Activism in Architecture

Bright Dreams of Passive Energy Design

Margot McDonald, Carolina Dayer, Margot McDonald, Carolina Dayer

• Éditeur: Routledge
• Année: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351726429
• Édition: 1
• Sujet: Architecture
• Sous-sujet: Architecture General

This edited collection gathers contributions from a diverse range of renowned scholars and professionals to uncover the unique relationship between passive architectural systems and activism. Focusing on the pioneering work of the influential American chemist and inventor, Harold R. Hay (1909–2009), and the environmental awareness events that took hold in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s, the book assembles essays which closely examine Hay's contribution to architecture and the work of those who directly and tangentially were affected by it. The book also offers insights into the role of passive energy design today. Appealing to researchers, architects and students interested in architecture and design technology, Activism in Architecture explores the role of passive environmental inventions as an active agent in shaping socio-political debates.

Part I

Once upon a sun

1Letter to the Select Committee On Small Business of the United States Senate¹

Harold R. Hay

Mr. Chairman² and Member of the Select Committee:

I am grateful for this opportunity to state an inventor’s problem when he works as an individual to help mitigate the energy crisis. A member of the Board of Directors of the International Solar Energy Society, I am author of 20 papers on solar energy and hold 7 patents covering solar processes including solar heating and cooling of buildings.³ Among past inventions are those of wood preservative and a water purification method in widespread use throughout the world.⁴ These contributions had the rewards of “$1 and other valuable considerations” consisting of a salary for a brief period. This is not an uncommon experience among inventors in large companies if they accept the challenge of problems in other fields instead of sinecure advancement to administrative positions.

The purpose of this statement is to outline chronologically the development of an invention which the General Electric Company characterized more than a year ago as follows: “Conceptually, the Skytherm house would appear to be an ideally simple, inherently straightforward, and particularly appropriate use of the nature energies of solar radiation and night-sky cooling.” Other commendatory comments on the simplicity and breakthrough aspects of the system will be found in the attachment.

In 1953, during the HUD⁵ foreign assignment in India, I conceived and proved new principles for economic solar heating and cooling of buildings; the invention was not welcomed by foreign aid officials unfamiliar with research. The successful tests, however, gave me an absolute faith in the invention along with the realization that there would be no acceptance of the principles until after their adoption in advanced countries.

For 17 years, top “planners” and “administrators” of the AID,⁶ HUD, the UN,⁷ and other agencies were repeatedly reminded of the systems but they were certain that simple solutions were too difficult, and it was easier to hope that nuclear energy would supply all future energy needs. The late Professor Farrington Daniels and Professor John I. Yellott were the two sources of encouragement among solar experts; others suggested that I go back to chemistry. The two professors well deserve their status as pioneers and impartial evaluators in the field of solar energy.

In 1972, Mr. Orville Lea, of HUD, intelligently broke the pattern in government and said the time had come to study a system such as mine: as an architect, he appreciated its adaptability to low-cost housing. A too small ($35,000) project was approved by the HUD for a team of eight California Polytechnic State University (San Luis Obispo) professors, with Kenneth L. Haggard as principal investigator, to evaluate a Skytherm house built with my private funds. The project conformed to the proposal in ex-President Nixon’s Science Message to Congress for an inventor of a pollution-free energy source to collaborate with a university to use federal funds to develop the invention. I know of no other successful project along these lines; yet, in the early stages, it was dropped and reinstated (under pressure) within two working days. Subsequent delays in contract processing, difficulties in obtaining minor additional funds, and refusal of a $15,000 extension to redesign the house with correction found advisable during prototype testing and to obtain new cost estimates as well as calculations on performance improvement stopped progress in bringing the successfully demonstrated system onto the market. HUD was not to blame entirely, since jurisdiction for solar energy development had passed to NSF.⁸

