do-it-yourself solar water heating in hungary
TRANSCRIPT
A thesis submitted to the Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy of Central European University in part fulfilment of the
Degree of Master of Science
Do-it-yourself solar water heating in Hungary: Prospects and barriers and comparison with the Austrian experience
Robert LANZ
July, 2005
Budapest
i
Notes on copyright and the ownership of intellectual property rights:
(1) Copyright in text of this thesis rests with the Author. Copies (by any process) either in full, or of extracts, may be made only in accordance with instructions given by the Author and lodged in the Central European University Library. Details may be obtained from the Librarian. This page must form part of any such copies made. Further copies (by any process) of copies made in accordance with such instructions may not be made without the permission (in writing) of the Author.
(2) The ownership of any intellectual property rights which may be described in this thesis is vested in the Central European University, subject to any prior agreement to the contrary, and may not be made available for use by third parties without the written permission of the University, which will prescribe the terms and conditions of any such agreement.
(3) For bibliographic and reference purposes this thesis should be referred to as:
Lanz, R. 2005. Do-it-yourself solar water heating in Hungary: Prospects and barriers and comparison with the Austrian experience. Master of Science thesis, Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Central European University, Budapest.
Further information on the conditions under which disclosures and exploitation may take place is available from the Head of the Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Central European University.
ii
Author’s declaration
No portion of the work referred to in this thesis has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of learning.
Robert LANZ
iii
Table of Contents
2. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................1
1.1 AIMS OF THE THESIS........................................................................................................................21.2 CONTENTS OF THE THESIS...............................................................................................................2
1 LITERATURE REVIEW..............................................................................................................4
2.1. DISTRIBUTED ENERGY SUPPLY AND RURAL ELECTRIFICATION.....................................................42.2 ENERGY POLICY AND THE RENEWABLE ENERGY MARKET..............................................................52.2 QUESTIONING GROWTH...................................................................................................................62.4 CITIZEN-INNOVATOR: USER-END PARTICIPATION........................................................................72.5 DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION..........................................................................................................72.6 SOLAR THERMAL COLLECTORS....................................................................................................92.7 THE AUSTRIAN DIY SOLAR THERMAL MOVEMENT: ORIGIN AND SPREAD....................................112.8 THE HUNGARIAN SCENE................................................................................................................13
2.8.1 Solar potential in Hungary....................................................................................................132.8.2 Energy issues in Hungary......................................................................................................142.8.3 The Hungarian experience with DIY.....................................................................................14
2.6 REASONS FOR SUCCESS.................................................................................................................152.7 POLICY SUPPORT FOR DIY IN AUSTRIA.....................................................................................162.8 SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................17
3. METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................................19
3.1 DATA COLLECTION METHODS........................................................................................................203.2 DATA ANALYSIS METHODS............................................................................................................213.3 ACCESS AND POWER......................................................................................................................213.4 MOBILITY AND TECHNOLOGY.......................................................................................................22
4. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK...................................................................................................23
4.1 INNOVATION..................................................................................................................................234.2 COMMUNICATION CHANNELS........................................................................................................244.3 TIME...............................................................................................................................................254.5 SOCIAL SYSTEM.............................................................................................................................26
5. FINDINGS..........................................................................................................................................27
5.1 THE AUSTRIAN SCENE...................................................................................................................275.2 THE SPREAD BEYOND THE BORDERS..............................................................................................295.3 DIY IN HUNGARY: SELF-BUILD WORKSHOPS...............................................................................30
5.3.1 DIY in Hungary: Turkeve......................................................................................................305.3.2 DIY in Hungary: Esztergom..................................................................................................31
5.4 DIY IN HUNGARY: WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS.............................................................................335.5 HUNGARIAN SELF-BUILD PROJECTS BY INDIVIDUALS....................................................................355.6 HUNGARIAN SOLAR THERMAL MARKET........................................................................................365.7 HUNGARIAN POLICY SUPPORT AND GAS PRICES............................................................................385.8. THE PAYBACK PERIOD FOR DIY SOLAR HEATERS........................................................................385.9 COMPARISON OF PAYBACK PERIODS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE....................................................41
6. DISCUSSION, ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................43
6.1 THEORETICAL ANALYSIS...............................................................................................................436.2 DISCUSSION...................................................................................................................................466.3 RECOMMENDATIONS: OBSTACLES AND HOW TO OVERCOME THEM..............................................48
7.1 SUMMARY......................................................................................................................................54
REFERENCE LIST...............................................................................................................................56
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS....................................................................................................61
APPENDIX B.........................................................................................................................................67
iv
v
List of Tables
Table 1. Yearly saving on gas bill for Hungarian family homes. Source of information used to generate table per. comm. MEH representatives D and G 2005………………39
Table 2 Costs and payback periods for various solar water heating options. Source of information: per. comm. Marton 2005, A 2005, B 2005, Jula Schill 2005, F 2005……42
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1. Rise and Fall of the Austrian Do-it-Yourself Movement. Source Faninger 2005………………………………………………………………………………………28
Figure 2 Bending copper tubing using special turning table. EKE workshop. Photo taken by Monika Pacziga……………………………………………………………………….32
Figure 3 Tubing soldered onto a copper plate. Same location. Photo: Monika Pacziga...32
vii
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the staff, faculty and students of the Environmental Sciences and Policy Department for their support, good spirits as well as their dedication. In particular I would like to thank Alexios Antypass, Alan Watt and Diane Urge-Vorsatz for their advice during the research.
