E N V I RONM E
arrangements settled up front, a small business will be in a better position to attract capital sooner
and move toward commercialization more quickly.
• Specific line-item commitment should be established to fiind technology validation in connection
with small businesses. Technology development programs can lose critically needed funding,
usually in mid-project. This puts the R&D investment at jeopardy, potentially creating a serious
disability for a small business. Within the laboratory, the principal investigator and the pr.ject team
are also at risk of being disassembled. At the same time, no project with a small business is so
completely under wraps that outside competition is unaware of the ongoing technology
development effort Such projects with great economic potential are at risk to outside competition
where faltering budget commitments cut short development continuity. Large companies with
extensive internal fiinding capabilities can seize such opportunities and leave out the small
businesses. Such line-item funding will serve to bridge a critical gap in the CRADA-to-
• Procurement policy should be changed with regard to sole sourcing by federal agencies. A small
business should be able to use its patents to establish prima facie justification for sole sourcing.
Procurement procedures would follow current pohcy where competitive patents and alternative
technology are known to exist.
• The DOE laboratories should help small businesses showcase and demonstrate their R&D projects
to attract joint venture partners and capital. By providing a small business with assistance, through
workshops on developing realistic business plans, the government can enhance rapid
commercialization Technology developed by a small business in partnership with a federal
laboratory will automatically have a higher perceived level of credibility. This value-added eflfort
would encourage small business participation to connect technology, vision and, ultimately, the
I wish to conclude by thanking the Chairman for providing me with the opportunity to describe our
activities and voice our suggestions for improvement. The process does indeed work. The continued
support of the federal laboratories is essential to the long-term prosperity of our country, and I hope
that my comments will help enhance the technology transfer process and increase the probability of
successfiil deployment from the commercial sector
CITY OF IDAHO FALLS
Office of the Mayor
Idaho Fails, Idaho 83405
February 26, 1996
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
The Honorable John Myers, Chairman
Dear Congressman Myers:
On behalf of the City of Idaho Falls, I would like to acknowledge the Department of
Energy, Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies and Solex Environmental Systems for their
collaborative efforts at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL). As a result of the
DOE's initiative to help provide for economic development for our region, Solex Environmental
Systems will establish its manufacturing facilities in Idaho Falls for the Petroleum Tank
Inspection Delivery System. This new environmentally-friendly technology is the product of the
INEL. Our understanding with Solex Environmental Systems is that they will set up their
business at the Idaho Innovation Center's small business incubator. Based on this INEL
technology spin-out and its commercialization, we believe Solex will provide a positive
contribution to the economy of Idaho Falls by creating jobs, providing technical training to local
workers, and continuing to develop and design their products at the FNEL.
Idaho Falls welcomes and wishes to encourage Solex Environmental Systems' efforts to
become a member of our community. Please give your greatest consideration to the continued
funding and support for full and rapid commercialization of DOE technologies.
City of Idaho Falls
Congressman Mike Crapo, Idaho 2nd District
Dr. Clyde Frank, Director-Office Technology Development EM-50 DOE
John Denson, President-Lockheed Martin Technologies
Dan Cudaback, President-Eastern Idaho Economic Development Council
Don Hartsell, President-Solex Environmental Systems
P.O. Box 50220 • 308 Constitution Way. Idaho Falls, Idaho 83405 • (208) 529-1235 • FAX (208) 529-1 148
Thursday, February 29, 1996.
DOE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
BRIAN WILL, ENERGY COMMITTEE, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANI-
Mr. Knollenberg. We next move to Mr. Brian Will on the En-
ergy Committee with the American Society of Mechanical Engi-
Mr. Will, you are recognized for 5 minutes; and you, too, will
have your entire submission included in the record.
Mr. Will. Thank you. I am Brian Will. I am a member of the
Energy Committee of the Council on Engineering of the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, the ASME. I am pleased to have
this opportunity to present our views to the subcommittee on the
role of the Department of Energy's national laboratories in develop-
ing and implementing the energy technology agenda of the United
Our committee, whose members represent a broad spectrum of
energy-related technology interests, informs the ASME on a wide
variety of energy policy matters. The fate of the energy research ac-
tivities of the national labs is of major concern to us. These labora-
tories represent a major part of the Nation's Federal R&D infra-
structure and are in danger of experiencing significant downward
funding pressures in the ongoing budget process.
