand elasticities associated with assumed price increases.

indicated in the issue, such choices can best be analyzed considering

alternate budgets and predicting their impacts on meeting national energy needs.

14 CHAPTER I
3. The International Aspects of ERDA’s Plans and

Programs

ISSUE

The ERDA Plan does not place sufficient emphasis on

international considerations.

SUMMARY

ERDA’s mission extends well beyond America’s national borders. In the

interdependent world of the 1970’s and 1980’s, energy independence, economic

well-being and environmental quality (the essence of the five national energy

goals) cannot be achieved without considering international factors. “project

Independence” with its go-it-alone implications for R, D&D (let alone for national

energy policy in general) may well be inconsistent with requirements for

developing new energy sources in cooperation or coordination with other

countries, particularly in undertaking joint exploration and exploitation of

nonnational resources (e. g., the oceans). Moreover, the current proliferation of

nuclear facilities in the face of the Nonproliferation Treaty poses difficult technical

as well as institutional problems of monitoring, inventories, and control, ERDA

identifies these considerations in its plan (volume I,) but barely recognizes them in

its Programs (volume II).

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The revised ERDA Plan and Program places significantly more emphasis on

international considerations. In each of the programs a section is devoted to

international activities indicating an increased interest in solving energy problems

on an international scale. Special note should be given to their program for an

organized, systematic study of conservation in other industrial countries.

Approaches will include identifying worldwide problem areas and evaluating

alternatives for coping with them.

Moreover, the ERDA draft Plan, repeating ERDA 48, includes among its five

assumed “National Policy Goals Related to Energy” the following:

1. Maintain the security and policy independence of the Nation. . .

2. Contribute to world stability through cooperative international efforts in

the energy sphere.

In Chapter IV, “Implementing the Plan: Interrelationships Among Energy R,

D&D Participants,” a number of ongoing and proposed actions involving other

nations and international agencies are discussed. ERDA groups this activity under

the four “courses of action being proposed, ” as follows:

1. Entering into bilateral R, D&D and nuclear supply agreements.

2. Participating in the International Energy Agency (IEA).

CHAPTER I 15
1.

2.

3. Providing assistance to developing countries.

4. Participating in the Safeguards Program.

Problems remain, however, in ERDA’s international program which may not

permit optimum benefits from the program. The principal deficiencies in the

discussion of international considerations are the following:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

.

It combines proposed and existing actions.

It does not address the purposes of the actions noted.

It does not differentiate between ERDA’s actions and the actions of other

Federal agencies.

It gives far too sanguine a view of the capabilities of the International

Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

There is no discussion of the apparent inconsistency and therefore

balance required between the two goals cited above — independence

and interdependence.

Small technology which would be of immense importance in underdeveloped countries is not mentioned.

QUESTIONS

How does ERDA’s Assistant Administrator

for International Affairs plan to approach

such issues as energy independence; the

need for international coordination of

energy, economic, and environmental

policy; the exploitation of nonnational

energy sources; and the challenges of

nuclear proliferation?

What has been the role of ERDA’s oversea

staff ? Why should such a staff be concentrated in Brussels? Should not ERDA be

in close liaison with the International

Atomic Energy Agency, the International

Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in

Vienna, and the International Energy

Agency in Paris?

3.

4.

5.

What is the division of responsibility in the

international energy area between ERDA,

the Department of State, and other Federal

agencies?

What plans or programs does ERDA

contemplate for international research and

development in the control and disposal of

radioactive waste?

What role will ERDA play in aiding underdeveloped countries?

16 CHAPTER I
4. Coordination of Programs Between ERDA and Other

Federal Agencies

ERDA’s plans for coordination with other Federal energy agencies need to be

more fully developed.

SUMMARY

ERDA has been mandated (Public Law 93-577) as the primary agency in energy

R, D&D with responsibility to integrate and coordinate national efforts. It is not

evident in ERDA’s plans whether a comprehensive framework is being established

to permit ERDA to perform this role adequately. Two types of multiagency

research efforts exist where coordination is required. In the first, several agencies

undertake different R&D programs aimed at one energy technology. An example

are the three different approaches to coal cleanup by ERDA, Environmental

Protection Agency, and Department of the Interior. Without a formal structure to

bring together these diverse efforts, much waste can ensue with no assurance that

the technology will be effectively developed. In the second case, different agencies

are concerned with separate elements, such as regulatory, economic, and

technological, of a given energy technology. The lack of effective coordination

could lead to development of policy which could hinder introduction of

technologies developed, for example, by ERDA.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The coordination between ERDA and other Federal agencies assumes two

major directions. The first, as encompassed in the Summary above, relates to the

coordination between ERDA and other agencies exercising responsibility for

energy R, D&D. The other major direction relates to the coordination between

ERDA, as the primary agency for energy R, D&D, and agencies which exercise

responsibility for other facets of the energy problem.

Considering first, energy R, D&D, the record to date, as reflected by the draft

of the revised ERDA Plan and program, indicates considerable progress has been

achieved. In some instances, effective coordination has already been realized. For

example, in the conservation area, the draft of the revised ERDA Program cites

the formation of the Federal Interagency Task Force on Buildings Energy Conservation R, D&D. Within the solar area, a well-defined interface has been developed

between ERDA and HUD in the residential heating and cooling demonstration

program. Another interface being developed is that with NASA in component and

system development, although this is not yet firm. The National Bureau of

Standards (NBS) has been given a role in standards. In addition, interfaces

between ERDA and Federal Energy Administration (FEA) are indicated in terms of

incentives, but this has not yet been structured.

CHAPTER I 17
In other instances, it appears that the requirement for coordination is not yet

sufficiently recognized, or if recognized, few results have yet been achieved.

With regard to the coordination between ERDA and the Federal agencies

responsible for non-research-related energy functions, room for improvement

exists. In the absence of a clear, coordinated national energy policy, ERDA has

been placed in the difficult position of having to make a number of assumptions

relative to these critically important matters, such as the uncertain status of the

Federal Energy Administration. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of

December 22, 1975, places many important responsibilities in FEA, which will

significantly affect the actions of ERDA. The link with the Department of the Interior

in terms of federally owned energy resources also needs to be clearly defined. A

great portion of ERDA’s supply-oriented R, D&D deals with energy resources on

Federal lands. It is important that the development and demonstration of these

technologies account for the Federal regulations regarding the leasing and use of

these resources. Similar comments can be made with regard to the Federal Power

Commission and other regulatory agencies. The role of each Federal agency and

their interrelationships will be difficult to ascertain until each is striving for

common goals.

A clear, coordinated national energy policy and an efficient organizational

mechanism for implementing such a policy remain as important issues on the

national agenda, clearly transcending ERDA’s more limited responsibility as the

lead agency for energy R, D&D,

QUESTIONS

1. With regard to energy research and devel- 3.

opment coordination, how broadly does

ERDA view its role in energy R, D&D? Does

ERDA have the responsibility for ensuring 4.

that all research needed to help solve the

Nation’s energy problems (including those

that are nontechnical) is receiving proper

attention?

2, What specific management mechanisms,

techniques, or coordination controls will 5.

ERDA use to integrate and coordinate its

activities with other affected Federal

agencies?

Is the ERDA R,

national energy

D&D Plan a plan within a

plan? Where is that plan?

To what extent is ERDA responsible for

recognizing such other important national

problems as high levels of production and

employment, security, international trade

and finance, abatement of environmental

pollution, the oceans?

How should the Federal Government be

organized to cope with the overall energy

problem? With the energy R, D&D aspects of

the problem?

18 CHAPTER 1
15. Cooperation Between ERDA and State and Local

Governments

Success of the ERDA program will depend largely on close and continuous

coordination with State and local governments. The ERDA Plan includes neither

procedures nor mechanisms for accomplishing this coordination.

SUMMARY

State and local governments are well aware of the Nation’s energy problems

and are committed to support the programs necessary to meet these problems.

Their perception of the Nation’s energy problems, however, differ from ERDA’s.

They are more concerned with local impacts of energy projects, accord more

importance to conservation and, most important, feel strongly that they should be

included not only in the planning phases of R, D&D programs but also in the

implementation phases.

Failure of ERDA to consider properly these viewpoints may well result in

unnecessary conflict and delays in program implementation. Thus, it is important

for ERDA to expand the Office of Industry and State and Local Government

Relations and to provide the local governments regularly with information, such as

a 1isting of all energy R, D&D projects, clear definitions of State and local roles in

energy R, D&D, and well defined planning procedures.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

ERDA, it seems clear, now realizes that State and local governments must

play an important role with regard to energy R, D&D. In both the Plan and

Program, ERDA makes numerous assertions about the role of State and local

governments. For example, a somewhat typical statement from the Plan says:

The Federal Government must therefore be sensitive to local and

regional needs, It must also reach public and private groups at these

levels to provide information to them; to develop effective, productive

communication links with regional, State, local, university, financial, and

industrial representatives; and to receive feedback from them on the

problems, progress, public acceptability, and overall effectiveness of

ERDA’s programs and the National Plan for Energy R. D&D (p. 78).

CHAPTER I 19

ERDA has also taken a number of positive steps to establish working relationships with many individual States and regional organizations. These range from

cooperation on specific energy projects with specific States to contact with State

officials to determine future cooperative efforts.
At present, however, a systematic plan for interacting with State and local

governments appear to be missing within ERDA as a whole. Such a plan should

determine:

1. Whether to centralize or decentralize coordination between ERDA and

State and local governments.

Z. Just what role ERDA’s Office of State and Local Governments should play.

3. How to differentiate between State and local governments; for one

example, whether State governments should be used as a vehicle for

communicating with local governments.

4. Whether State and local governments should, in fact, have an active role

in the planning process; for example, to what extent should they participate in the preparation of the plan and Program in areas affecting

specific regions?

While these deficiencies may be symptomatic of the continual problem of all

coordination between the Federal and State and local governments, they should

be resolved as soon as possible in order to effectively implement successful ERDA

technology developments. The highly regionalized nature of the energy problem

makes it imperative that cooperation between ERDA and State and local governments is fully developed.

QUESTIONS

1. What specific procedures does ERDA pro- impacts of its R, D&D program? What will

ject for effecting coordination of its program be the scope of such research; by whom will

with State and local governments through it be conducted; and how will State and

the R, D&D process? What is the schedule local governments be included in research

for their implementation? efforts?

2. Does ERDA plan to produce and circulate to 4. What plans does ERDA have for supporting

State and local governments a listing of pro- and maintaining liaison with multistate

gram plans to assist States in their own organizations interested in regional energy

planning processes? When can distribution planning? What are the mechanisms inbe expected? volved; who is responsible for coordinating

ERDA’s efforts; and what will be the scope

3. Does ERDA plan to conduct or sponsor of the effort in terms of manpower and

research projects concerning the potential funds?

20 CHAPTER I
6. Near-Term Energy Problems

ISSUE

ERDA’s Plan gives very little attention to near-term to 1985 energy problems.

SUMMARY

The “first strateg c element” in ERDA’s Plan

meet near-term needs until new energy sources

plans to accomplish this through enhanced gas and oil recovery, direct use of coal,

is “to ensure adequate energy to

can be brought on line. ” ERDA

more use of nuclear reactors, shifting demand away from petroleum, and increased

conservation practices, A review of ERDA’s FY 76 budget indicates, however, that

only about 5 percent is devoted to solving near-term problems, which does not

seem consistent with the stated goals. This deficiency results primarily from the

lack of emphasis given to end-use conservation, the lack of attention to

nontechnical research needs, and a tendency to focus on large-scale electric supply

technologies.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

In his 1975 State of the Union message, President Ford presented three

national energy policy goals, The first two of these three goals dealt specifically

with near-term energy problems (present to 1985). The revised Plan does indeed

assign the highest priority to conservation, and notes its near-term impact with

the statement, “conservation technologies can generally be implemented at a

faster rate with less government involvement in the near-term than can new

supply technologies”. The key words are “implemented at a faster rate. ” When

one considers that conservation can be rapidly adopted on a broad scale and that

it usually costs much less to save a barrel equivalent of oil than to produce one,

the rationale for the highest priority ranking is clear. In addition the Highest

Priority Supply category of R, D&D rankings recognizes the importance of direct

coal utilization and enhanced recovery of oil and gas and reinforces the

importance of reduced dependency on imported oil in the near-term.

There are, however, some serious questions with regard to the effectiveness

of this increased emphasis on the near-term. Although projects for increasing the

direct utilization of coal and improving nuclear converter reactors which appear

to have a high probability of success with major near-term impact are funded at a

high level, the conservation budget of $120 million is only 3.8 percent of total

energy R, D&D budget outlays for FY 77. This allocation to the Plan’s top priority

area, conservation, appears to be inappropriate in light of the national near-term

energy goals enunciated by the President. Overall, the ERDA Plan (including

budget) does not establish how this Nation will reverse the near-term trend toward

more dependence on foreign oil, a dependence which reached 37 percent of total

U.S. petroleum consumption in 1975 and which is continuing to rise,

CHAPTER I 21
The principal areas where aggressive ERDA demonstration and commercialization programs could significantly enhance our ability to meet a future “energy

crisis”, regardless of whether it is triggered by an embargo, cartel price-fixing or

other events beyond our control, are:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

60

Energy end-use conservation.

Solar heating and cooling of buildings.

Waste energy recovery systems.

Time-of-day electrical load management.

High-efficiency electrical devices.

More efficient and environmentally acceptable utilization of coal for

electrical generation.

Near-term objectives lend themselves to more frequent measurement of

achievement than do long-term objectives. The 5-year planning system being

instituted by ERDA with milestones to measure success annually could be a useful

audit and planning tool to lend focus and urgency to near-term projects.

22 CHAPTER I
7. Socioeconomic Research

72-169 0

ERDA’s program of R, D&D does not give enough attention to socioeconomic

analysis and research in addressing the Nation’s energy problems.

SUMMARY

not

ERDA’s program plans, budgetary commitments, and professional staffing do

give adequate attention to social, economic, environmental and behavioral

research needs, even though the legislative record makes clear that ERDA is given

responsibility beyond technological R, D&D (Public Law 93-577, section 5A), Such

research is needed for two reasons: (I) to better understand the relationships of

energy and the quality of life, and (2) to identify nontechnological constraints to

increased energy supply or reduced energy demand. The nonhardware research

programs must be integrally tied to the hardware programs and the results used

when evaluating and comparing alternative approaches to “solving the energy

pro blem, ”

BUDGET SUMMARY

Funds for socioeconomic and related research occur throughout the various

subprograms in ERDA. Although the specific amount in each of these subprograms

dedicated to socioeconomic research is not given, the total for the categories in

which they fall is $28.2 million. In addition, funds for socioeconomic research exist

in the Environmental Research and Safety Program.

S WARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 ERDA Request

Category Appropriations Request to Congress

Analysis and Assessment 11.6 27,8 19.0

The increase in funding from FY 76 indicates a stronger commitment by ERDA

to socioeconomic R, D&D, although there is no strategy for funding across the

whole of ERDA. This does not imply, however, that all socioeconomic research

should be funded from one office. Indeed this is probably not conducive to integration of socioeconomic and technical research, but it does suggest the need for

a comprehensive plan for this research. Incorporation of socioeconomic concerns

in the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Review (PPBR) system (just as with

environmental activities) would be an effective way to do this.

CHAPTER I 23

76 - 3
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

Research into nontechnical areas associated with the various energy technologies has been given considerable attention in the revised ERDA Plan and

Program. The Program implementation states that “social and cultural impacts of

the new institutions in energy production and use have emerged as the highest

priority of new work”. In each subprogram, efforts to incorporate socioeconomic

analysis and research are described. In the revised Plan, an extensive procedure

for integrating environmental concerns in all energy technology research is

presented. ERDA will consider environmental trade-offs in the planning process in

two stages: in an environmental development plan which will serve as a companion

document to the Program Plan, and in the environmental impact statement which

will be used to make major program decisions. The Plan also expresses the

importance of considering social and political impacts of energy technologies

when establishing research priorities. This will be incorporated in regional review

of the plan and criteria for setting priorities.

Although the commitment to socioeconomic research is there, at this time it is

largely intent. The plan and approach for carrying out research in these areas,

except for environmental activities, are not nearly as developed as those for R,

D&D in technical areas. In addition the purpose of socioeconomic research is not

clear. In the Plan the apparent objective is to inform the public “of the true nature

of trade-offs and the implications of various choices” allowing the consumer to

make the ultimate decision under existing conditions. In the revised Program, the

emphasis is placed on identifying the impediments to proposed programs and

technologies and ways to overcome these impediments. The Program thus implies

a more activist role on ERDA’s part than the Plan does in utilizing socioeconomic

research results. This role would be more in keeping with rectifying the principal

deficiency identified by OTA, the need for ERDA to provide solutions to energy

problems rather than just developing technological options. Clarification of this

apparent contradiction between the Plan and Program is necessary if an effective

socioeconomic research effort is to be developed.

QUESTIONS

1. What is the basic purpose of socioeconomic 4. What is ERDA’s specific plan for deterresearch in the ERDA Plan and Program? mining social science research requirements; how and by whom will the research

2. Has adequate input been sought from the be conducted; how will the results be

social science community in defining the evaluated; and how will the research be

nature and abilities in the area? incorporated into other energy problems?

3. Within the budget areas in which social

science research is listed, what portions will

actually be committed to such research?

24 CHAPTER I
8. Balance Between Supply Versus Demand

ERDA’s program

energy consumption.

ISSUE

overemphasizes energy supply technologies

R, D&D

relative to

SUMMARY

The present pattern of energy consumption was developed during an era of

constantly decreasing real energy prices, so little emphasis was placed on end-use

efficiency. Although there is some recognition of the need for improvement, ERDA’s

conservation program focuses primarily on the near-term and underestimates its

long-term importance. Factors inadequately considered in the relative emphasis on

consumption and supply technologies are cost-effectiveness, time to payoff,

environmental benefits versus costs, and demand on resources.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The present pattern of energy consumption was developed during an era of

low and relatively stable energy prices. Little emphasis was placed on end-use

efficiency. We now find ourselves as a nation living in houses, neighborhoods,

cities, and metropolitan areas which are increasingly beyond our limited energy

means. Our places of work are equally wasteful in energy consumption. Many

architects, engineers, scientists agree that an effective, broad scope, national

energy conservation program would be equivalent to a 20- to 30-percent increase

in annual U.S. energy supplies in the near-term.

The revised ERDA Plan recognizes the importance of “conservation”,

emphasizing that “energy efficiency (conservation) is now of the highest national

priority”. Moreover, some of the great advantages of consuming less rather than

producing more are clearly enunciated. To this extent ERDA has been clearly

responsive to this issue.

ERDA’s increased emphasis on conservation is not without problems however.

The OTA issue expressed concern about the time focus of the conservation

program. It was felt that ERDA underestimated the long-term importance of

conservation by concentrating on near-term, existing technology while relying on

increased supply technologies for mid- and long-term energy options. In the

revised Plan and Program this difficulty appears to be even more pronounced.

There appears very little in the way of research efforts directed at innovative

energy conservation technologies with a high potential for payoff in the mid- and

long-term (beyond 1985). Many such R, D&D opportunities exist in the energyintensive industrial processes of aluminum, paper, and steel production. The

impacts would be mid- to long-term and in many cases no R, D&D industry

capability exists to address the problems.

CHAPTER 1 25
Conservation appears to be a program which intends to implement existing or

near-term technologies in the economy, with the assumption that increased supply

will suffice in the mid- and long-term. Although the revised Plan places

conservation with the highest priority supply options, the Plan appears to be

supply oriented. This is reconciled by noting that conservation programs are new,

while many of the supply programs are well established, and by assuming there

are sufficient free market forces to motivate conservation with a minimum of

government involvement. This assumption, however, should be carefully examined

and reconsidered especially in light of the desirability to accelerate the adoption

of conservation technologies to achieve national goals.

26 CHAPTER I
9. ERDA’s Basic Research Program

ISSUE

The goals of ERDA’s basic research program have not yet been established.

Considerable effort is required to organize a pertinent program of basic research.

SUMMARY

ERDA’s program for basic research has largely been inherited from the

agencies that i t incorporated. It is not surprising, because of the short life of ERDA,

but nonetheless worrisome, that the basic research program in large measure does

not reflect ERDA’s R, D&D goals. In particular, a need exists to reexamine (a) the

relationship between ongoing research and ERDA’s program disciplines, (b) the

integration of basic and supporting research, (c) the distribution of emphasis on inhouse and contracted research and (d) the role of the national laboratories vis-a-vis

universities and industry. In addition, the program indicates no basic research in

the social sciences, which could have a significant impact on the institutional,

legal, and social aspects of ERDA’s program.

BUDGET SUMMARY

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request Percent

Category Appropriation Request Request to Congress Increase

BASIC ENERGY

SCIENCES

Nuclear Science 82,4 95.1 93.1 81.2 – 1.4

Material Science 46.3 74,4 71.2 51.1 10,5

Molecular, 45,3 78.6 71.1 50.5 11,4

Mathematical,

and Geoscience

TOTAL BES 174.0 248.2 235.5 128,8 5.1

HIGH ENERGY

PHYSICS 152.8 185.9 178.6 167.5 9.6

BIOMEDICAL (1)

RESEARCH 174.6 245.5 234.8 182.9 4.7

(Education (2)

& Training) (3.5) (7.6) (7.0) (2.2) (–37.0)

(1)

(2)

Biomedical Research is a subprogram in the Environmental Research and Safety Program.

Education & Training is an element of the Biomedical Research subprogram; the budget numbers

in the Biomedical Research subprogram in the line above include the Education & Training budget

numbers.

CHAPTER I 27

—-
Comments on the Budget:

1. Little basic research is funded in the end-use Conservation, Fossil, Solar, and

Geothermal Programs of ERDA. Some important basic or near basic research

programs are funded in the Conservation Research and Technology subprogram

(storage and conversion), but it is difficult to arrive at a dollar figure for these

efforts.

2. The Basic Energy Sciences Program has received a steadily decreasing

fraction of ERDA’s R&D budget (5.7 percent in FY 75 and, following OMB’S

recommendations, 4.0 percent in FY 77). Support for the Basic Energy Sciences

Program will decline in real terms from FY 76 to FY 77, if the budget requests to

Congress are followed. This request has a large cut from the ERDA recommendation for Material Sciences and Molecular, Mathematical, and Geosciences. Part of

the much needed growth in these fields has been made at the expense of Nuclear

Sciences, which has declined in dollar terms since FY 76, and, because of

inflation, in real terms since FY 75. It should be recognized that nuclear science

contributes to many disciplines, including materials science, and biomedical

research, and it should not be confused with or become a victim of the debate

related to nuclear power usage in the United States. Moreover, a number of other

countries currently spend a larger fraction of their GNP on basic nuclear research

than does the United States, notably Great Britain and Canada (1.5 times as much

on basic nuclear research, relative to GNP), and France and Germany (4.5 times

as much, relative to GNP).

3. High Energy Physics has about kept pace with inflation from 1975 to 1977.

4. The Biomedical Research subprogram of the Environmental Research and

Safety Program is receiving a declining fraction of the ERDA budget (5.3 percent

in FY 75 to 4.o percent in FY 77). Funding for this program has declined in real

terms since FY 76.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

Most of the questions and uncertainties raised by OTA last year about

ERDA’s basic research program remain, A need still exists to examine the

integration of basic and supporting research and the distribution of resources

between national laboratories, universities, nonprofit research centers, and

private industry. In particular, there remains the need to examine the role and

purpose of ERDA’s basic research program (a) within ERDA and (b) within the

total national R&D effort. The items in the ERDA FY 77 Budget which can be

identified with basic research have declined in support from FY 76 to FY 77 relative

to the total ERDA budget; the dollar increases in Basic Energy Sciences Program

and the Biomedical Research subprogram have not matched inflation. As a result,

although ERDA has increased its emphasis on nonnuclear research, particularly

in the fields of materials and molecular science, basic research remains weak in a

number of important energy-related fields. In the physical sciences, basic

combustion research is notably underfunded. Climate modifications associated

with energy use is another field receiving little or no attention. Heat transfer, fluid

mechanics, and thermodynamics also receive little attention. The social sciences

have apparently received increased support within a number of ERDA programs,

but remain, as in FY 76, dispersed throughout the agency. Research in the life

sciences is focused in the Biomedical subprogram of the Environmental Research

28 CHAPTER I
1.

2.

and Safety Program. This program concentrates on effects of energy production,

and their appears to be a lack of recognition on the part of ERDA that certain

types of fundamental life-sciences research, such as work on the production of

enzymes in the biosphere, for example, might ultimately prove valuable in a

variety of energy-related areas,

In conclusion, it is OTA’s feeling that much-needed new programs should not

be funded at the expense of reduced support for existing important, long-range

studies (e.g., current studies in nuclear, high energy, and plasma physics).

QUESTIONS

A review of the budgetary development for

funding by ERDA during FY 75 to FY 77

indicates that long-range and innovative

research are receiving relatively reduced

emphasis. It should be recognized that this

reduced emphasis will lead to further

erosion of the Nation’s scientific resources.

Is it ERDA’s intention to reverse this trend?

What are the current ERDA budgets that

are dedicated for the long-range support of

energy-research programs in each of the

following important areas:

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

h.

combustion kinetics relating to cost

reduction of coal gasification?

coal recovery and utilization?

chemical research associated with the

synthetic fuels program?

shale-oil recovery and utilization?

solar-energy implementation technologies?

geothermal energy

nologies?

mplementation techcombustion research relating to energy

conservation?

plasma physics relating to all types of

fusion reactors?

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

i. nuclear-reactor development?

What is ERDA’s view and intent with

respect to social science research, which

bears on the institutional, social, and legal

aspects of its energy program?

What are the pros and cons of a research

policy that separates basic and supporting

research?

How does ERDA envision the research role

of the national laboratories, the universities,

and industries? How does ERDA plan to

rationalize and balance these various

research capabilities?

With particular regard to the university role

in energy research, how does ERDA view

the establishment of “Centers of Excellence”

for energy-related research in the pure and

applied sciences, engineering, and interdisciplinary programs dealing with environmental, health, and policy issues?

What is ERDA’s view of its responsibilities

for the support and training of needed

personnel in the energy field?

CHAPTER I 29
10. Commercialization

ISSUE

The development of effective commercialization policies and procedures is not

adequately addressed in the ERDA Plan.

SUMMARY

ERDA-48 identified the commercialization program and the plans for its

implementation; however, ERDA has not considered the commercialization process

in sufficient detail. For example, specific mechanisms for assuring ERDA/industry

coordination are not clearly outlined, and the administration’s relationships with

international companies is not defined. Moreover, the Plan does not address a

number of very important issues; e.g., long-term support of energy industries that

can be undercut by reduction in foreign energy prices. Because of the complexity

of ERDA program markets, an effective commercialization program is very difficult

to formulate. The key questions are which commercialization processes could be

suitable for implementation and how will implementation be achieved.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

Throughout ERDA 76-1 there is a great deal of discussion of various aspects

of commercialization. ERDA’s planners recognize that private industry is to be

ultimately responsible for the development and implementation of new energy

systems and that the Federal Government will have to provide a set of stimulants

to motivate private industry to invest in energy-related R, D&D. As an example,

under “Domestic Energy Resource Development, Conservation and Storage, ” of

“The FY 1977 Budget” section of ERDA 76-1, ERDA discusses the use of financial

assistance by changes in tax laws to provide for faster tax writeoffs, cost sharing

plans, loans guarantees, and federally funded commercial demonstration plants

for synthetic fuel production.

In addition, the establishment of the Office of Commercialization demonstrates

ERDA’s desire to formulate a set of strategies to ensure ERDA-industry

coordination and commercialization of ERDA-developed technologies. It is

important that such strategies propose more specific criteria for determining

project suitability and the nature of Federal participation. To undertake such a

task the new Office of Commercialization must be funded at a level that will permit

it to investigate the market for new energy systems and the most appropriate

incentive systems. The potential magnitude of such Federal support is very

substantial and that the support should be allocated only on the basis of solid

rationale and careful analysis of the complexities involved.

30 CHAPTER I
It is noted that the revised ERDA Plan describes efforts to deal with many of

the concerns expressed in the OTA issue. These include measures to enhance the

effectiveness of patent and licensing policy, to “aggressively seek out small

business participation”, and to analyze incentives for overcoming major constraints to commercialization. A number of programs to interact with the private

sector are described,

Two points raised in the issue are not discussed in the revised ERDA Plan or

Program, First, there is a need for a policy on long-term support of energy

industries that can be undercut by reduction in foreign energy prices. This is a

serious consideration for the proposed loan guarantee program for synthetic fuels,

ERDA should establish a strategy for that eventuality. Second, the existence and

growing importance of multinational companies further exacerbate ERDA’s

difficulties in program commercialization. The principal problem occurs when

subsidizing a company whose best interest may be served by the failure of the

subsidized project. Such a conflict of interest may exist between a synthetic fuel

project undertaken by a company in a loan guarantee program and that company’s

interest in more profitable foreign sources of equivalent fuel. This problem has

both real and perceived components and will be of concern to ERDA in any

commercialization program.

QUESTIONS

1. What research has ERDA done on the relative cost effectiveness of various incentive

systems?

2. Does the cost effectiveness of the various

incentive systems vary for the type of organization that will be doing the R, D&D or the

type of project? That is, will systems vary

for universities, small businesses, large

businesses, and so forth?

4. How does ERDA plan to address the problem

of long-term support for industries that may

never become commercially viable but

which are necessary for the Nation? (An

example would include industries which are

commercially viable at present prices of

OPEC oil but which would become unprofitable if the price of world oil prices were to

fall.)

3. What formal procedures and agencies have

been established by ERDA to participate in

the development of new energy technologies?

CHAPTER 1 31
11. Resource Constraints

ISSUE

Careful attention should be given to assessing energy resources, since they

represent assumptions basic to the ERDA Plan.

SUMMARY

The direction and timing of the ERDA Plan is predicated, to a large extent, on

the Nation’s energy resource base. An incorrect assessment of the extent of all or

part of the resource base could cause severe distortions in ERDA priorities and

schedules, If the estimated recoverable reserves of a given resource are greatly

overestimated, and several different technologies are developed and commercialized which would utilize that resource, the Nation could be in the position of

developing a new energy infrastructure that would quickly find itself running out

of fuel. On the other hand, underestimating these resources could cause a

dependency on uneconomic energy systems.

To reduce the probability of such occurrences, accurate determinations of the

upper and lower bounds of recoverable resource estimates are required,

necessitating high priority efforts to improve the methods for making these

estimates.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The new ERDA Plan pays considerably more attention to resource issues than

did ERDA-48. Discussions of the importance of utilizing our most abundant

domestic energy resources in any plan that leads toward energy independence

indicate an increased awareness of the fundamental significance of the resource

base.

Contradictory opinions regarding the status of the understanding of the

uranium resource base points out the need for increased accuracy of resource

estimates. The National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) Program should

accomplish this; however, major commitments to utilization technology will have

been made by the time the NURE Program has been completed. Because fission

accounts for the largest part of the ERDA budget, documenting the validity of

domestic uranium resource estimates, upon which this budget is based, should

have high priority during the next year.

The chief issue in energy resources

technologies that will allow the United

plentiful in this country. This should be

more detail for geothermal energy.

is the degree to which the efforts focus on

States to depend on resources that are

addressed more fully for uranium and in

32 CHAPTER 1
QUESTIONS

1. How reliable are energy resource estimates 2. How are these uncertainties incorporated

for petroleum, natural gas, coal, uranium into the R, D&D strategies?

ore, and thorium ore?

12. Physical and Societal Constraints

ISSUE

Numerous physical, institutional, and social constraints may limit the orderly

development and implementation of the ERDA energy plan.

SUMMARY

potential physical constraints to the implementation of the ERDA Plan include

water requirements, materials limitations, air pollution, land use, and net energy

considerations. Among the social and institutional constraints are manpower;

capital; lags in technology transfer; information accession, retrieval, and

dissemination; regional and community impacts of mining and plant construction;

metropolitan dislocations caused by fuel shortages and price increases; and social

acceptability of new technology.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

ERDA has recognized that the constraints listed in the issue can inhibit or

prevent commercialization of technologies developed in its programs. It is initiating

or expanding programs in information dissemination and technology transfer in

subprograms. Plans are underway to interact with the financial community with

regard to capital constraints. The impacts of new energy facilities on regions and

communities is to be assessed. The Plan recognizes water quality and quantity

issues.

There remains an absence of an assessment program in ERDA planning to

address physical and societal constraints. The nearest approximation in the new

ERDA planning process is in environmental planning.

By instituting technology assessment as part of the planning system, a more

effective technology development program can result and identify the impact of

policies to overcome constraints. Of particular importance in this context is the

need to be concerned with energy facility siting. Conflicts over siting regularly

include the whole range of physical and social constraints. Longer term and better

CHAPTER I 33
informed planning is necessary about where to site facilities and how siting

decisions can most effectively be made. This issue is intimately connected with the

highly charged question of land-use planning.

The siting question is of special concern in connection with the development

of the Liquid-Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFBR), It is, however, equally central

to solar and fossil energy development. Whether one proposes central station

solar thermal plants, large-scale biomass production, western coal or oil-shale

development, or Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) development of oil and gas, the

same complex of physical-social problems arises.

The siting question is

the planning process. This

and, more broadly, around

an attractive candidate for technology assessment in

can be done by detailed case studies of specific sites

regional siting or land-use strategies.

The effort ERDA is devoting to the siting question is being principally carried

out within its national laboratories. There is a question concerning whether that is

an appropriate location. Critics argue that the laboratories simply provide briefs

to underpin their siting decisions. It appears necessary for ERDA to support

additional siting research by groups with less of an apparent vested interest. It is

encouraging to note that siting questions will be incorporated in the planning

process through the environmental development plan and environmental impact

statement.

QUESTIONS

1. What is ERDA’s strategy for identifying and 2. What levels of effort are planned with

assessing the physical and societal con- respect to systems studies, cost-benefit

straints upon the implementation of a analysis, technology assessment, and other

national energy plan? energy policy planning research?