The 1972 NSF/NASA Solar Energy Panel’s report “Solar Energy as a National Energy Resource” was a self-serving program that misled Congress by not mentioning systems already proved with funds of individual inventors (Dr. Harry Thomason, the writer, and others). It stated incorrectly that solar systems are capital intensive (some are, some are not – the generalization condemns all), and so convinced Congress, the FEA,⁹ other agencies, and the public that solar heating would require 3 years for demonstration, and solar cooling 5 years, although systems not advocated by the panel merited immediate demonstration. The program bore the seeming intent of “Research Forever!” After 3 years, the NSF systems have not yet reached the promised demonstration stage; Congress did well in removing responsibility for solar energy development from NSF – unfortunately, in 1975, the NSF personnel transferred almost en masse to the new agency (ERDA)¹⁰ given solar energy jurisdiction. Faulty policies remained in effect.

In 1973, the Atascadero Skytherm house established its outstanding success; the final (January 1975) evaluation report describes it as “a unique and invaluable national and worldwide asset.” The professors found that it can do what no other system claims – 100% heating and 100% cooling without use of gas or oil and only an insignificant amount of power with resulting comfort “far superior” to gas heating. The professors, moreover, found that the system was much more economic than other solar systems and that, in mass production, the first cost of a Skytherm house might be no more, possibly less, than one conventionally built with installed heating and cooling systems. An expectation that ERDA and HUD would widely publicize these results has not been fulfilled in the past ten months; publicity continues to pour out of ERDA saying that solar heating and cooling is far off. For example, three generalizations that are untrue in relation to Skytherm appear in four consecutive sentences on page 41 of the Erda-48 document “A National Plan for Energy Research, Development & Demonstration: Creating Energy Choices for the Future”:

Efficient solar cooling systems which operate with low quality heat do not yet exist. Improved coatings and collector materials which are environmentally resistant would improve the performance of solar systems. Current means of integrating solar systems into existing and new structures are too costly. The high initial cost of solar heated and cooled houses overshadows potential life-cycle costs.

Skytherm is an efficient solar cooling system within the definition in Section 3 of PF 93–409 that governs ERDA operations; it operated with low-quality heat to produce a comfort superior to “high-quality” heat. ERDA should stop referring to solar heat as “low quality” if it wants public acceptance. Skytherm is not “too expensive” to integrate into existing and new structure of certain types and it does not have a high initial cost. Constant repetition of defeative [sic] statements by federal officials retards public acceptance of Skytherm and other successful systems.

Since 1972, NSF (and, for 7 months, ERDA) has looked indifferently on Skytherm accomplishments and refused invitations to visit the house or to discuss the results. Worse, the scientific principles and data were ignored, it literally took force to get mention of passive systems and nocturnal cooling. NSF funded big industry (TRW, Westinghouse, and GE)¹¹ to propose new concepts and a general plan for their development. Heavily funded with about $500,000 each, the companies came up with no new concepts but, instead, produced plans adding old and complex technology to overcomplicated and conventional equipment. This approach adds so much cost that the companies could not predict substantial market penetration before the year 2000. Residential use had to be played down; passive systems and nocturnal radiation were ignored by TRW and Westinghouse though both knew of them. GE was more attentive to all systems but did not recommend simple ones for further study. Congressional pressure caused NSF and ERDA to reconsider these studies under the excuse that rising utility rates present a new picture, but the rising rates had been predicted as part of the Phase 0 reports.

Dr. Lloyd Herwig, in Denver, and Mr. Ray Fields, in Phoenix, both NSF policy-making officials at the time, stated that solar research was not being studied in the Southwest because in effect it was too easy; but they did not say what method could stop the waste of gas and oil in the Southwest where solar energy use is easiest. As if to sabotage solar energy, large, uneconomic projects were concentrated in areas of minimum feasibility to serve as “sideshows” to relieve political pressure for faster action. Discussing reasons for not stating a position on or supporting the Harold Hay system, Dr. Herwig included the uncalled for remark, “As I understand it, Harold’s life has not been completely trouble-free either up to this point.” Dr. Herwig had been informed privately by me that I had been McCarthyed and cleared in 1954; the fact that he recalled this and made a public reference to it implies in my opinion that this had been a factor in an adverse NSF attitude toward my projects.