Recent legislation considered by the House Science Committee
would require the Department of Energy to review and, as nec-
essary, revise the missions and operations of the national labora-
tory structure to accommodate the changing national security pos-
ture and budget downsizing of the Federal Gk)vemment. We concur
with congressional efforts to streamline the operations of the na-
tional laboratories. To this end, we offer the following observations
We are in general agreement with the recommendations of the
Galvin Commission report released last year that suggested the
need to redefine the missions of the laboratories in accordance with
the changing national security and energy needs of the Nation. In
addition, we strongly endorse the efforts of these laboratories to
form working partnerships with industry, partnerships that apply
the vast and irreplaceable assets of these federally supported facili-
ties to the technology needs of the private sector on a cost-shared
In our judgment, the core competencies that characterize the
unique expertise of the different national labs have, through these
partnerships, often been successfully applied to resolve major engi-
neering problems faced by the private sector in bringing new tech-
nologies to the marketplace. We believe the continuation of these
partnerships is essential to the continuing economic well-being of
In redefining the missions and goals of the national laboratory
programs, the Department of Energy and the Congress are encour-
aged to seek the counsel of private sector groups, including profes-
sional and technical societies, such as ASME, who are representa-
tive of the nongovernment stakeholders of the Federal investment
in our national laboratories.
We are concerned that efforts to reduce Federal investments in
the national laboratory system through streamlining laboratory op-
erations, consolidating programs and perhaps privatization of facili-
ties may well result in terminating certain programs and closure
of some facilities that have been the mainstay of the present lab-
oratory activities. It is uncertain what the outcome of these efforts
portends for the future of the national laboratory system. In our
view, however, it is essential to maintain those programs that di-
rectly support the continuation of the industry-laboratory partner-
ships that have contributed so significantly to enhancing U.S. com-
petitiveness in the global marketplace.
Mr. Knollenberg. Thank you. We appreciate again your testi-
mony; and we recognize, as you do, I know, the budget situation,
the pressure on spending and, of course, the entire problems that
we have with money. But, again, we appreciate your request and
[The statement of Mr. Will follows:]
The AMERICAN SOCIETY of
Statement on the
Role of the National Laboratories
in the National Energy Agenda
The Energy Committee
Council on Engineering
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Committee on Appropriations
U.S. House of Representatives
February 29, 1996
The American Society of
1828 L Street, n:w., Suite 906
Washington, DC 20036-5104
I am Brian Will, a member of the Energy Committee of the Council on Engineering, of the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), and I am pleased to have this
opportunity to present our views to the subcommittee on the role of the Department of
Energy's national laboratories in developing and implementing the energy technology
agenda of the United States. This Committee, whose members represent a broad
spectrum of energy related technology interests, informs the ASME Council on
Engineering on a wide range of energy policy matters. The fate of the energy research
activities of the national labs is of major concern to us. These laboratories represent a
major part of the nation's federal R&D infrastructure, and are in danger of experiencing
significant downward funding pressures in the ongoing budget debates.
Recent legislation considered by the House Science Committee would require the
Department to review and as necessary revise the missions and operations of the
national laboratory structure to accommodate the changing national security posture and
budget downsizing of the federal government. We concur with congressional efforts to
streamline the operations of the national laboratories. To this end, we offer the following
observations and recommendations.
We are in general agreement with the recommendations of the Galvin commission report
released last year that suggested the need to redefine the missions of the laboratories
in accordance with the changing national security and energy needs of the nation. In
addition, we strongly endorse the efforts of these laboratories to form working
partnerships with industry that apply the vast and irreplaceable assets of these federally
supported facilities to the technology needs of the private sector on a cost shared basis.
In our judgement the core competencies that characterize the unique expertise of the
different national labs have, through these partnerships, often been successfully applied
to resolve major engineering problems faced by the private sector in bringing new
technologies to the marketplace. We believe the continuation of these partnerships is
essential to the continuing economic well-being of the nation.
In redefining the missions and goals of the laboratory programs, the Department and the
Congress are encouraged to seek the counsel of private sector groups, including
professional and technical societies, such as ASME, who are representative of the non-
government stakeholders of the federal investment in our national laboratories.
We are concerned that efforts to reduce federal investments in the national laboratory
system through streamlining laboratory operations, consolidating programs and perhaps
privatization of facilities may well result in terminating certain programs and closure of
some facilities that have been the mainstay of present laboratory activities. It is uncertain
what the outcome of these efforts portends for the future of the national laboratory
system. In our view, however, it is essential to maintain those programs that directly
support the continuation of the industry-laboratory partnerships that have contributed so
significantly to enhancing U.S. competitiveness in the growing global marketplace.
This statement has been prepared by the Energy Committee of the ASME Council on Engineering, and has
been endorsed by the ASME Inter-Council Committee on Federal R&D. This statement reflects the expert views
of the members of these committees and is not necessarily a position of the ASME as a whole.
Thursday, February 29, 1996.