34 CHAPTER 1
13. Overemphasis on Electrification

ISSUE

The ERDA Plan appears to lean toward an overemphasis on electrification.

This lack of diversity, especially in the long-term “inexhaustible” sources, may

not be the most effective approach.

SUMMARY

All three major “inexhaustible” sources identified by the ERDA Plan are

producers of electricity having high capital cost and low operating or fuel cost.

Examination of the functional energy needs indicates, however, that other

concepts, although having less ultimate potential, should be given equal priority.

Intensive electrification itself will have a noticeable social impact and may

present problems= of vulnerability and reliability. Alternatives include expanded

direct use of solar, geothermal, and other direct heat sources for industrial

processes, production of synthetic liquid or gas fuels by solar or nuclear energy,

and increased emphasis on hydrogen, biomass, and conservation.

BUDGET SUMMARY

The programs in ERDA can be classified as either supporting electric energy

production and delivery or directed toward nonelectric energy forms, or may be

placed in an indeterminate category. The following table shows this division:

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

Budget Authority, Total Costs

Electric Nonelectric Indeterminate

Program FY 76 FY 77 FY 76 FY 77 FY 76 FY 77

Fossil

Conservation

Solar

Geothermal

Fusion

Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Fission Reactors

Environment

Safeguards

Uranium Enrichment

47.5

19.6

64.9

341.0

68.9

588.3

81.3

16.6

59.5

71.9 120.0 125.1 243.0 280.1

24,4 38.8 73,2 16.3 22.3

102.5 39.8 49.2 9,9 8.3

31.4 100.1

385.1 9.4 7.0

178,8

774.3 15,4

123.1 137.0

28.1

82,3

TOTAL 1,287.8 1,770.7 208.0 254.5 446.4 563,3

Percent of Total 66 68 11 10 23 22

CHAPTER I 35
More than two-thirds of ERDA’s energy budget goes toward technologies

supporting electrification and there has been a slight increase in emphasis since

FY 76. This is consistent with ERDA’s ranking of R, D&D technologies which places

three electric production technologies in the highest supply priority as “inexhaustible sources for the long-term”. Such a budget may not adequately reflect the

potential of nonelectric contributions from solar and geothermal sources.

An example is that approximately 20 percent of our energy is used for

residential/commercial hot water and space heat which is a low-temperature

application for which solar energy is ideally suited. Yet in the solar program

approximately one-third of the budget is allocated to direct solar thermal application. That is less than 1 percent of the total ERDA FY 77 budget. Another example

is in the Conservation area where approximately 12 percent of the budget is

allocated to electrical transmission losses which consume 3 percent of our energy.

Only 10 percent of that budget is allocated to conservation of industrial energy

which consumes 42 percent. Assuming an equal potential (percentage) for

conservation in each case, its allocation of conservation funds would appear to be

in imbalance by a factor of 15.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The original issue intended to convey the point that development of nonelectric energy technologies should be given greater emphasis. It was not meant

that the technologies supporting electric energy should be deemphasized.

ERDA has changed this relative emphasis to a slight degree in terms of the

way it characterizes the various technologies it is developing. The principal

example is conservation which is placed with the highest ranking R, D&D

technologies. There has been an increase in emphasis on non-electric uses of

geothermal sources. Beyond these, however, few changes from ERDA-48 can be

identified.

There are other potential areas of non-electric technologies which could be

more actively pursued. The choices are more nearly alined with current

energy demand, more than half of which is for thermal energy and half of the

remainder for transportation. Synthetic fluid fuels produced by solar or nuclear

energy could be emphasized. The production of hydrogen directly from water by

photolysis or moderate-temperature catalytic reactions shows promise, but needs

a substantial research program. The direct use of solar and geothermal energy for

many moderate-temperature industrial processes is feasible. Biomass fuels from

energy “plantations” or from wastes, mentioned in the Plan, could contribute to

heating and transportation needs.

Further discussion of this issue is contained in the group of issue papers on

Solar, Geothermal, and Advanced Systems.

36 CHAPTER I
QUESTIONS

1. Does allocation of a large portion of the 4.

ERDA budget to technologies related to

electric power generation represent an a

priori commitment to electrification versus

direct use of thermal energy?

2. Does ERDA plan to establish the rationale 5.

for electrification based on cost-benefit,

energy analysis, and other assessments?

3. Will the relative social, environmental, and

institutional impacts of electrification’s

approaches be assessed vis-a-vis alternate

technologies in various applications?

Will assessments of relative reliability and

security of electrical systems versus alternative approaches be made to establish the

degree of vulnerability to malfunction or

sabotage?

Will major electrical energy conservation

programs be established and promoted?

14. Methodology and Assumptions Used in Developing

the R, D&D Plan

ISSUE

The ERDA Plan relies on methodology and assumptions for developing R,

D&D priorities that appear to bias the priorities toward high technology and

capital-intensive energy supply alternatives and away from end-use technologies.

SUMMARY

The ERDA R, D&D plan makes use of six energy scenarios as essential

elements in arriving at R, D&D priorities. An analysis of this approach discloses a

number of questionable assumptions which tend to distort the value of various R,

D&D options. Included among these assumptions are:

● the scenarios all assume the same set of final demands,

● calculated energy system capital costs include only supply side costs and

ignore consumer costs, and

● the scenario emphasizing improved efficiency in end-use assumes increased

efficiency will have an effect only up to about 1985, after which exponential

growth resumes.

These and other deficiencies tend to minimize the impact of end-use

technology R, D&D and bias the choice of research priorities toward the supply

sector. Although ERDA appears to recognize this problem, improvements in the

application of the methodology are needed to develop the most effective set of

energy R, D&D priorities.

CHAPTER I 37
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

ERDA has made substantial changes in the background analysis that supports

R, D&D priorities. These changes answer the main point raised in the original

issues but also raise new ones.

The main point raised was that, since final demand was held constant across

all scenarios, the analysis had an inherent bias toward supply rather than

conservation technology. In the new energy analysis, the Brookhaven energy

model (used in ERDA-48) is integrated with the Hudson-Jorgenson model, which

incorporates price-sensitive demands. Since these two models are the most

advanced energy modeling technology, their use cannot be criticized.

Two questions arise, however, when examining their use. First, under what

set of assumptions were these models run to generate the results reported in the

Plan? Second, how do these results influence the selection of technology

priorities? A proposed formal ERDA approach, the Planning, Programing,

Budgeting, and Review (PPBR) system is being developed and is described in

Chapter V. However, there is little description of how the models will interact

with this system,

On pages 96 and 97 of the Plan, the results of these runs with the new

integrated model are described. However, we have neither a formal description of

how the two models are interfaced nor a list of the assumptions behind the

scenarios, The Plan promises later publication of this material but, at present, it

is impossible to say anything about either the new modeling work involved in this

study (i. e., the bridge between the two models), or about the relevance of the

scenarios to the general issue of energy technology priority identification.

It is also not clear how the results influence the eventual selection of priority

technologies. Only three scenarios are compared, and only one of them assumes a

change in technology such as would be induced by R, D&D activities. It appears

that the link between model results and program objectives is largely judgmental.

ERDA does propose, earlier in the report, a more formal analytical mechanism for

identifying priority technologies, the PPBR. This seems promising, but it is in a

very early stage of development. No hard details about the structure of the

Strategic Planning model are given. This model will presumably (I) model privatesector innovation activity under many kinds of uncertainty, and (2) perform social

benefit cost analysis of new technologies under uncertainty. Both of these tasks

constitute unsolved problems in economics, and considerable theoretical and

empirical work is needed to produce a usable model. ERDA should supply more

information about how this research will be conducted, since the results will

surely be controversial.

In summary, the current Plan informally integrates the economic analysis

with the technology priority selection. This approach is at present unavoidable

since the economics profession has no accepted formal way of performing this

task. The proposed integration of these two areas is ambitious and intellectually

exciting, but the task is quite large and the results likely to be in dispute. ERDA

should publicize its proposed approaches to the problem as soon as possible.

38 CHAPTER 1
1. How were the

haven models

QUESTIONS

Hudson-Jorgenson and Brook- used to inform the selection of priority

linked, and what assumptions energy technologies for R, D&D support?

led to the results shown on page 97 of the

Plan ? 3. What are the current plans for and status of

the proposed PPBR system, especially with

2. How were the results of these simulations regard to Strategic Planning?

15. ERDA Management Policy

ISSUE

ERDA’s present management policies could hinder

,

SUMMARY

achievement of its goals.

Present ERDA management practices have three recognizable drawbacks:

Internal project management tends to impose excessively detailed restrictions

on R, D&D program.

project management delegated to outside agencies or firms has been awarded

to organizations having excessively detailed management structures, with a

corresponding loss of ERDA program control. ‘\

Improper balance between systems analysis and proof-of-concept experiments.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

Chapter V of the Plan describes the planning, programming, Budgeting, and

Review (PPBR) system ERDA is developing to discharge its statutory mandates. It

consists of normative, strategic, and program planning sequences which yields

what ought to be done, how it can be done most effectively, and what will be

done. This planning sequence is coupled with environmental planning to yield a

set of program priorities which represent preferred solutions to national energy

problems and environmentally acceptable energy technology options. This is a

difficult and imperfect process with considerable subjective content. Nevertheless,

it provides a logical framework for planning and decisionmaking which may be

improved with use.

CHAPTER I

72-169 0 - 76 - 4

39
1.

2.

3.

40

The PPBR system, when fully developed, could provide management tools to

all levels of ERDA, regional offices, regional coordination groups, institutions,

contractors, and other agencies, and as well provide better understanding by

nonresearch participants and the public. Adequate communication of the management philosophy and procedure may be the vehicle to promote wide understanding,

cooperation, and support of ERDA’s mission and activities.

The planned analysis of private sector R, D&D is a formidable but potentially

valuable undertaking. It is critical, however, that the reciprocal benefits of

program planning integration between the public and private sectors be adequately communicated and understood. Since the goals and utilization of R, D&D may be

significantly different between the sectors, decisions concerning whether programs should be funded by private versus public funds cannot be based only on

considerations of private returns versus public returns. It may not be most

effective to restrict Government involvement in R, D&D to the two conditions

stated in the Plan: (1) private returns are too low or market barriers too high to

induce private sector activity, and (2) public returns are sufficiently high to justify

a government role. For example, basic research might not be funded if the stated

conditions were applied.

QUESTIONS

Does ERDA plan to publish more information

on the PPBR, its basis, methodology, experiences in use, and continued evolution?

Does ERDA consider the PPBR only for

internal use, or will its potential benefits be

made more widely available?

Will ERDA employ a formalized project

selection procedure, and will this procedure

be made available as a planning and management tool for others?

CHAPTER I

4.

5.

6.

How will ERDA employ the PPBR system to

continually update the Plan?

What provision is made for project or program termination decisions?

What will be the motivations for voluntary

submission of private sector R, D&D information and plans?
16. Net Energy Analysis

ISSUE

Net energy analysis can aid in decisions as to which existing and developing

technologies deserve emphasis, but this methodology must be employed with

caution.

SUMMARY

Net energy measures energy output relative to energy input, thereby

indicating which technologies are likely to be most useful. However, the concept

has been very loosely interpreted; as a result, comparisons of numerical estimates

can be misleading, due to the use of differing definitions of net energy. The terms

and assumptions used in calculations of net energy ratios must, therefore, be

carefully defined. In addition, the numerical values of net energy ratios have

different implications for different energy technologies, and even for different

plant locations. Moreover, net energy may not comprise the most significant

criterion in setting energy policies and pursuing national objectives; for example,

reduction of oil imports may be more important than the net energy ratio of a coal

liquefaction facility. The ERDA Plan does not address any of these considerations,

nor does it establish quantitative net energy criteria for the evaluation of energy

technologies.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

ERDA-76-1, Vol. 1, includes a discussion of net energy analysis—its value,

limitations, and current status. A net energy analysis of nuclear power production

is included. That the methodology is in an early stage of development and lacks a

well-established set of rules and conventions is recognized.

Despite the methodological limitations, ERDA has made use of limited net

energy studies to conclude that each of the technologies currently supported is

favorable as regards net energy, with the exception of very low grade energy

resources. The ERDA Plan concludes that most technologies return four to ten times

the external energy expended for energy production, that nuclear electric power

returns about four times the external energy required, and that net energy

analysis is a supplement to, not a replacement for, other more widely used types

of analysis. It is also indicated that additional analysis will be performed and

reported. No clear indication is given that attempts will be made to improve the

methodologies employed in these analyses. The limitations posed could be

decreased by adequate study and specification of measurement boundaries, the

measurement system, methods of aggregation, and methods for expressing results.

The development of improved, applicable methodology should be considered if

these analysis aid the program planning and decision process.

CHAPTER I
1.

2.

The value of the approach is not so much in the elegance or precision of the

methodology but rather whether the net energy analysis does in fact aid the

program planning and decision process. If it does, then improved methodology

development would be indicated.

Although net energy analysis is defined to include “energy expenditures

to . . . reduce consumption in a particular demand process, ” only the supply

aspect of the analysis is discussed. Efforts should be made to include end-use

technologies in the analysis so that better comparisons between supply

demand options can be made.

The Plan recognizes the potential importance of net energy analysis;

where, and how, and to what extent it will be employed is unclear.

QUESTIONS

What are ERDA’s intentions regarding 3. Will net energy

development and use of net energy analysis ysis be routinely

analysis and

applied in R,

or possible alternative methods? and decision processes?

What is considered to be a satisfactory net

energy ratio?

and

but

related analD&D planning

42 CHAPTER I
Chapter II

Fossil Energy Issues
FOSSIL ENERGY ISSUES LIST

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Fossil Energy Objectives . . . . . . . 47

Almost all of ERDA’s programs in fossil

energy contain unrealistically optimistic

projections of the energy supplies that can be

realized from new technologies in the near

term.

primary Oil and

No Federal agency

prehensive research

Gas Recovery . 49

is engaged in a comProgram for primary oil . -

and gas recovery from new sources; the

absence of such a program could lead to

delays in the development of these resources.

Enhanced Oil and Gas

Recovery . . * . * . * . . * * . * *.****.** 50

The proper role for ERDA in enhanced oil and

gas recovery is not well defined.

Oil Shale Processing . . . . . . . . . . . 51

ERDA’s priorities for oil shale R, D&D lack a

sense of urgency in meeting the Nation’s

energy supply needs in the near- and midterms.

Synthetic Liquid Fuels From

Coal ● *e***. .** **..**.***.* 53

New and existing projects in coal liquefaction must be carried through the pilot and

demonstration stages in order to determine

what technical problems remain and to

establish the oil price levels at which

commercial production will occur.

High-Btu Gasification of Coal . . 54

The construction and operation of a firstgeneration, commercial-sized, high-Btu coal

gasification plant is a prerequisite to any

decision on a coal-based synthetic natural

gas industry.

7.

8.

9.

10,

110

12.

Low-Btu Coal Gasification for

Industrial Use ● * *O. . 56

The ERDA program on low-Btu coal gasification should give attention to the fuel needs of

industrial furnaces, kilns, and ovens.

Mining Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Research on underground mining technology

is required if coal production is to double in

the next 10 years as projected.

Direct Coal Utilization . . . . . . . . . 56

ERDA’s near-term program for direct coal

utilization by utilities and industry is

narrowly oriented toward fluidized bed combustion.

Low-Btu Gasification, Combined

Cycle Powerplants . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

The present ERDA program to develop

integrated low-Btu gasifier, combined cycle

powerplants has underestimated their potential,

Advanced Fossil Fuel Combustion

Programs ● **** **m* ***e 9*0* m. *a. 60

The balance among various advanced energy

R&D projects, as indicated by the relative

budget allocations, does not reflect the

potential of the competing technologies.

Interagency Coordination: Coal

Cleanup ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

ERDA must coordinate its activities with

those of other agencies relating to research

and development of fossil energy. This is

particularly evident in the problem of coal

cleanup.

CHAPTER II 46
13.

14.

46

Environmental, Social, and Political 15. Transportation Systems . . . . . . . 67

Impacts of Mining -

● *.*.****.,** 64!

Even if mining technology is adequate to

support an expanded use of coal and oil shale

in the United States, there are potential

obstacles associated with environmental, l&

social, and political impacts of a massive

increase in mining.

Manpower . . * . ., * * * . * .*.*.*.** 65

ERDA’s program for massive expansion of

the use of coal will require far more trained

personnel at various levels than can naturally be expected to enter those sectors of the

labor market.

CHAPTER II

The application of fossil fuel technology

research will require improved transportation systems in the United States.

Water Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

ERDA has not established a systemsoriented study of water availability related

to its energy program.
1. Fossil Energy Objectives

ISSUE

Almost all of ERDA’s programs in fossil energy contain unrealistically

optimistic projections of the energy supplies that can be realized from new

technologies in the near term.

SUMMARY

ERDA’s objectives for 1985 call for 13 to 15 Quads* of fossil energy derived from

new technologies. Institutional, environmental, and other nontechnical constraints aside, these objectives cannot possibly be met for the single reason that the

time necessary to develop and demonstrate new technologies and to construct a

commercial industry based on those technologies exceeds the 10 years between

now and 1985. The lack of consistency between ERDA’s overall plan in volume I

and the specific program projections in volume II raises questions concerning the

process by which the objectives were defined and the use served by the objectives

in establishing priorities.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

Although ERDA has reduced its objectives, the OTA task force believes that

even these goals for energy from fossil fuels cannot be realized without some

clearly established bridge between R, D&D and commercialization. The ERDA

Program does not address this deficiency.

If ERDA is to be effective in meeting short-term needs it will be in one or both

of two circumstances. One involves efforts to push technologies which are

presently available for testing on a commercial scale (e.g., high-Btu gasification).

The other involves introducing existing technologies into new regions (e.g., OCS oil

and gas development off the Atlantic coast).

The ERDA program does not address these two commercialization problems in

any concrete way. In the cases of both, the issues are not primarily technological.

They revolve around questions of social and environmental impacts, Federal-State

coordination, capital needs, and regulation. Federal stimulation is required.

*A Quad is defined as 1 Quadrillion Btu’s,

CHAPTER II 47
How should the Federal Government provide incentives for commercial demonstration? Incentive options may range from tax breaks, to guaranteed loans, to

guaranteed prices for fuel output, to Federal funding of capital costs. These various

incentive approaches have major implications for the ways in which other issues

are resolved.

Local interests want an approach to commercialization which allows them to

escape paying the front-end costs for such things as schools, sewers, roads, etc.

They also want assurance that serious unexpected costs will be rapidly mitigated

or that those who suffer the costs will be assured of adequate compensation. In

extreme cases, they want assurance that a decision to test a commercial process

will not be an irreversible commitment to development regardless of impacts.

The set of questions tied to commercialization and central to achieving fossil

fuel supply objectives are not addressed in the ERDA Program and Budget. Until

this is done, the ERDA effort will be seriously flawed.

48 CHAPTER II
Z. Primary Oil and Gas Recovery

ISSUE

No Federal agency is engaged in a comprehensive research program for

primary oil and gas recovery from new sources;

could lead to delays in the development of these

the absence of such a program

resources.

SUMMARY

Exploration and development of oil and gas from new sources, particularly the

Outer Continental Shelf, continues to be severely delayed by the lack of planning

on the part of the Federal Government. An aggressive ERDA research program

would complement industrial efforts. In particular, research is needed on the

effects of offshore drilling and on ways of mitigating those which are harmful t o the

environment. Congress mandated in Public Law 93-577 Sec. 6(b)(3)(Q) that ERDA

engage in a program to explore methods for the prevention and cleanup of marine

oil spills, but the scope of ERDA’s proposed activities is not clear,

BUDGET SUMMARY

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request to

Category Appropriation Request Request Congress

Gas and Oil

Extraction 41.4 70.3 70.3 35.1

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The budget is not responsive to the needs of primary oil and gas recovery.

There is no indication of any work aimed specifically at improved oil spill clean-up

techniques for Outer Continental Shelf operations. OTA specifically identified the

need for comprehensive studies aimed at resolving institutional and environmental

issues. Neither the ERDA budget nor the Program reflects a sensitivity to this

need.

The Program recognizes a strategy that requires advance exploration and

extractive techniques both onshore and offshore. It intends to implement the

strategy through a program which in part includes research into drilling,

exploration, and offshore operations. The budget does not provide for these

CHAPTER II 49
activities. A focus on the OCS is new to the FY 77 budget and is responsive to the

issue raised in the OTA analysis of last year’s plan and program. The response,

however, is so limited both in funding and focus that it appears unlikely to make a

near-term contribution to overcoming the delays forecast by OTA.

3. Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery

ISSUE

The proper role for ERDA in enhanced oil and gas recovery is not well defined.

SUMMARY

Enhanced recovery of oil and gas from known reserves holds promise of

significantly increasing the supply of these fuels. The need for research and

development in the area of enhanced recovery clearly exists, but opinions differ as

to the proper role of Government in this endeavor, The present pace of industry

R&D could be accelerated by formulation of a detailed workable incentive plan,

The present ERDA tertiary recovery program for oil, which involves special joint

Government/industry field-pilot testing and demonstration, and the similar

research on the recovery of gas from tight formations, will not yield a significant

increase in production by 1985. ERDA’s projection of an additional annual increase

of approximately 6 Quads resulting from enhanced recovery is therefore

unrealistic.

BUDGET SUMMARY

The budget information for this issue is contained in Issue 2.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The budget is not responsive to the needs expressed in the issue. It is

inadequate to meet the revised goal of 2 Quads of oil and gas by 1985 and 8 Quads

by 2000 from enhanced recovery. OTA had earlier identified a need for 80-150

field tests and demonstrations. ERDA’s existing and planned tests through this

year may total 33. Its initial budget request was more consistent with the effort

suggested in the OTA Analysis. The reduction of ERDA’s request before

submission to Congress places the budget 6 percent below the inadequate funding

level of 1976. The ERDA budget justification substantiates that the present budget

level will stretch out the demonstration program. This appears difficult to justify

for one of the few program areas with a potential for major payoff in the short

term. To the level that the oil and gas program is funded, it is devoted to a wellthought-out set of activities in enhanced recovery.

50 CHAPTER II
4. Oil Shale Processing

ISSUE

ERDA’s priorities for oil shale R, D&D lack a sense of urgency in meeting the

Nation’s energy supply needs in the near- and mid-terms.

SUMMARY

ERDA’s programs for oil shale development are concerned exclusively with insitu processes, but these processes will make no contribution to liquid fuel

supplies in the near-term and have uncertain prospects for the mid-term. The

ERDA conclusion that the above ground processing of oil and shale is not

economically feasible (or has no need for Federal R, D&D support) has no basis in

operating experience. An oil shale demonstration program based on available

technologies is needed.

BUDGET SUMMARY

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request to

Category Appropriation Request Request Congress

Oil shale 13.7 25.7 25.7 21.1

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The ERDA program has been responsive in part to the issue. Two failings

were originally identified in the ERDA oil shale development program. First,

excessive concentration was placed on the Bureau of Mines horizontal in-situ

process. Second, the mining and above ground’ retorting processes were excluded

from the ERDA program on the basis that the technology was ready for”

commercialization by private industry.

The new Program and budget documents were responsive to the in-situ R&D

issue. The program appears to have been expanded in scope to include in-situ

processes other than the Bureau of Mines approach, although the various

processes are not clearly defined nor is the emphasis on each identified.

The budget has not been responsive to the “mining and above ground

retorting” issue, perhaps due to the failure of the commercialization program. The

CHAPTER II 51
Program discussion did identify the problems of mining and management of spent

shale, but the budget indicates that the obstacles to commercial development are

not visualized as requiring ERDA assistance.

Local political and public interest groups as well as national environmental

interest groups have indicated that until substantive information is available on

the problems associated with mining and aboveground retorting of oil shale, they

will oppose any proposed commercial facility, wherever located. The OTA

Analysis of ERDA-48 identified an ERDA-initiated demonstration facility under

Federal control as an appropriate (and indeed perhaps the only) means of

obtaining the necessary information without making an irreversible commitment to

large-scale development before the consequences are known. That conclusion has

not changed, nor has the ERDA response to the problem. There is some discussion

of studies on spent shale in the Environment and Safety section of the ERDA

program, but this is apparently to be done by other agencies (DOI, EPA) as no

budget is indicated within ERDA (E&S) for such efforts.

QUESTIONS

1, Why does ERDA’s oil shale program fail to and water contamination for surface reinclude support for demonstrations of sur- torting processes?

face retorting technologies?

3. How adequate are waste management pro2. How serious are the problems of water con- cedures for the disposal of spent shale?

sumption, waste disposal, revegetation,

52 CHAPTER II
5. Synthetic Liquid Fuels From Coal

ISSUE

New and existing projects in coal liquefaction must be carried through the pilot

and demonstration stages in

and to establish the oil price

order to determine what technical problems remain

levels at which commercial production will occur.

SUMMARY

Justification of the coal liquefaction program rests primarily on the decline in

U.S. oil production and on the need for supplies for those uses of liquid fuels for

which there is no ready substitute. A successful commercialization program in the

1980’s depends on the results of pilot projects. The existing and proposed

development programs of ERDA are judged to be of the proper magnitude and in

the correct direction. However, the constraints to commercialization, such as the

capital investment, construction time, and development of associated mine

facilities, imply that the projection by ERDA of 5 Quads per year cannot be

overcome by 1985. Thus, ERDA’s projection that coal liquefaction will significantly

affect fuel supplies by 1985 is unrealistic.

BUDGET SUMMARY

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request to

Category Appropriation Request Request Congress

Liquefaction 89.9 99.8 94,8 73,9

Clean Boiler 20.0 (Not Available] 30.0

Fuel Demonstration Plant

(Construction Project)

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The program and the budget is not fully responsive to the projected needs for

synthetic fuels by 1985 even though ERDA has revised its projection of 5 Quads

per year by then to 3.8 Quads. The Nation’s utility and industrial coal-fired

boilers remain under sulfur-emission limitations. The supply of flue gas desulfurization equipment and naturally occurring low sulfur coal is inadequate to bring all

boilers into compliance. Demonstration and commercial support for a broader

scope of processes that produce complying coal-based fuels will be required.

CHAPTER II 53
The liquefaction budget reflects a decrease due to lower requirements for the

H-coal pilot plant, projects at the Cresaps test center, and support projects.

QUESTIONS

1. How did ERDA arrive at the projection of indicated by second-generation technology

3.8 Quads by the year 2000 in light of the and what is the magnitude of improvement

budget reduction? needed over first-generation liquefaction

processes to make them commercially

2. What improvement in process efficiency is viable?

6. High-Btu Gasification of Coal

ISSUE

The construction and operation of a first-generation, commercial-sized,

high-Btu coal gasification plant is a prerequisite to any decision on a coal-based

synthetic natural gas industry.

SUMMARY

A pioneer commercial plant, producing 250 million cubic feet per day of highBtu gas from coal, can be constructed immediately using current technology.

Through its construction and operation, the economic, technical, and operating

data necessary to assess the desirability of a coal-based synthetic natural gas

industry can be determined. The objective of this construction is to determine

whether or not high-Btu synthetic natural gas from coal is economically justifiable

as a means of using the Nation’s coal reserves to replace the declining supplies of

natural gas and oil.

While several companies have shown a strong desire to build a commercial

plant, they have not done so because of difficulties in financing such a plant, which

will cost at least $1 billion, Incentives of some form, such as loan guarantees or

regulatory changes, may have to be provided by the Government if the natural gas

industry is to build one of these plants.

54 CHAPTER II
BUDGET SUMMARY

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request to

Category Appropriation Request Request Congress

High-Btu 53.4 55.8 53.3 45.0

Gasification

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

ERDA 76-1 and the ERDA Budget request for FY 77 fail to make progress with

the crucial issue of high-Btu gasification. ERDA chose to address the problem

through the Commercialization Program which failed to receive authorization. No

contingency plan is apparent to allow the immediate construction of a firstgeneration, commercial-sized plant and thus create an impact on the near-term

gas supplies. Consequently, ERDA’s available strategy is, “The investigation and

advancement of technology in the development of improved second-generation

processes”, This sole strategy cannot achieve the stated objective of promoting

“an energy production of 0.5 to 1.0 Quads per year” by 1985 by high-Btu

gasification. Such an objective requires the construction of from 6 to 12 plants

each with a capacity of 250 million cubic feet per day and each requiring a

capitalization of at least $1 billion and taking many years to complete.

The second- and third-generation gasification processes upon which ERDA is

concentrating its efforts can improve gasification efficiency. This is important in

long-term conservation of resources and in reducing the cost of gas, but it has

little to do with contributing to the solution of the Nation’s immediate gas supply

problem.

proven technology exists that permits the construction of commercial-sized

plants, Since less than 25 percent of the cost of gas from such a plant is dependent

on the gasification process, technical improvements in this phase of the high-Btu

gas process will not fundamentally affect decisions. Anticipating the possibility

that its Commercialization program may not materialize, ERDA needs contingency

plans to assure that a large commercial gasification plant is built immediately to

obtain data on the economic, technical, and operating characteristics. Information

from the operation of first-generation plants remain essential for arriving at a

judgment as to whether or not this country should proceed with a high-Btu

synthetic gas industry to replace our declining reserves of natural gas.

CHAPTER II 55

72-169 O - 76 - 5
7. Low-Btu Coal Gasification for Industrial Use

ISSUE

The ERDA program on low-Btu coal gasification does not give attention to the

fuel needs of industrial furnaces, kilns, and ovens.

SUMMARY

Many users of natural gas and oil in the industrial sector (ferrous and

nonferrous metallurgy, glass, lime, cement, refractories, stills, etc. ) could shift to

low-Btu gas from coal if suitable gas producers were available, This shift would

make an important contribution to the conversion from the use of oil and gas to the

use of coal, and it would help to ensure against production cutbacks due to

curtailments. There is much room for R, D&D supported by ERDA with a focus on

assessment of the potential demand for low-Btu gas by the industrial sector, means

for increasing this potential through modification of equipment or operations, and

the development of gas producers having performance characteristics suitable for

modern industrial use,

BUDGET SUMMARY

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request to

Category Appropriation Request Request Congress

Low-Btu 24.5 64.0 64.0 33.1

Gasification

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The new program and budget is responsive to this issue and it appears that

ERDA has developed an effective program.

56 CHAPTER II
8. Mining Technology

ISSUE

Research on underground mining technology is required if coal production is

to double in the next 10 years as projected.

SUMMARY

Government and industry are expecting coal production to double to 1.2

billion tons annually by 1985. To help assure that these projections can be met,

coal mining R, D&D will require priority support. The productivity per miner in

underground mines has decreased in recent years, principally because of

improvements in health and safety standards; technological progress has been

unable to offset the decline. Improvements in mining technology have the potential

for making significant contributions sooner than most R, D&D projects in fossil

energy. Although Federal responsibility for coal mining rests with the Bureau of

Mines in the Department of the Interior, ERDA has a responsibility to ensure that

the research necessary to improve the technology of underground mining of fossil

fuel resources is carried out.

BUDGET SUMMARY

No budget indicated.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The ERDA program document recognized extractive technologies and stated

that work is underway. No intensive or introspective analysis is indicated or

budgeted to assure that the mining, coal preparation, and associated environmental R, D&D activities, regardless of performing agency, are in concert with

national or ERDA energy goals. ERDA should schedule and budget for an examination of the Bureau of Mines and Environmental Protection Agency programs and

ensure that a balanced program exists.

QUESTIONS

1. What contact has ERDA made with the 2. What has ERDA’s analysis revealed reBureau of Mines and EPA regarding their garding the adequacy, priority, and timecoal mining, preparation, and associated liness of the other agencies programs in

environmental programs? meeting the needs of the goals of ERDA’s

R, D&D programs?

CHAPTER II 57
—

9. Direct Coal Utilization

ERDA’s near-term program for direct coal utilization by utilities and industry

is narrowly oriented toward fluidized-bed combustion.

SUMMARY

The use of fluidized-bed combustors with sulfur-absorbing beds to provide

gas cleanup is unlikely to make a significant contribution in the near-term (to

1985), as predicted by ERDA, due to technological barriers to implementation. Two

major coal combustion problems whose resolution would have major near-term

impacts are:

1) the technical difficulties of substituting coal for gas and oil in presently

existing utility and industry applications (retrofit), and

2) the direct use of coal in a way which will meet environmental requirements.

Other technologies which hold promise of providing solutions to these problems

are pulverized fuel firing, and precombustion cleanup; both of these need research

and development support in order to enhance their contribution to direct coal

utilization by utilities and industry. There is also a need for more basic research in

coal chemistry. The present division among three Federal agencies of responsibilit y for coal cleanup causes variations in the criteria adopted by the agencies as well

as in the size and effectiveness of their programs, By assigning the funds and

responsibility for managing these programs to one agency, the development of a

balanced coal cleanup program could be facilitated, In all areas, the energy

program could be set back by a failure on the part of ERDA to recognize the needs of

the industrial sector such as the ferrous and nonferrous metal fabrication

industries, the glass and ceramics industries, and manufacturers of cement and

lime.

BUDGET SUMMARY

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request to

Category Appropriation request Request Congress

Direct 38.1 85.3 77.3 52.4

Combustion

58 CHAPTER II
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

Although the budget related to this issue has increased, ERDA’s program

remains unresponsive. Most of the increase is in the area of fluidized-bed

combustion. Expanded research in the fluid bed technology is appropriate because

of its midterm potential for economical and environmentally acceptable utilization

of coal in industrial and utility systems. However, no near-term direct combustion

development work is indicated. Moreover, within the direct combustion program,

funds for supporting studies and engineering evaluations have been cut. This area

contains the coal-based combustion research, coal-oil slurries work, and other

activities which would have broadened the direct coal utilization effort and been

more responsive to the issue. ERDA’s program appears to be less than responsive

to the issue and to near-term energy needs.

