We encourage development of a Public Service Announcement, today, regarding the 30,000 SF building-integrated photovoltaics (BI-PV) rooftop on the Georgetown University Intercultural Center in Washington, DC. The last shipment of solar modules for this elegant polycrystalline solar rooftop was in 1984 as Dr. Lindmeyer was being forced out of business by Amoco. My question is how could Solarex Corporation be legally and ethically forced out of business just following their success in selling one of the largest projects of photovoltaics in world history? They were backed up with orders. At that time, PV ranged in cost from $9 to $20 watt. The Intercultural Center roof is said to have cost around $6 million dollars installed. That was nearly twenty years ago and a trillion dollar silicon computer industry has evolved since then. According to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in the California State Photovoltaics Consultant Report they completed in 1978, photovoltaisc would be fifty cents a watt by 1986. The price tag for a 300 kilowatt peak system like the Intercultural Center roof would only be $15,000 instead of $6 million. Solarex had just built a photovoltaic manufacturing facility in Frederick, Maryland that only cost $7 million. It was backed up with orders in the United States and internationally. The US Department of Energy funded half of the project costs of the Georgetown University Intercultural Center and thus it is likely there was little delay in payment. Michael Eisner, CEO at Disneyland and Dean Stearns head of the Architecture School at Yale are plotting to destroy this historic PV rooftop. As a distinguished Georgetown alumni, Eisner had Dean Stearns appointed as an advisor to the campus planning committee. How many people are wondering why the Clinton and Gore administration never mentioned the PV roof of this Intercultural Center at Senator Clinton and President Clinton's alma mater. This 300 kWp BI-PV array was not mentioned when President Clinton was interviewed in the press in 1995 regarding the field array they spread around the White House lawn to light the Christmas tree that year. Wonder why!!! http://www.oocities.org/PVBLUEIN2002
When I worked in the Georgetown U. Intercultural Center for a year in 1995 and 1996, ninety percent of the people I talked to who worked in the building everyday indicated they did not know the pretty blue roof was generating electricity. I thought this was highly unusual due to the substantial media coverage and controversy related to a co-generation plant proposed for the Georgetown campus in 1995. There was not one word in the press about the Intercultural Center at that time. The Intercultural Center is an ideal eighteen-year old BI-PV demonstration project that needs be featured in a public service announcements to educate the public consumer and mainstream commerce about the non-polluting, aesthetic benefits of urban grid-connected photovoltaics, The Million Solar Rooftops In USA By 2010 Program and our race with the European Commission's 1,000,000 Photovoltaic Rooftops Program. In the recent Rulemakings on distributed generation held by the California Public Utilities Commission and the California Energy Commission, the Solar Development Cooperative was instrumental in getting net metering raised from 10 kWp systems to 1 Megawatt peak systems. A Megawatt peak system is over three times the size of the Georgetown University Intercultural Center project. Yet, 90% of the manufacturing is owned and controlled by BP Amoco, Shell, Mobil and Texaco. There are only a handful of PV manufacturing equipment companies world-wide. In the proceedings before the CPUC and CEC, they refused to entertain our request for antitrust investigation related to oil cartel suppression of PV manufacturing since the 1984 takeover of Solarex by Amoco. However, they did accept into their jurisdiction Enron's request for antitrust protection of their gas turbine interests from Utilities. Perhaps, I am fortunate, PV antitrust suppression wasn't entertained by the CPUC and CEC jurisdiction if we consider the status of Enron Corporation at this time. Although, they tried to put the Solar Development Cooperative out of business refusing to pay any of the $42,000 of Intervenor Compensation owing for two years of administrative proceedings.