DAVID L. BLOCK, DIRECTOR, FLORIDA SOLAR ENERGY CENTER
Mr. Knollenberg. We have now Dr. Block, Dr. David Block,
who is the Director of the Florida Solar Energy Center.
So, Dr. Block, you are recognized for 5 minutes; and your total
commentary will be included in the record.
Mr. Block. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the subcommittee, for
this opportunity to present my views.
I want to just take a couple of minutes to make just a couple
quick, very quick points. Number one, I am going to try to use a
couple very fast visual aids here.
Photovoltaics as a piece of processed silicone is one of the best
opportunities we have to develop new living- wage jobs in the U.S.
Mr. Forest behind me, in fact, manufactures the cell; and he will
be your next speaker, so I will leave that to him.
All this semiconductor does is generate electricity when it is ex-
posed to sunlight. I am sure you know it has no noise, no moving
parts and no pollution. This may sound like a miracle, but it is just
a technology and, like all technologies, this solar cell has to be
made by human beings, and this is v.'here jobs come in. There are
a variety of workers that are needed to manufacture, to process, to
make solar cells. In the end, every million dollars expended directly
in photovoltaics creates 21 jobs in a U.S. led industry with a
growth potential greater than any other in the energy arena.
This brings me to point number two. Technology's potential is
only as big as its market, and the market is only as big as the peo-
ple's need for the technology.
Very quickly, I will show you a puzzle here which represents our
planet from space and its existing population. If I take away this
piece, this represents the three billion inhabitants in the developed
countries of our world. These people couldn't dream of life without
power for air conditioners, TV, computers and, much less, elec-
This next section represents the developing nations that are
striving to reach our level of consumer comfort and GDP.
Left is the last piece, and this is the piece of the population that
has no access to electricity, two billion people.
So, what do we have? We have two billion people who des-
perately need lights in their schools, clinics and homes, pumps for
clean water, refrigeration for crops, electrical power assistance for
their own economic development. This is the PV market. Two mil-
lion people without electricity.
This brings me to point number three. Just as the internal com-
bustion engine is not a car, this PV cell here is not a solar system.
Imagine if Henry Ford had simply sold engines, leaving the rest to
the consumer. Unreliability, high cost, system failures would likely
have killed the U.S. auto industry before it had a chance. As it is,
it took a Japanese dem.onstration of system engineering for the Big
Three to learn that not only engines sell, total system quality does.
That is why, despite technical appeal, a solar cell isn't a solar en-
I am going to finally give you one more demonstration, which is
the parts here of a disassembled solar calculator. As you can see,
there are many bits and pieces of plastic, wire and wafer that have
to be carefully designed, manufactured, assembled and tested to
end up with a solar system that is both reliable and effective. In
other words, a total solar energy system gives us, as I have in my
pocket, a solar-powered pocket calculator. That is the role of the
photovoltaic regional experiment stations that I am really here to
talk today about, ensuring that a U.S.-made PV system, whatever
its size and purpose, is reliable as the pocket calculator I have just
Mr. Steve Duran in the back is my colleague from New Mexico,
and we in New Mexico and Florida are helping the U.S. solar in-
dustry build and test high-quality photovoltaic systems from appli-
cations for utility-powered Sacramento to vaccine refrigerators in
Let me make this point, and I will quit. The U.S. is currently a
world leader in the manufacture and export of PV cells and mod-
ules, but remember the history of the automobile technology. Ford's
customers didn't want engines, they wanted quality transportation
systems, and that is what he gave them. We now face Ford's choice
for developing global power market. The U.S. can give them solar
cells and let somebody else corner the solar applications market or
we can seize this golden opportunity to create jobs in the U.S. by
creating high-quality systems not only for Americans but for the
rest of the world.
I thank you for your attention, and I would be happy to respond
[The statement of Mr. Block follows:]
Photovoltaics: The Economic Development Opportunity
Dr. David L. Block
Florida Solar Energy Center
1679 Clearlake Road
Cocoa, FL 32922-5703
Dr Rudi Schoenmackers
Southwest Technology Development Institute
New Mexico State University
POB 30001, Department 3-SOL
LasCruces, NM 88003-0001
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
Committee on Appropriations
February 29, 1996
This testimony makes three important points that we ask you to consider in allocating resources
to support US economic development through energy technologies
• Photovoltaics (PVs) are one of the best energy technologies we have to develop new,
living-wage jobs in the U.S., creating 10 times as many jobs per dollar expenditure as
conventional power production technologies
• The existing market for photovoltaics is largely an export market, comprising one-third of
the worid's population - two billion people who currently lack electrical supplies for even
such basic energy services as lights, refrigeration and communications
• Because this huge market will be filled not by PV solar cells alone but by high-quality PV-
powered systems, our national opportunity lies not only in manufacturing PV solar cells
but also in conducting systems R&D to produce quality solar systems that meet the needs
of the growing global population of new consumers
The Photovoltaic Regional Experiment Stations of the Florida Solar Energy Center and New
Mexico State University are focused on this economic development opportunity. With the
support of Sandia National Laboratories, we are helping U.S. manufacturers develop higher-
quality PV solar systems that are more competitive in both the U.S. and global marketplace. We
are requesting that $1,000,000 from the photovoltaics program funds be made available to the
Southeast and Southwest Regional Experiment Stations to continue these ongoing programs.