QUESTIONS

1. Why aren’t the problems of pulverized fuel 2. Why isn’t R, D&D directed to improving the

firing, precombustion cleanup, and basic energy generation and environmental

research in coal combustion chemistry problems of existing direct coal utilization

being examined with increased emphasis? equipment ?

10. Low-Btu Gasification, Combined Cycle Powerplants

The present ERDA program to develop integrated low-Btu gasifier, combined

cycle powerplants has underestimated their potential.

SUMMARY

In terms of both efficiency and economics, the integrated low-Btu gasifier,

gas-turbine/steam-turbine, combined cycle electrical-generating system promises

to become one of the best methods of using coal in an environmentally acceptable

manner that is likely to be developed. Commercialization of such a system, which

would have an overall efficiency of 37 to 38 percent (coal pile to bus bar), should

be achievable in the mid to late 1980’s if a balanced research and development

program is conducted. The ERDA documents give no indication that planning for

such a program is taking place.

CHAPTER II 59
BUDGET SUMMARY

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request to

Category Appropriation Request Request Congress

LOW Btu 24,5 64,0 64.0 33.1

Gasification

Advanced 10.0 35.2 28.2 22,5

Power Systems

LOW Btu 8.0 (not available) 12.0

Demonstration

Plant

(Construction Project)

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

ERDA has responded to the issue by developing a coordinated and integrated

program of activities. The original Division and ERDA budget requests as well as

the reduced final request to Congress appear consistent with the early potential of

this efficient process which provides energy by burning coal in an environmentally

acceptable manner. The original budget requests, however, seem to more suitably

represent a recognition of priority.

11. Advanced Fossil Fuel Combustion Programs

ISSUE

Frequent evaluation of progress in magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) and other

high-efficiency energy R, D&D programs will be necessay to ensure maximum

energy yield over the long term.

SUMMARY

The ERDA Direct Coal Utilization program contains both the Direct Combustion (i.e., fluidized bed) and Advanced Power Systems (i.e., gas turbine) programs. MHD research is a separate program, even though MHD is a direct

combustion process. Fuel cell R&D is not included in the Fossil Fuel Division of

ERDA, though it has more in common with the fossil programs than with the non60 CHAPTER II
combustion Advanced Division in which it is housed. Relative funding of these

programs indicates heavy ERDA emphasis on fluidized bed and MHD, much less

emphasis on advanced gas turbine research and an almost total disregard of fuelcell technology.

A portion of the present ERDA emphasis is well placed, given that fluidizedbed combustors and MHD systems can burn coal directly, while the advanced gas

turbine and fuel-cell technologies require liquid or gaseous fuels which over the

long term will have to come from coal conversion. Thus, while the advanced gas

turbine and fuel-cell technologies can probably be brought to commercial application much sooner than MHD or pressurized fluidized beds, their fuel deployment

will depend on progress in the commercialization of synthetic fuels.

In many applications, these technologies are mutually exclusive. Funding and

program decisions about each will be affected by progress in the other programs.

The MHD program in particular has several major technology hurdles to overcome

prior to commercial application using coal. While the MHD program appears to be

adequately funded and structured, continuous assessment of progress in MHD

development relative to the other technologies will be necessary to ensure that

research expenditures yield the maximum benefit. By comparison, fuel-cell

technology development deserves more support than it is currently receiving in

ERDA. Both recent industrial progress in developing commercially feasible fuelcell technology and the congressional mandate in Public Law 93-577, Section

6(b)(3)(N), “to commercially demonstrate the use of fuel cells for central station

electric power generation” indicate a need for more ERDA attention to fuel-cell

technology.

BUDGET SUMMARY

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request to

Category Appropriation Request Request Congress

Advanced 10.0 35.2 28.2 22.5

Power Systems

Direct 38,1 85.3 77.3 52.4

Combustion

Fuel Cells (Included in Conservation Division)

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The budget was not responsive to needs for fuel-cell work. The original issue

indicated that a change in relative emphasis between the MHD, advanced gas

turbine, fluidized-bed combustion and fuel cells could yield a significant reduction

in the time required to reduce dependence on petroleum and natural gas.

Increased emphasis on fuel-cell research and on advanced gas turbines for

electric generation from coal was identified as important.

CHAPTER II 61
The discussion in ERDA 76 and the budget requests for FY 77 indicate that

ERDA has significantly upgraded the gas turbine program. The fuel-cell program,

on the other hand, is recognized only rhetorically. That program is improperly

housed in the Conservation Division and maybe suffering for that reason. The fuel

cell research has more in common within the Fossil Energy Division and, if moved,

might receive more attention as a technology for electric generation. As matters

now stand, it is not possible even to identify a separate budget allocation for

fuel-cell research.

QUESTIONS

1. What will be achieved in fuel cell R, D&D 2. Why has not more emphasis been placed on

within the FY 76 budget? fuel-cell work?

12. Interagency Coordination: Coal Cleanup

ISSUE

Coordination between ERDA and other agencies appears to be inadequate in

activities relating to research and development of fossil energy. This is particularly

evident in coal cleanup.

The

ment of

SUMMARY

responsibility for many programs important to the successful developincreased fossil fuel supplies lies outside ERDA, While this division of

responsibility acknowledges the scope and expertise of other agencies, ERDA, in

its capacity as lead agency in formulating Federal R, D&D strategy, has a

responsibility y to participate in the design, development, and coordination of these

outside activities and to evaluate their progress. This is necessary to ensure that no

serious omissions or delays occur because of problems in non-ERDA programs on

which ERDA programs are dependent either in their development or their

implemental ion. Further, when policy decisions are made concerning alternative

technologies, it is important that the criteria used in assessing the options do not

vary among the decisionmaking agencies, In some cases, a redefinition of

responsibilities may be desirable. A case in point is the problem of coal cleaning,

Precombustion cleanup research is performed by the Bureau of Mines, during

combustion cleanup by ERDA, and postcombustion cleanup by EPA.

62 CHAPTER II
BUDGET SUMMARY

Not applicable.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The ERDA program document identifies R, D&D being conducted on coal

mining, coal preparation, and associated environmental consequences. However,

it is impossible to determine if they have addressed the issue and are achieving an

appropriate coordinated interagency program. There is no way to determine the

degree of ERDA participation in the design, development, and coordination of

outside activities or of ERDA evaluation of other agencies’ progress consistent

with ERDA’s interdependent program requirements.

QUESTIONS

1. What coordinating activities has ERDA 3. What prescription of work has ERDA develundertaken with other agencies’ programs oped to guide outside agencies in performing

with interdependent ramifications? work consistent with the needs of ERDA’s

interdependent R, D&D?

2. What analysis of the total system from mine

face, preparation, transportation, combustion and conversion, to end use has ERDA

undertaken?

CHAPTER II 63
13. Environmental, Social, and Political Impacts of

Mining

Even if mining technology is adequate to support an expanded use of coal and

oil shale in the United States, there are potential obstacles associated with

environmental, social, and political impacts of a massive increase in mining.

SUMMARY

A major increase in electricity generation from the direct combustion of coal or

the conversion of coal to synthetic gas and liquid fuels at a commercial scale will

require a significant expansion of coal extraction. For example, a 250 million cubic

feet per day plant for producing pipeline gas from coal will require a coal mine as

large as any presently operating in the United States. The plant will consume more

coal than is now mined in Utah. An activity of this scope will almost certainly

encounter resistance from groups in society that are especially concerned about

environmental quality; these groups may have considerable influence at State and

local levels. If these concerns are not to become a serious constraint to the use of

improved fossil fuel technologies, ERDA must be sure that necessary programs are

established to reduce uncertainties about environmental and social impacts and to

mitigate serious negative impacts.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

ERDA and private industry are conducting or contemplating a significant

range of demonstration or commercial level programs in coal conversion, oil shale,

and other fossil fuel activities. Significant concern regarding environmental,

social, or institutional matters associated with each activity can be expected

among local and national interest groups. These concerns should be anticipated

and addressed early by the appropriate agency. To be most effective, the

magnitude of the environmental, social, and institutional costs and benefits must

be clearly and convincingly expressed at a high level of authority and preferably

on site or near the place of the anticipated activity. Theoretical regional and

national studies conducted by the laboratories, while necessary, are not fully

responsive to the immediate promotional mandate of ERDA. Trained social and

environmental scientists working in teams coordinated and supervised at a high

level of authority are required. There is no evidence in the new ERDA Program

that this approach is being taken, or indeed that the Fossil Division of ERDA has

access to the necessary personnel. While the appropriate words appear briefly

from place to place in ERDA-76, references to the required funds, staff, and

programs do not appear.

64 CHAPTER II
QUESTIONS

1. Are the research activities of Federal agencies, other than ERDA, sufficient to avoid

future environmental and social constraints

on the application of improved fossil fuel

technologies?

2. What are the options—and the pros and

cons—for accommodating the concerns of

States about potential negative environmental and social impacts of an expansion of

coal and oil-shale mining?

3. How large a community must be established

to build and operate a commercial-sized

synthetic fuel plant and its associated

mining activities?

4. How many trained personnel in the social

and environmental sciences will be required

to accomplish the work defined in the

ERDA Program? What is ERDA’s present

staff size in these disciplines?

14. Manpower

ISSUE

ERDA’s program for massive expansion of the use of coal will require far more

trained personnel at various levels than can naturally be expected to enter those

sectors of the labor market.

SUMMARY

ERDA estimates of increased coal production will require a significant

increase in the number of underground coal miners, including first-line supervisory personnel and coal mining engineers. The fluctuating production levels of

the coal mining industry over the last 25 years has resulted in a current work force

composed principally of miners over 50 or under 30 years of age. Simultaneously,

advanced mining techniques and machinery impose a requirement for more

education and special training. Coal research and mining engineering programs at

the university level are few and thinly staffed. Significantly more faculty are

needed to expand and multiply these programs. The development of gasification

and liquefaction plants will also increase demand for both university-trained

professionals and for subprofessionals with special skills. Failure to support the

development of the necessary manpower pool in these and other areas requiring

critical skills could result in failure to achieve the goals which ERDA has set, even

if the technology and other required inputs are available.

CHAPTER II 65
BUDGET SUMMARY

The budget request treating this issue is contained within the Advanced

Research and Support Technology subprogram. No explicit amount can be

identified.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

ERDA has acknowledged the need for professional manpower training and

declares satisfaction of this need as a principal objective of its university-based

research activities. There are no efforts described, however, to deal with the

need for personnel in mining and equipment operation areas or those skills needed

in construction and operation of synthetic fuel plants. Although treating part of

the problem, ERDA has not effectively responded to this issue.

In related efforts, the Mine Enforcement and Safety Administration (MESA)

has training programs focusing on strengthening health and safety factors in

mining. The training is designed primarily for mine foremen. The Government

program in total does not appear responsive enough to the requirements of the

national energy objectives,

QUESTIONS

1. What role should ERDA play in developing 3. What information is available concerning

the manpower required for coal mining and the ability of existing professional and trade

related equipment operation to meet ERDA’s educational facilities to provide the necesgoals for expansion of coal use? sary trained personnel?

2. What special skills are critical to the S U C- 4. What impact will other energy programs

cess of the proposed fossil fuel programs, have on manpower available for the fossil

and how many trained personnel will be fuel industries?

needed?

66 CHAPTER II
15. Transportation Systems

ISSUE

The application of fossil fuel technology

transportation systems in the United States.

SUMMARY

research will require improved

A shift from the use of crude oil and natural gas, imported or domestic, to the

use of coal and synthetic fuel products from coal will make heavy demands on

existing transportation systems. The rail network, which moves most of the

Nation’s coal, will be especially affected. In order to avoid major constraints on the

application of improved fossil fuel technologies, ERDA needs to anticipate the

commodity movements that may be required and to assure that necessary

additions to or changes in present transportation systems are brought about.

BUDGET SUMMARY

No budget can be identified.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

There is no indication in the revised Plan that ERDA has addressed the issue

nor analyzed the questions that were posed and restated below. Many users of

coal have found that they are inaccessible to rapid-unit train shipment due to the

poor track maintenance that seems to prevail in many important energy regions of

the Nation. ERDA should assume responsibility for fuel transportation studies,

recommend actions required of other agencies, and provide for budget support of

its own responsibilities.

QUESTIONS

1. What are the interregional transportation 3. To what extent are the needed changes in

requirements of ERDA’s scenarios in volume transportation capabilities a problem of

1, and how do they compare with the present Federal regulatory policy rather than a

capacities of transportation networks? problem of technology development?

2. In ERDA’s opinion, what are the prospects 4. What portion of the current railroad system

for an increased use of coal slurry pipe- can handle unit trains at high speed? How

lines? do they relate to source and users of coal?

CHAPTER II 67
16. Water Availability

ERDA has not established a systems-oriented study of water availability related

to its energy program.

SUMMARY

ERDA has defined programs for extensive development of U.S. coal resources,

for oil shale, and for increased electrification as part of its overall strategy for

supply of energy in the United States. These programs all imply a greatly increased

demand for water, in terms of both withdrawal and consumption. When these

programs are viewed in the context of the total ERDA program, including nuclear

and geothermal energy programs, it is apparent that the availability of water to

supply commercial level energy production activities is uncertain, especially in the

fossil fuel area. A large percentage of the fossil fuel development programs relate to

the use of low-grade coal, generation of low-Btu gas, processing of oil shale and

other activities which involve fuel sources or product streams which are not

economically transportable, These activities may be located primarily in the

resource-rich but water-short Northern Great Plains and Colorado River Basins,

There is no evidence in the ERDA Plan of any coordinated water-resource planning

activity to facilitate the implementation of the technologies for fossil energy

production which ERDA has defined as critical to future energy supply.

BUDGET SUMMARY

No budget can be identified.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

ERDA 76-1 recognizes the importance of assessing the water resources of this

country particularly as they impact on the development of fossil energy reserves.

Water assessment programs are outlined in discussions both of Fossil Energy and

of Environmental Research. However, since most of the Government research on

water resources is conducted through the U.S. Geological Survey and the Water

Resources Council, this issue is not indicated in ERDA’s budget. It appears that

consideration is now being given to this issue in the development of coal and oil

shale in the Western States. No detail as to the role ERDA plays with respect to

water resources is apparent. Neither is it obvious that ERDA considers the

availability and use of water in its assessments of alternative strategies for

meeting energy objectives.

68 CHAPTER II
Chapter III

Nuclear Issues

69
L

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Standardization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

The present procedure for the design, construction and licensing of a nuclear powerplant is time-consuming, inefficient, and

costly. An ERDA-supported standardization program could alleviate these difficulties.

Performance and Reliability . . . . 75

Problems relating to the performance and

reliability of light-water reactors have

received insufficient attention since the AEC

ceased nonsafety light-water reactor R&D.

Floating Nuclear Powerplants . . 77

Floating nuclear powerplants offer potential

improvements in LWR licensing and construction, but implementation is in doubt.

HeIium -Cooled Reactors -

Converters and Breeders . . . . . . . 78

Helium-cooled reactors have some potential

advantages not offered by water- or sodiumcooled plants, yet have a relatively low

priority in ERDA’s program.

Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor 80

The liquid metal fast breeder reactor has

great potential as an “inexhaustible” longterm energy source, but it poses SeriouS

technological and societal problems.

Light-Water Breeder Reactor . . . 82

The light water breeder reactor concept has

several advantages, but the need for it is

questionable.

Molten Salt Breeder Reactor . . . 83

Support for the molten salt breeder reactor

development program is small compared to

other reactors and may be insufficient to

permit evaluation within a reasonable time

period.

NUCLEAR ISSUES LIST

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Nuclear Environmental Effects . 85

There is a continuing need for the evaluation

of the environmental effects associated with

nuclear energy sources.

Plutonium Toxicity ● * * *.*.**... 88

The toxicity of plutonium may pose a serious

threat to a plutonium-based nuclear option,

such as the LMFBR or plutonium recycle in

light-water reactors.

Waste Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Satisfactory handling of nuclear fission

wastes appears to be technologically feasible, although it has yet to be demonstrated.

Other problems exist, mainly societal and

institutional, which greatly influence the

nature of the demonstration required.

Safeguards for Nuclear Materials 89

safeguards must be adequate to prevent the

theft or loss of fission materials, with

subsequent clandestine construction of

nuclear weapons,

Siting ● ....,. 90

Nuclear Regulatory Commission policy

changes for siting could influence reactor and

supporting system design.

Uranium Resources . ....*..**** 91

The lack of precision in present uranium

resource estimates and questions as to the

rate of expansion of uranium production

capability make resource-related issues

difficult to address.

Uranium Enrichment . . . . . . . . . . 93

Expansion of uranium enrichment capacity

is required to meet domestic requirements

and foreign commitments for LWR and

HTGR fuel.

CHAPTER Ill 71

72-169 0 -76-6
15.

16.

17.

Fuel Recycle ● ****************** 95

Fission fuel recycling capability is needed for

the orderly development of nuclear power.

Public Understanding . . . . . . . . . . 97

Public understanding of the energy problem,

and especially of the nuclear option, receives

minor emphasis in the ERDA Program. 18.

Controlled Fusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Great care must be exercised to ensure that

the ERDA-controlled fusion program does

not expand at a rate so fast that proper

attention is not given to the different physics

problems of controlled fusion and that

development of new concepts is not

prematurely abandoned.

Technologies for Fusion . . . . . . . 100

New technologies, which will be critical to

fusion’s successful development through the

1980’s, require a long time to develop and will

require rapidly increasing effort with time.

72 CHAPTER Ill
1. Standardization

The present procedure for the design, construction, and licensing of a nuclear

powerplant is time-consuming, inefficient, and costly. An ERDA-supported

standardization program could alleviate these difficulties.

SUMMARY

At present, virtually every nuclear powerplant is custom designed and built by

a combination of suppliers. This procedure leads to very complex interfaces

between the various suppliers, the utility, and the NRC. The incomplete status of

the design at the time the construction permit is issued (conditioned upon the

resolution of incomplete design features) and the changing regulatory requirements result in many design changes, imposition of retrofitted systems,

delays, and cost increases. Standardization is a potential solution that is not

feasible in the present environment of fragmented responsibility and rapidly

changing regulatory requirements.

ERDA could support the development of a standardized design of a complete

nuclear powerplant for which the NRC would issue a “license to manufacture. ”

Participation by all concerned parties would ensure a high-quality design. The

licensing review of the utility’s application would be limited to site-related issues

and would require only a small fraction of the present licensing time and cost.

BUDGET SUMMARY

The budget for standardization activities is provided in the “Plant Design and

Construction Technology” subsection of Light-Water Reactor Technology. Budget

history tables do not provide a sufficiently fine breakdown to trace the relevant

suggested budget from ERDA division through OMB. The LWR technology program

budget is shown below.

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriations Request Request to Congress

LWR Technology 4.0 51.9 51.9 12.5

Plant design & 1 .15 [Not Available) 5.5

Construction

Technology

(Budget Outlay)

CHAPTER Ill 73
Although it cannot be determined what fraction of these funds will be used

for standardization activities, the proposed budget indicates the possibility for

substantially increased effort.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The issue of standardization of nuclear powerplants has not been addressed

in ERDA-76-1, However, the lesser (but significant) issue of standardization of

selected plant systems and procedures is included under Plant Design and

Construction Technology, A significant fraction of this program should be

concerned with standardization of components, systems and design because of the

potentially favorable impact upon reliability and safety. This action would be

consistent with NRC’s encouragement of NSSS vendors and architect-engineers to

submit standardized safety analyses for their most commonly purchased NSSS’s

and designs.

QUESTIONS

1. Is ERDA willing to consider participation in instruments, etc., or designs which clearly

a program to promote standardized nuclear favor one supplier over another?

powerplant design and construction and

what form would this participation take? 3. What are the advantages of standardization

over present procedures if the latter were

2. Are there significant antitrust issues or implemented more expeditiously? What is

other difficulties involved in specifying the evidence that standardization will

brands of pumps, valves, control systems, actually reduce costs?

74 CHAPTER Ill
2. Performance and Reliability

ISSUE

Problems relating to the performance and reliability of light-water reactors have

received insufficient attention since the AEC ceased nonsafety light-water reactor

R&D.

SUMMARY

Until the late 1960’s, substantial governmental research work was carried out

on light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors. At that time, the AEC decided that

LWR’S had reached commercial status area. Following that decision, a number of

problems developed. First, the nuclear industry has been slow to see the need for

and to initiate extensive IWD efforts of its own. Second, increases in reactor

power levels greater than those warranted by existing technology resulted in

component performance and reliability problems. Third, continuous AEC tightening

of safety-related design criteria and operating restrictions over the past 6 to 8

years has resulted in economic penalties and reduction of plant operating flexibility, With respect to the first two problems, it is noted with approval that ERDA is

planning to renew governmental support of R&D aimed at improving LWR performance and reliability. The third problem would seem to be NRC’s responsibility.

However, it is questionable whether NRC has adequate incentive for doing

research to optimize the balance between costs and safety. Furthermore, it has

little incentive to develop improved safety concepts or systems so long as it

considers its primary responsibilities to the review of proposed systems for

adequacy. The ERDA LWR safety program can serve both to control the costs of

safety systems and reduce the unknown factors in safety-related areas, thereby

possibly-increasing safety margins and reducing public fear.

BUDGET SUMMARY

Each of the five subsections of the LWR Technology section

pertain to Performance and Reliability. The history of requests for

presented below.

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

of the budget

this section is

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriations Request Request to Congress

LWR Technology 4.0 51.9 51.9 12.5

CHAPTER Ill 75
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

This

Reactors

exceed a

should be one of the high, short-term priority efforts within the Fission

Program, although we would not expect the appropriation for it to

few percent (perhaps 10 percent) of the Fission Reactors budget. This is

because other program elements, notably the LMFBR Program, are at the stage of

maximum funding requirements. Nevertheless, the LWR’s must carry the nuclear

power load for the next two decades. While the existing safety features of these

reactors reduce the risk to the health and safety of the public to low levels, it

appears that potential improvements in design and manufacture could improve

reliability and safety. Such improvements would enhance both the usefulness and

the acceptability of LWR’s in our electric power system. ERDA has undertaken to

provide assistance in this effort.

It is of concern, however, that the LWR Technology Program is still in the

early stages of definition. The program description is couched in general terms,

and there does not appear to have been much progress since July 1975, despite the

fact that the last half of 1975 was to have been used to develop a detailed program

plan. Several important program elements are now being identified. If this initial

effort is expanded, the program may yet attain its goals.

There may be difficult problems of equity in this undertaking. Some suppliers

may benefit more than others. Such questions should be resolved and a balanced

LWR Technology Program developed if these reactors are to provide their full

benefits to the American public at a level of risk that is generally acknowledged to

be acceptable.

QUESTIONS

1. How can ERDA provide assistance without 2. How will the components and systems to be

altering the competitive balance among improved be selected?

suppliers?

76 CHAPTER Ill
3. Floating Nuclear Powerplants

ISSUE

Floating nuclear powerplants (FNP’s) offer potential improvements in LWR

licensing and construction, but implementation is in doubt.

SUMMARY

FNP’s are commercially available, although none have yet been built. After

several years of design and sales effort, only four units have been sold to one

utility, and all four of these units were recently delayed from the 1979-86 period to

the 1984-90 time period. As a result, the supplier is in financial difficulty. If this

company fails, the FNP, which represents a major step forward in standardization,

will be eliminated for the foreseeable future as an option in meeting the Nation’s

energy generation needs.

The FNP is to be built in a factory setting favorable to rapid, high-quality

construction and controlled costs. The plant design is to be approved by NRC prior

to the issuance of a “license to manufacture”; hence, a utility has only to license the

site. Indeed, the concurrent construction of the plant and the licensing and

preparation of the site significantly reduces the time to install FNP’s.

The present reservations about FNP’s among utilities concern the licensability y

of the plant and site, and the performance of the plant upon completion. ERDA

should consider aiding utilities in the 1icensing process and guaranteeing operating

performance if the reactor vessel melt-through problem can be satisfactorily

resolved.

BUDGET SUMMARY

No budget has been identified for this activity.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The subject of ERDA support for floating nuclear powerplants is not

addressed in ERDA 76-1. This would indicate that ERDA has no present plans to

encourage the FNP concept as one of the methods of supporting standardization

and its potential benefits.

Major assistance probably is not required since the manufacturer is

proceeding with construction plans, but many serious problems remain. The

benefits of the concept are sufficiently great that FNP’s could constitute a large

proportion of future nuclear construction if the initial difficulties can be surmounted. Recent utility analyses indicate that the cost for a 2-unit plant sited at a

lagoon could be $500 million to $1 billion less than that for a land-based, 2-unit

CHAPTER Ill 77
plant of comparable size due to the assembly line construction of the FNP and the

parallel construction of the plant and site, Such savings, however, are contingent

upon the licensability and the reliable operation of the plants. The consequences

of “being wrong” in deciding on FNP’s are so large that utilities so far have

chosen the more expensive, but less speculative, conventional nuclear route.

ERDA activity to encourage early resolution of the technical, environmental,

licensing, and financial risks could serve to assure the early availability of the

advantages of FNP’s.

QUESTIONS

1. Are the licensing questions of FNP’s so 2. Are there any reasons that an FNP would

different from those of land-based plants not be expected to reach rated power or be

that a utility committed to nuclear power restricted to less than rated power by NRC,

would not accept the risk of delays and i.e., the question of the ice condenser expeadditional costs to resolve the issues in- rience as well as the upper head injection?

volved?

4. Helium-Cooled Reactors—Converters and Breeders

ISSUE

Helium-cooled reactors have some potential advantages not offered by waterer sodium-cooled plants, yet have a relatively low priority in ERDA’s program.

SUMMARY

The HTGR has never been accorded the degree of AEC support enjoyed by

LWR’s, but private and foreign development have brought it to the point where it

could become a significant factor. The HTGR and its potential successor, the very

high temperature reactor (VHTR), can be used to generate electricity at much

higher efficiencies (up to 50 percent) than LWR’s, but they may have even greater

potential for producing industrial process heat. In addition, they would extend

uranium resources and possibly present more easily managed safety and

safeguards problems, although the spent fuel safeguards advantage is somewhat

counterbalanced by the need to protect the clean fuel. The HTGR, however, is less

developed than LWR’s, thus presenting cost, performance, and licensing uncertainties.

The GCFR has been viewed as a backup to the LMFBR. It may, however, have

sufficient advantages to warrant concurrent development. The breeding ratio is

about 1.4, somewhat better than the LMFBR. The thermal efficiency is higher than

the LMFBR, and the capital cost could turn out to be lower since the system is

inherently simpler. There exist, however, serious uncertainties regarding the loss

78 CHAPTER Ill
of coolant accident, since the power density is higher than the HTGR and the core

heat capacity is lower, resulting in a faster temperature rise,

BUDGET SUMMARY

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriations Request Request to Congress

Thermal Reactors 14.8 25,8 15.6 15.6

Fast Breeder 6.2 15.3 7.8 7.8

Reactors

Reactor Safety 4.3 6.6 6.6 5.3

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The High-Temperature Gas Reactor (HTGR) appears to have sufficient

advantages over LWR’s to justify keeping it available as an option. Private industry,

however, has found immediate deployment impractical and rapid development

beyond its means. In view of uncertainties in the industrial commitment to these

reactors, it may, therefore, be appropriate for ERDA to carry the program at about

its present level until the industrial position becomes clearer. This level is probably

not sufficient to assure development on a reasonable time frame, even with full

industrial participation. A significantly higher level of Federal support will be

needed to ensure success of the program even on the time scale envisioned

by ERDA, i.e., operation of an essentially commercial reactor by the later 1980’s.

Since this is close to the expected commercialization period for the LMFBR, the

resource conservation rationale for the HTGR loses much of its force.

The budget for HTGR fuel-cycle R, D&D (Issue Paper 15) is slightly greater

than that for the HTGR itself. This appears to be out of proportion.

Continued ERDA development of direct cycle HTGR’s and VHTR’s for

high-temperature process heat may not be justifiable if industry should abandon

development of the steam cycle HTGR. This aspect of the ERDA program (at

present only a contingency) may not be realistic. Major review of the Federal role

in supporting HTGR technology will soon become necessary. The ERDA program

provides for such major decision points within the next 12 to 18 months.

The Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor (GCFR) program is continued as a backup to the

LMFBR. The program is presently in a program definition and technology development phase. A decision whether or not to proceed with a demonstration reactor

project is expected in about 3 years. The present program and budget appear to be

consistent with that goal. Since this program is also heavily dependent on

HTGR technology, continuation may become unrealistic if the HTGR is dropped.

CHAPTER III 79
QUESTIONS

1. Will ERDA consider developing the HTGR 2. Will development of the GCFR be continued

now that funding is drastically lowered by if the HTGR is dropped?

the private sector?

15. Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor

The liquid metal fast breeder reactor (LMFBR) has great potential as an

“inexhaustible” long-term energy source, but it poses serious technological and

societal problems.

SUMMARY

A successful LMFBR could provide the bulk of the electricity for the United

States for millennia at a competitive price. The U-238 which would be used in the

LMFBR is readily available and is otherwise useless. Much of the technology has

already been demonstrated here and abroad during the past 25 years. Advocates

believe that the LMFBR will be an attractive energy source, both economically and

environmentally, and that a delay in the present schedule would cause the

dissipation of expertise in the development program and probably would lead to a

stronger ultimate demand for fossil fuel. In addition, some form of a breeder will be

vital if fusion is to be a major source of energy in the twenty-first century, and the

LMFBR is the most advanced and promising of the various alternatives.

Opponents of the present plan argue that a year or two delay would make

possible a better design, that electric forecasts and uranium reserves do not

require the LMFBR on an expedited schedule, that proper safeguards for plutonium

will be impossible to design and implement, that plutonium toxicity is not well

enough understood, that large technological and economic uncertainties remain,

that there will be preferable alternatives, and that proceeding with the Clinch River

demonstration will commit the United States so strongly to the LMFBR that it would

be commercialized even if it turned out to be a bad choice.

80 CHAPTER Ill
SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

BUDGET SUMMARY

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriations Request Request to Congress

Base Program 191.0 267.0 240.2 227.2

Clinch River 107.0 237.6 237.6 237.6

Reactor Safety 46.0 70,5 70.5 54.4

Advanced Funds 14.5 17.5 17.5 15.5

Total 358.5 592.6 565.8 534.8

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The program and budget seem appropriate to the task of producing an

LMFBR. The base program R, D&D is developing the information necessary to

support the design of LMFBR’s. The design of the Clinch River demonstration plant

is well underway. Reactor safety studies should eventually resolve principal

safety issues.

Questions as to the overall cost and schedule of the program have been less

satisfactorily addressed. The CRBR cost estimate has recently risen to $1.9 billion

(about $3000/kWe for construction costs) and this can be expected to rise further if

additional licensing delays are encountered. If the slowdown in construction of light

water reactors continues, need for the LMFBR will be postponed because of the

lowered demand for uranium. If rapid LWR growth does not resume soon, and

uranium resources live up to ERDA’s expectations, a delay of several years could be

tolerated, If high-grade ore is depleted faster than presently projected, the LMFBR

might be useful on an expedited schedule. Activities that could reduce the costs of

the CRBR include redesign of the plant with cost control a primary parameter, and

a reduction in the program emphasis on building an entire breeder support

industry. This latter point seems particularly appropriate now that ERDA has

redefined the CRBR as an R, D&D project only. Increased use of foreign technology

could also prove helpful in cost reductions. International cooperation is mentioned

in ERDA 76-1, but it is not obvious that it will be used constructively. Recent reports

of lower than expected breeding ratios in the European breeders emphasize the

importance of cooperation in order to avoid potential problems.

QUESTIONS

1. What steps will ERDA take to resolve the LMFBR? On what time scale are these

principal safety issues relating to the issues expected to be resolved, if proposed

CHAPTER Ill 81
facilities and programs are completed satis- 2. To what extent is ERDA investigating the

factorily and on schedule? Does this sched- possibility of a thorium cycle LMFBR?

ule mesh with ERDA’s proposed schedule

for developing designs for commercial 3. When will a decision on proceeding with the

LMFBR’s and for initiating construction of near-commercial breeder be made?

near-commercial breeder be made?

6. Light-Water Breeder Reactor

ISSUE

The light-water breeder reactor (LWBR) concept has several advantages, but

the need for it is questionable.

SUMMARY

The LWBR is the only breeder reactor now being seriously pursued by the

United States that uses thorium rather than uranium as its primary fuel. The

technology of the LWBR is based on that of the main line light-water reactor; the

original idea of the LWBR is that it would afford an all but inexhaustible source of

energy yet would require relatively little development, About $25 million per year

has been spent on this concept for the past 9 years, and a demonstration LWBR is

expected to operate in the pressurized water reactor vessel at Shippingport, Pa., by

1976. If a 1,000 MWe LWBR over 30 years requires as little as 1,500 tons of uranium,

rather than the 3,OOO to 5,OOO required of other reactors, it could become a serious

contributor to the nuclear energy programs, yet in the ERDA nuclear program there

seems to be no mention of LWBR actually carrying some of the nuclear load at any

time, and utilities have shown little interest in the concept.

BUDGET SUMMARY

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriations Request Request to Congress

Light-Water 39,5 47$0 41.0 37.0

Breeder Reactor

82 CHAPTER Ill
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The ERDA-76 program for the LWBR represents a continuation of previous

activities with one major exception. There is now added an Advanced Water

Breeder Applications (AWBA) project “which is directed toward assisting U.S.

industry in the evaluation and application of the technology developed and

confirmed in the Light-Water Breeder (LWBR) Program to existing and future

water reactor plants”. This addition appears to respond to the question raised in

the original OTA analysis: “What measures does ERDA intend to take to make

LWBR technology more accessible to possible users of this reactor type?” No

detail of AWBA is given. It is impossible, therefore, to judge how seriously AWBA

is viewed by ERDA. There is still no evidence that LWBR is being factored into

future planning of the U.S. energy system. This might imply that, despite AWBA,

planners at ERDA are not counting on LWBR in the near term.