Georgetown University Intercultural Center is an important historic landmark in the Nation's Capital and should be dedicated to Dr. Lindmeyer and Dr. Varadi who founded the Solarex Corporation in 1974. The Intercultural Center should be included in Washington, DC tour agendas and house an exhibit of the history of the photovoltaic industry with brochures on the Million Solar Rooftops In USA By 2010 Program. It deserves recognition as a pivotal architectural project. The Intercultural Center houses a variety of diverse international mediation and business development courses, clubs and programs. BI-PV is a peace-evolving economic solar silicon semiconductor technology that generates clean, quiet, aesthetic, self-dependent and sustainable electricity everyday in the heart of the Nation's Capital. The brutal and unwelcome takeover of Solarex by Amoco-Enron culminated in a year of personal tragedy and loss for Dr. Lindmeyer. Since British Petroleum took over Amoco, links to information about Dr. Lindmayer have been removed from the Solarex website. John J. Berger's book Charging Ahead; The Business of Renewable Energy and What It Means for America was published in 1997. It includes a revealing chapter entitled 'Pretty Polly' describing Enron-Amoco's takeover. Pretty Polly refers to polycrystalline. The Solarex polycrystaline patent has run and legally should be available to anyone wanting to manufacture it without paying a patent fee to anyone.
Following the Enron-Amoco takeover, the Solarex polycrystalline patents were immediately used to sue ARCO Solar out of business. ARCO Solar was the most innovative solar energy company in the world at that time. They were the first company to install a 1 Megawatt peak photovoltaic system in the world. Their patents were sold to Siemens Solar at the end of the lawsuit because ARCO's resources had been drained during the four-year ordeal. In 1997, a participant in Amoco's takeover lawsuit against ARCO Solar responded as follows to my questions about this issue at the 26th IEEE PV Specialists Conference in Anaheim: "Yeah, it was a long drawn out vicious lawsuit. They were angry. It went on for over four years." Two weeks after I filed my paper before the CPUC on March 17, 1999 requesting antitrust investigation, BP Amoco took over the Arco Corporation for $28 billion and thereby also took over an illegal majority ownership of the Alaskan pipeline. For this reason, the Federal Trade Commission attempted to stop the merger, but were unable to. The next patent enfringement attack Enron-Amoco mounted with Solarex patents was with the thin film patents against United Solar, Corporation. That also lasted nearly four years from 1993-1997. Uni-Solar, Inc. survived and continues to market their amorphous silicon (thin film) products, today, with special developments in batten-seam and standing-seam rooftops. We were not aware of this history when we worked with Solarex from 1994-1996. They enthusiastically promised to assist us in building a Solar-Voltaic Dome(TM) array. It took several years and many hardships caused by either their corruption or incompetence to figure out their agenda was not what they had indicated to us.
In the January 19th, 1998 Chicago Tribune article "SOLAR POWER MAY GET DAY IN THE SUN", Harvey Forest, director of Solarex pleads his case that there is no viable leadership in the nation to bring solar into the marketplace. One has to wonder where all the solar business leaders in America are spending their days . . . ? After the way Solarex handled the projects I brought to them, Mr. Forest's statement sounds more like a threat and a promise to those photovoltaic leaders who might be contemplating following the changing tide of the energy industry. Despite their significant resources and the government incentives for large companies to assist small business development, Enron-Amoco-Solarex has never once initiated any potential client project presentations to facilitate the development of a Solar-Voltaic Dome(TM). Their investment in cooperative exhibits during the two years I worked with them from 1994 to 1996 totaled less than $300 including a solar panel. Marketing associates at Solarex derailed an educational workshop SDC had scheduled at the Intercultural Center in October 1996 for public education and professional training in cooperation with the National AIA. At that time, I began suspecting Amoco-Enron-Solarex's motives in our association. I really try to give companies the benefit of the doubt, but why on earth would they try and derail every activity I planned with them unless it was to suppress photovoltaic technology in the United States marketplace? It would be much more cost effective for them to work with leaders that are laboring around the clock to educate the public and advance policy to bring BI-PV into the mainstream marketplace!
What is keeping them from being the leaders they claim we are lacking? Who is stopping them from advertising their products to the American public? Maybe they should look in the mirror to find the answer! Why don't they facilitate more BI-PV projects?
