Statement of Filson H. Glanz, Professor
emeritus of Electrical Engineering
University of New Hampshire
to the Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works
Dear Senator Smith and the other members of the Committee: It was
a pleasure to attended your hearing on innovative energy technologies held in
the Strafford room of the Memorial Union Building on the University of New
Hampshire on May 30, 2001. The
following statement is intended for the record of that hearing.
There is so much that we could be doing to relieve our energy
problems; and we will in the future undoubtedly be much harder pressed than we
are now. When a billion or so Chinese
start driving automobiles, the demand for increasingly scarce oil will drive
the price well beyond today1s high prices.
Using more oil and coal are environmentally destructive and only
temporary solutions. We, as a nation,
must do all the research we can to improve energy efficiency, come up with
sustainable energy sources (such as solar, wind, ocean wave, bio fuel, etc.)
and innovative technologies that use these sources. It makes no sense to cut back research funds for these types of
energy programs as the President1s budget calls for. If we had put as much into
these renewable technologies as we have put into tax breaks and subsidies for
coal and oil, we would now be benefitting from their use.
There was at the hearing some discussion of short term and long-term
energy needs and the different approaches needed to solve both types. This is clearly the case. But all long-term energy needs become short-term
needs if inappropriate solutions are followed.
I well remember, as most of you surely do also, the 1974 embargo on oil
and the problems we faced then. We made
some amazing progress toward energy efficiency and alternative energy in the
years thereafter. Unfortunately, about
1980 a new administration killed the programs spawned by this emergency and
since the problem was past, all memory was lost. But if, for example, we had
put in appropriate national building regulations at that time, our energy
dependency on foreign oil would be considerably different.
Even in New Hampshire a building with some thermal mass and the
correct solar orientation and fenestration would use less than half the energy
of a standard equivalent building. This
is well documented. And the cost is
almost the same. The large number of new homes and buildings constructed since
say 1980, and the fact that most places in the U.S. could save well more than
50% on heating energy, means that we could be saving great amounts of energy
with the nice consequence that heating bills would be lower, the air cleaner
and our oil dependency much less. Add to this that if CAFE standards had been
followed as originally intended - our total energy picture would be very
rosy! It is my belief that the American
people and history should hold administrations and public officials accountable
for NOT planning consistently for future energy independence! But at least we have to opportunity right
now to start preparing for the long term (which will be short term soon
enough!). Many of the technologies
discussed in the hearing do just that.
But other technologies can also contribute such as passive solar heating
of space, solar heating of water, day lighting of buildings, natural convective
cooling, and so forth, all of which are well understood and economically
beneficial besides being environmentally beneficial. But they need exposure to everyday Americans by public officials.
In summary, we cannot afford to ignore the environmental and
energy problems that we have created by our lack of public resolve. We must solve them in a way that leaves our
future generations a livable country/world and the resources they will need to
have a healthy and satisfying life.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement.
Sincerely, Filson H. Glanz,
Professor emeritus of Electrical Engineering
25 Orchard Drive
Durham, NH 03824