QUESTIONS

1. Why is LWBR not mentioned in ERDA pro- 3. What plans are there for incorporating

jections of future nuclear mixes? developments in this program into existing

type LWR cores (e.g., improved conversion

2. At what uranium price and rate of deploy- ratios).

ment does the LWBR look attractive?

7. Molten Salt Breeder Reactor

ISSUE

Support for the molten salt breeder reactor (MSBR) development program is

small compared to other reactors and maybe insufficient to permit evacuation within

a reasonable time period.

SUMMARY

The MSBR program is presented by ERDA as a potential backup for solid fuel

breeder reactors. It uses an inherently different nuclear technology, and hence

provides technological insurance. Even if fast breeder reactors prove to be

commercially successful and environmentally acceptable, the MSBR, based on

thorium rather than uranium, would enlarge the options available for future energy

systems and offer substantial advantages such as more easily managed safety and

safeguards problems. There are unique problems associated with the development

of the MSBR, however, which must be solved.

CHAPTER Ill 83
BUDGET SUMMARY

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriations Request Request to Congress

Molten Salt 3.3 9.5 4,3 0

Breeder Reactor

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

Termination of this program appears to have been decided without the benefit

of the technical information that was to have been obtained from the program

outlined in ERDA-48. That program was judged in the previous OTA review

to be marginal for obtaining the needed information, The division request of $9.5

million for FY 77 is probably the minimum to realistically keep the option open.

The demise of this program is unfortunate as it deprives the country of an

alternate approach to breeding (and hence to a major long-term energy source)

which presents quite different technical solutions to many of the problems of

nuclear energy. For example, with the MSBR, fuel-recycle facilities are automatically decentralized and collocated with the reactors. In addition, more

options are available for the safeguarding of fuel, and reactor safety appears to

be a less significant issue than with the LMFBR.

QUESTIONS

1. On what basis has ERDA abandoned the

Molten Salt Breeder Reactor?

2. Will the MSBR be revived if the gas-cooled

reactors are dropped or the LWBR proves

unsatisfactory?

3. What studies have been made of the advantages of the unique system characteristics of

the MSBR, particularly those relating to

safeguards and reactor safety?

4. Given that ultimate success of the breeder

program is of major importance to the

Nation’s energy future, to what degree has

the assurance of success been reduced by

loss of this option?

5. What level of funding would be required to

maintain the MSBR Program as a realistic

alternative to the Fast Breeder Reactor

Program, so that commercial deployment of

MSBR’s could be undertaken by the end of

the century, if needed?

84 CHAPTER Ill
8. Nuclear Environmental Effects

ISSUE

There is a continuing need for the evaluation of the environmental effects

associated with nuclear energy sources.

SUMMARY

In the establishment of biomedical and environmental research priorities,

ERDA has not identified clearly the continuing efforts needed in the assessment of

environmental issues associated with nuclear-based technology. These efforts

must be maintained on long-term studies of radionuclide accumulations and

recycling in the aquatic and terrestrial environments. Other programs that should

receive increased attention are concerned with reprocessing facility releases and

impact/recovery studies of accidental releases from reprocessing facilities and

reactors to local or regional areas.

BUDGET SUMMARY

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriations Request Request to Congress

Nuclear Portion 60.3 (Not Available) 58.4

of Biomedical &

Environmental

Research (BER)

(Budget Outlays)

Operational 6.9

Safety R&D

(most of the OMB

request to

Congress is for

nuclear-related

R&D)

Nuclear R&D Approx.

Portion of 9.2

Environmental

Control

Technology

(Budget Outlays)

15.7

(Not Available)

12.1 7,7

Approx.

10.2

Reactor* o 39.6 34.6 33.3

Safety

*Note, The Reactor Safety Program is not new; it was funded by NRC in FY 76.

CHAPTER Ill 85
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

ERDA 76-1 Volume 2 and the budget figures show a continuing increase in the

emphasis on the non-nuclear sector of the Environmental Research Program. This

is reasonable because nuclear environmental and health hazards are probably

better understood than those from other sources. Although it is entirely appropriate to strengthen the fossil power environmental program, the question could

be asked if it is appropriate to reduce the Nuclear Environmental Program after

accounting for inflation. From FY 76 to FY 77, inflation will have decreased the

nuclear portion of the Biomedical and Environmental Research Program by at

least 15 percent,

QUESTIONS

1. In order of priority, what are the remaining 2. How does ERDA evaluate the economic conquestions connected with the environmental sequence of accidental releases that would

impact of nuclear energy? restrict agricultural operations?

9. Plutonium Toxicity

ISSUE

The toxicity of plutonium may pose a serious threat to a plutonium-based

nuclear option, such as the LMFBR or plutonium recycle in light-water reactors.

SUMMARY

Suggestions have been made recently that plutonium may be much more

hazardous than had been previously believed to be the case. Though these claims

have been specifically denied by the British Medical Council, ERDA scientists, and

many other scientists and scientific groups, the issue remains a lively one

requiring a more definitive resolution than exists at present.

BUDGET SUMMARY

The budget level, though not explicitly stated, appears to be adequate for the

eventual resolution of this issue.

86 CHAPTER Ill
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The issue of whether the current radiation protection standards for plutonium

and other transuranium elements are adequate is still unresolved. The positions of

the ERDA scientists and their critics are unchanged. The EPA, NRC, and the

Federal agencies responsible for setting radiation protection standards have yet

to rule on the formal petition of the critics to amend the plutonium standard. The

EPA, NRC, and the critics appear to be awaiting the final report on the plutonium

toxicity issue by an ad hoc committee of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

The NAS report is in the final review stage and should be available shortly. Final

resolution of this issue, contingent on long-term animal studies, is anticipated by

1985.

It should be noted

radiation interacts with

by ERDA.

that our understanding of the physical

living cells is primitive. Little such work

QUESTION

1. What is the evidence that land contaminated

by plutonium can be restored to a usable

condition at a reasonable cost?

10. Waste Disposal

details of how

is being funded

Satisfactory handling of nuclear fission wastes appears to be technologically

feasible, although it has yet to be demonstrated. Other problems exist, mainly

societal and institutional, which greatly influence the nature of the demonstration

required.

SUMMARY

Spent fuel discharged from a reactor contains radioactive fission products

which must be isolated from the biosphere for approximately 700 years as well as

actinide elements (uranium, plutonium, americium, curium, and other heavier

elements) which are radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. Because there

are no chemical reprocessing plants currently operating in the United States, spent

fuel elements from nuclear powerplants are stored temporarily in water basins at

the powerplants. Commercial facilities are being designed and constructed,

however, to receive the spent elements and remove almost all of the uranium and

plutonium, which can be recycled into new fuel, while the residue must be disposed

of in solidified form. Several options for this exist, each with different short- and

long-term economic and societal costs and benefits. If the wastes are sequestered

CHAPTER Ill 87

72-169 0 - 76 - 7
1.

2.

3.

88

without further separation, the long-term radioactivity between 700 and about

1,000,000 years of the approximately 1 meter3 per reactor-year is several times that

of natural pitchblende ore; but if diluted to the original volume of mined uranium

ore, the radioactivity is less than that of the ore. If the actinide elements are also

removed during reprocessing and recycled and “burned out” in the reactor itself,

the toxicity after 700 years is essentially negligible thereafter.

Projected costs for almost all the water disposal options are small compared to

the total value of associated power produced.

BUDGET SUMMARY

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriations Request Request to Congress

Waste 13.0 104.3 104,3 75.0

Management

Commercial

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The substantial increase in funding for this activity indicates that ERDA is

taking the issue seriously. Resolution of the issue (which now appears feasible)

will eliminate a major obstacle in the path of nuclear expansion. The FY 77

program appears well balanced and accelerated at about the maximum rate

consistent with maintaining high quality. There is no mention, however, of

research involving virtually complete actinide separation. The subsequent actinide

burnup in reactors is covered with an unspecified budget under the Basic Energy

Sciences Program. Since this would essentially eliminate the long-term radioactivity (after 700 years), it would appear to be a potentially valuable area to

study. The program confirms ERDA’s awareness of the societal and institutional

problems involved in waste disposal. It is to be hoped that ERDA addresses these

issues as actively as it is the technological issues.

QUESTIONS

What reservations does ERDA have concerning the disposal of solid waste in salt

formations (as at Carlsbad, New Mexico)?

What priority and level of funding does

ERDA assign to the actinide burnup plan?

What is to be done about the so-called alpha

wastes (e.g., plutonium-contaminated tools,

CHAPTER Ill

gloves, etc. ) where the activity-per-unit

volume is low, but the volume is so large

that total activity is comparable to the highlevel wastes?

4. What waste management scheme will ERDA

implement if plutonium recycling does not

materialize?
11. Safeguards for Nuclear Materials

Safeguards must be adequate to prevent the theft or loss of fission materials,

with subsequent clandestine construction of nuclear weapons.

SUMMARY

Only about 20 pounds of reactor grade plutonium oxide, or comparably small

quantities of other fissionable materials, are required to make a crude nuclear

bomb, Furthermore, the information needed to design and construct nuclear

weapons is readily available. Preventing diversion of small amounts is difficult

because fissionable material must be processed and handled in multiton quantities

annually. Plutonium, which is already produced in large quantities in light-water

reactors, is an even larger component of the LMFBR fuel cycle. While it is widely

agreed that past safeguards practices have been inadequate, a number of measures

are under consideration to improve the safeguarding of nuclear materials in the

United States. There are important international aspects to the problem, however,

since, once diverted, the materials are rather easily concealed and transported.

BUDGET SUMMARY

SUMMARY TABLES

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriations Request Request to Congress

Safeguards for 13.6 29.8 29,8 25.7

Nuclear

Materials

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

Support for the Nuclear Materials Security and Safeguards subprogram in

ERDA is slated to substantially increase between FY 76 and FY 77. ERDA 76-1,

Volume 2, and the budget indicate that ERDA is aware of the importance of

developing physical safeguard systems and more precise materials inventory

systems, ERDA appears to be cooperating with the IAEA, but it is not possible to

establish from ERDA 76-1 how extensive this effort is. A good deal of ERDA’s

R, D&D in physical systems could eventually have application to IAEA systems,

even though the R, D&D is at present directed toward domestic application.

CHAPTER Ill 89
On the other hand, ERDA 76-1 does not address several of the broader

questions related to nuclear safeguards. The only work to assess the social,

industrial, and economic impact of various safeguards options is apparently a

projected NRC study, for which no budget level was given. In addition, it is not

clear from ERDA 76-1 how NRC and ERDA split up the safeguards work between

them, nor how well the results of the one are integrated into the plans of the

other. There are apparently no plans to make a comparative assessment of the

risks and safeguards costs of different fuel cycles, particularly thorium cycles.

Finally, it is not clear how the safeguards assessments will be placed in the

broader context of the comparative total environmental, social, and technological

impacts of the various large-scale energy generating options, both nuclear and

non-nuclear.

QUESTIONS

1. To what extent would the safeguard prob- 2. What are the implications for safeguards if

lems be eased if the entire nuclear power plutonium recycle in LWR’s is further

program were shifted from uranium-pluto- delayed?

nium to thorium-uranium?

120 Siting

Nuclear Regulatory Commission policy

reactor and supporting system design.

changes for siting could influence

SUMMARY

The Energy Reorganization Act (ERA) of 1974 calls for the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC] to report to the Congress on the clustering of nuclear reactors

and supporting facilities in “nuclear parks. ” Nuclear parks offer several

advantages: easier safeguarding of fissionable material, lower unit construction

cost, probably increased safety, and less disruptive construction (since the work

force is stable), Disadvantages include higher vulnerability in the event of war,

creation of heat islands, and increased expense of transmitting power from the

remote site. If nuclear park siting becomes a general practice, certain technical

problems would require more serious study and resolution: electrical transmission

of extremely large blocks of power; the simplification of transport systems

between reactor and chemical plant; the incorporation of interim waste disposal

facilities on the nuclear park site; and the design of different reactor systems that

are better suited to park siting, Though siting policy and the possibility of nuclear

parks is largely the responsibility of NRC, the matter is so vital to the entire future

90 CHAPTER Ill
of the nuclear energy enterprises that ERDA should be strongly involved in the

development of the concept from the beginning,

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The ERDA-76 program does not respond adequately to the questions related

to siting posed by OTA. The NRC study on nuclear energy centers has just been

completed but this study was confined to the siting of LWR’s. A primary long-term

question that could dominate the entire course of nuclear energy development is

the siting policy for breeder reactors. Simply stated, should breeder reactors be

collocated with their supporting facilities, or should they be dispersed? Hardly

any question is more central to the future of the nuclear enterprise than this one;

hardly any is more difficult to settle. ERDA should carry out a definitive study of

the siting of breeders in self-contained energy centers. The results of these studies

ought to be available by FY 78, so that at that time the debate on a national policy

for siting breeders can be based on solid information rather than on conjecture.

QUESTIONS

1. If nuclear park siting is required, how 2. Is ERDA planning to examine the social and

would this affect (a) the ERDA safeguards institutional implications of nuclear parks?

program; (b) the types of reactors ERDA

develops; (c) the transport systems ERDA 3. What are the implications of confining

develops; and (d) the climatological effects breeder reactors and their subsystems to

program of ERDA? nuclear parks?

13. Uranium Resources

ISSUE

The lack of precision in present uranium resource estimates and questions as to

the rate of expansion of uranium production capability

issues difficult to address.

SUMMARY

make resource-related

Since the adequacy of the domestic uranium resource base has an important

bearing on ERDA’s and utilities’ nuclear strategy, and especially on the timetable

for breeder

in presently

reactor development, a much more precise

available or anticipated, To keep pace with

evaluation is needed than

the Nation’s energy needs

CHAPTER III 91
as projected by ERDA, substantial expansion of domestic uranium production over

the next 25 years will be required. This entails long leadtimes, major capital

expenditures, and in the relatively near term, large exploration effort and ore-body

development. The long time, perhaps 10 years, required for the development of a

new mine-mill complex, together with the existence of competing investment

opportunities, may require the creation of a relatively low-risk investment climate

through loan guarantees, accelerated depreciation regulations, and assured

uranium markets. Market prices have increased dramatically during the 1973-75

period from $7 per pound of U3 OH to about $30, and there is no reason to expect an

early end to the seller’s market.

BUDGET SUMMARY

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriations Request Request to Congress

Uranium

Resources 16.8 41.3 41,3 31,3

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

This program is projected to expand rapidly as is appropriate for such a

critical subject. The bulk of the increase is in actual field surveys. The present

phase consists of an aerial survey. The second phase, a hydrogeochemical and

stream-sediment survey, is just getting underway. The next phase starting late FY

76 will be the first actual drilling. The program for identification of reserves

appears to be adequately funded to meet a reasonable schedule. Recognition is

given to the need for liaison with the private sector. No studies are mentioned of

the impacts of dependence on foreign uranium.

QUESTIONS

1. What is ERDA’s program for

uranium resource information

private sector for its data base?

obtaining 2, How does ERDA evaluate the impacts of

from the dependence on foreign sources of uranium,

exportation of domestic uranium, and participation of foreign interests in domestic

resource development.

92 CHAPTER Ill
14. Uranium Enrichment

ISSUE

Expansion of uranium enrichment capacity is required to meet domestic

requirements and foreign commitments for LWR and HTGR fuel.

SUMMARY

Enriched uranium fuel is needed in light-water reactors (LWR) and hightemperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGR). The existing ERDA diffusion plants are

being upgraded and expanded, but their capacity will be exceeded within a

decade if presently contemplated nuclear powerplant construction occurs. ERDA

policy calls for development of new production facilities by the private sector, but

the financial risks may be too great without some form of Federal economic

assurance. Among the risks involved in the financing of new plants is the

possibility that new technology, such as the gas centrifuge or laser separation,

might render a new diffusion plant obsolete. A related management question

concerns the proposal to allow the U-235 content of the enrichment plant byproducts material (“tails”) to increase, thereby producing increased enriched

uranium output at the expense of greater natural uranium input.

BUDGET SUMMARY

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriations Request Request to Congress

OPERATING COSTS

Uranium 636.7 822.3 818.3 803.3

Production

Process 48.4 75.5 72.5 62,7

Development

Other U-235 8.7 16.3 16.3 16.4

TOTAL 693,8 914.1 907.1 882.4

Advanced (laser) 29.5 50$1 46.1 36.8

Enrichment —591 .5 —539. 1 —539.1 —539. 1

Revenues

TOTAL 131.8 425,1 414.1 380.1

OPERATING

COSTS

CHAPTER Ill 93
SUMMARY TABLE – Continued

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriations Request Request to Congress

Construction

Uranium — 521.8 521.8 521.8

Production

Process — 100.0 100.0 100.0

Development

Advanced 15.0 0 0

TOTAL 636.8 621.8 621,8

CONSTRUCTION

Capital

Uranium 17.2 17.2 17.2

Production

Advanced — 7.0 7.0 7,0

TOTAL 24.2 24.2 24.2

CAPITAL

GRAND TOTAL 131.8 1,086.1 1,060.1 1,026.1

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

ERDA recognizes the need for expansion of the Nation’s enrichment capacity.

Legislation has been introduced in Congress that would allow transfer of the

technology to the private sector. Alternative plans for expansion are being

prepared by ERDA. The centrifuge technology is nearing the commercialization

stage, and ERDA is negotiating with the private sector. The laser enrichment

process is still in the laboratory phase, but an orderly process of development has

been proposed. There is no mention of the implications for nuclear weapons

proliferation.

QUESTION

1. What are the implications for nuclear weapons proliferation in the advanced enrichment technologies?

94 CHAPTER Ill
15. Fuel Recycle

Fission fuel

nuclear power.

ISSUE

recycling capability is needed for the orderly development of

SUMMARY

Spent nuclear fuel assemblies still contain much valuable fuel material. The

discharged fuel can be reprocessed to recover the usable fuel material, which can

then be recycled through a reactor. There are four basic reasons for recycling the

fuel: (a) the recycled fuel reduces the demand for new uranium that would have to

be mined and refined; (b) recycling, desirable for LWR’S, is an economic necessity

for HTGR’s, LMFBR’s, and other advanced reactor designs; (c) lower powergenerating costs should result; (d) the chemical processing which is part of

recycling is also an integral part of some of the more promising waste disposal

schemes.

Recycling is, however, beset by several problems. First, a reprocessing, a

refabrication, and a radioactive waste disposal industry must be constructed and

operated. Second, safeguards and transportation must be developed to protect the

material adequately. Third, the economic advantage of recycling in LWR’s is small

at best although the spent fuel still contains material that can produce a large

amount of energy.

The central point is whether ERDA’s budget is adequate to develop the

necessary recycling capability or whether adequate incentives can be provided to

industry to provide this capacity.

BUDGET SUMMARY

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA OMB

Category Appropriations Request Request Request

Support of

Nuclear Fuel

Cycle

Commercial LWR

Reprocessing R&D

(Budget Outlay)

LMFBR

Reprocessing R&D

(Budget Outlay)

HTGR

Reprocessing R&D

Supporting

Services

35.5 160.5 160.5 56.7

7.5 (Not Available) 23.5

4.0 (Not Available) 6.8

14.6 (Not Available) 15,5

5.0 (Not Available) 6.0

CHAPTER Ill 95
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The large budget increase proposed for LWR reprocessing R, D&D indicates

that ERDA is actively pursuing its goal of closing the LWR fuel cycle. The ERDA

program states that investigations of certain aspects of the technology, advanced

design concepts, operability and maintainability of facilities, and environmental

effects will be undertaken so as to minimize the time required for commercial

deployment of reprocessing complexes. It is also indicated that if barriers to

commercial deployment arise, ERDA will formulate programs to deal with the

impediments. In summary it appears that ERDA is responding to the technological

deficiencies in LWR reprocessing capabilities while continuing R, D&D on advanced

cycle reprocessing in an orderly fashion.

Public acceptance of reprocessing, however, particularly plutonium recycle,

may require the resolution of social problems such as the effect on those exposed

to an accidental release of plutonium or the impact of an adequate safeguards

system. The resources devoted to HTGR reprocessing are harder to justify. ERDA

does not anticipate commercial plants starting out until 1990 if at all. Hence, this

part of the program seems excessive compared to the HTGR development

program.

QUESTIONS

1. How does the retrievable storage of spent environmental controls (e.g., krypton-85 capfuel elements in geological formations com- ture) required for eventual licensing?

pare with closing the fuel cycle?

3. What studies are planned on questions of

2. What must be the price of uranium and social acceptability in relation to fuel replutonium to justify reprocessing including cycle?

the cost of all expected health, safety, and

96 CHAPTER Ill
16. Public Understanding

ISSUE

Public understanding of the energy problem, and especially of the nuclear

option, receives minor emphasis in the ERDA Program.

SUMMARY

The energy problem is complex, and increased efforts must be directed toward

better public information programs. Within the past several years, public anxiety,

confusion, and doubts have increased, and the energy problem is widely perceived

as a “contrived situation, ” More effort must be directed toward better understanding of energy options so that well-informed energy decisions can be made by the

public. One of ERDA’s tasks is to create and encourage “, . , the development of

general information to the public on all energy conservation technologies and

energy sources. . .“ In addition, the ERDA Administrator, in conjunction with the

FEA Administrator, is directed to disseminate such information through the use of

mass communications, (Section 103.7 of Public Law 93-577. ]

BUDGET SUMMARY

Budget provision for Public Understanding is made in the Public Awareness

portion of the Program Support Section. The requests are given below.

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA OMB

Category Appropriations Request Request Request

Program Support 2.6 7.1 6.0 3$0

Public

Awareness

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The ERDA budget request for FY 77 indicates that increased efforts were

planned to communicate with larger segments of the population through organizations representing cross sections of the public. The increased effort planned in

communicating through educational institutions could have provided information

to many more people than have been reached by the more specialized past

activities. The proposed ERDA activities appear to be responsive to the need for

CHAPTER Ill 97
widespread energy information dissemination. The substantial reduction by OMB

(50 percent) will negate ERDA’s planned FY 77 improvement.

QUESTION

1. How will the effectiveness of the public

awareness programs be judged?

17. Controlled Fusion

Great care must be exercised to ensure that the ERDA-controlled fusion

program does not expand at a rate so fast that proper attention is not given to the

different physics problems of controlled fusion and that development of new

concepts is not prematurely abandoned.

SUMMARY

The advantages of successful fusion power are great; fusion research needs

should receive high priority, but success is not yet assured by any future date. For

example, it appears necessary to scale present experiments up to larger machines

in order to maintain an effective program. While these next generation devices are

being conservatively designed, they are still experimental. In addition, even

though the science may scale to larger sizes, technological, engineering and

economic considerations may or may not permit exploitation of a given concept for

practical fusion power,

This uncertainty has two practical consequences. First, since no clear or

complete path to fusion power now exists for any fusion concept, and since fusion

is one of the few major long-term energy options, no fusion scheme should

presently be abandoned unless it can be shown fairly convincingly to be

unproductive. Second, in order to establish proper priorities in the face of this

uncertainty, a more or less continual assessment of fusion concepts and prospects

must be maintained; otherwise the program may evolve into either uncritical

support of unfeasible concepts or unwarranted and premature concentration on a

single concept.

98 CHAPTER Ill
BUDGET SUMMARY

The budget requests for the controlled fusion

follows:

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

program are summarized as

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriation Request Request to Congress

Confinement 68.2 95.5 85.4 80.3

Systems

Development &

Technology (see Issue 18)

Research 26.2 49,6 43.5 30.7

Reactor Projects 2.2 9.3 9.3 10.8

Total 131,6 242.7 218.4 168.0

(Magnetic Fusion)

The budget request to the Congress is 25 percent greater than FY 76. The

request appears to commit ERDA even more closely to the tokamak concept and

may not allow adequate funding of other devices such as the mirror machine and

theta pinch. Indeed, the budget may put pressure on the entire program (including

the tokamak) and stretch out the timetable for ERDA to achieve a successful fusion

reactor.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The ERDA program document contains a fusion program description which

acknowledges the points raised in the issue. The emphasis that will be placed on

efforts to implement ERDA’s concern on these matters is not clear, however. The

financial requirements associated with the start of the large tokamak fusion test

reactor project, combined with an increase in the operating budget 31 percent

less than the division requested, are already putting pressure on other possibly

viable concepts and supporting research. The statement made in the program

document to the effect that eventual, practical fusion power can be confidently

predicted because of sufficient understanding of the basic physics of magnetic

fusion may not be valid, Practical fusion power also depends on technology and

engineering advances which are much less well understood.

In this context, there are crucial questions that concern the direction and pace

of the fusion program. The principal one is the urgency that the fusion effort is to be

given among the various approaches to solving the energy problem. With a given

funding level there are a certain set of priorities in the program which evolve over

time depending on successes. If the level is increased more attention can be given

CHAPTER Ill 99
1.

2.

to difficult engineering problems, which are presently given a lower priority. This

could reduce the time needed to successfully implement controlled fusion as a

power source. The level at which fusion is funded will depend on the priority it is

given among all supply options. It is important to carefully assess the potential of

fusion, in terms of economics, environmental impact, material consumption, and

the degree to which the program

funding level can be established.

can be accelerated, so that the most effective

QUESTIONS

Are there budget constraints which limit to support the TFTR project coupled with

efforts to assess new and on-going fusion the reduction of the division’s budget reefforts to minimize the possibility of pursuing quests before being sent to Congress?

unproductive fusion concepts (i. e., unlikely

to develop into a commercial reactor)? 3. Are there programs underway to determine

the maximum rate at which fusion can be

Are the mirror and/or theta pinch confine- implemented as a function of various funding

ment systems likely to be pursued at a rate levels?

slower than desirable as a result of the need

18. Technologies for Fusion

ISSUE

New technologies, which will be critical to fusion’s successful development

through the 1980’s, requires a long time to develop and will require rapidly

increasing effort with time.

SUMMARY

Many critical technological problems relate to more than one fusion concept.

Some typical critical areas where much work needs to be done are:

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Materials and material combinations resistant to high energy neutron

bombardment from the fusion reaction.

Economical storage of large amounts of electrical energy to operate pulsed

fusion devices.

Very large superconducting magnetic systems needed for all but laser fusion

schemes.

Diffusion of tritium fuel into and out of reactor materials.

100 CHAPTER Ill
BUDGET SUMMARY

The budget requests relevant to this issue are principally as follows:

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriation Request Request to Congress

Development & 31.7 88.3 80.2 46.2

Technology

That this portion of the fusion program has grown at a greater rate than the

rest of the fusion subprograms reflects the growing importance attached to this

aspect of the fusion effort. It should be noted, however, that this subprogram

received the largest percentage cut in the Division and ERDA requests of any of

the subprograms within the fusion program.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

ERDA has responded favorably to this issue through the substantial increase

in the budget request. Most of the points raised in the issue have been addressed

in the ERDA Program document. There remain specific areas of concern:

1. There appears to be insufficient emphasis on the development of plasma

engineering (plasma shaping, pumping, refueling, etc.).

2. The problem of diffusion and recovery of tritium from massive fusion

reactor systems may not be receiving adequate attention. It is essential

that this problem be resolved early in any reactor development program.

3. There seem to be inadequate systems studies and technology assessment,

leading both to (a) early recognition of any promising new fusion confinement geometries, and (b) timely recognition of which fusion concepts

have higher or lower probability of being extrapolated to eventual fusion

reactors.

The fact that efforts in these areas appear to be lacking seems to be primarily

due to budget limitations. It is precisely these kinds of problems that would receive

more attention with higher budget levels for the fusion program as indicated in the

Issue 17 comparative analysis. There is no doubt that these problems need to be

solved before successful implementation of controlled fusion. They have been given

a lower priority than problems of confinement and heating and therefore are

receiving less emphasis at present, The principal issue that needs tO be resolved is

whether the potential contribution of fusion can be realized at a significantly earlier

date than now envisaged, if the fusion program were to be given a greater sense of

urgency, The resolution of this issue will determine the pace at which these

important technology programs should be pursued.

CHAPTER Ill 101
QUESTIONS

1. How does ERDA set priorities among the 2. What would limit the rate at which these

various technology items given the size of technological problems could be solved if

the budget requests? budget requests were not a constraining

factor (assuming that it presently is)?

102 CHAPTER Ill
Chapter IV

Solar, Geothermal,

and Advanced Systems Issues

72-169 0-76 -8
SOLAR, GEOTHERMAL, AND ADVANCED

SYSTEMS ISSUES LIST

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Setting Criteria for Program

Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Decision-point criteria defining measures for

evaluating success within a given solar

energy program, choices among programs,

and readiness for commercialization need to

be established, quantified, and justified.

Rationale for Funding of High-Risk

Projects ,*** * 109

It is important that effective mechanisms be

developed by which ERDA can make rational

decisions on solar energy projects having

great potential as future energy sources, but

involving large cost outlays, and being

subject to major uncertainties in projected

costs and/or technologies.

Resource Availability . . . . . . . . . 111

The ERDA Plan lacks adequate emphasis on

the role that critical resources play in

selecting energy alternatives.

Organization of ERDA’s Research

Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

A major concern with ERDA’s research effort

is that the management distinction between

basic and supporting research formerly used

in the AEC continues to polarize the sciences

from engineering.

ERDA Program Management . . 113

The use of outside organizations and Federal

laboratories by ERDA for some of its

program management functions, particularly

in the solar area, could produce an ineffective

organization.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Support for Study of Decentralized

So ar Electrical Generation . . . . 115 f’

The study of the decentralized production of

electricity has received limited attention,

especially as it involves the potential utilization of waste heat.

Emphasis on Electric Energy

Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

The program goals of the ERDA Plan appear

to emphasize development of electric power

systems to the point where the full potential

of solar heating is not recognized and the

possibility of obtaining synthetic fuels from

solar energy is largely ignored.

Emphasis on Solar Heating a nd

Cooling of Buildings . **.****.. 119

The importance of solar heating and cooling

relative to other programs is not recognized

in the ERDA Plan.

Purposes of the Solar Heating and

Cooing Demonstration Program 120 l

The size, scope, and purposes of the solar

heating and cooling demonstration program

need specific definition.

Role of User incentives in Solar

Heating and Cooling of

Buildin● ● ● ● ● ● ● g . . . . , . ● 122

A well-structured user incentive program

would accelerate the solar heating and

cooling of buildings (SHACOB) and

accelerate development of the infrastructure

to support large-scale applications.

CHAPTER IV 105
11.

12.

13.

14.

Standards for the Measurement of

Solar Heating and Cooling Equipment Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

For consumer protection, standards are

needed to provide comparative performance

ratings, to allow comparison of durability,

and assure proper installation of solar equipment.

Impact of Solar Energy on Utility

Peak Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Onsite solar energy sources (most immediately solar heating and cooling), unless

developed properly, will cause a significant

utility peak demand problem.

Biomass Energy and Food . . . . . 127

Biomass energy generation may conflict with

food production.

Legal and Institutional Constraints in

Geothermal Energy . . *.**.*.** 129

Geothermal energy implementation is not so

much constrained by technology as by legal

and institutional restraints.

15,

16.

Environmental Constraints on

Geothermal Energy

Development ● .***.*********** 131

Environmental problems, which have been

inadequately stressed by ERDA, can place

constraints on the potential development of

geothermal resources.

Nonelectric Uses of Geothermal

Energy-and Geothermal Goals . 132

The ability to approach ERDA’s presently

unrealistic 1985 goal for geothermal utilization will require a substantial increase in

emphasis on nonelectric use.

17. Variability of Geothermal

Reservoirs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Each geothermal reservoir has its own

unique characteristics, which affect the

research strategy and demonstration portion

of the ERDA program.

Commentary ● .***   ** ** ** , *****g***@* 137

106 CHAPTER IV
—

1. Setting Criteria for Program Priorities

ISSUE

Decision-point criteria defining measures for evaluating success within a given

solar energy program, choices among programs, and readiness for commercialization need to be established, quantified, and justified.

SUMMARY

The ERDA Plan does not treat the important question of how decisions will be

made between solar energy technologies, and between solar and other energy

options. Criteria are necessary to evaluate, for each program: (1) the projected

rewards upon success, (2) the total costs to the public and private sectors, (3) the

relative risks of economic or technical failure, and (4) the potential and projected

readiness for commercialization. The decision-point criteria, to be applied at

regular intervals in this process, must be predetermined by making a number of

specific assumptions concerning the potential of all forms of energy generation,

whether conventional or advanced. These assumptions need to be continuously

evaluated and revised in the light of changing conditions during the course of the

program.

BUDGET SUMMARY

No specific budget allocation for this activity is identifiable in the budget

documents. Although this function is being performed (see below), it is impossible

to tell whether it is being done in Plans and Analysis, in Technology Support and

Utilizations, or the subprograms themselves.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

In the revised Plan and Program there is little description of any methods or

processes for establishing program priorities and decision-point criteria. There

are subprograms where mention is made of evaluation criteria, but with little or

no detail as to how they were established.

CHAPTER IV 107
1.

2.

The Solar Energy Program approval document outlines a basic strategy for

establishing the research, development, demonstration, and commercialization

plan in the Solar Division. This is an iterative process which is designed to

establish priorities through comparative analysis, define programs for technology

development, carry out development, and phase over to private industry. The

present schedule of projects in the solar program will be put through this process

for evaluation. The process has not been in operation long enough to determine its

effectiveness but it appears to be a positive step in developing a systematic means

of setting criteria for program priorities. In this context, the Solar Division states

that the planning process, itself, will be continually updated.

QUESTIONS

What specific goals will be set (and when) 3. How does ERDA make evalua

against which to measure your solar and energy technologies which

geothermal programs; that is, how will ERDA compete for limited develop

ions of various

may have to

mental funds,

define success? such as solar electric and fusion?

In the ERDA estimates of the penetration of

solar and geothermal technologies into use by 4. Has ERDA conducted cost-benefit and risk

the private sector, what costs and cost analyses which might help implement the

relationships were assumed for capital, decisions to accelerate, abandon, or delay

interest rate, discount rate, fuel, and available or near-term options, in the expec -

operations and maintenance for the solar and tat ion that we can make it to the point where

geothermal systems and the conventional the more advanced technologies can adesystems that they are to replace? quately supply our needs?