When I called to let United Solar know about the workshop delay and possible cancellation, they indicated Solarex had been suing them for alleged patent enfringement since 1993. If Enron-Amoco is going to be so possessive with Dr. Lindmeyer's and Dr. Varardi's patents, why don't they market and sell the resultant products to the American consumer? There was over ONE BILLION DOLLARS of the California public retirement fund invested in Enron. You would think they would respect these investors enough to provide them the right to choice that they deserve as Americans and educate them about BI-PV technology, Net Metering and the 50% Buydown offered by the California Energy Commission. If BP Amoco would allow Solarex to use their resources to evolve their own leadership role in BI-PV, there wouldn't be any unreserved funds left from Phase I of the 50% Buydown Program. Then the CEC and CEC Buydown incentives would facilitate industry deployment like it is supposed to. A costing study detailing the price of the various stages of PV manufacturing needs to be completed by an independent organization that is not in the pocket of oil cartels. The study would like reveal that the price of PV is actually around fifty cents a watt or less, and thereby the buydown programs are simply rewarding the oil cartels for price fixing. Further, there needs to be a competitive industry development for producing PV manufacturing equipment.
In my December 7th, 1998 testimony to the California Energy Commission, I emphasized the need to have two administrators hired to manage the Renewable Energy Technologies Public Education Fund. One administrator for remote-site generation renewables and one for self-generation often referred to as distributed generation. I further point out the tremendous educational needs of self-generation consumers in comparison with limited need for education of remote-site consumers. In terms of mainstream deployment of BI-PV, we have progressed very little from 1984 when the Georgetown University Intercultural Center was installed. Massive deployment of fossil, nuclear and large-scale hydro generation is being facilitated in new energy markets, today, by Enron-Amoco all over the world despite the proven success of BI-PV as a clean dual-use technology. Historically, it has been proven that new industries evolve from innovative small companies. Rarely, does mainstream deployment evolve from large cartels with competing technologies. If horse ranchers had been left in charge of automobile deployment, we would still be traveling by horse and buggy.
In August 1998, British Petroleum (BP) began a $47 billion dollar takeover/merger of the Amoco portion of the Amoco-Enron partnership. Siemens Solar and Kyocera are the largest competitors of Solarex now owned by BP Amoco. Reports from Great Britain indicate Solarex may be included in the deal. This merger is a strategic photovoltaic industry control tactic by our competitive contender the European Communities via BP Solar! After taking control of 70% of the PV manufacturing, they then reduced production of PV. VP of Marketing of Enron indicated at the American Power Conference in April 1998 that the reason they hadn't included photovoltaic products and related incentive programs in their deregulation advertising was simply oversight or mismanagement. Since that conference, Enron Corporation has created an international solar development company, but continue to suppress PV in the United States. They are doing several projects in Europe and Solarex has been working on residential projects in Japan for quite some time. Sales representatives at Solarex indicate Americans don't care about pollution and won't buy BI-PV. This kind of massive BI-PV deployment effort in the US has never been attempted to verify such assumptions. Their behavior and propaganda reflect a foreign agenda of oppression and takeover more than management problems. BP Solar claimed in 1999 that they would produce $1 billion of PV by 2010. As a start up business with no manufacturing facilities, the Solar Development Cooperative published our fifteen year $4 billion business plan in 1994 to design and install 200,000 two kilowatt peak homes and 1,000 200 kWp commercial projects by 2010. BP already had a five year contract with the City of LA to provide PV product for their incentive program and was gearing up completion of a multimillion PV project for the 2000 Olympics in Sydney Australia.