We want to begin by thanking Chairman Myers and the Subcommittee for this opportunity to
present our views on the challenges facing the country — and our states — in terms of energy
technology and economic development.
Perhaps more than any other energy technology, photovoltaics (PV) offer the greatest potential
for job creation. Facts show that photovoltaics account for 10 times more jobs per unit of
expenditure than the traditional energy industries. But facts also show that just about every
person in the U.S. already has affordable access to power generated by fossil or nuclear plants and
provided by a distribution system that is the envy of the world.
So if we've already got plenty of power through conventional technology, where's the
opportunity for photovoltaics?
The answer is, all over the globe
Today, fijlly half the population base of the worid's developing nations ~ two billion people — has
no access to electricity Without power for health, education, communications, commerce and
industry, these two billion people cannot become producers, much less consumers. Without
energy, they will continue to be a drain on their countries' economies and thus a threat to
political and societal stability
The lining behind this cloud isn't made of silver - or oil or coal or even uranium It's made of
silicon fashioned into photovoltaic solar cells.
These solid state-electronic devices convert sunlight directly to electricity; they have no moving
parts, produce no pollution and require no fuel. Perhaps most appealing to developing nations,
PV is a modular technology that allows the right amount of power to be made available at the site
where it is needed With photovoltaics, it doesn't require a billion dollar investment in a 500
megawatt power plant, and hundreds if not thousands of miles of wires, to get power to a remote
village, school or clinic. It takes just enough solar array to meet the demand of the load.
Successful entrepreneurs know that where there is a market, there is opportunity. It's no wonder
that photovoltaics manufacturers (the world's new energy entrepreneurs) increased their output
by 20 percent last year and exported 70 percent of their product to the developing nations.
The U.S. is ranked first in photovohaic manufacturing, but the lead it holds is tenuous. Europe
has already passed Japan as the second largest photovoltaics producer, and if Siemens, which
owns our country's largest PV manufacturer, is counted as European, then the U.S. falls to third
place, and European output is actually double that of both America and Japan. More bad news:
Last year another German consortium bought control of Mobil Solar, and they are intent on
targeting the large off-grid market for photovoltaics in Mexico and South America — our
No matter who owns it, photovoltaic cell technology will continue to advance. Material and
manufacturing developments have already lowered the cost of photovoltaic cells from $700 per
watt in the 1960s to just $5 per watt today. At their new plant in Virginia, the Enron/ Amoco
partners have a goal of producing solar cells for power at 6 cents per kilowatt hour, making
photovoltaics competitive with conventional power sources even in the United States.
But even if the U.S. can manufacture the best and least expensive photovoltaics, we'll miss out on
half the market if we focus on cells alone and forget the systems. Like Henry Ford, we have to
remember that consumers don't want to buy the technology; they want to buy the benefits of a
Even though it was the technological marvel of its time. Ford saw that people didn't want to buy
an internal combustion engine, they wanted to buy transportation. Indeed, if Ford had just sold
engines and left the rest to the customer, unreliability, high cost and system failures would have
killed the U.S. auto industry before it had a chance. As it is, it took a Japanese demonstration of
system engineering for the Big Three to learn that engines don't sell cars, total system quality
That's why, despite its technological appeal, a solar cell doesn't sell a solar system. But if you
carefully design, manufacture, assemble and test all the parts powered by photovoltaics, you end
up with a solar system that is so reliable and effective, it can become as ubiquitous as the solar-
powered pocket calculator.
That's the role of the Photovoltaic Regional Experiment Stations - to ensure that every U.S.-
made PV system, whatever its size or purpose, is at least as reliable and marketable as a solar
calculator. With the aid of Sandia National Laboratories, Dr. Schoenmackers' and my institutes
in New Mexico and Florida are helping U.S. industry design, build and test the highest quality
photovoltaic systems for applications from utility power generation in Sacramento to vaccine
refrigeration in San Salvador.
At the Southeast and Southwest RESs, our research concentrates on photovoltaic system
applications and components, especially such problematic devices as charge controllers and
batteries for solar energy storage. We help battery, controller and photovoltaic manufacturers