108 CHAPTER IV
2. Rationale for Funding of High-Risk Projects

ISSUE

It is important that effective mechanisms be developed by which ERDA can

make rational decisions on solar energy projects having great potential as future

energy sources, but involving

uncertainties in projected costs

large cost outlays, and being subject to major

and/or technologies.

SUMMARY

The Energy Research and Development Administration is undertaking

research and development of long-range solar energy projects which offer much

promise in the future, but which, because they involve new and relatively

unknown technology, suffer high levels of uncertainty.

Examples of such projects are the ocean thermal energy conversion and

satellite solar power station programs in solar energy utilization. Although earlyphase funding levels are not necessarily very large for these projects prior to

reaching the demonstration phase, it is nevertheless very important that a

rational method be established to decide: (a) whether or not to initiate the

program, (b) at which level to maintain or accelerate it, and (c) when to

implement major and costly undertakings such as demonstration projects. There

appears to be no effective mechanism now being used to make these decisions.

BUDGET SUMMARY

No specific budget allocation for this activity has been identified nor has

consideration by appropriate offices in ERDA been established.

In the two high-risk projects specifically identified by OTA in the issue, there

are specific figures available for all analytical studies, as follows:

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriations Request Request to Congress

OTEC, Systems o (Not Available) $0.58

Development and

Mission Analysis

(Budget Outlays)

Space Solar o (Not Available) o

Power Systems (SSPS)

(Budget Outlays)

CHAPTER IV 109
In FY 76 there was no mention of any ERDA SSPS program. In FY 77 the

program is identified, but with zero budget allocation. Also, there was some

informal NASA budget in FY 76. NASA is precluded from having any terrestrial

energy budget in FY 77.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

There is no indication that ERDA is developing mechanisms for making

decisions on high-risk solar energy projects. It is also not clear from the budget

and program documents that appropriate risk or cost/benefit analysis methodology is being developed or applied.

Within the subprograms,

been a response to the OTA

demonstrate cost-effectiveness

however, there is some evidence that there has

issue. The OTEC program considers the need to

of critical components before proceeding, although

there is no identifiable basis for ERDA’s having doubled the OTEC budget

authorizations for FY 77. There is also a mention of the need for “minimal risk” in

the design of OTEC plants.

With respect to the space-based solar power system, ERDA did respond to the

0TA issue by establishing a formal program for FY 77, but no basis was given for

making this decision. The establishment of a program with no budget allocation

(and no possibility for NASA funding of terrestrial solar power research)

represents a management inconsistency.

There are no identifiable projects underway (or planned) to develop the

necessary decision-making guidelines. The basic issue is still unanswered.

QUESTIONS

1. How does ERDA determine the relative 2. Does ERDA have a definite “plan” for confounding levels for long-term, high-risk proj- tinual review of these technologies and

ects? appropriate mechanisms to factor these

analyses into its Program Plan?

110 CHAPTER IV
3. Resource Availability

The ERDA Plan lacks adequate emphasis on the role that critical resources play

in selecting energy alternatives.

The following major resources are likely to be affected by the various solar

energy technologies:

. Water ● Land ● Materials ● Energy

● Capital ● Manpower • Air quality.

The ERDA Plan does not appear to have addressed adequately the problem of

resource requirements of the various solar energy alternatives. It is essential that

in our preoccupation with our current energy shortage we do not divert excessive

amounts o f our critical resources into energy production. Therefore, it is clear that

integration of these impacts across disciplinary lines within ERDA will minimize

the chance for oversight.

BUDGET SUMMARY

No specific budget request for this area has been identified.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

No specific program area addresses itself to this vital issue. Some mention is

made of capital limitations (the high capital cost of solar components has thus far

limited that market demand so that large industrial organizations have not entered

the field in a major way) but the issues of land, water, materials, and energy are

not addressed as such.

The program element of Technology Support and Utilization includes activities

concerned with resource assessment. However, this largely deals with solar and

meteorological data, and not the items listed in this issue. The latter are only

implied within the Environmental and Resource Assessment category.

Under Solar Photovoltaic Conversion, materials and land requirements are

mentioned but studies to examine them are not described.

A study is presently underway in the ERDA Solar Division which will address

many of the points raised in the issue although it is not described in the Program

and Plan,

CHAPTER IV 111
4. Organization of ERDA’s Research Program

ISSUE

A major concern with ERDA’s research effort is that the management

distinction between basic and supporting research formerly used in the AEC

continues to polarize the sciences from engineering.

It appears (ERDA-48, volume I, p, VIII-11) that the polarized research

management policy is being carried over from the AEC into ERDA. The problem

with this management policy is that its tendency to isolate scientific and

engineering research has not produced innovative advances in technology

comparable to those, for example, produced by the pacesetting electronics

laboratories where a continuous spectrum of applied and fundamental research

has been carried out under the cooperative leadership of scientists and engineers,

Energy-oriented research is even more complex since it involves social and

institutional problems in addition to the scientific and engineering aspects of

advanced-hardware development. Thus, a nonpolarized institutional mechanism

is needed if rapid solutions are to be found for these complex energy problems.

Creation of a Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI) represents one of several

institutional mechanisms that can be utilized for this purpose, but there is as yet

no indication that it will take the necessary interdisciplinary science/engineering

form.

BUDGET SUMMARY

See Issue 9 in the Overview Chapter.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

Issue 9, in the Overview Chapter extensively discusses ERDA’s response to the

general issue of ERDA’s basic research effort. Here, comments will be confined to

the points raised in the issue reproduced above.

The principal concerns were the undesirable separation of science and

engineering functions and the lack of interaction with individuals responsible for

commercialization and marketing. The new plan has not responded to any of these

points and it still appears that the ERDA basic research program does not

adequately support the ERDA energy subprograms in many key areas,

An additional concern, is that the current ERDA program statement defines

no goals, no strategy, and no plan for coordinating its basic research activities

112 CHAPTER IV
with other government agencies, other countries, or the private sector, For

example, the ERDA program document shows awareness of only one other Federal

agency program (that of the Department of Commerce in materials research),

implying that no basic research interaction is planned with the several other

agencies performing such work.

QUESTIONS

1. What are some of the specific programs of engineering and scientific programs

basic materials research that ERDA is monitored by the same ERDA manager? Do

support ing? How do they relate to ERDA’s they have a common laboratory leader? If

mid-term or long-term goals? not, what mechanisms have been established

to ensure dialogue between the two man2. Is engineering work toward these goals being agers as well as between the engineering

done in the same laboratory? If so, are the and scientific efforts?

!5. ERDA Program Management

ISSUE

The use of outside organizations and Federal laboratories by ERDA for some of

its program management functions, particularly in the solar area, could produce an

ineffective organization.

SUMMARY

Interposing an additional management level in the development of solar

energy technology is not likely to be efficient because some of the organizations

used by ERDA for this function have not been constrained by cost considerations.

Their management and contractual procedures are highly structural and extremely detailed, an approach which may not be appropriate—or cost effective—for the

development of new solar energy forms.

Since the new energy technologies are very sensitive to costs, require

innovation, and must interface with commercial energy producers (the utilities),

ERDA’s current reliance on outside management organizations may cause serious

problems with program costs and the cost effectiveness of end products.

Furthermore, when ERDA delegates complete control of an entire program or

a large part of a program to one of these organizations, it may be too far removed

from the actual research planning to maintain its mandated responsibility for the

Nation’s energy research and development,

CHAPTER IV 113
BUDGET SUMMARY

The SERI subprogram is the only budget request

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

applicable to this issue,

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriation Request Request to Congress

SERI 1.5 (Not Available) 1.0

(Budget Outlays)

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

This issue has not been addressed in the ERDA program. Specific examples of

ERDA’s lack of response are as follows:

1. Major program responsibility is still being given to national laboratories,

risking a loss of program focus.

2. Increasingly, the program is relying upon highly specific project solicitations which tend to preclude the development of unplanned innovative concepts.

3. The program is substantially understaffed – the present ratio being

$3.35 million per professional. This makes it extremely difficult to develop an

efficient program in this rapidly expanding technology. It is also largely

responsible for the above two items. The ERDA personnel requests for FY 76 and

FY 77 were 99 and 130 while ceilings submitted to Congress were 75 and 80.

4. Actions to establish SERI as mandated by Congress have slipped

considerably from the schedule submitted last year. This is reflected in the budget

request which is 33 percent below the FY 76 figure.

The above points indicate that the dangers raised in the issue are still very

real and appear to be increasing.

114 CHAPTER IV
6. Support for Study of Decentralized Solar Electrical

Generation

ISSUE

The study of the decentralized production of electricity has received limited

attention, especially because it involves the potential utilization of waste heat.

SUMMARY

One chief advantage of solar energy is its relatively uniform distribution.

EX [ensive elect rical distribution systems are thereby rendered unnecessary, or at

least can be appreciably smaller. The small distances between generator and user,

~l~h i(; h ;lre POSS ible w i th de(; ent ral ized production, make utilization of the was te

heat more feasible than with central station plants. Since future principal energy

short a~es are predicted mainly in the oil and gas supply areas, which have recently

supplied I he bulk of the count ry’s thermal energy needs, there is added reason for

ex tens ive study of ons i t e production. The technology for solar onsite systems is a t

least as \\’ell in hand as central station technologies. Fossil-fired total energy

sl,st (:ms ;~r[; in use in many European countries. With photo voltaics especially

there are no major economies of scale as larger electrical generating stations are

con t e mp 1 a t ed.

‘1’he present ERDA organization establishes the study of decentralized

electrical production as a small part of the central station solar thermal branch, A

recent (and first ) total energy symposium had almost no discussion of photovolt a ic

tot al energy s yst ems, and very little on the problems of distributing the waste heat.

The major issue of electric utility acceptance has received little attention.

The first major U.S. solar electrical system has recently been installed at

San(i i a, following an ext ensive survey under AEC sponsorship. No other electrical-

~enerating facility will be ready for several years according to present ERDA

plans, despite the relative simplicity of the technology and the availability y of all

components. The reason for this delay in construction is not clear,

BUDGET SUMMARY

There are no explicit budget requests for decentralized solar electric systems.

The projects that can be identified are in the following budget categories:

CHAPTER IV 115
SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

116

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriation Request Request to Congress

Solar Thermal 3.0 (Not Available) 7,2

Conversion

(Budget Outlays)

Farm & Rural 0.9 (Not Available) 1.2

Systems

(Budget Outlays)

The entire budget for these programs is directed toward hardware development. Total energy projects appear in the Conservation Research and Technology

(CONRT) subprogram but no budget requests can be identified. Coordination

between them and the Solar Program is discussed in the CONRT program

approval document.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

This issue is partly addressed in the context of total energy systems discussed

in the Solar Thermal Conversion subprogram, and of rural home and agriculture

applications in the Wind Energy Conversion subprogram. Moderate scale photovoltaic, but not small scale, demonstrations are also proposed. Throughout the

solar electric programs there is no discussion of studies to investigate the

problems and benefits of decentralized systems, or of comparative assessments of

central versus decentralized solar electric generation. The one statement dealing

with the nontechnical problems of decentralized generation does not indicate any

type of comparative analysis. Further, no studies are listed to deal with these

suggested institutional problems. This issue is receiving some technical consideration but nontechnological concerns are not being addressed by ERDA.

No program is specifically defined for the “total energy” concept, i.e., use of

thermal output as can be achieved in a decentralized system. It must still be

concluded that there is not much emphasis placed on decentralized solar electric

plants with the potential for both electrical and thermal outputs. The reason for

this lack of emphasis may be the absence of a simple program office, and the

diversified approach now employed may inhibit completion of a coordinated attack

on this approach to solar utilization. It should also be noted that total energy

research is now ongoing in the Projects Branch (of the Solar Electric Division) as

well as in the Conservation Division of ERDA and at the Department of Housing

and Urban Development (HUD).

CHAPTER IV
QUESTIONS

1. Is the present ERDA solar organization

(which separates electrical and thermal

areas) appropriate for undertaking a project which combines several technologies in

a system?

2. What coordination is now occurring with

the ERDA Conservation Division which is responsible for fossil-fired total energy

systems?

3.

4.

Why is no further immediate solar thermal

hardware deployment planned, in light of

the successful Sandia work, and the rapid

cost improvements already obtained?

Why has the photovoltaic program not been

more active in placing experimental total

energy systems into the field (the only one is

the very early “Solar One” at the University

of Delaware, which was in large part funded

locally)?

7. Emphasis on Electric Energy Systems

The program goals of the ERDA Plan appear to emphasize development of

electric power systems to the point where the full potential of solar heating is not

recognized, and the possibility of obtaining synthetic fuels from solar energy is

largely ignored.

SUMMARY

Preoccupation with coal, solar, and nuclear energy for electric power

generation has produced too narrow a view of the alternatives for utilizat ion of our

energy sources and, in selected areas, would commit the Nation—perhaps

prematurely-to a massive change in the infrastructure for energy delivery and

utilization. Much of the Nation’s thermal end-use energy requirements over the

long term may be met by those energy sources, particularly solar and geothermal,

that are well suited to supplying thermal energy directly.

CHAPTER IV 117
BUDGET SUMMARY

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriations Request Request to Congress “

Direct Thermal 28.5 87.3 72.3 37.0

Biomass 3.8 6.6 6.6 3,0

Total 32,3 93,9 78.9 40,0

(Nonelectric)

Solar 43,6 112,5 99.3 67.5

Electric

Ratio: Electric 1.35 1,20 1,69

Nonelectric

As the figures indicate, in terms of operating expenses ERDA attempted to

bring two components of the Solar Program into better balance. However, the

request to Congress has reversed this and enhanced the imbalance with respect to

FY 76.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The original issue had as its original objective the upgrading of direct solar

thermal energy to a status equivalent to that of solar electric as an inexhaustible

energy source for the long term. There was no intention to imply a reemphasis of

solar electric.

In the revised Program, no programs are described for obtaining synthetic

fuels from solar, other than through biomass or electrolysis by way of OTEC to

produce hydrogen. Nonelectric uses of wind energy are mentioned and a sizable

effort for nonelectric uses of geothermal energy is described (see Issue 16).

However, no shift in emphasis is implied. In fact, the original ERDA 48 position

that thermal applications were only valid as a mid-term stopgap is still reflected in

the FY 77 budget document (page SE/D-1).

QUESTIONS

1. Since the production of heat from electricity Z. What are ERDA’s plans for the development

is expensive and about half of the end-use of technologies which produce synthetic

energy consumption in the United States is fuels from solar and nuclear energies? How

in the form of heat, why hasn’t more em- does ERDA’s basic research program reflect

phasis been placed on utilizing solar energy these plans?

sources for direct thermal end-use requirements?

118 CHAPTER IV
8. Emphasis on Solar Heating and Cooling of Buildings

ISSUE

The importance of solar heating

recognized in the ERDA Plan.

and cooling relative to other programs is not

SUMMARY

There is abundant evidence that solar heating and cooling applications offer a

larger potential for energy savings in the immediate and near term (to 1985], and

beyond this to 2000, than any other solar applications. Indeed, ERDA’s figures

(ERDA-48, volume I, table 6-1) verify this statement; yet, solar heating and cooling

is categorized at the third level of priorities as an “under-used mid-term

technology“ and one which may “provide an energy ‘margin’ in the event of R, D&D

failure in other areas. ” These statements in the ERDA document project a

significant potential for solar heating and cooling, yet underemphasize the

development and actual impact of solar heating and cooling on our energy

economy.

BUDGET SUMMARY

The budget information for this issue is given with Issue 7. It is apparent that

ERDA attempted to place greater relative emphasis on solar heating and cooling

(both in the buildings and the agriculture and industrial process areas) but was

reversed when the budget was submitted to Congress. In particular, ERDA

requested an increase of 41 percent in the agriculture and industrial process heat

category whereas the budget request to Congress showed a 32-percent decrease

from FY 76.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The new program has partially recognized the long-term

heating and cooling; however in the Budget Estimate for FY 77,

potential of solar

, on Page SE/D-1,

only electric application of solar is recognized for long-term inexhaustible

potential by the statement “. . . the ‘Highest Priority Supply’ category includes

Solar Electric Applications under ‘Inexhaustible’ sources for the long term”. It is

further felt that the projections for energy displacement by solar in the solar

heating and cooling sector are underestimated in the executive summary for the

years 1985 and 2000. Presently approximately 25 percent of our energy is

expended in water heating, space heating, and space cooling. By the year 2000

with total energy consumption estimated to be 140 Quads with 25 percent

residential/commercial consumption, the projected 2 Quads means that less than

6 percent of the residential/commercial requirements in these areas will be met

CHAPTER IV

72-169 0- 76 - 9

119
by solar thermal methods. Since it is now economically practical to provide solar

water and space heating in many areas, solar heating and cooling projections

should be more optimistic. It is felt that the predictions for solar contribution for

heating and cooling requirements are pessimistic, while some of the other

projections (i.e., ocean thermal, which has doubled since ERDA-48, Volume 2) are

overly optimistic,

QUESTIONS

1. How does ERDA reconcile the low projec- 2. How does ERDA justify lower 1985 goals

tions for solar heating and cooling compared than those put forward by FEA in Project

to solar electric in the light of the present Independence as being attainable with an

relative state of development of direct solar “accelerated government program”?

thermal and solar electric applications?

9. Purposes of the Solar Heating and Cooling

Demonstration Program

ISSUE

The size, scope, and purposes of the solar heating and cooling demonstration

program need specific definition.

SUMMARY

The prime objective of the demonstration program should be to accelerate

consumer acceptance of solar energy as a heat source so that substantial fuel

savings can be achieved at a considerable earlier date than would otherwise

result. The plans set forth in ERDA-48 do not appear to be oriented to achieve

these purposes. In particular they do not appear to place as much emphasis on

demonstration programs as The Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Act

(Public Law 93-409) does.

The manufacture and sale of solar energy systems for heating buildings and

hot water has commenced on a small scale, while solar cooling is still in the

development stage. Principal immediate emphasis in solar cooling should b e

research, development, and testing, whereas

water heating effort should be demonstration.

120 CHAPTER IV

the thrust in the solar space and
BUDGET SUMMARY

The trend in funding of the solar heating and cooling demonstration programs

can be seen as follows:

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriations Request Request to Congress

Commercial 12,6 (Not Available) 12.2

Demonstration

(Budget Outlays)

Residential 4.0 (Not Available) 6.3

Demonstration

(Budget Outlays)

Development in 4.5 (Not Available) 7.8

Support

(Budget Outlays)

Total 21.1 26.3

The 25 percent increase in requests for demonstration is less than that for the

solar heating and cooling subprogram as a whole. It is likely that this will not

permit the increase in emphasis on demonstration suggested in the issue

summary. In particular it is still unclear whether the objectives of the Solar

Heating and Cooling Demonstration Act (Public Law 93-409) can be met.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The purposes of the Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Program have

been better formulated in the new program. However, it should be emphasized in

the document that the demonstration of solar water and space heating is directed

toward the public sector stressing the economic viability and availability of

systems and components, rather than the need to prove the practicality of these

applications. It is stated that, “The nationwide Federal demonstration program

will illustrate the technical feasibility of solar heating and cooling equipment and

investigate the economic viability of near-term applications of such equipment. ”

The differences between heating and cooling should be better delineated. Solar

water heating is economical nationwide while solar heating is economical in many

regions of the United States. It is stated in the document that additional development of cooling systems is definitely warranted and needs support.

A significant portion of the Solar Heating and Cooling Program deals with the

demonstration program. The ERDA Program now recognizes the mandate of PL

93-409 and has increased the number of residential demonstration units from

CHAPTER IV 121
110 to zoo (see budget, page SE/D4&5). However, this is still considered to be

below an adequate number of units. A better awareness of the purpose of the act

is given in the implementation section which discusses market development

projects (see also budget, page SE/D-Z), including examination of non-technical

questions. While ERDA’s primary goal in the demonstration program still appears

to be hardware demonstration, a noticeable shift toward one of encouraging

consumer markets is evident.

10. Role of User Incentives in Solar Heating and Cooling

of Buildings

ISSUE

A well-structured user incentive program would accelerate the solar heating

and cooling of buildings (SHACOB) and accelerate development of the infrastructure to support large-scale applications.

SUMMARY

Properly structured user incentives are perceived as having the potential to

substantially accelerate the growth of solar energy utilization. Although incentive

programs should probably not be developed nor administered by ERDA, they have

potential impact on ERDA’s program. The important interfaces and distinctions

between the various Federal agencies with regard to solar incentive responsibilities have not been delineated in ERDA-48.

Incentives may be looked upon as temporary. Economics are less favorable

for solar heating and cooling systems now than they will be in the long term

because: (a) mass production savings in producing solar equipment have not yet

been attained, (b) cost reduction engineering accompanying volume production

remains to be done, and (c) it is probable that costs of competing fossil-based

energy forms will be higher relative to solar in the near future.

However, there is a clear need for equitable treatment of the solar energy

user. The individual user, turned energy producer. does not now receive the

benefits of investment tax credits, depreciation allowances, depletion allowances,

and other incentives to corporate producers of fossil energy forms. No incentive

recognizes his contribution to society in reducing pollution, preserving fossil

resources or reducing the Nation’s dependence upon imported oil.

BUDGET SUMMARY

No projects dealing with incentives are described in the Solar Heating and

Cooling Program. The Technology Utilization and Information Dissemination

subprogram calls for a request of $700,000 (Budget Outlay). The budget document

122 CHAPTER IV
does not indicate that any of these funds will be used for projects concerned with

incentives. Reductions of the ERDA budget requests before being submitted to

Congress appear to affect these efforts.

According to the Solar Division, the cutbacks could include the elimination of

programs which would initiate a regional solar information capability, incentive

and barriers programs, a solar code for state implementation and development of

comprehensive regional strategies, including cost-shared training and demonstration programs. In addition, publications, conferences, exhibits, films, and newsletters will be cut back.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The issue of incentives is addressed throughout the Solar Heating and Cooling

program with several studies on this and related subjects suggested.

The range of these studies is not precisely defined and it is not clear whether

ERDA will consider the role of the solar energy user as an energy producer.

Although mention of incentives is made in the strategy section in the Solar Heating

and Cooling Program, nothing is mentioned in the implementation section about

specific projects. It appears that ERDA has only slightly increased its activities

dealing with the incentive issue.

In the Federal role section of the Program a “Need for governmental action

(including State and local) to encourage use of solar energy” has been indicated.

However, no structure is proposed to carry this out. The plan does not indicate

ERDA’s role nor the extent other agencies (especially FEA) should be involved in

providing proper user incentives.

When ERDA mentions “incentives” no specification is made as to whether

industrial or consumer incentives or both types are intended. ERDA’s emphasis on

industrial commercialization makes one think the former is the case. Little mention

is made of the possibility of small businesses playing a major role in solar heating

and cooling.

QUESTIONS

1. Why, as stated in ERDA-23, does ERDA 3. What safeguards can be developed to propropose to delay study of incentive programs tect the small business and consumer in his

until 1979? investments — credits or deductions for

energy-conserving commercial and residen2. What agency, or agencies, should develop a tial solar expenditures?

structured incentive program, and what

should be the nature of ERDA’s interaction

with it?

CHAPTER IV 123
11. Standards for the Measurement of Solar Heating and

Cooling Equipment Performance

For consumer protection,

performance ratings, to allow

installation of solar equipment.

ISSUE

standards are needed to provide comparative

comparison of durability, and assure proper

SUMMARY

In order for the consumer or builder to intelligently compare solar equipment

produced by competing manufacturers, it is necessary that all equipment be rated

according to realistic and consistent standards, In order for the owner, builder, or

architect to properly size equipment to the load, the equipment performance as

determined from a standard measurement procedure must be specified. At present,

many equipment manufacturers omit rating data or rate their own equipment in

different terms so that it is very difficult to make comparisons or to size

installations. Thus, it appears that standards are required not to protect the

consumer. It is particularly appropriate that proposed incentive programs be tied

to standards so as to discourage fraudulent or mistaken practices.

BUDGET SUMMARY

No specific budget request for this area has been identified,

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

In the area of heating and cooling, the issue of standards has been considered

by ERDA within the residential and commercial demonstration programs (see

budget, pg. SE/D-4&5). This deals with the questions of warranty development,

system performance standards, system certification processes, performance

criteria, manuals of practice, etc. However, no systematic consideration of

standards to guide owners, builders, and architects, and to protect consumers is

described in the program. Therefore, it is not clear how ERDA will treat this

question in promoting commercialization of solar heating and cooling. Further,

there is no discussion of the connection between standards and incentives.

ERDA is working closely with the National Bureau of Standards to develop

standards in several aspects of solar heating and cooling. These will lead to the

development of minimum property standards for solar heating and cooling

equipment. In this context NBS is developing collector and storage test codes.

Also, NASA/Lewis is providing valuable service in testing collectors.

124 CHAPTER IV
QUESTIONS

1. What are ERDA and/or other agencies doing

to accelerate development of adequate

standards?

2. Is it intended that standards be written so

that they consciously avoid stifling innovation?

3. Will future standards be so written as to

enable the consumer to make his own

comparisons on life-cycle cost effectiveness

and energy conservation potential?

12. Impact of Solar Energy on Utility Peak Demand

ISSUE

Onsite solar energy sources (most immediately solar heating and cooling),

unless developed properly, will cause a significant utility peak demand problem.

SUMMARY

The economics of solar heating and cooling show that much of a building’s

energy requirements can be met by solar energy. The remainder must be supplied

from an auxiliary source—for example, electricity or natural gas from a public

u t il i t y or a stored onsite source, such as fuel oil. As the use of solar energy becomes

more extensive, it may contribute to an increased peak demand problem for the

utilities (particularly the electric utilities), because such energy supply systems

could need auxiliary power simultaneously. Expensive standby electricity rates

for solar energy uses could result. If auxiliary energy is supplied by a public utility,

the solar energy systems should be carefully designed to minimize regional

standby capacity. An alternative is onsite, selfcontained auxiliary energy storage

(such as fuel oil), which makes the consumer independent of the utility or which

will ensure his utilization of auxiliary sources at offpeak times.

BUDGET SUMMARY

There is only one

Systems (Solar Thermal

to determine the overall

explicit request directed to this issue. Under Hybrid

Conversion) $425,000 (Budget Outlay) has been requested

impact on a utility grid.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The potential impact of solar energy on utility peak demand may seriously

affect the development and growth of the various solar technologies. The ERDA

CHAPTER IV 125
program has better reflected the importance of this aspect of solar technology

development and implementation under “Status” and “Problems” of the various

program areas:

1. Agricultural and Industrial Process Heat — problem recognized;

2. Wind Energy Systems — problem recognized;

3. Solar Photovoltaic — problem recognized;

4. Solar Thermal Conversion — initiated program and problems recognized;

5. Hybrid Power Plants — problem recognized.

In addition, it is stated that ’’innovative techniques will be needed to solve the

problem of load management and peak demand.”

Thus it appears that ERDA is addressing this important problem but in a

segmented way. It would be better approached through a structured program

which is interfaced with the Electric Energy Systems and Conservation Research

and Technology subprograms of the Conservation Division, with an identifiable

budget for this area.

QUESTIONS

1. At what levels of implementation (percentage of solar homes) will a peak demand

problem for utilities become serious?

2. What standby energy and\or capacity (peak

and offpeak) rate structuring can be anticipated or recommended in the future for

buildings using onsite solar energy?

4. How best can an onsite solar energy system

be designed to minimize the impact on the

utility system while simultaneously maximizing the benefit to the solar consumer?

5. What coordination is planned with the Conservation Division of ERDA for storage

schemes uniquely applicable to solar

systems?

3. What methods appear attractive for selfcontained onsite supplementary energy

storage?

126 CHAPTER IV
13. Biomass Energy and Food

ISSUE

Biomass energy generation may conflict with food production.

SUMMARY

In a world in which hunger is an ever-present concern, the use of arable land

in the U.S. explicitly for energy production may be seen as irresponsible and may

conflict with our own capacity to produce food. For this reason, it is important

that the biomass program should not have an adverse effect on the production of

food, either in fact or perception.

A variety of development strategies are available to satisfy this requirement,

including:

● Improved plant genetics to emphasize biomass production with low water and

fertilizer demands

. Changes in cattle-feeding methods and a reduction in the United States

demand for beef

● Development of lands unsuitable for food crops

● Integrated food and energy production systems.

Unless such approaches are successful [and are also perceived as being

successful ), a large-scale biomass energy program will probably be unacceptable.

BUDGET SUMMARY

The biomass subprogram budget is as follows:

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriation Request Request to Congress

Biomass 4.5 8.1 8.1 4,3

Under the FY 77 Biomass subprogram, work is contemplated in 3 major areas:

1) terrestrial and marine biomass; Z) agricultural and forest residue programs;

and 3) research and development work directed toward optimizing plant growth

for energy yield.

CHAPTER IV 127
The reduction of ERDA and Division requests delays most of the alternative

crop studies as well as the construction of the wood plantation pilot plant.

Equipment ordering for the crop residue and feedlot pilot plants will be deferred

and R, D&D in optimizing plant growth will be postponed.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The ERDA Program states “These studies will address trade-offs resulting

from using land for food or fiber production, recreation purposes, or for energy

production in addition to surveying pertinent economic, technical, and environmental issues, ” While the general thrust of biomass energy generation conflicting

with food production was included in the above statement, the problems of

changing cattle-feeding methods, reduced U.S. demand for beef, integration of

food and energy production systems, and improved plant genetics to emphasize

biomass production with low water and fertilizer demands were not mentioned.

One is not certain of the importance of these components in ERDA’s Biomass

program planning.

QUESTIONS

1. Have studies been made of the comparable 3. Is ERDA undertaking studies or research to

economic value of organic materials when ensure the long-term productivity of land

used for food, lumber, and energy? used for intensive agriculture or treefarming?

2. What support is ERDA giving to genetic

studies for the improvement or development

of plants with high energy yield — and with

low water and nutrient demands?

128 CHAPTER IV
14. Legal and Institutional Constraints in Geothermal

Energy

ISSUE

Geothermal energy implementation is not so much constrained by technology

as by legal and institutional restraints.

Federal, State, and local agencies are inexperienced and inconsistent in dealing

with leasing, exploration permits, and licensing of geothermal resources. For

example, geothermal resources are variously classified as water, minerals, or fossil

fuels by regulatory agencies. Furthermore, unlike oil and gas exploration,

extensive 1icensing and environmental analyses are required prior to exploratory

drilling.

ERDA sponsorship of innovative legal and institutional studies may

determine the best methods of resolving these and similar problems to ensure the

orderly development of the resource.

BUDGET SUMMARY

These refer to the Environmental Control and Institutional Studies subprogram, The budget requests pertaining to this issue (Economic Policy and

Planning Analysis) are within this subprogram.

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriation Request Request to Congress

Environmental 3.9 8.9 7.4 4.8

Control and

Institutional

Studies

Economic Policy 1.42 (Not Available) 1.50

and Planning

Analysis

(Budget Outlay)

Additional funds are included within the technology subprograms (geopressured resources, advanced technology applications) but cannot be separated.

CHAPTER IV 129
The $80,000 increase alone appears to be too low to implement the substantially

increased effort described by ERDA in its programs.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

It is clear that ERDA has taken a major step in addressing this issue in their

program document, The points raised by this issue form an important part of the

strategy and implementation of the Geothermal Program. It is a part of the overall

program strategy, it is considered as a key institutional problem and it is a major

portion of the overall program implementation effort. An entire subprogram is

devoted to studies in this area along with key environmental problems. The

principal problem appears to be whether there are sufficient funds requested

within each of the technology programs where this issue is applicable.

QUESTIONS

1. What are the principal institutional and 3. Are there sufficient increases in the budget

legal impediments ERDA has identified to to continue an effective program in the area

expedite the leasing and exploration of of legal and institutional constraints?

potential geothermal resources?

2. What policies can ERDA recommend to deal

with these constraints?

130 CHAPTER IV
—

15. Environmental Constraints on Geothermal Energy

Development

Environmental problems, which have been inadequately stressed by ERDA, can

place constraints on the potential development of geothermal energy resources.

SUMMARY

Geothermal energy development will have environmental constraints because

of the disposal of gaseous and liquid pollutants, the potential for large-scale

subsidence, and the potential for fault movement and earthquake generation, The

implemental ion document of ERDA’s Energy Plan does not adequately define the

necessary environmental evaluation problem for geothermal development.

BUDGET SUMMARY

The requests for funds in environmental matters occur in three subprograms:

Environmental Control and Institutional Studies, Hydrothermal Technology

Applications, and Advanced Technology Applications. For the latter, specific

environmental figures are not available.

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA OMB

Category Appropriation Request Request Request

Environmental 0.9 (Not Available) 2.8

Studies

(Budget Outlay)

The above figures represent a substantial increase from FY 76 figures and

indicate that ERDA has addressed this issue well, at least within the context of

this subprogram. The lack of specific budget information on environmental efforts

within the other two subprograms does not permit any analysis of their

effectiveness,

CHAPTER IV 131
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

ERDA has devoted considerable attention to this issue within the program. In

both the overall strategy and implementation within the subprograms (Hydrothermal Technology Applications and Advanced Technology Applications), environmental problems and control technologies are considered. The Demonstration

Projects subprogram will consider environmental problems as a part of this effort.

In addition, the Environmental Control and Institutional Studies subprogram

provides for a major effort concerning this issue.

All of the points raised in the issue (subsidence fault movement, disposal of

gaseous and liquid pollutants) are specifically considered within the program

areas. The principal remaining question is the extent to which each of these points

are receiving funding and whether this funding is adequate to deal with the

problems.

QUESTIONS

10 What environmental problems has ERDA 2, Does ERDA have sufficient funding within

identified which could seriously hinder the final requests to Congress to effectively

geothermal development? deal with these problems?