The research and development investments by Arco Solar and Solarex may not be enjoyed in the United States if we do not actively clarify and facilitate a national BI-PV agenda in America. We need more competing photovoltaic manufacturing companies in the United States from the small business sector to support the Million Solar Rooftops Programs in both the United States and the European Commission for the photovoltaic industry to evolve a natural healthy global BI-PV industry. The Spire Corporation is one of the few PV manufacturing equipment companies in the world. Competition in BI-PV manufacturing is greatly needed to evolve BI-PV technology into better products and to generate a truly competitive and thriving BI-PV industry in the global marketplace, today!
Amoco-Solarex-Enron finally goes public with the truth in their recent paper presented at the 1998 American Solar Energy Society Conference indicating building-integrated photovoltaics (BI-PV) is a cost-effective technology for grid-connected consumers in the United States, today! Their award-winning paper is three years behind the Solar Development Cooperative's Advent of the Headrick Solar-Voltaic Dome(TM) Power Station presented at the SOLTECH-UPVG Conference in San Antonio with a paper submitted for publication at the European Commission PV Solar Energy Conference in Nice France. In This paper we clarify BI-PV is affordable for many electricity consumers today, and how mainstream deployment of mid-size power stations will make PV affordable for the majority of electricity consumers within the next ten years. With Mr. Rever's paper presented at the 1998 the American Solar Energy Society Conference, the industry now has official permission from Enron-Amoco-Solarex to tell American consumers BI-PV is affordable. I hope Jim Trotter at CALSEIA is paying attention. With the entire energy industry of the United States to be competitive by 2003, it is even more practical for people to choose consumer-owned self-generation of pollution-free electricity through BI-PV. They must be provided ready access to quality products with reliable service.
To make these milestones cost effective, this good news needs to be shared with the American consumer so we may timely accomplish the Million Solar Rooftops In USA By 2010 Program. The Solar Development Cooperative has had very little resources to educate the global public about the BI-PV choice and how it is affordable through mainstream deployment. We made this commitment in 1992 because of the dramatic decrease in price and the extreme potential market. In 1994, BI-PV provided less than 0.001% of the electricity consumed by Americans. There is no need to waste costly research dollars to simply further price reduction. At $5 watt, the consumer laboratory may enjoy the benefits of BI-PV technology, today, while they further reduce the price through increased production. Our role as a small, but persistent voice among huge cartels and government to our surprise and joy has influenced the emergence of two important global deployment programs for grid-connected BI-PV. Before we insisted at numerous domestic and international conferences that BI-PV is affordable, today, even the most ardent PV advocates in the US were focused on remote-site projects and insisted PV was not affordable. In 1995, I was shocked that US advocates greatly criticized the historic 1000 PV Rooftops Program completed in Germany from 1993-95 as being impractical with Germany being above the 49 degree parallel north of the entire continental United States.
Amoco-Enron dba Solarex have substantial advertising dollars which they demonstrated in their campaign for consumers to switch to their company with deregulation. Enron sponsored Earth Day this year (1998), but they did not advertise their sustainable photovoltaic products to the California electricity consumers in deregulation. They actually lobbied the CPUC and CEC to not expand self-generation as a viable choice in the policy decisions for deregulation advocating a primarily remote-site agenda for public education. These suppressive inconsistencies confuse the public and are anti-trust in nature. They are actually against Enron-Amoco dba Solarex's own best interests. Despite his large dominance in the computer software industry, at least Bill Gates is actively marketing and selling his software products in the mainstream American and global marketplace. If companies need more marketing consulting than I've already provided, I would be glad to help them further when I have a signed contract with a fee schedule.
The lack of active BI-PV product marketing especially by Enron-Amoco dba Solarex as a PV industry leader is more serious than simple mismanagement or oversite. We must timely and formally address these anti-trust issues while major changes are happening in the energy industry world-wide that will effect global commerce well into the next century. There are many more people dying, today, from the second-hand smoke of the energy industry than from cigarette smoke. The first step to healing this problem is to facilitate a public service announcement sharing the beauty and magic of the Georgetown University Intercultural Center with the American public. It is a project we as tax payers funded and one we can rightfully be proud of as a landmark structure of international significance.