Other than the fact that NSF took a position to ignore passive and proved systems, four projects dealing with my system were refused funding:

1.The Cal Poly professors had a project designed to continue research on the Skytherm house and system turned down.

2.The Rand Corp., of Santa Monica, was not funded for a study said to have been submitted to determine the cost of the Atascadero house and its potential impact on energy conservation.

3.A small project, in which I proposed to apply my principle to very low-cost housing for American minorities and people in developing countries, was, in my opinion, blackballed – two reviewers gave the project good grades, the third graded it so low that it could not have been accepted if the other graded it 100.

4.After Dr. Eggers, head of the NSF solar program, personally promised to fund a project to have a large, architectural engineering firm make an independent study of the results of the Atascadero house, to determine specifications and costs, and to determine its applicability to a variety of buildings and locations within applicable climate of the Southwest. The project was rejected by Mr. Fields after an agreement had been reached with the largest A/E firm on the Pacific Coast that they would submit it if NSF was interested. It may be significant that Mr. Fields, a former employee of Westinghouse, was aware that I had very severely criticized the Westinghouse Phase 0 report. That Mr. Fields may not have a viewpoint free from past associations is indicated by his reply to my recommendation that NSF publish a map of the United States that would show areas where no air conditioning is required, where nocturnal radiation and evaporation can economically reduce peakload power demand, and where conventional air conditioning is fully justifiable because of condition of high humidity. Mr. Field replied that it would not be politically wise to publish such a map. One would prefer a more scientific response from officials of the National Science Foundation.

After ERDA based its first “National Plan for Solar Heating and Cooling” (March 1975) on the NSF/NASA panel report and on Phase 0 studies, several persons criticized it for continuing to ignore the passive and proved systems. The revised document (ERDA 23a, issued October 1975) is vastly improved, shows far better understanding of building technology, and gives rather adequate attention to passive systems, nocturnal cooling, the role of small business, and even mention of the individual. A major objection that I raised to prior policy must be repeated here because the unchanged policy is most unfair to presently economic systems such as Skyther. The Cal Poly professors have reported that in mass production Skyther may cost no more than conventional heating and cooling in a custom-built house; General Electric, in its Phase 0 study, stated, “The basic materials and design aspects (of Skytherm) should support the low cost potential claimed.” Yet in ERDA 23a, and in the implementation thereof under HUD’s “Request for Grant Application H-2353” for residential demonstrations and in the policy is “Federal funding for demonstrations will have an upper limit of the amount by which the cost of a building with a solar system exceeds the cost of a similar building with only a conventional heating and cooling system.” This policy subsidizes high-cost and uneconomic systems; it denies subsidy to a system economic now and it minimizes help to any nearing this desirable goal. Once more, this is a policy harmful to the development of solar energy; it would be better to set a subsidy of a given amount – say $5,000 – and let the achiever of a lower-cost system have a reward that will help him attract financing for production and that will give the producer of a high-cost system partial encouragement but notice that his costs will have to be reduced.

Almost as discouraging as this policy on subsidies is the statement in PON DSE-75-2¹² that, “The primary interest at this time is for space heating and hot water systems. Responses dealing with combined solar heating and cooling will be considered, however future PON’s will specifically address the combined systems.” This policy again hits a method such as Skytherm which accomplishes both heating and cooling now. The “hurt” is that this method will receive no credit for accomplishing the goal of combined heating and cooling years before ERDA will subsidize such systems. ERDA’s words that solar cooling “will be considered” do not suggest that it would be wise for a builder to look around for a system that will do both; he can get a very large subsidy without ...