16. Nonelectric Uses of Geothermal Energy and Geothermal Goals

ISSUE

The ability to approach ERDA’s presently unrealistic 1985 goal for geothermal

utilization will require a substantial increase in emphasis on nonelectric use.

SUMMARY

A realistic maximum prediction for electric generation by 1985 is 4,000

Megawatts of Electric Power (MWe). To reach the objective of 10,000 to 15,000

Megawatts (MW) stated by ERDA, however, will require a large amount of

nonelectrical uses, Since a significant portion of the resource base is low

temperature, the most important use of geothermal resources in the United States

may be for nonelectric applications, Indeed, the principal impact of geothermal

resources on worldwide energy needs, to date, has been through nonelectric

u t ilizat ion.

132 CHAPTER IV
The thermal energy from a geothermal reservoir can be used to replace

electricity or fossil fuels in low-grade industrial heat applications and space

heating. Geothermal water, because of its temperature, can also be used for

solution mining, agricultural enhancement, and mariculture.

Of additional consideration in reaching the ERDA goal is the development of

the number of wells needed for production and reinfection of 10,000 MW of

geothermal fluids. This will require a significant fraction of the drilling rigs,

material, and manpower presently being used for oil and gas exploration.

The ERDA Plan may not have assigned enough significance to the potentially

important nonelectric uses of geothermal energy. By doing so, ERDA could much

more realistically expect to reach their 1985 goals of geothermal utilization.

BUDGET SUMMARY

The requests for funds on development of nonelectric use of geothermal

energy occur in two subprograms: Engineering Research and Development

(Utilization Technology) and Advanced Technology Applications (Moderate

Temperature Resources). In both cases requests which specifically relate to

nonelectric use activities are not available. For reference, however, the funding

for the total subprograms is given along with that for the areas within the

subprogram that concern nonelectric utilization.

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriation Request Request to Congress

Engineering 10.6 20.8 20.8 11.5

Research &

Development

Utilization 6.2 (Not Available) 7.0

Technology

(Budget Outlay)

Advanced 6.9 14.6 10.6 10.1

Technology

Moderate 5.6 (Not Available) 4.0

Temperature

Resources

(Budget Outlay)

The effectiveness of the nonelectric utilization depends heavily on the funds

allocated to this area within each of the subprograms. Again, this determination is

not directly possible. In this connection, the Geothermal Program personnel

indicate that the reduction of their requests before they were submitted to

Congress will have the effect of slowing development of one of the projects which

has nonelectric utilization aspects.

CHAPTER IV 133
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

In general ERDA has taken significant steps in addressing this issue, although

some of the points raised have still not been considered, They have revised their

estimates of geothermal’s contribution downward to 6000 MW of electricity by

1985 and 0.1 quad per year of nonelectric use. The former is still greater than the

limit suggested in the issue but is much closer to that estimate of 4000 MW.

ERDA is considering to a greater extent the nonelectric contribution of geothermal

resources. Projects are identified within the Hydrothermal Technology subprogram to develop such uses. Studies are to be initiated to identify and assess

other nonelectric applications leading to field experiments for industrial use.

Further, one of the hydrothermal demonstration projects is being considered for

nonelectric use. There are also studies described to investigate the nonelectric

use potential of hot dry rock. It is clear ERDA has increased its activities in this

area. However, its goal of 0.1 Quad/year is short of that suggested in the issue of

0.3 Quad/year by 1985.

ERDA makes no mention, however, of the large requirement for drilling rigs

needed to reach their goals and the potential conflict with oil and gas exploration

needs. Some consideration of this problem may fall within the drilling technology

activities but this is not discussed explicitly.

QUESTIONS

1. How did ERDA arrive at its estimate of

geothermal’s contribution for nonelectric

uses of oil-Quad per year by 1985?

2. Does ERDA consider the availability of

drilling rigs to be a serious problem in

reaching its 1985 utilization goals?

3. Would a person or firm who was interested

in using geothermal process heat be eligible

for the Federal Geothermal Loan Guarantee

Program?

4. Does ERDA feel that as part of its dissemination and implementation function it should

encourage the location or relocation of

industries using low-grade heat near geothermal resources? Would the loan program

apply?

134 CHAPTER IV
17. Variability of Geothermal Reservoirs

ISSUE

Each geothermal reservoir has its own unique characteristics, which affect the

research strategy and demonstration portion of the ERDA program.

SUMMARY

Each geothermal reservoir has unique parameters, such as size, fluid

characteristics, and location. Furthermore, the nature of its energy source (heat)

requires that it be used at or near where it is found. Thus, the design of equipment

and energy conversion technology must be tailored to the characteristics of the

fluid in each reservoir; consequently, different power cycles may be used. If the

ERDA pilot/demonstration program were to concentrate on a single type of power

cycle, multiple demonstrations of the same cycle would not aid the expansion and

use of this resource. Furthermore, the most useful cycle for a given reservoir may be

determined by the availability of cooling water near the well site. Thus, the

equip men t and power conversion research strategy will have to consider a wide

variety o f possible utilization systems to ensure high efficiency.

BUDGET SUMMARY

Requests for R, D&D funds to account for the variability of Geothermal

Reservoirs fall into three subprograms. These include Engineering Research and

Development (utilization technology), Resource Exploration and Assessment

(reservoir assessment technology), and Hydrothermal Technology Applications

(demonstration projects). The amounts in these areas for activities specifically

addressing this issue are not given. The budget requests for the entire first and

third subprograms have been given previously (Issue 16). Presented here are the

requests for the second subprogram.

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriation Request Request to Congress

Resource Explora- 3,6 16.0 12,0 10.0

tion and

Assessment

Reservoir

Assessment

Technology

(Budget Outlay)

2.4 (Not Available) 3.5

CHAPTER IV 135

72-16Q O - 76 - 10
The determination of ERDA’s effectiveness in treating this issue cannot be

precisely made without knowing the specific funds. However, the increase in the

ERDA budget in this subprogram should indicate a more intensive approach.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

ERDA does not discuss alternative power cycles for different geothermal

reservoirs to much extent. Further they do not suggest methods for dealing with

possible energy storage requirements in effectively integrating with the existing

power grid. However, ERDA appears to have a fair awareness of this issue in

their program. It is addressed in the Engineering Research and Development

subprogram and is implicitly addressed with regard to hot dry-rock utilization

activities. The Demonstration Projects subprogram also has a clear statement of

the site-variable problem and intends to deal with it in the second demonstration

project. Finally part of the reservoir assessment technology activities concerns

utilization options within reservoir model development.

QUESTIONS

1. What cycles has ERDA identified for its 4. What priority does ERDA attach to these

pilot/demonstration program in geothermal projects?

energy?

5. What plans does the Geothermal Program

2. To what extent will the pilot/demonstration have to coordinate activities with the Electric

program be concerned with problems Energy Systems subprogram with regard to

associated with integrating a geothermal planning for integrating geothermal electric

source with an existing power grid? energy sources into the power grid?

3. What portion of the budget requests deal

directly with projects concerning the variability of geothermal resources?

136 CHAPTER IV
COMMENTARY

In the initial OTA analysis, a number of short issue statements were made, following

the 17 more lengthy issues. Repeated here are the original questions with a comparative

summary. Many of the concerns have been addressed by ERDA (identified by “Adequately addressed”). Other concerns remain as discussed below:

ISSUE

1. Has proper attention been given to the

n e c ess a r y i n t raa g e nc y coordination

mechanisms to ensure the cross-fertilization

of information and technology between solar

programs and necessary auxiliary efforts in

other divisions?

There are many aspects of the ERDA

program which cut across divisional boundaries, and which, although assigned to one

division, are of vital concern to the solargeothermal programs. Examples of such

areas are:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Energy storage

H y d ro g e n generation, d is t r i b u t ion,

s t o rage, and utilization

Advanced power conversion cycles

Combined storage/conversion systems;

e.g., fuel cells or thermal “batteries. ”

Super conductivity

Electric power conditioning (e.g., d.c. to

a.c. conversion)

Resource availability, particularly fresh

w a t e r.

2. Which research programs in the solar and

geothermal ares are budget limited? If more

funds were provided, what would be done

with them, and how would they assist the

research effort ?

3. What are the differences between a test bed

facility, a pilot plant, and a demonstration

plant?

In ERDA language, a test bed is a facility

used to test components of and ideas for a

total system. A pilot plant is a complete

system assembled to show technical

feasibility and to gain construction and

operating experience. A demonstration plant

is a near commercial scale facility used to

show economic feasibility y although the plant

itself may not be economically competitive at

that time. Another but totally different

concept of “demonstrations’” is illustrated in

connect ion with solar heating and cooling of

buildings (see Issue Paper 9), where the

objectives are to generate a user market.

1.

2.

3.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

Intraagency Coordination: ERDA was partially responsive. Although some subprograms describe their cooperative efforts

(e.g., wind, agriculture) others which are

known to exist are not discussed at all.

An example is the total energy activities

within the Conservation Branch of ERDA

and at HUD, which have many features in

common with the solar total energy program. Concern remains that storage may be

the most critical solar technology, and that

it may not receive the attention deserved.

Ten million dollars was requested by the

solar division for storage research; none

was approved in the request to Congress.

Budget Limitations: Concern was raised

initially about the limitations to the budget.

No information is provided in the budget on

the effects of cutting programs. A statement

of assumptions behind the budget is essential for adequate analysis.

Definition of Terms: Adequately addressed.

CHAPTER IV 137
4.

.5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

ISSUE

Does ERDA’s patent policy enhance or

impede development and application of solar

and/or geothermal energy?

Should ERDA research funding include

requirements that access to background

proprietary information and patent posit ions

be granted to the Federal Government?

How does withholding of “proprietary informat ion” by industry affect ERDA’s state-ofthe-art reviews and data-bank usefulness?

What should be the nature of incentives to

use windpower systems and geothermal

heating systems?

The issue of incentives related to solar

heating and cooling has been discussed

previously (see Issue Paper 10]. Many of the

same points also apply to wind power and

geothermal heat utilization.

Would it be appropriate for ERDA to fund

traineeships in solar and geothermal

technology?

The discipline requirements for the utiliza -

t ion of these resources is such that some

incentive, similar to the former NASA

traineeships, may be required to encourage

pursuit of these specialized educational

backgrounds. The need for these hybrid

scientists/engineers is immediate.

What is the reason for the apparent emphasis

on the central tower solar electric concept to

the exclusion of solar electric approaches?

10. Should the Plan make a specific commitment

of allocating a portion of the solar heating

and cooling demonstration projects to the

retrofitting o f existing residential and commercial buildings?

Although solar heating and cooling

systems will be more cost effective in new

buildings designed with the systems, the

approximately 65 million existing buildings

present an immense potential for solar

heating and cooling, with a subsequent

significant potential fuel savings. This is

particularly true in the case of solar-heated

domestic water,

11. What is the status of the Guaranteed

Geothermal Loan Program?

The Guaranteed Geothermal Loan Program

will be impossible to implement without

appropriate ions available to back up the

guarantee,

138 CHAPTER IV

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

4-6. Patent Issues: Not discussed at all.

7.

8.

9.

10.

110

Incentives for Wind Power and Geothermal:

It is indicated in the program that wind

power incentives are as important as for

solar heating and cooling, and it is indicated

that wind power incentives are being coordinated through FEA. For geothermal, $4.4

million has been budgeted for FY 77 for loan

guarantees.

Traineeships: There is no discussion of this

topic in the solar portions of the plan or

budget. ERDA’s University Relations Division

is reported to have funds for several traineeships, but studies of need are just beginning.

Central Tower Emphasis: Adequately

addressed, see Issue #6.

Specific Commitment to Retrofit Projects;

The ERDA program and budget do not

indicate specifically if and to what extent

retrofit projects will be addressed. However, in the first series of “integrated

residential project” solicitations, retrofit

projects were considered, and a portion (33

of the 143 units, hot water and/or space

heating) of the awards were for retrofit

projects, However, neither the program nor

the budget justification provides specifics or

guidelines on the extent to which retrofit

projects will be considered.

Geothermal Loan Guarantee: $4.4 million

has been budgeted for FY 77.
ISSUE

12. Why does a solar thermal total-energy

system demonstration appear in the plan, but

no photovoltaic total energy system?

Photovo1taics (at least onsite) would

appear to b e at 1east as wel1 suited for total

energy systems.

13. How does ERDA plan to verify and supplement the estimate of geothermal resources

indicated in the USGS Assessment Program?

USGS cannot drill exploratory geothermal

wells, but in order to determine the potential

reserves, geothermal exploratory wells must

be drilled, Such exploratory drilling will

allow for better planning of resource utiliza -

tion and determine the resource for which

conservation technology should b e

developed,

14. Why is little emphasis placed on alternative

solar-cell materials (other than silicon)

considered in the ERDA Plan?

A number of other materials (such as

gallium arsenide, cadmium sulfide, and

iridium phosphide) are receiving considerable attention from the private sector,

and some of them appear quite interesting,

15. Does the potential for the export of solar,

wind, and geothermal technology and equipment have any impact on R&D strategies?

16. Will geothermal resources benefit only certain segments of the country?

Even though geothermal resources are

region al in occurrence and nontransportable,

this does not make it a regional resource

which will benefit only a small segment of the

population. Because of the nature of the

resource (heat), it must be used near the well

site. However, when geothermal energy is

used in one portion of the country to replace

fossil fuel heat sources, the fossil fuel saved

is available to the country as a whole in the

form of high value liquid fuel.

17. What is the role of ERDA in the development

of geothermal exploration methods?

The development of advanced geophysical

exploration techniques is needed to ensure

full and rapid development of geothermal

resources. If ERDA agrees that it is within the

scope of their mandate to do this type of

work, such a statement should be made with

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

12. Photovoltaic Total Energy: , Adequately

addressed, see Issue #6.

13. Estimate of Geothermal Resources: See

#17, below.

14. Alternative Photovoltaic Materials: The

transfer of NSF’s solar program to ERDA,

without transfer of funding, greatly increases the severity of this problem,

although major studies are under way on

some new photovoltaic materials. The need

for basic research in photovoltaic materials

has not been addressed.

15. Export Potential: See comment 18 below,

16. National Benefit of Geothermal; The fund

allocated to geothermal energy development

is indicative that it is recognized to benefit

the Nation as a whole.

17. Estimate of Geothermal Resources: $9.6

million has been budgeted in FY 77 for

Geothermal Exploration Reservoir Assessment and Reservoir Confirmation.

details provided.

CHAPTER IV 139
18.

19.

20,

21.

22.

140

ISSUE

Has ERDA given adequate attention to the

use of international research efforts to solve

common energy problems?

The solar energy field is a particularly

attractive area for cooperation,

Why hasn’t the use of wind energy for

nonelectric applications been considered;

e.g., water-pumping, with pumped-storage

cap a b i 1 i t y ?

It is possible that significant capital cost

and energy savings might be realized by

exploiting all possible avenues for these

applications.

Has ERDA considered establishing test

facilities, pilot plants, and demonstration

plants on Federally controlled rather than

privately controlled lands?

This approach, with the assistance of

private industry, would allow the rapid

testing of technology without many of the

long delays associated with licensing and

restraints on private land, This approach

should be considered for cases where early

testing of a resource or technology is mandatory.

What is the nature of ERDA’s interaction

with the EPA program in urban waste

disposal? How do you integrate the use of

agricultural and forest wastes with your

program of energy from biomass?

The use of organic wastes: urban,

agricultural, and tree farming, can make a

modest contribution to the fuel supply while

reducing an adverse environmental problem.

What ocean areas have you identified that

have suitable upwelling conditions for

marine biomass cultivation? Is this area large

enough to allow a significant impact? What is

your estimate of the net energy gain per acre

of marine biomass and the cost to harvest?

CHAPTER IV

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

International Research Efforts: ERDA has

identified this as a topic for discussion

under each program plan. The differences

from the first plan’s discussion is impressive.

Recognition of Other than Electric Uses for

Wind: Some but little recognition of other

than electric uses for wind are recognized.

One area, irrigation: SE/D-19, is referred to

under “farm and rural systems” but is

placed under the Solar Electric Program.

Demonstration on Federal Lands: Adequately addressed. The Department of

Defense appears to be taking an increasingly active interest in several phases of solar

energy testing. NASA and several ERDA

National Laboratories (especially Sandia)

have active testing programs.

Urban Waste Disposal/Utilization: No coordination with the EPA Urban Waste

Disposal program is indicated.

Marine Biomass Cultivation: An assessment

of prospective marine biomass cultivation

sites available as a result of upwelling has

not been discussed. However, an assessment of the energy potential from marine

biomass has been made.
Chapter V

Conservation Issues

141
CONSERVATION ISSUES LIST

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Importance of Conservation 145

The ERDA Plan should better reflect the

urgency and importance of conservation in

responding to the national energy problem.

Program Management and

Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

ERDA’s Plan for the program management

and coordination within the agency, with

other involved Federal agencies, with State

and local governments, and with other

nations, needs additional attention.

Interaction With the Private

Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

A comprehensive plan is needed for interaction between ERDA and the private sector in

energy conservation.

Use of the Term

“Conservation” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

ERDA’s operational definition of energy

conservation is too broad.

Need for Nontechnological

Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

ERDA’s role needs clearer definition with

respect to research on nontechnological

issues associated with energy conservation,

Demand Modeling and Conservation

Planning ● ● ● . ● ● ● ● ● ● . ● . ● ● ● ● ● 155

The basic assumptions underlying ERDA’s

projections of future demand are unrealistic;

as a result, the ERDA Plan has not accorded

sufficient attention to conservation as a

means of reducing energy demand, environmental impact, and financial stress.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

Design Methods and

Standards● ● ● ● ● ., ● ● ● ● ● ● ● . . . . ● . 157

Energy conservation efforts in the building

and consumer product sector require the

development and dissemination of analytic

design methods and the adoption of

reasonable energy standards.

Development and

Demonstration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

ERDA’s plans for R, D&D of energy conservation technologies in buildings and consumer

products should be accelerated and expanded.

Constraints in Building

Construction ● a******?***.

ERDA does not appear to be

sufficient effort to overcoming

technological barriers to energy

tion in building construction.

Need for Thermodynamic

Analysis ● *******4******.*

● ☛✎ ✎ 161

devoting

the nonconserva-

. . . . 162

The ERDA Plan does not describe how the

agency plans to identify areas with the

highest theoretical potential for industrial

energy conservation and to assess the prac- ‘

tical feasibility of implementing programs in

those areas.

Oil and Gas Substitution . . . . . 164

ERDA’s plans for the substitution of other

energy forms for oil and gas as part of the

industrial conservation programs are not

well defined.

Use of Foreign Technology . . . . 166

The ERDA program should consider the

utilization of foreign technology as an

alternative to new conservation research.

CHAPTER V 143
13.

14.

15.

Transmission and Distribution

Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

The economic, environmental, and reliability

criteria underlying ERDA’s choice of projects

and their relative priorities in the electrical

transmission and distribution program need

clarification.

Active Load Management . . . . . 169

Active load management is not addressed as

a cost-effective way to save energy.

Orientation of Automotive

Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

ERDA’s program on highway vehicles is

directed more toward prototype development than toward the technological

breakthroughs necessary for successful commercialization.

16.

170

18.

Cooperation With the Transportation

Industry . .*..*.*.**.***.***** 173

Successful commercialization of ERDAsponsored technology in the transportation

industry will be difficult to achieve without

close cooperation between ERDA and industry.

Nonhighway Vehicle Transportation Program . ..**..*.**.**** 174

ERDA presently has no program for energy

conservation in the nonhighway vehicle

transportation sector.

Energy Recovery From Waste. . 175

ERDA has formulated no plans or programs

in the productive use of waste, although

specifically directed to do so by Congress.

144 CHAPTER V
1. Importance of Conservation

ISSUE

The ERDA Plan should better reflect the urgency and importance of

conservation in responding to the national energy problem.

SUMMARY

ERDA-48 states that energy conservation is of “crucial” importance,

particularly in the next decade. However, its program priorities and funding

requests are inconsistent with the stated importance of conservation. There is

little evidence that cost-effectiveness or environmental/economic impacts have

been considered in establishing program priorities; moreover, programs to

address nontechnological but none the less vital issues in developing and implementing conservation activities seem to be missing. A sense of urgency to achieve

results (saved energy) seems wanting.

BUDGET SUMMARY

The budget requests for conservation are as follows:

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriation Request Request to Congress

Conservation 71.7 209.0 193.9 113.0

The ERDA request is nearly three times the FY 76 budget while the final

request to Congress represents a 64-percent increase, one of the largest of any of

the offices in ERDA, However, the dollar increase is 80.9 million less than ERDA

requested from OMB and represents 3.8 percent of the total ERDA FY 77 budget

as against 3.o percent for FY 76. When just those programs which are concerned

with the end-use sector are counted (see Issue 4), this becomes 2 percent. This in

spite of the fact that conservation is now ranked with the highest R, D&D priorities

CHAPTER V 145
—

in ERDA. While reliable cost-benefit analyses of various conservation options have

not been performed (as indeed they are also lacking for supply strategies as well)

it is still difficult to justify giving conservation with its low-risk and high short-term

potential for payoff such a small fraction of the total ERDA budget. The argument to

which some subscribe, that the private sector can be expected to respond more

easily in providing us with a cost-effective use of energy than it can in terms of

developing additional supplies, neglects the tremendous advantages that accrue to

the Nation if we can accelerate the transition to a more efficient energy system.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

ERDA has given considerably more emphasis to conservation as a means of

achieving the Nation’s energy objectives. The increased importance can be seen in

the program document for FY 77 which places greater stress on the urgency of

conservation and addresses the vital, nontechnological issues in developing and

implementing conservation activities.

There are, however, two aspects of ERDA’s program on end-use conservation

which are still quite troublesome and which appear to seriously handicap the

program. First: the conservation program has no apparent overriding sense of

direction. A conservation strategy needs to be formulated so the program

elements are viewed as parts of a whole. In spite of the value of the research

being funded, this lack of a coherent, well articulated, conceptual framework may

be responsible for the less than enthusiastic, although unjustified, budget

treatment given the ERDA conservation program. Second: ERDA’s program does

not emphasize that conservation has a major role in solving our long-term energy

problem. Activities on new technologies with payoff in the long term have not been

identified and commenced. In summary, ERDA should create an imaginative,

aggressive, and comprehensive strategy and program for conservation both for the

short and long term.

QUESTIONS

1. What plans does ERDA have for establishing on the mid- and long-term contribution of

an overall strategy for energy conservation energy conservation [1985 and beyond)?

so that the various subprograms can be

viewed as part of a comprehensive conser- 3. Does ERDA feel that the adoption of conservation R, D&D program? vation technologies by the private sector

can be measurably accelerated by an

2. Does ERDA intend to place more emphasis aggressive conservation R, D&D program?

146 CHAPTER V
Z. Program Management and Coordination

ISSUE

ERDA’s plans for conservation program management and coordination within

the agency, with other involved Federal agencies, with State and local governments,

and with other nations need additional attention.

SUMMARY

ERDA has been mandated (Public Law 93-577) as the primary agency in energy

R, D&D with responsibility to integrate and coordinate national efforts. Its mission

is to assure that existing ancillary resources (e.g., capital, manpower, materials,

and expertise) are utilized to the maximum extent, thereby making available the

most promising energy alternatives.

It is not evident in ERDA’s plans whether a comprehensive framework is being

established to permit ERDA to perform adequately its required coordin a t ion / integration role. Insufficient attention is given in the Plan to the

implementation of formal mechanisms or operating relationships to assure:

. location of programs within ERDA to maximize chances for an integrated

systems approach t o solving problems;

● coordination of programs with the various Federal agencies, and State and

local governments involved in energy conservation work; and

● integration o f foreign energy conservation R, D&D into domestic planning.

Lack of programmatic elements to deal with the above responsibilities could

seriously impede the effort to achieve the stated objectives within the conservat ion

program,

BUDGET SUMMARY

program management is not identified as a line item and is therefore assumed

to be spread across the various subprograms. The portion of each Conservation

subprogram which deals with State and local governments is principally contained

within the information-dissemination/transfer categories summarized below:

CHAPTER V 147
SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriation Request Request to Congress

Industrial 0.10 (Not Available) 2.78

Information

Technology

Transfer

Buildings 1.05 (Not Available) 0.62

Dissemination

and Transfer

It must be noted that these requests include more than items pertaining to this issue

(e.g., see Issue 3). The four remaining Conservation subprograms do not provide

separate budget categories related to this issue.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

ERDA’s plans for coordination with other Federal agencies and other nations

have been thoroughly outlined by subprogram under the headings “Federal Role”

and “International Cooperation”. However, no overall management philosophy for

the Federal Conservation Program is apparent and this is inappropriate for the

“lead agency” role established for ERDA by Public Law 93-577. In this connection

the relationship between ERDA and FEA continues to be of concern.

In the area of coordination within ERDA there are still several unresolved

questions. For example there are several projects in the Energy Conversion

subprogram which are relevant to subprograms in the Solar, Fossil, and Conservation programs (a. c. to d.c. conversion, fuel cells, etc.). The Energy Storage

subprogram has obvious links to solar, transportation, and other conservation

activities. While there is discussion within these subprograms of cooperation with

other ERDA efforts, there is no apparent systematic approach to coordination.

Without such a mechanism from the very start it is likely that some projects will be

unnecessarily duplicated and others will not be effectively carried out. This lack

of strong, effective intra-program coordination is especially dangerous in the

Conservation Program because of the broad range of subprograms and effects they

have on other ERDA programs.

148 CHAPTER V
QUESTIONS

1.

2.

In the near term where direct Government 3. What is the Management Plan for coordinainfluence and incentives can create energy tion of conservation technologies within

savings, how is the responsibility for energy ERDA among the various programmatic

conservation divided between ERDA and groups?

FEA?

What specific management mechanism,

technique(s) or coordination controls will

ERDA use to integrate and coordinate its

conservation activities with other Federal

agencies?

3. Interaction With the Private Sector

ISSUE

A comprehensive plan is needed for interaction between ERDA and the private

sector in energy conservation.

SUMMARY

Without close coordination with industry and other private organizations,

widespread implementation of research results cannot be attained. The problem is

complex since various areas of the private sector are organized quite differently

and each (e. g., energy consuming industry, energy producing industry, the Electric

Power Research Institute (EPRI), individuals, public institutions), will require a

unique approach to constructive interaction, The ERDA Plan provides few details

as to how this interaction is to be accomplished,

BUDGET SUMMARY

Interaction with the private sector is encompassed in every subprogram in

two forms: I) As a separate implementation subprogram (technology transfer,

information dissemination), and Z) within each of the technology subprograms. The

budget requests for the former are given here while those for the latter are not

available.

CHAPTER V 149
—

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriation Request Request to Congress

Industrial 0.10 (Not Available) 2,78

Information

Technology

Transfer

Buildings 1.05 (Not Available) 0.62

Dissemination

and Transfer

Transportation 0.60 (Not Available) 1.30

Implementation

All of these categories include projects in addition to those dealing with the

private sector but they are largely oriented toward the latter. The budget increases

in all but the buildings subprogram indicate a significant recognition of

the need for interaction with the private sector at least in terms of technology

transfer and information dissemination.

It should be noted that the ERDA requests for the subprograms in which the

above categories fall were higher than the final request to Congress. How this

translates to those projects and efforts concerning interaction with the private

sector cannot be determined from available data.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

ERDA has addressed this issue rather extensively in their program document,

All of the subprograms contain projects and efforts to provide information and

technology transfer to the private sector. To varying degrees they all have

projects underway which coordinate with the private sector including cost-sharing

activities.

The principal deficiency in ERDA’s attempt to address this issue is the very

limited discussion of how they will utilize the private sector to initiate programs

and to set priorities. The efforts with the private sector are principally

dissemination of information and technology transfer. The buildings and electric

energy systems subprograms appear to be more responsive to this concern than

the others. This deficiency could lead to R, D&D results that cannot be transferred

regardless of how effective the implementation program is.

150 CHAPTER V
QUESTIONS

1. What mechanisms has ERDA established to 2. Has ERDA involved the private sector in

bring in the private sector at the onset of developing an overall R, D&D plan for the

programs and to assist in setting priorities? conservation program?

4. Use of the Term “Conservation”

ISSUE

ERDA’s operational definition of energy conservation is too broad.

ERDA uses the term “conservation” so broadly that almost any effort to

improve efficiency or cost in either energy supply or energy demand can be

subsumed within it. This has the possible consequence of shifting the emphasis on

responsibility for conservation actions away from the consumer toward the

suppliers and distributors of energy.

As an example, the Electric Conversion, Energy Storage, and Power

Transmission programs can produce large cost savings but, in most instances,

their energy savings potential is small in comparison with efforts in the energy

demand sector. As important as they are, these cost savings could distort the

contribution of these programs in terms of the objective of reducing energy use.

This could cause a shift away from end-use conservation priorities to those on the

supply side within the overall Conservation Program. Also to increase their chance

of success these programs should be coordinated with research on other

components of the electric power system with which they are related

synergistically.

BUDGET SUMMARY

The budget implications for this issue can best be seen by looking at the

requests of the subprograms grouped as follows:

CHAPTER V 151
SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriation Request Request to Congress

End-Use Subprograms

Buildings 12.6 46.9 46.9 21,6

Industry 4.2 35.2 29.2 11,4

Transportation 12.5 36.5 34.0 23.2

TOTAL 29.3 118.6 110.1 56.2

Non-End-Use Subprograms

Electric 18.0 35.6 29,0 21.0

Systems

Energy 15.6 42.0 42.0 20.8

Storage

Energy 8.9 12.7 12.7 15.0

Conversion

TOTAL 42.5 90.3 83.7 56.8

TOTAL 71.8 208.9 193.8 113,0

CONSERVATION

End-Use Subprograms

(

FY 76 41 percent (Appropriations)

as percent of total FY 77 57 percent 57 percent 50 percent

ERDA requests are weighted toward the end-use sector which places the

emphasis where the greatest energy savings can be achieved. This represents a

noticeable shift from FY 76 which appears to respond to some of the concerns

raised by this issue. The request to Congress, however, partially reversed this

trend by bringing about a 50-50 split between the two groups.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

This issue remains unresolved in the present ERDA program document and

budget. ERDA 76-1 (Volume II) states “Conservation can be viewed, succinctly, as

the use of energy in a cost-effective manner.*’ (emphasis added). Yet the ERDA

Conservation budget is equally weighted toward technologies relating to electric

energy systems (incorrectly called Power Transmission in the original issue

152 CHAPTER V
summary) and energy storage and conversion. These programs, while important,

are not consistent with ERDA’s own definition.

This is not to say that these other programs are overfunded. There is the

danger that they may have insufficient funds since they may not be able to

compete with end-use subprograms in terms of reduced energy use. Indeed these

subprograms are extremely important in themselves and will directly effect the

utilization and integration of solar, geothermal, fusion, and other new energy

technologies into the U.S. energy infrastructure. Specifically these subprograms

will have a great influence on the structure of the electric power grid as these

new supply technologies are introduced. Whether the grid will be oriented

virtually exclusively toward large central power generation systems or whether it

will be flexible enough to permit both large, bulk systems and small, decentralized

systems depends to a large part on the direction the Electric Energy Systems and

Conservation Research and Technology subprograms take in their R, D&D

programs. The combined influence of these subprograms will serve to establish

the flexibility and rate of integration of all new energy sources into the Nation’s

energy economy. This role is as important to the supply sector as the end-use

conservation program is to the demand sector in achieving national goals.

ERDA’s broad definition of conservation could distort the situation to the

detriment of both sets of programs and of developing solutions to the energy

problem. This could be mitigated by either moving the Electric Energy Systems and

Conservation Research and Technology (storage and conversion) subprograms out

of the Conservation Program and integrating them within their related programs

or establishing an effective management structure to ensure that non-end-use

subprograms are evaluated on their own terms.

There is also a time-scale issue. Virtually all long-range programs are in the

Electric Energy Systems and Conservation Research and Technology subprograms

while the end-use subprograms have payoff beginning in the short-term. ERDA has

yet to develop a long-term plan for end-use conservation. Despite the very large

projected long-term impact of energy conservation, there are virtually no program

elements which might contribute to this objective.

QUESTIONS

1. Why has the Conservation Program not 3. What procedures is the Conservation Promade its program consistent with its defini- gram using to identify ideas for energy

tion of conservation? conservation R, D&D for the long term

(2OOO and beyond)?

2. What mechanisms has ERDA established to

ensure that the funding levels of each set of

subprograms, as defined above, are not

distorted because they are all lumped

within the Conservation Program?

CHAPTER V 153
5. Need for Nontechnological Research

ISSUE

ERDA’s role needs clearer definition with respect to research on nontechnological issues associated with energy conservation.

SUMMARY

Present inefficient patterns of energy use, characterized by inefficiencies in

buildings and consumer products, in transportation, in industrial processes, and in

the generation and transmission of electricity, are to a large degree caused by a

combination of historical, institutional, governmental, economic, and social forces.

Implementation of known methods and technologies to improve energy use

efficiency requires an understanding of how these forces operate and how changes

in these forces will influence energy consumption patterns and fuel use. The

regulatory policies and programs of various agencies need to be critically

reexamined to see how they can be modified to promote greater energy efficiency.

To accomplish this, identification of a lead agency which will decide on the tradeoffs among separate agency interests and establish an overall government posture

is a key requirement. Guidelines in Public Law 93-577, Sec. 5(a), imply a strong

ERDA role.

BUDGET SUMMARY

No budget information concerning this issue could be determined.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

Throughout ERDA 76-1 extensive reference is made

technical problems which deal with the points raised in

to research in nonthis issue. However,

notwithstanding this recognition, no budget request appears explicitly within the

conservation program for such research. Possibly these problems have become

integral parts of other subprograms and, therefore, no specific allocations are

requested. But research projects on nontechnological impediments to implementation of conservation measures are difficult to find within the discussion of the FY

77 Budget Estimate.

There are some areas of study not discussed in the ERDA Program and Plan

which should be included in this issue discussion. Specifically, studies of the

economic, labor, and other impacts of energy conservation technology should be

performed. In this context it is quite important to examine the various supply and

demand options with the objective of optimum use of R, D&D funds within ERDA.

154 CHAPTER V
QUESTIONS

1. Why does the Energy Conservation Program 2. What role does economic analysis play in

appear to place low emphasis on planning the ERDA process for establishing priorities?

and analytical activities?

6. Demand Modeling and Conservation Planning

The basic assumptions underlying ERDA’s projections of future demands are

unrealistic; as a result, the ERDA Plan has not accorded sufficient attention to

conservation as a means of reducing energy demand, environmental impact, and

financial stress.

SUMMARY

Investment in energy conservation can yield a high rate of return.

to lower total cost for a given standard of living, major benefits which

conservation efforts include:

● Lower energy and natural resource consumption

● Lower capital investment requirements

● Reduced environmental impact.

In addition

result from

The Reference Energy System model used in the ERDA Plan as a “baseline”

reference for future energy demand growth is unrealistic in that it does not

recognize the impact of even current price increases on future demand. As a result,

an artificially high demand is projected for 1985 and 2000, and this inflated figure

is the basis from which plans for new supply are developed.

Program emphasis and funding may thus be seriously biased toward the

supply options. Such an overstatement of need is damaging to future efforts

toward energy development in both the supply and demand areas. Since the ERDA

Plan is closely tied to numbers generated in the model, we must be careful to keep in

mind the assumptions that went into the ERDA calculations.

BUDGET SUMMARY

No budget information concerning this issue could be determined.

CHAPTER V 155
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

ERDA has recognized the impact of price on demand projections. Various

models were utilized including one which looked at a demand policy based on

rising energy prices. These were compared to a reference case which assumed

decontrol of oil and gas prices. It is encouraging to note, in this context, the

collaboration between ERDA and FEA through formal agreement for ERDA to use

the Project Independence Evaluation System (PIES) model for projections to 1985.

It is not clear, yet, how consideration of the impact of rising prices on energy

projections will affect ERDA’s planning. It should be pointed out here that these

analyses should be carefully evaluated. For just as too little emphasis on price

could overstate the need for enhanced supply options, too much emphasis could

understate the need for both supply and conservation technologies.

QUESTIONS

1. To what extent has ERDA’s plans for demand 2. How does ERDA intend to use the results of

modeling and subsequent conservation demand modeling and energy projections in

planning been curtailed by budget limita- setting priorities for conservation R, D&D?

tions?

156 CHAPTER V
7. Design Methods and Standards

Energy conservation efforts in the building and consumer products sector

require the development and dissemination of analytic design methods and the

adoption of reasonable energy standards.

SUMMARY

In order to realize the full potential of energy conservation in the building and

consumer product sector, two major tasks must be accomplished. First, the design

profession must be provided with improved design methodologies, as traditional

design procedures do not place adequate emphasis upon energy considerations. A

fundamental reorganization of the design process and the development of new

energy-sensitive analytic tools is required. Second, realistic energy standards

and/or energy budgets must be established as design guidelines. Data on existing

energy use patterns in the buildings and consumer products sector must be

analyzed in order to develop a rational basis for new standards. Finally,

fundamental questions as to the form energy standards should take must be

resolved. The ERDA Plan does not give sufficient emphasis to this need.

BUDGET SUMMARY

The budget requests which concern the points in this issue fall in most of the

categories of the Buildings subprogram, and, except for the performance standards

category, cannot be broken out.

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriations Request Request to Congress

Performance 2.6 (Not Available) 1.3

Standards

A decrease in funds clearly indicates an underestimate of the money and

effort needed to implement satisfactory performance standards in code jurisdictions. The projected energy savings due to activities in this category are much

greater relative to the entire program than the budget requests indicate (see

Budget Document, CR/U-25). Activities concerned with design methods and new,

energy-sensitive analytic tools are not explicitly identified in the budget requests.

Finally, information dissemination of standards and design techniques will also

CHAPTER V
likely be relatively ineffective as a result of the budget request for this category

remaining at last year’s level (see Issue 3).

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The question of energy standards for buildings and consumer products is

discussed extensively in the program document. The development of energy

standards is an implied goal of the Buildings subprogram and forms an integral

part of its strategy and implementation activities. The major difficulty here

appears to be budget restrictions which limit the effectiveness of these efforts.

With regard to the other major task described in the issue, that of providing new

design methods and energy-sensitive analytical tools, there is less said. Design

criteria are mentioned in many places in the Buildings subprogram but no

comprehensive program is laid out to develop these methods. In this sense the

Buildings program appears to emphasize demonstrations of specific technologies

(e.g., the annual cycle energy system and the thermally activated heat pumps)

and puts less effort on generic design methods to improve energy use efficiency. It

is no doubt true that such methods will be developed from the specific

technologies, but it is still not clear that a systematic approach toward this goal

exists,

QUESTIONS

1. Do budget constraints in the performance 3. What plans does ERDA have to develop a

standards and dissemination and transfer program in design methods and energycategories severely limit the effectiveness of conservation analytic tools which can be

the performance standard and design used across the buildings and consumer

method activities? products sector?

2. How is ERDA involving the construction

industry in the standard setting and implementation process?

158 CHAPTER V
8. Development and Demonstration

ISSUE

ERDA’s plans for R, D&D of energy conservation technologies in buildings and

consumer products should be accelerated and expanded.

SUMMARY

In order to introduce the current technology into society as fast as justifiable

by market economics and national need, demonstration projects must be developed

for use in all sections of the Nation. ERDA’s plans for the implementation of

existing technology for energy conservation in buildings and consumer products

appear inadequate; in add it ion, it is evident that ERDA is not spending a sufficient

port ion of its resources on the research of new energy conservation technology

which holds great promise for the future.

BUDGET SUMMARY

The budget requests for the various categories of the Buildings subprogram

which relate to development and demonstration are given here along with a

request for construction of a commercial building demonstration project.

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriation Request Request to Congress

Commercial 1.3 (Not Available) 3.9

Buildings

Residential 0.9 (Not Available) 3.1

Buildings

Community 2.6 (Not Available) 6.9

Systems

Appliances 0.7 (Not Available) 1.2

Technology 1.8 (Not Available) 3.1

Commercial o 15.3 15.3 0

Building

Conservation

Demonstration

72-169 0 - 76 - 1 ] CHAPTER V 159
All of these requests show an increase from FY 76 reflecting an acceleration

of demonstration and development of energy conservation technologies in the

buildings and consumer products sectors. The elimination of ERDA’s request for

construction of the demonstration project coupled with the reduction of the

division and ERDA’s request for the entire Buildings subprograms (see Issue 4)

implies that this acceleration is slower than ERDA itself feels is justified. This will

slow the rate at which successful energy conservation technologies can be

introduced into society.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

In the Buildings Conservation subprogram area four specific objectives are

stated in the program document: a) to improve the energy utilization efficiency in

new and existing buildings, b) to develop energy-saving technologies, c) to improve

the energy efficiency of consumer products, and d) to develop “community

systems” to improve overall energy efficiency. These objectives indicate that

ERDA has responded well to most of the points raised in this issue. There are

areas of concern, however, which may reduce the effectiveness of the energy

conservation effort.

The expansion of the Commercial and Residential Buildings Programs

(particularly demonstration efforts) is somewhat limited. This appears to be due to

budget restrictions.

2. ERDA is still emphasizing the near-term in their R, D&D program (basic

and applied) on new energy conservation technology. Very little discussion (both

budget and program) is presented of efforts to investigate new, innovative

technologies which may have a large long-term payoff (beyond 1985).

Examples of the latter include:

10 New approaches to high efficiency appliances including lighting.

2. Chemically stable fluids for heating and air-conditioning applications

having useful thermal properties.

3. Research on human factors, such as people’s adaptability to their

thermal environment.

It should be noted that this concern about R, D&D on new technology extends

across the entire Conservation Program (see Issue 1). That portion of the program

which deals with research appears to lack a strong commitment to basic research

on new long-term energy conservation technology such as those quoted above and

efforts such as combustion chemistry and innovative industrial processes.

An important new consideration with this issue is the influence of the Energy

Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 on ERDA’s implementation plans. The

provisions of this Act dealing with consumer products and State energy conservation efforts need to be considered by ERDA in formulating its programs.

160 CHAPTER V
QUESTIONS

1.

2.

Is it feasible to expand the demonstration 3. Has ERDA formulated plans for a basic

program in buildings and, if so, to what research program in the conservation area?

extent can this accelerate implementation

of these technologies? 4. How will the provisions of the Energy Policy

and Conservation Act of 1975 influence

What methods does ERDA have to define ERDA’s programs in the consumer products

broad categories and initiate research into area?

new, innovative conservation technologies

for long-term payoff?

9. Constraints in Building Construction

ERDA does not appear to be devoting sufficient effort to overcoming the

nontechnological barriers to energy conservation in building construction.

SUMMARY

The technology to permit substantial reductions in energy expenditures on

commercial and residential buildings is currently available. New technologies and

designs promise cost-effective reductions of energy to operate buildings of 60

percent or more. However, five primary nontechnological barriers impede this

objective and require R, D&D to provide ways to overcome them:

●

●

●

The minimum first-cost syndrome. ● Industry and consumer resistance,

Antiquated local building codes. ● ERDA’s budget control procedures,

poor system design.

BUDGET SUMMARY

The budget requests which relate to this issue fall within several of the

categories of the Buildings subprogram, The dissemination and transfer category

(see Issue 3) is the only one for which a significant fraction of funds appears to be

related to this issue.

CHAPTER V 161
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

In the Buildings subprogram the issue of constraints in building construction is

given high priority in the revised ERDA Program. Also, in the descriptive

material associated with the budget emphasis is given to the resistance t o

conservation measures by the construction industry, problems of adverse building

codes, etc. Although the issue is discussed in some detail, there is no indication of

the budget resources going to this effort, and it is not clear that the budget

adequately addresses its magnitude.

10. Need for Thermodynamic Analysis

The ERDA Plan does not describe how the agency plans to identify areas with

the highest theoretical potential for industrial energy conservation and to assess the

practical feasibility of implementing programs in these areas.

SUMMARY

Prior to establishing research priorities in industrial energy conservation, a

detailed assessment must be made of the amount and form of energy used in

industry and the efficiency of industrial energy use, Thermodynamic analysis,

which determines the theoretical minimum energy required for a given process,

may be used to identify areas having a high theoretical potential for energy

savings. Once promising areas have been identified, however, the feasibility of

these improvements must be evaluated to determine whether economic, political,

or social restraints might render a proposed solution useless, even if it is

technologically possible. Such considerations must enter ERDA’s program

planning activities early in the cycle to assure ultimate utilization of research

results.

BUDGET SUMMARY

Funding to implement thermodynamic analyses would be contained within the

process analysis and modifications, and unit operations and equipment efficiency

categories of the Industry Conservation subprograms. The amounts requested for

such analyses are not detailed. However, these categories are presented here.

162 CHAPTER V
SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriation Request Request to Congress

Process Analysis 1.4 (Not Available) 1.7

and Modifications

Unit Operations 1.1 (Not Available) 2.2

and Equipment

Modifications

It cannot be determined, explicitly, whether there is adequate funding to

identify targets for industrial energy conservation through thermodynamic

analysis, or to assess the feasibility of implementation of these targets. It can be

inferred, however, that the program will not accelerate as rapidly as ERDA feels

it can, due to the reduction of their requests when submitted to Congress. This is

particularly true of the implementation phase which will be addressed primarily

by demonstration projects.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The ERDA program document responds to this issue in its discussions

concerning identification of ‘targets of opportunity’ for energy conservation.

Although the program document does not specify that this will consist of thermodynamic analysis as described in this issue, the Program Approval Document of

the Industry Conservation subprogram does make this point. Further, it charts

how such analyses will be integrated into the overall assessment of a particular

candidate for energy conservation. The Federal Energy Administration has

carried out extensive thermodynamic studies of those industries using the largest

amounts of energy. ERDA has noted this. From these discussions, it is clear that

ERDA recognizes this issue. With regard to the projects underway or planned in

the Industry subprogram, however, there has been little discussion of how

thermodynamic analysis has been utilized so far.

The assessment of feasibility will be answered primarily by the comprehensive demonstration projects of energy-intensive processes scheduled from 1976 to

1985 (ERDA program document). The scope of these demonstration programs

seems appropriate in light of the budget limitations and the lack of funding for

conservation projects.

CHAPTER V 163
QUESTIONS

1. What procedures will ERDA establish to

evaluate the nontechnical (economic, environmental, etc. ) aspects of energy conservation technologies identified by a theoretical minimum energy consumption analysis?

2. How does ERDA propose to communicate

thermodynamic and economic analysis

results to industry so as to aid the technology transfer process?

3. Why was the ERDA budget in the industrial

sector cut by OMB so much more severely

than other sectors? (30 percent of ERDA’s

request allowed versus 58 percent for all

conservation) ?

4. Has ERDA asked industry to provide documentation of the rationale and potential

impact of industrial sector conservation

R, D&D?

11. Oil and Gas Substitution

ISSUE

ERDA’s plans for the substitution of other energy sources for oil and gas as part

of the industrial conservation program are not well defined.

SUMMARY

Conservation strategies as defined by ERDA can take two forms:

• Conservation of energy by increasing efficiency of end use.

• Conservation of scarce resources, such as oil and gas, by substituting other

energy sources, such as coal, nuclear, or organic wastes. Although ERDA is

obviously aware of both of these options, the plans spelled out in the industrial

sector do not clearly distinguish between them. ERDA should examine the

potential and the impacts of fuel substitution in various key industries, and

formulate the specific R, D&D strategies required. Possibilities exist for the

production of process heat for industrial users by nuclear- and coal-fired plants.

Also the use of synthetic fuels derived from coal, such as low-Btu gas, may prove

to be an economical substitute for oil and natural gas in many applications, In

the mid-to-long term, as advanced electric generating technologies reach

commercialization, industries may shift to electricity for process heat and steam

generation, With research and development, high-capacity high-temperature

heat pumps may be able to provide process heat with an efficiency comparable to

that of direct fuel firing.

164 CHAPTER V
BUDGET SUMMARY

The budget requests related to this issue fall in the technology categories

within the Industry subprogram. The principal category is alternative energy

fuels, materials, and process.

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriation Request Request to Congress

Alternative 0.6 (Not Available) . 2.2

Energy Fuels,

Materials and

Process

Other efforts, such as an industrial heat pump, are also being funded. In

addition, the fossil program contains efforts directed at efforts suggested in this

issue. The fragmentation of these projects and the lack of specific budget

information makes it difficult to determine how effectively ERDA is responding to

this issue through the budget. It is still clear that an overall ERDA program to deal

with oil and gas substitution has not been well defined in the sense of the budget.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The ERDA program describes numerous efforts to deal with oil and gas

substitution. This occurs in both the Conservation and Fossil programs. In the

Industry subprogram by itself, a specific R, D&D strategy for fuel substitution has

been developed which responds to the issue. It appears not to have a sufficient

budget to implement the effort. The scope of the projects described for FY 77, which

is set by budget restrictions, is considerably narrower than the overall program

strategy.

ERDA has described efforts to look at high-temperature heat pumps and have

budgeted this item for FY 77. There is no description of coordination with efforts

in the fossil program on the points discussed in the issue.

There are two other aspects of this issue which deserve ERDA’s attention. The

first is the need to assist certain hard-hit industries to switch from natural

gas to more abundant fuels before 1985. The second is the need to assess the

social, economic, and political factors related to oil and gas substitution. Such

impacts will be highly regionally dependent and would include changes in

employment, inflation, environmental conditions, etc.

The rapid decline in natural gas availability is having a profound effect on

industries in the Northeast Central and Atlantic coast regions and requires action

on the part of all Federal energy agencies, including ERDA.

CHAPTER V 165
QUESTIONS

1. Has ERDA developed detailed scenarios as to 2. What plans does ERDA have to assist inhow each industrial element might switch dustries to convert from natural gas in the

from its present reliance upon oil and gas to next 5 years?

other fuels (on a time scale of 20-30 years)?

12. Use of Foreign Technology

ISSUE

The ERDA program should consider the utilization of foreign technology as an

alternative to new conservation research.

SUMMARY

The ERDA Program proposes new research in a number of areas in which

technological innovations are already either under development or in operation in

foreign countries, The adoption of such innovations should normally take priority

over new research initiatives, since the former are cheaper and can impact faster on

industry. Successful utilization of certain technologies may eliminate the necessity

for research in peripheral areas which bear on the same basic problems.

While adoption of technology developed abroad may simplify th e

technological research problem, a number of institutional barriers may have to be

overcome before successful implementation can be accomplished.

BUDGET SUMMARY

No budget information concerning this issue could be determined,

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

ERDA has given significant recognition in its programs to the establishment of

communication with energy use activities in other nations.

Comparative studies of U.S. energy use and energy use in other nations are

being undertaken, but have not yet been built into ERDA programs.

166 CHAPTER V
QUESTIONS

1. What progress and problems has ERDA 2. What special licensing and patent proviencountered in transferring foreign tech- sions appear necessary?

nologies to the United States?

13. Transmission and Distribution Priorities

ISSUE

The economic, environmental, and reliability criteria underlying ERDA’s choice

of projects and their relative priorities in the electrical transmission and distribution

program need clarification.

SUMMARY

As the demand for electricity increases, and the shift from oil and gas to coal

and nuc1ear fuels proceeds, addition a 1 electric transmission and distribution

capacities will be needed, This increased capacity must be economically justifiable

and environmentally acceptable, The ERDA transmission program does not

address direct 1 y the relative benefits and difficulties of the successful development

of various candidate technologies.

BUDGET SUMMARY

The budget summary related to this issue is as follows:

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA OMB

Category Appropriation Request Request Request

Electric Power 8.1 (Not Available) 12.9

Transmission

Distribution 2.5 (Not Available) 3.9

CHAPTER V 167
The division of this budget request among the various technologies is not

available. Therefore, it is not possible to determine how the budget addresses the

issue of setting priorities among the various transmission and distribution

technologies. However, no efforts which explicitly evaluate the economic, environmental, and reliability criteria needed to set these priorities are described in the

budget document.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The program document places the principal emphasis on a.c. and d.c. overhead transmission followed by compressed-gas-insulated underground systems and

finally cryogenic and superconducting systems. ERDA’s discussion of priorities is

responsive to the issue. ERDA intends to assess the relative technical, environmental and economic merits and disadvantages of these systems but no justification of their choice of priorities appears as yet. Further, support efforts to look at

the problems created by each of the systems, environmental (except those caused

by high electric fields), material, and land requirements, etc., still appear to be

insufficient to allow successful implementation of these technologies.

It must be recognized here that the Electric Energy Systems subprogram will

play a major role in coordinating compatible access to the electric power grid for

solar, geothermal, fusion and other new supply technologies. This requires total

system planning including transmission capacity, controls, system interties, and

regional development. The objective of this planning is to develop economical

reliable, environmentally acceptable, and flexible electric energy systems. The

last point is crucial if the future electric systems are not to exclude small, distributed total energy systems from connection. It is not clear that ERDA recognizes

this. Although their revised program indicates the need for systems planning, the

importance of maintaining flexibility to accommodate a diversity of generation

sources, both in size and type, is not spelled out. The budget requests also appear

to be inadequate for the task of systems planning. This may be due to the inherited

nature of the program which emphasized transmission and distribution R, D&D.

Nevertheless an accelerated effort in systems planning, emphasizing flexibility,

should be initiated as soon as possible. This requires a strong effort on ERDA’s

part which must be well coordinated with the energy supply and conservation

programs in ERDA.

QUESTIONS

1. Do the priorities in the ERDA program take

into account the relative probabilities of

success of the various transmission alternatives?

2. What is the justification for Federal expenditures in electrical transmission and distribution research? Is this area not adequately

covered by research in the private domain?

3. How is ERDA intending to coordinate the

various electric energy supply technology

(nuclear, fusion, solar, geothermal, total

energy) programs with the Electric Energy

Systems subprogram to ensure adequate

systems planning to integrate these supply

options into the existing grid?

4. What areas of research does the Electric

Energy Systems subprogram intend to emphasize in coming years?

168 CHAPTER V
14. Active Load Management

ISSUE

Active load management in electric power systems is not addressed as a costeffective way to save energy.

SUMMARY

The problem of meeting large peak demands in electric power systems affects

both the fuel consumption and the total capital investment required for generating

plants, Energy consumption is affected because peak demands are met with a

utility’s least efficient generating units (i.e., those units kept off-line until needed

for peaking), or by units such as gas turbines which have a low capital cost and low

efficiency. Furthermore, large coal and nuclear units are not well suited for

peaking service; hence, peaking service is most commonly accomplished with gas

and oil consuming equipment. Equally important, capital, materials, and manpower

of the very kind needed for energy resource development are conserved when the

addition of new generating equipment can be slowed down by means of improved

load management.

Several options exist for reducing peak load growth. Electrical demand at the

end-use point may be controlled through the use of utility-operated remote controls

on large consumption devices, by thermal storage at the use point, and by electrical

storage in substations. Peak demand, which is more costly than average demand,

may also be controlled through the use of rate incentives to encourage more uniform

energy consumption. While some relevant experience exists in the United States

and abroad, further technological, economic, and social evaluation is needed to

achieve widespread implementation.

BUDGET SUMMARY

The budget requests for load management systems are principally located in

the Electric Energy Systems subprogram. The Conservation Research and Technology (CONRT) subprogram contains requests for storage technology applicable

to load management and the Buildings subprogram discusses load management

but no budget data are given.

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriation Request Request to Congress

Systems 4.0 (Not Available) 6.8

Management

Structuring

CHAPTER V 169
1.

2.

3.

Approximately $300,000 of this amount for FY 77 is designated for technologies and systems studies concerned with load management. No identifiable

requests have been made concerning rate incentive questions and other economic

and social impacts. This figure allows no more than a modest effort to look at the

complex technologies and system development useful for load management.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

ERDA has described a broad effort to deal with issues in the program

document. They have responded positively to most of the points raised and

described coordination with FEA on rate matters. In addition to control over

specific loads or customers’ use patterns, ERDA is also examining other methods of

load management such as storage at the load or generation site and expanded

system interconnections. It is not clear, however, how extensive a role ERDA will

play in the nontechnological aspects of this issue which are critical to the

implementation of effective load management. In addition, there is little discussion

concerning coordination of efforts between the end-use subprograms (Buildings,

Industry) and Electric Energy Systems subprogram regarding load management.

QUESTIONS

Have alternatives to central station energy

storage been considered in the ERDA Plan

to reduce power generation requirements in

electric power systems?

How soon might active load control systems

be made available in the United States and

when implemented, what impact might such

systems have on system load factors, gas

and oil demand, and capital requirements

for new electric peak-power generation?

What technological, economic, social, and

legal barriers exist which would impede

the institution of rate structures designed

to encourage better load management by

consumers? What incentives do utilities

have to improve efficiency through load

management ?

4.

5.

6.

7.

Does ERDA have a well-defined role in

studying the feasibility of time-of-day

pricing?

What are the implications of time-of-day

and seasonal pricing on various sectors of

the economy?

What is the estimated capital tradeoff

between investment in new electric utility

plant construction and in load management

of equivalent capacity?

What technical opportunities exist to increase this country’s electric utility load

factor to those of France and Germany?

170 CHAPTER V
15. Orientation of Automotive Programs

ERDA’s program on highway vehicles is directed more toward prototype

development than toward the technological breakthroughs necessary for

successful commercialization.

SUMMARY

ERDA’s program in automobile, truck, and bus research emphasizes the

development and demonstration of major hardware systems (e.g., gas turbine and

Stirling engine-powered automobiles, flywheel prototype car, hybrid bus

powerplant, 60-mile range electric car, etc. ] using state-of-the-art technology. The

ERDA Plan gives no indication that payoff is likely to result from such R, D&D

through the commercial introduction of more energy efficient vehicles. Obstacles

which blocked the commercialization of the proposed systems in the past are not

addressed, and there fore, it seems doubtful that these technical, economic, or

environ mental impediments will be removed by the proposed R, D&D programs.

ERDA should focus its attention less on production prototypes and more on longterm, basic supporting technologies.

BUDGET SUMMARY

The automotive activities are contained within two budget categories: Heat

Engine Highway Systems and Electric and Hybrid Highway Systems. These two

categories comprise 83 percent of the entire Transportation subprogram.

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriation Request Request to Congress

Heat Engine 8.5 (Not Available) 14.8

Higl~way Systems

Electric and 1.6 (Not Available) 4.6

Hybrid Highway

Systems

Each of these categories has received substantial increases. The principal

focus on the Heat Engine category is on the development of prototype gas turbine

and Stirling engines which will take the major share of the budget. The Electric

CHAPTER V 171
1.

2.

Systems category also is oriented toward prototype development. There is very

little R, D&Don basic, long-term support technology indicated in the budget. ERDA

is presently engaged in some of these types of projects, such as those on ceramic

materials for gas turbines and the sodium-sulfur battery, but overall, the budget

still lacks the appropriate emphasis and balance.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

ERDA has chosen to continue focusing its automotive research activities on

prototype development. There has been no significant change in emphasis toward

research and development on basic support technology. Although aware of the

points raised in the issue it is apparently ERDA’s contention that prototype

development will result in the highest payoff. However, there is no discussion

justifying this choice. In particular, the likelihood of these activities leading to

successful commercialization of alternatives to the internal combustion engine is

not addressed. It is OTA’s contention that this issue remains as valid as when first

raised,

QUESTIONS

How does ERDA establish its priorities in 3. Does this

advanced automobile technology? reasonable

represent in ERDA’s view a

division considering the likelihood of commercialization of prototype

What is the percentage of funds in the Heat engines developed by ERDA?

Engine Systems category going to component

and support technology development?

172 CHAPTER V
16. Cooperation With the Transportation Industry

Successful commercialization of ERDA-sponsored technology in the transportation sector will be achieved more readily with close cooperation between ERDA

and industry.

SUMMARY

Industry involvement in the commercialization of ERDA-sponsored

technology, such as new and improved automotive powerplants, is critical. While

technology transfer within a given organization is difficult, transfer between two

different organizations, such as ERDA and the automotive industry, is vastly more

difficult. To alleviate this problem, ERDA should solicit industry advice and input

during the program planning stage; this input might consist of ERDA contracts

with industry in the areas of feasibility, assessment, and systems planning, or of

joint ERDA/industry advisory groups. Various constraints upon joint interaction

exist, such as antitrust considerations in the automotive industry. Nevertheless,

early industry commitment to commercialization is essential to the successful

transfer of ERDA-sponsored technology to industry.

BUDGET SUMMARY

The budget item which is principally concerned with this issue is the

Implementation category. This request is given in Issue 3. In addition there are

elements of the other categories which deal with interaction with the transportation industry although specific budget amounts, if relevant, are undetermined.

The available budget requests, however, indicate that ERDA has taken a

significant step in addressing this issue.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

ERDA has addressed this issue quite extensively in the program document.

They intend to make cooperation with the transportation industry a principal

component of their strategy and implementation. In the case of high-risk, longterm projects ERDA states that the transportation industry will be involved from

the beginning.

The mechanism for this cooperation is not clearly spelled out and it appears

unsystematic. Finally, while ERDA considers various constraints, such as antitrust

considerations, to joint industry involvement in projects, a strategy for resolving

these problems is not spelled out.

CHAPTER V 173
QUESTIONS

1. Has ERDA established a formal systematic 2. Is ERDA prepared to deal with possible legal

mechanism for industry involvement in constraints to industry involvement in the

ERDA’s Transportation Program? Transportation Program?

17. Nonhighway Vehicle Transportation Program

ISSUE

ERDA presently has no program for energy conservation in the nonhighway

vehicle transportation sector.

SUMMARY

Although railroads, pipelines, waterways, and airplanes carry many of the

passengers and much of the freight in this country and use a substantial quantity of

petroleum fuel, the ERDA conservation program virtually ignores this sector.

There is immediate need for the assembly of an adequate data base and for systems

studies to identify the areas of greatest potential fuel savings, In addition to

performing this analysis, ERDA must possess the capability to cooperate with and,

in some instances, coordinate the efforts of other Federal agencies toward energy

conservation in this sector.

BUDGET SUMMARY

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriation Request Request to Congress

Nonhighway 0.5 (Not Available) 0.5

Transportation

Systems

The amount for FY 77 does not appear to be commensurate with the large

quantity of energy used by nonhighway transportation systems (6 percent of the

Nation’s total). This sum of $500,000 can do no more than initiate studies on

technologies to reduce fuel consumption for nonhighway systems. It is inadequate

174 CHAPTER V
to deal with problems raised by regulations and legislation on both the State and

local level and to examine the impacts of substitution of nonhighway transportation

systems for a less efficient highway system.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

ERDA 76-1 makes repeated references to the necessity for research in

problems associated with nonhighway transportation, Discussion is made of

improved technology, regulatory problems, and modal shifts. However, a budget of

$500,000 can hardly be an adequate response to the needs for a program in this

area. Clearly, only preliminary studies can be initiated with such limited funding.

This program level does not evoke confidence that systematic planning of possible

energy conservation strategies has been carried out.

18. Energy Recovery From Waste

ERDA has formulated no plans or programs in the productive use of waste

although specifically directed to do so by Congress.

SUMMARY

ERDA is mandated by law (PL 93-577, Sec. 6(b)(3)) “to assign program

elements. . . to advance energy conservation technologies including but not limited

to productive use of waste, including garbage, sewage, agricultural wastes, and

industrial waste heat; reuse and recycling of materials and consumer product s,”

The ERDA programs in ERDA-48 vol. 11 make no mention of any such activities,

BUDGET SUMMARY

Use of waste, as defined in the issue, falls in the Energy Conservation

Program and the Biomass subprogram in Solar Energy. The only budget request

that can be determined is in the Buildings subprogram of Energy Conservation.

72-169 0 - 76 - 12 CHAPTER V 175
SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriation Request Request to Congress

Waste Systems 1.5 8.0 8.0 1.7

Utilization

In the ERDA-48 program document, no mention of energy recovery from waste

was made, although it is clear funds were appropriated. It is also clear, however,

that the FY 77 budget request to Congress does not permit ERDA to expand its

efforts to fulfill the mandate of PL 93-577 as outlined in the issue summary. The

ERDA and division requests would permit an approach more in keeping with the

legislative objectives.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The ERDA document presents a subprogram which deals extensively with this

issue. The subprogram contains a description of activities to deal with urban,

industrial, agricultural and forestry wastes. It discusses a variety of technological

options to utilize these wastes and stresses their substitution potential for oil and

gas. These activities would do much to meet the requirements of PL 93-577 in the

waste utilization area.

The fact remains, however, that no distinct budget request for this subprogram can be found other than the urban waste category in the Buildings

subprogram. Therefore, it is difficult to see how this effort can be conducted at

the level that is suggested in the program document.

QUESTIONS

1. Why has ERDA no plans in the productive 3. What is the

use of wastes? programs in

real magnitude of ERDA’s subenergy recovery from waste?

2. In relation to other Federal agencies, what 4. Why was the budget cut so drastically for

is the appropriate ERDA role in the area of the subprogram on urban waste?

R, D&D in energy and resource recovery

from municipal solid wastes?

176 CHAPTER V
Chapter VI

Environmental and Health Issues

177
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ISSUES LIST

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Environmental Impacts of High

Voltage Transmission Lines . . . 181

More explicit program planning is needed to

relate High Voltage Transmission Line Program objectives and decisions to related

research and decisions on biological and

environmental impacts.

Ground and Surface Water Contamination From Surface Mining . . 182

Research is inadequate on the potential environmental problems arising from surface

mining, particularly in terms of its impacts on

ground and surface water quality.

Energy Consumption and Inadvertent C imate Mo ification . . . . . 185 1 d

Not enough is known about the potential for

detrimental or irreversible climate modification caused by increasing worldwide energy

use over the long term.

Variance on Environmental Standards During Development ● ● ● 186

Present environmental regulations on the

functioning of environmental control equipment may tend to deter the development of

new energy technologies at the pilot plant

level.

Energy Modeling and Data Bank

Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

It is not clear from the ERDA Plan and Program that ERDA fully recognizes and accepts

critical needs in energy modeling procedures

and in the associated data requirements.

Site and Technology-Specific Nature

of Cause-Effect Relationships In

Environmental and Health

Impacts . ● . ● ● ● ● ● . ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● , ● ● . . 189

Simple extension of energy systems modeling

capabilities to the regional discrimination

level with expanded emissions categories will

not yield a valid impact profile for energy

technology decision-making.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

Integration of Environmental,

Hea th, Social, and Institutional l

Research Into Technology

Programs ,. ● ● ● ● ● ● . ● ● . ● ● ● ● . ● ● . ● 191

ERDA’s presentation and discussion of environmental, health, social and institutional

research indicates a lack of integration of this

research into its R, D&D program.

Energy Impacts of Air and Water

Pollutlon Control Regulations . 193

The interactions between the energy, environmental, and economic effects of Federal,

State, and local air and water quality standards are not sufficiently understood.

Competing Demands for Water in

Western River Basins .1 . . . . . . . 195

The limited availability of water in areas such

as the Colorado and Missouri River basins

will force systems evaluation of net benefit

from energy and nonenergy activities which

depend on water.

Need for Social Research in Offshore

Energy Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Social research is needed on institutional

problems arising from the deployment of offshore energy technologies.

Effect of Public Attitudes on Program

Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

ERDA’s plan for Energy Research, Development and Demonstration does not include

research on how public attitudes and values

affect implementation of Government energy

plans and controls.

Program Focus in Fossil Fuel

Heath Effects Research . . . . . . . 200 l

The ERDA Program of research on the health

effects of fossil fuels covers a broad range of

biological responses and pollutant exposures.

Some research areas do not appear to be

relevant to ERDA’s mission.

CHAPTER VI 179
Inadequate Inventor of Skills and

d

14. Atmospheric Sulfates as a Potential

Techniques in Health Effects Constraint on ERDA’s Fossil Fuel

Research *.*. ***e a*** *.** . * Oe O Program ● *****0.9..***********

Means are not available to estimate effects of

coal combustion and conversion on human

health. A broad-based research effort, in

both university and Federal facilities, is critically required to develop improved techniques for evaluation of health impacts from

coal combustion and conversion.

Suspected health hazards of atmospheric

sulfates may resultt in 

which would constrain ERDA’s programs

based on coal.
1. Environmental Impacts of High Voltage Transmission

Lines

More explicit program planning is needed to relate High Voltage Transmission

Line Program objectives and decisions to related research and decisions on

biological and environmental impacts.

SUMMARY

While the ERDA Plan states program objectives on the biological, environmental, and health impacts of high-voltage transmission technology, it does not

present explicit scheduling or resource information to relate such programs or

findings to the schedules on decision processes of its high voltage transmission

technology programs.

BUDGET SUMMARY

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriations Request Request to Congress

Environmental 0.075 (Not Available) o.300

Control

Technology—

Conservation

[Budget Outlays)

The above figure is the Environment and Safety Division’s budget for

electrical transmission work. The budget of the Division of Electrical Energy

Systems (EES) in the Office of Conservation is claimed by ERDA to include five

health and environmental studies totaling over $1.8 million. It is not possible to

extract this information from the more aggregated figures contained in the budget

requests for EES. There is some question as to whether two of the programs are in

fact primarily environment or health oriented.

CHAPTER VI 181
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

10

A general fault found with the first ERDA Plan and Program (ERDA-48) was

that there was no integration of environmental or health-related work into the

Technology Development programs. The electrical transmission area in ERDA is an

example of at least partial integration of the Environmental and Health programs

into the Technology Development Program. Description and budget presentation in

the Program and Budget documents are still inadequate, especially when compared

with the description of the technology programs. Further evaluation of ERDA

internal documents and discussion with ERDA personnel yielded five programs

which were claimed to be environment or health oriented. Of these, the available

descriptions raise questions of applicability, though not appropriateness,

concerning two of these programs. ERDA personnel have admitted that the results

of health and environmental research will not be available in time to affect the

design or equipment testing programs planned in electric transmission technology

R, D&D but claim that the results would certainly affect deployment of the

technologies if deleterious effects are identified.

EPRI is performing environmental

QUESTIONS

assess- 2. What potential effect could the ERDA

ments of high-voltage transmission lines. Are biological, environmental, and health inthey also involved in health or biologic vestigations have on the contracting and

studies related to high-voltage problems? implementation milestones shown in ERDA’s

technology program schedule for highvoltage transmission?

Z. Ground and Surface Water Contamination From

Surface Mining

Research is inadequate on the potential environmental problems arising from

surface mining, particularly in terms of its impacts on ground and surface water

quality.

SUMMARY

Large-scale surface mining of fuels to the extent necessary to meet ERDA’s

energy plans presents the potential for generating large amounts of a variety of

pollutants that will be difficult to control by point-source control technology.

182 CHAPTER VI
Examples of this type of pollution are the leaching into ground and surface waters

of sulfates, nitrates, ammonium, acids, and trace metals from strip mines and

reclaimed areas.

The type of pollutants generated can vary from area to area depending upon

geology, topography, and climate. The development of predictive models to

evaluate the types and amounts of potential pollutants will ease the development

of the technology needed to control and minimize these discharges.

BUDGET SUMMARY

Funding referring to strip mining operations is contained in the Environmental

Studies, Analysis and Assessment, and Environmental Control Technology sections

of the ERDA Program.

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

● FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriations Request Request to Congress

Environmental

Studies

Coal Extraction

(Budget Outlays)

Oil Shale

Technology

(Budget Outlays)

Analysis &

Assessment

Assessment of

Environmental

Impacts of

Energy Systems

(Budget Outlays)

Assessment of

Impacts of

Energy

Production on

Local, Regional

& National Scales

(Budget Outlays)

Environmental

Control

Technology —

Coal

(Budget Outlays)

0.6

0.4

1.6

7,7

1.2

[Not Available)

(Not Available)

(Not Available)

(Not Available)

(Not Available)

1.4

0.6

1.6

7.8

1.8

CHAPTER VI 183
1.

2,

3.

4.

The only area of significant budget increase is in Environmental Studies, Coal

Extraction. The increase in the budget of Environmental Control Technology, Coal,

appears to be oriented toward coal combustion research, rather than extraction

research. The budgets related to surface mining in the Analysis and Assessment

Program have decreased in real dollar terms.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

ERDA’s awareness of the environmental problems related to strip mining is

evident in the program descriptions provided in the budget documents, and to a

lesser extent in the Program document. There appears to be activity related to

water resources and strip mining in several agencies other than ERDA.

There is little indication of how good the level of coordination is between

ERDA and other agencies. The potential environmental effects of strip mining or in

situ leaching of uranium are barely mentioned. This may be a significant

oversight. The schedule on page 587 of

Extraction study indicates that completion

Southwest, will not be completed until the

time. In general, however, ERDA is either

was a year ago or is reporting its programs

the Program for the Coal/Uranium

of data on the most critical area, the

end of 1981, which seems a long lead

doing much more in this area than it

better.

QUESTIONS

What is the effect of large-scale surface

mining operations in the West on ground

and surface water quality in the Missouri

and Colorado River Basins?

What impacts will changes in ground and

surface water from large-scale surface

mining operations have on farming and

ranching in the West, and on forestry,

agriculture, and municipal water supplies

in the East?

In what geographic areas is it necessary to

replace topsoil to insure the productivity of

the land, and in what areas will replacement of topsoil be unnecessary?

To what extent and in which areas will

mining-induced water pollution limit energy

development?

5.

6.

7.

Which agency should take the leadership

role in research relating to environmental

impacts of surface mining operations, and

what should be its relationship to other

Federal and State agencies?

Why is there little mention of environmental

effects from uranium extraction included in

the Biomedical and Environmental Research

(BER) or the Fuel Cycle Research and

Development Programs?

What percent of the research is to be

allocated to national laboratories and what

percent to the private and university sector?

184 CHAPTER VI
3. Energy Consumption and Inadvertent Climate

Modification

ISSUE

Not enough is known about the potential for detrimental or irreversible climate

modification caused by increasing worldwide energy use over the long term.

SUMMARY

Changes in rainfall and temperature associated with increased energy

consumption have been observed in specific localized areas. Evaluation of the

potential for large scale changes in climate caused by escalating energy use

requires a better understanding of the Earth’s ultimate capacity to assimilate manmade heat. While the ERDA plan paid some attention to the relation between

energy use and local meteorological changes, it does not address the larger question

of the ultimately sustainable level of thermal loading.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The issue deals with the multiple aspects of inadvertent climate modifications

associated with escalating energy uses of all types. Budget authorizations could

not be identified for any of the following areas: 1) climate modifications produced

by large nuclear farms; 2) long-term limits on supportable man-made thermal heat

loads; 3) long-term impacts of pollutant generation (e.g., C02

, SOX, NOX)

associated with the use of fossil fuels; 4) identifiable constraints on energydevelopment scenarios that relate to thermal or pollutant environmental loadings;

5) international cooperation on problem areas of this type; 6) cooperative

programs with NOAA, NASA, EPA, The potential long-term temperature change

caused by increased atmospheric C02 concentrations is considered to be an

especially critical unresolved problem.

QUESTIONS

1. What is the total requested budget authorization for work on the relation between

energy consumption and inadvertent climate

modification?

2. How much of this total will be allocated to

studies on nuclear farms?

3. What is ERDA’s financial contribution to

cooperative programs with NOAA, NASA,

and EPA?

4. Will the responsibility for early identification of environmental constraints (e. g.,

unacceptable C02

-loading) in energy

development schedules reside with the

Assistant Administrator for Environmental

Research and Safety, the Assistant Administrator for Systems Analysis and planning,

or the manager of the new Overview and

Assessment Program?

CHAPTER VI 185
4. Variance on Environmental Standards During

Development

Present environmental regulations on the functioning of environmental control

equipment may tend to deter the development of new energy technologies at the

pilot plant level.

SUMMARY

Development of necessary environmental control equipment can be as difficult

and uncertain as the development of any other technology. The present regulatory

climate in the United States does not provide for pilot plant development programs

as special cases. Coupling the development of new energy technologies with that of

their associated environmental protection technologies, as regulations now

require, may seriously hamper ERDA efforts to bring new energy sources to

commercial use. This presents a risk of abandoning potentially viable energy

technologies because faulty performance of experimental environmental control

equipment compromises (the proof-of-process) results obtained in pilot-plant testing

of the basic energy technology. ERDA should address the question of the

environmental risks and ad hoc mitigating measures which may be appropriate in

pilot level development. With the Congress and the regulatory agencies, ERDA

should explore the advisability of special regulations for pilot and demonstration

facilities.

BUDGET SUMMARY

No section is directly applicable,

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

ERDA is to be commended for the addition of $5 million in establishing the

Analysis of Energy and Environmental Policy Considerations Program. The ERDA

Program does not, however, discuss the complex issue of obtaining variances from

existing environmental standards for pilot demonstration facilities for new energydevelopment technologies. It has not been established when environmental

assessments or environmental impact statements will be needed.

The overview and analysis role of the Environment and Safety Division

relative to the technology branches of ERDA needs to be more carefully defined.

The role of EPA in enforcing existing environmental standards for new energy

testing facilities needs to be carefully delineated. The problem of possible

variances from existing or proposed regulations by State and local government

agencies has not been discussed.

186 CHAPTER VI
QUESTIONS

1. What consideration has ERDA given to 2. Have the possibilities for flexible environprototype development problems which mental regulations and necessary pre -

could result from the parallel operation of cautions for experimental facilities been

experimenta l energy-associated a n d explored by ERDA with other agencies such

environmental control equipment? as EPA? Will the treatment of this problem

open the door for general standard relaxation?

5. Energy Modeling and Data Bank Requirements

ISSUE

It is not clear from the ERDA Plan and Program that ERDA fully recognizes and

accepts critical

requirements.

needs in energy modeling procedures and in the associated data

SUMMARY

Linear models, such as the Brookhaven Reference Energy System, used for

projecting the ERDA scenarios can easily incorporate probabilistic measures of the

accuracy of environmental information. Probabilistic calculations would give a

more meaningful projection of future demand as well as pinpoint data which are

important but highly uncertain.

A large increase in the number of categories of effluents measured and used in

environmental impact modeling is also needed. Using the proposed Brookhaven

techniques, grouping of compounds results in, for example, the collection of all

hydrocarbons in a single category. This procedure facilitates the collection and

manipulation of data, but makes conclusions based on such data suspect, because

of the substantial variation in environmental effects among the hydrocarbons.

The whole field of energy system modeling is in an early stage of development.

ERDA’s discussion of modeling recognizes a need for much more sophisticated

techniques than those currently at hand. Several energy models are being

developed around the country. It would be desirable for ERDA to interface on a

continuing basis with these other activities so as to compare the sensitivity of

modeling results to alternative techniques and data bases. Consistency of

projections from alternative models does not guarantee accuracy. However, in the

absence of an existing real basis for calibration, a consensus between independent

efforts can increase confidence in the validity of the results obtained.

CHAPTER VI 187
BUDGET SUMMARY

ERDA’s efforts to develop environmentally related data bases and modeling

procedures appear to be primarily embodied in the Assessment of Impacts of

Energy Production on Local, Regional, and National Scales (AIEP) section of the

BER Analysis and Assessment Budget. Other sections of the budget allude to

related activities. Although the original division and ERDA requests for AIEP

funding are not known, it is assumed that reductions follow the overall Analysis

and Assessment funding in a roughly proportional manner.

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriations Request Request to Congress

Analysis and 11.6 27.8 27.5 19.0

Assessment

Assessment of 7.7 (Not Available) 7.8

Impacts of Energy

Production on

Local, Regional,

and National

Scales

(Budget Outlays)

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The FY 77 ERDA Budget indicates that during the year ERDA will develop

models to evaluate the impacts of the development and use of prospective energy

sources and to analyze and utilize appropriate models developed by other

agencies. Moreover, the budgets also indicate that the relevant data bases in

standardized form are being expanded and improved. Despite these indications

that ERDA has given consideration to the key concerns involved in this issue, the

FY 77 budget in this area represents an actual decline in funding in real dollar

terms. If it is assumed that the decrease in the funding for this section is roughly

proportional to the decrease in analysis and assessment funding overall, it would

appear that OMB has failed to support ERDA’s interest in this area.

l88 CHAPTER VI
QUESTIONS

1.

2.

What are ERDA’s plans to incorporate in

their modeling efforts information on the

levels of uncertainty associated with

environmental data?

The postulating of alternative scenarios is

only one of several methods of treating the

uncertainties associated with the development of new technologies. What methods

will ERDA use to display the sensitivity of

their results to changes in assumptions used

and to uncertainties in the environmental

data?

3. In view of the number of independent energy

system models that are being developed,

what plans does ERDA have for making

alternative projections?

6. Site and Technology-Specific Nature of Cause-Effect

Relationships in Environmental and Health Impacts

Simple extension of energy systems modeling capabilities to the regional

discrimination level with expanded emissions categories will not yield a valid impact

profile for energy technology decisionmaking.

SUMMARY

Considerable effort has been devoted to determining the rates of emission of

various materials from energy conversion devices. These data are by no means

complete, but in many cases they are adequate. Much less is known about the

actual amounts of environmental degradation resulting from a given emission rate.

The prediction of dose is complicated by site specific factors such as population

density, climatology and ambient air quality. The further translation from

pollutant dose to effect is known only for a very small number of pollutants (SO,

ozone, PAN, lead, CO, etc. ) and only in terms of their major effects on agricultural

products and selected animal species. However, the effects of even these pollutants

is not known for low dose levels. Chronic exposure conditions or possible

synergistic relationships have seldom been explored. Expanded studies are needed

to assess the impact, in quantifiable terms, of the many energy related pollutants at

varying emission or release rates. Such studies will improve the effectiveness of

modeling approaches and ultimately improve our capability to optimize energy

choice/use patterns.

CHAPTER VI 189
BUDGET SUMMARY

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriations Request Request to Congress

Health Effects of 1,5 (Not Available) 1.5

Energy Systems

(Budget Outlays)

Environmental 1.6 (Not Available) 1,6

Impacts of

Energy Systems

(Budget Outlays)

Local, Regional

and National

Impacts

(Budget Outlays)

7.7 (Not Available) 7.8

Environmental 0.6 (Not Available)

Data Integration

(Budget Outlays)

Total 11.3 17.5 17.2 11.7

Analysis &

Assessment

There was a significant increase in budgetary allocation between FY 75 and

FY 76 and an attempt by ERDA to further increase the budget for this work in FY

77. That attempt did not survive the budget review process outside ERDA.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

In addition to the work identified in the budget summary in the Analysis and

Assessment area, there are significant programs identified elsewhere in the budget

document that relate to pollutant emissions from specific technologies, the

transport, transformation, and fate of those pollutants and the health and

ecological impacts of pollutant concentrations identified in specific study areas.

Studies are underway or planned for a number of critical areas. In sum, the various

elements add up to a very-well-defined and well-structured program. The urgent

need for the information sought in these programs places in question the action of

OMB in reducing the budget request.

190 CHAPTER VI
7. Integration of Environmental, Health, Social, and

Institutional Research Into Technology Programs

ERDA’s presentation and discussion of environmental, health, social, and

institutional research indicates a lack of integration of this research into its R,

D&D program.

SUMMARY

To maximize the effectiveness of research on environmental, health, social and

institutional constraints, the results of that research should be available before the

widespread implementation of the technology, The ERDA implementation

schedules do not present environmental and health research timelines in parallel

with the technical milestones. Further, the specific plans for environmental and

health-related research, tailored to the individual technologies which will be

promoted, are not detailed and discussed in the technology program statements

provided in volume II.

The failure of volume II to define environmental, health, social and

institutional problems which could constrain specific technology programs is a

significant oversight. The oversight is emphasized by the established obligation of

Federal agencies to consider potential environmental impacts at the earliest time in

their planning processes. Explicit priority is given to analysis of environmental

and social consequences of energy technology deployment in Section 5 (a] (2) of the

Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974. Because of the

lack of specificity of the environmental activities defined in ERDA’s technology

program 

- descriptions, there is no guarantee that the necessary

research and assessment will be conducted simultaneously

technology development.

BUDGET SUMMARY

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

environmental

with energy

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriations Request Request to Congress

Analysis and 11.6 27,8 27.5 19.0

Assessment

72-169 0- 76 - 13 CHAPTER VI
Relatively large increases were requested by the Division and ERDA and

approved by OMB for Analysis and Assessment. The percentage increase

recommended by OMB is 63.5 percent and is much larger than the specified

increase of 4.73 percent for all aspects of Biomedical and Environmental Research.

The small increase for all of BER is inadequate, especially in view of a 31.9-

percent increase in funding for all of the ERDA activities recommended by OMB.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

Initiation of the Overview and Assessment Program within ERDA is a major

response to the primary OTA concern in the Environment and Safety area.

According to ERDA 76-1 (p. 549), the activities of the Overview and Assessment

Program will be defined during FY 77, thus leaving unanswered each of the

following critical questions:

QUESTIONS

1. Who is in charge of the Overview and 3. Where and what are the direct budgetary

Assessment Program? authorizations for operation of the Overview

and Assessment Programs?

2. If its functions are not restricted to advisory

and coordinating activities, by what 4. How will this program be coordinated with

mechanism will program implementation be EPA functions?

accomplished?

192 CHAPTER VI
8. Energy Impacts of Air and Water Pollution Control

Regulations

The interactions between energy, environmental and economic effects of

Federal, State, and local air and water quality standards are not sufficiently

understood.

SUMMARY

The enactment and enforcement of air and water pollution control regulations

can have substantial impacts upon energy consumption requirements and solid

waste generation. These potential impacts will become increasingly important in

the future with the decreasing availability and increasing cost of fuel supplies

and/or disposal sites. These complex interactions are not presently recognized by

existing regulations, which tend to treat air pollution, water pollution, and solid

wastes as separate problems unrelated to potential energy consumption requirements. Environmental protection and energy consumption optimization

trade-offs are needed.

BUDGET SUMMARY

The considerations relevant to this issue appear to be most directly addressed

by the Analysis of Energy and Environmental Policy Consideration (AEEPC) section

of the Environmental Research and Safety’s Analysis and Assessment Budget.

However, funds expended in other sections of the Analysis and Assessment

Budget also bear on these considerations. Therefore, the table below lists

information on both the overall Analysis and Assessment Budget and the

subordinate AEEPC section. Although the original division and ERDA requests for

AEEPC funding are not known, it is assumed that the reductions follow in a roughly

proportional manner the overall Analysis and Assessment funds.

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriations Request Request to Congress

Analysis & 11.6 27.8 27.5 19.0

Assessment

Analysis of Energy — (Not Available) 5.0

& Environmental

Policy

Considerations

(Budget Outlays)

CHAPTER VI 193
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The addition of a new activity with a rather substantial budget to specifically

analyze the relationship among interrelated environmental, health, economic and

societal factors would indicate an appreciation of the need for a clearer

understanding of the benefits and costs of air and water pollution control

regulations. To the extent of the 24-percent reduction in the Analysis and

Assessment request, the program desired by the Biomedical and Environmental

Research Division would appear to have been reduced in scope. Without more

detailed information of how the $5 million will be allocated it is difficult to analyze

the effects of the program. Nevertheless, it does appear that ERDA has meaningfully addressed the issue.

QUESTIONS

1. What changes need to be made in existing protection and energ y consumption a t

Federal, State, and local air and wate r specific sites, and by whom should they be

pollution regulations regarding the trade- explored?

offs between environmental protection and

3. What improvements are needed in existing energy consumption? air pollution and water pollution control

Z . What are the proper criteria for obtaining technologies to minimize potential energy

optimum balance between environmental consumption?

194 CHAPTER VI
9. Competing Demands for Water in Western River Basins

ISSUE

The limited availability of water in areas such as the Colorado and Missouri

River basins will force systems evaluation of net benefit from energy and nonenergy activities which depend on water.

SUMMARY

Large amounts of water will be required from available ground and surface

water supplies in the arid Rocky Mountain States for energy production operations

such as coal and oil shale mining, slurry pipeline coal transportation, minemouth

electric power generation, coal and oil shale conversion to gaseous and liquid fuels,

and environmental management of strip-mined areas and spent shale disposal

areas. Extensive implementation of these projected energy production activities

may adversely affect water quantity and quality for agricultural use in the same

river basins. Development of geothermal energy resources, e.g., in the Imperial

Valley, could result in either further water demand and water quality impact or in

the production from saline water of a supplementary source of freshwater for

agricultural use. Extensive analysis of the total system activity in these river basins

will be required to ensure that the proposed energy development activities which

are actually implemented will result in a net benefit to the country.

BUDGET SUMMARY

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriations Request Request to Congress

Assessment of 7.7 (Not Available] 7,8

Impacts of Energy

Production on

Local, Regional

& National Scales

(Budget Outlays)

Issue 9 is just one study of this subprogram; no figures are available for

budget allocations for this specific program.

CHAPTER VI 195
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

1.

2.

3.

It appears that ERDA’s program only partially addresses the problem of water

demands in western river basins. It further appears that ERDA’s primary concern

is for nuclear power complexes and ERDA’s own demonstration facilities. The

competing water demands between different energy production operations and the

competing water demands between energy production and nonenergy production

uses (agricultural, recreational, industrial, and municipal) are an all-encompassing

problem that has not yet been addressed.

QUESTIONS

What is the maximum amount of water which

can be made available for energy production

in the Missouri and Colorado River basins

without jeopardizing agricultural operations

and other industrial or public demands for

water?

What impacts upon water quantity and water

quality will occur in the Rocky Mountain

States from varying levels of energy production, and what impacts will these have on

agricultural production and resultant food

prices?

What are the relative environmental, energy

and economic trade-offs of minemouth

processing of coal to electrical energy or

synthetic fuels in the arid Rocky Mountain

States as compared to alternative transportation to water-abundant areas along the

Mississippi River or Gulf of Mexico for subsequent processing?

4.

5.

6.

7.

What is your estimate for the potential

production of desalinated water from

geothermal resources in the Imperial Valley

of California by the year 2000?

What plans does ERDA have for the construction of integrated regional development plans

linking seemingly disparate energy

technologies?

Which energy production and transportation

operations become less attractive (environmentally and economically) with a limited

availability of water?

What is the budgetary contribution for

studies of water demand for nonnuclear

operations versus studies oriented toward

nuclear power complexes?

Is CHAPTER VI
10. Need for Social Research in Offshore Energy

Programs

ISSUE

Social research is needed on institutional problems arising from the

deployment of offshore energy technologies.

SUMMARY

Major problems in new offshore development are presented by the social and

institutional constraints to developing offshore oil and gas production, nuclear,

and fuels transportation facilities. One current major research need is to examine

new institutional mechanisms in order to further understand the problems of

government management and public acceptability, This research needs to be

conducted on national, regional, and local levels.

BUDGET SUMMARY

No direct budget information is available relative to the specific issue. A new

division, Overview and Assessment, has been suggested within AES which will

examine: 1) policy analysis, 2) overview management, 3) EIS monitoring and

review, and 4) integrated assessment. This new division will inherit the functions

of Analysis and Assessment (A&A). The A&A budget shows five categories, three of

which mention socioeconomic studies. It is not clear, however, how the five A&A

budget categories will relate to the four functions of Overview and Assessment.

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriations Request Request to Congress

Analysis & 1.6 (Not Available) 1.6

Assessment

(socioeconomic)

Environmental

Impacts of

Energy Systems

(Budget Outlays)

Impacts of Energy 7.7

Production on

Local Regional &

National Scales

(Budget Outlays)

(Not Available) 7.8

CHAPTER VI 197
SUMMARY TABLE — Cont.

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriations Request Request to Congress

Energy and o (Not Available) 5.0

Environmental

Policy

Considerations

(Budget Outlays)

Analysis & 11,6

Assessment,

Office of Planning

and Analysis

27.8 27.5 19.0

The ERDA budget in Analysis and Assessment grew by 65 percent between

1975 and 1976, and the requested figure sent to OMB of $27.5 million would have

represented a 136-percent increase over the 1976 appropriation. By comparison the

total ERS budget grew by 26 percent between 1975-76 and by 65 percent from 1976

to the 1977 ERDA request. A larger share of funds is going, then, to

socioeconomic research.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The social impacts of energy production have been mentioned under Policy

Analysis, Environmental Effects, and Analysis and Assessment Programs in BER.

However, these need to be more fully addressed for both onshore and offshore

energy development, particularly in terms of new communities, quality of life, and

employment mobility.

ERDA states that it desires to work with EPA on impacts from oil spills (p.

585). It also says that its Overview Management “assures proper integration and

coordination of various programs. ”

ERDA thus both recognizes social impacts and understands that it should

cooperate in environmental problems related to offshore energy programs with

other agencies, However, it does not specifically relate social research and

offshore oil development problems.

198 CHAPTER VI
11. Effect of Public Attitudes on Program Implementation

ERDA’s plan for Energy Research, Development and Demonstration does

not include research on how public attitudes and values affect implementation

of Government energy plans and controls.

SUMMARY

Public attitudes about the proper role of Government, what constitutes qua lit y

of life, and what characterizes important threats to the human environment,

greatly affect what Government actions people will support as well as the

incentives and disincentives to which they will be willing to respond. ERDA’s plan

does not appear to include study of energy-related attitudes, their formation,

intensity, and stability, and the impact of information upon attitude changes.

BUDGET SUMMARY .

No specific budget allocation for this activity has been identified.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The issue of how public attitudes affect program implementation of new energy

technologies has not been fully addressed in the ERDA Program and budget.

However, a section is devoted to Public Awareness in the ERDA Program

(pp. 683-685). The goals are stated as:

“To increase public awareness and understanding of the nation’s energy

problems and of the resource and technology options which may be applied to

their solution so that the public can make an informed choice. ” (p. 683).

Enhancement of public awareness and understanding is a necessary goal, but it is

not the whole issue; the question includes the ways in which the public can or will

affect the program, not just how the program affects the public.

The ERDA Program states that “Cooperative programs are being developed

with organized groups — civic, labor, and management organizations and

environmental, public interest, consumer, and youth groups — to provide and

obtain information via the active communication channels such groups have with

community cross sections throughout the U. S.” (p. 685). Workshops, seminars,

exhibits, films, etc., and other educational materials are also being produced or

planned. These statements indicate that ERDA has at least committed itself to a

good start in establishing a genuine dialogue with the public.

CHAPTER VI 199
QUESTIONS

1. How will ERDA present the necessary 2. How well do the environmental impacts

results of research on public attitudes so which ERDA proposes to predict for various

that agencies and other policy makers can technologies reflect the concerns that people

make judgments about what the public will actually have about their environment?

accept in terms of energy development,

conservation regulations, and environmental

controls?

12. Program Focus in Fossil Fuel Health Effects Research

The ERDA program of research on the health effects of fossil fuels covers a

broad range of biological responses and pollutant exposures. Some research areas

do not appear to be relevant to ERDA’s missions.

SUMMARY

ERDA’s overall program of research into the effects of fossil fuel use on health

places great emphasis on basic biological mechanisms of response, Certain

important areas, such as biological screening, carcinogenesis and mutagenesis,

and epidemiological studies, appear to be inadequately emphasized, while other

areas, such as research on recovery, treatment, and development of radiopharmaceuticals, may well be unnecessary under the primary mission of ERDA’s

health research program. The program description gives little detail as to which

pollutants will be given highest priority, or on how the results of health effects

research will be integrated into the decision process as to which alternative energy

technologies to develop. To meet these research demands, there is a critical need for

the training of additional cell- and tissue-culture experts, toxicologists and

epidemiologists.

BUDGET SUMMARY

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriations Request Request to Congress

Health Studies 65.1 83.1 79.7 63.3

Biological Studies 34.0 41.3 40.1 34.0

Education and 3.5 7.6 7.0 2.2

Training

200 CHAPTER VI
The budget history shows an attempt by ERDA to significantly increase both

health effects and biological studies. The OMB screening process changed the

ERDA budget requests - to an effective reduction if

included. The Education and Training budget suffered

almost 40 percent.

inflationary effects are

an absolute decrease of

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

The original issue identified a need for more emphasis on epidemiological

studies and the training of cell and tissue culture specialists, toxicologists and

epidemiologists. There appears to be no change in this situation. Some epidemiological and toxicological work is defined in the Health Effects budget, but the

majority of the effort appears to be expended on delayed carcinogenic effects. The

Biological Studies Program of ERDA 76-1 is much more oriented toward cellular

and molecular biological studies than was the program description in ERDA 48.

The education and training proposal of ERDA\AES, which would have doubled the

budget in this area, did not survive OMB review.

QUESTIONS

1. How will ERDA’s health research program, 3.

which is largely directed toward animal

models, evaluate known adverse effects

on human health which cannot yet be

modeled with animal experiments?

4.

2. What plans does ERDA have for training

programs to provide the additional manpower needed for their proposed health

effects research programs?

If ERDA obtains positive results on screening

for detrimental effects of a fossil fuel product, how will the results be validated with

respect to human populations?

What plans does ERDA have to evaluate the

safety of substances in humans, once they

have successfully passed through the animal

screening system?

CHAPTER VI 201
13. Inadequate Inventory of Skills and Techniques in

Health Effects Research

ISSUE

Means are not available to estimate effects of coal combustion and conversion

on human health. A broad-based research effort, in both university and Federal

facilities, is critically required to develop improved techniques for evaluation of

health impacts from coal combustion and conversion.

SUMMARY

The Health Studies Section of ERDA-48, volume II, emphasizes research in the

area of longterm effects of coal-related pollutants. This emphasis on cancer and

birth defects is most appropriate, since coal-related pollutants are known

carcinogens and mutagens, The program, however, appears to stress traditional

long-term animal experimentation. This approach cannot yield relevant data in

time for decisions about national energy prerogatives. The program also suggests

the use of recent research developments in the field of animal cell genetic assays,

These show great promise as relevant bioassay systems and should receive greater

emphasis. An intensive broad-based effort should be used in both data acquisition

and innovative fundamental research, A significant increase in both the scope of

the related ERDA research organization and the university production of trained

researchers will be needed to meet the research program

BUDGET SUMMARY

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

requirements,

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriations Request Request to Congress

Education and 3.5 7.6 7.0 2.2

Training

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY

Both ERDA and OMB have drastically cut the Education and Training

Program. The problem of contributing to an adequate inventory of skilled

professionals in the Environment and Safety area, however, has a larger focus

than that of providing training grants. At issue here is the long-term evolution of

202 CHAPTER VI
ERDA funding strategy with respect to the support of a broad-based research

effort in the non-Federal sector, and the support of basic research relating to

ERDA’s long-term goals and objectives.

QUESTIONS

10 What was the FY 76 funding distribution in 3. How does ERDA management view its rethe Environment and Safety Program re- sponsible and proper implementation stratetween: gy for assuring that an adequate number of

(a) the in-house laboratories; trained professionals are available in the

(b) not-for-profit, non-ERDA organizations; Environment and Safety Program area?

(c) the private sector;

(d) educational institutions?

2. What fraction of the total budget will ultimately be allocated to: (a) the in-house

laboratories, and (b) other organizations?

14. Atmospheric Sulfates as a Potential Constraint on

ERDA’s Fossil Fuel Program

ISSUE

Suspected health hazards of atmospheric sulfates may result in air quality

standards which would constrain ERDA’s programs based on coal.

SUMMARY

Questions have been raised concerning whether sulfate concentrations (as an

index of SO 2 transformation products) throughout the Midwest and Northeast may

presently exceed threshold concentrations for adverse health effects. If substantiated, this finding would raise serious questions as to the advisability of introducing

any new sources of sulfur oxide emissions into the atmosphere. There are

considerable uncertainties about the concentration and chemical nature of atmospheric sulfates which are hazardous to health. Improved information on the

relation of toxicity to sulfate concentrations is required to set ambient air quality

standards. If the present fears are supported by scientific findings, standards could

be set which would severely limit further energy development programs based on

coal as a primary fuel, on direct utilization of geothermal resources, and on

approaches to reduce automotive emissions. Immediate and concentrated attention

to this area would help to resolve the existing uncertainties. Some of the energy

CHAPTER VI 203
goals set by ERDA, if pursued in the absence of the necessary health effects

information on atmospheric transport and transformation of sulfates, may not

represent an achievable objective.

BUDGET SUMMARY

SUMMARY TABLE

(Dollars in millions)

FY 77 FY 77 FY 77

Budget FY 76 Division ERDA Request

Category Appropriations Request Request to Congress

Characteristics, 17,6 (Not Available) 19.5

Transport &

Conversion

(Budget Outlays)

Fundamental

Environmental

Processes Related

to Energy

(Budget Outlays)

Physics &

Chemistry of

Pollutant

Interactions in

the Environment

(Budget Outlays)

9.2

1.0

(Not Available)

(Not Available)

8.3

1.6

Characterization, 10.5 (Not Available) 11.4

Measurement &

Monitoring

(Budget Outlays)

.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

The question of sulfate air pollution is well addressed by BER in the Health

Effects, Environmental Effects and Physical and Technological Studies Programs

in the larger context of fossil fuel pollutants. The program is well characterized

and will effectively define the magnitude and nature of sulfate problems from

stationary sources.

Sulfates are also produced in automotive-engine exhausts as the result of

catalytic oxidation of SOX in emission-control devices. When allowable levels are

defined by the EPA for this pollutant (hopefully, at concentration levels that can

be monitored reliably), it will be

sulfate emissions contributed by

technologies.

CHAPTER VI

necessary to consider the

the transportation sector

combined effects of

and by coal-based

U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1976 O -72-169