I would like to thank my family, Robert, Marcia and Teresa and my friends in Hungary, Austria, America and elsewhere. I would like to thank Dr. John Herr for encouraging me to continue my education.
I would like to thank Melike Asli Sahinsoy for her love and tenderness.
I would like to thank all the people whom I consulted and interviewed during the course of my research, including Michael Ornetzeder, Akos Monoki, Gunther Schwarlzer, Harald Rohracher, Peter Marton, Jula Schill, Andras Ledenyi and Roger Hackstock. I would also like to thank Monika Pacziga, for assisting me in my research.
I would like to thank Marie Blaye, my grandmother, a person who, if you know, it is impossible not to love.
This work is dedicated to the memory of Benjamin Rudd.
viii
CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY
ABSTRACT OF THESIS submitted by: Robert LANZfor the degree of Master of Science and entitled: Do-it-yourself solar water heating in Hungary: Prospects and barriers and comparison with the Austrian experience
Month and Year of submission: July, 2004.
Hungary’s neighbor, Austria, experienced a remarkable success with diffusion of solar water heaters built by do-yourself groups. The purpose of the research was to identify potentials for and barriers to diffusion of self build solar water heaters. In order to accomplish this research was done into the history of the Austrian movement, current practices of self-build projects in Hungary and relevant market and policy factors as well as a examination made into the role of social networks in technology dissemination. Key findings were that the Austrian self-build movement had declined by the mid-nineties, Hungarian organizations are promoting self-build by offering classes and making available workshops and tools for self-builders and innovative individuals in Hungary have built with the help of promoting organizations and without. Social networks have shown to be a key element in the spread of information about solar water heater (even at the commercial market level). Hungarian appears to have the potential fro much greater diffusion of solar water heater, either commercially or self-built. Government support via reduction of gas subsidies, loans for end-users, creation of and discrete renewable energy office and increased availability of funds for home improvements under the Szechenyi plan, improvement of networks of solar promotion through improved communication and further research into what local energy needs are, how they are and how renewable energy sources can be used to meet these needs are recommended as ways to remove obstacle to diffusion of solar water heating in Hungary.
Keywords: Austria, Hungary, environment, solar, water heating, energy, policy, self build, Do-it-yourself, Turkeve, Esztergom, diffusion, social, networks, Szechenyi plan,
ix
2. Introduction
Do-it-yourself user-groups have shown be successful in creating and installing solar
water heating at low costs in rural areas in the Austrian Bundeslander of Styria as well as
other parts of rural Austria. An estimated 200,000 m2 of solar heater have been installed
in Austria using self-build methods since the early 1980’s when the so-called Austrian
Do-it-yourself (DIY) solar water heater movement began.
Self-build projects such as this have potential to bring energy, employment, and most
importantly, energy independence to rural communities by lowering the cost of
construction of renewable energy systems like solar water heaters. This thesis will
examine what preconditions are necessary for the success of self-build projects in
developing economies and rural areas, with a focus on Hungary. What kinds of social
capital (community cohesion, construction skill) and economic capital (outside funding,
grants from government) are needed?
The ultimate extension of energy security is energy independence, producing enough
energy to meet local needs. What potential does small-scale locally produced renewable
energy have for minority groups who otherwise can not afford energy.
Notions of empowerment are ill-developed to non-existent in the energy sector. Thought
on the subject has focused on how to meet needs. More is left to be said about how best
to assist developing communities in helping themselves.
Hungary, with a relatively high number of sunlight hours per year, has, meteorologically
speaking, has a good potential for the use of solar energy. Attempts have been made to
1
promote solar water heating in Hungary using do-it-yourself techniques, although they
have not had a similar degree of success to Austria.
In order to predict whether what potential there is for Do-it-yourself several question
should be answered. Is the energy market situation and energy policy conducive to a
DIY solar heater movement in Hungary? What obstacles exist to a repeat of the Austria
DIY movement in Hungary? How could they potentially be overcome?
1.1 Aims of the thesis
This thesis will add to the field of knowledge in four main ways. It will describe current
practices used in Hungary to promote DIY solar water heater, provide a theoretical
analysis thereof using diffusion theory, compare the Hungarian DIY experience with the
Austrian case. The goal of these three aims is to provide a better understanding of the
factors that contribute to success or failure of a self-build solar water heater movement.
This understanding will be used to create a list of obstacles and potential aids to DIY
solar diffusion in Hungary.
1.2 Contents of the thesis
The first chapter of this thesis introduces the research topic, identifies the aims and
objectives of the research and describes the contents of the chapters of the thesis.
2
The second chapter of this thesis is a literature review and will give background on the
solar energy history, justification for the need for solar energy and the available
information printed information of DIY solar in Austria and Hungary.
Chapter three will lay of the methodological approach which was used. This was
primarily a qualitative examination, centered on interviews with stakeholders in DIY
solar in Hungary and Austria concerning their perspective on and motivations involving
solar energy and promoting (or not promoting) DIY.
Chapter four describes the theoretical framework which was used to analyze the
information which was gathered during the research. The concepts and terminology of
diffusion of innovation theory are contained there-in.
In the fifth chapter, findings are revealed. These consist of two parts, results of
interviews and an evaluation of the economics suitable of DIY solar water heater for
Hungarian energy consumers.
Chapter six is a theoretical analysis of the findings and literature using diffusion theory.
Academic work on the subject of DIY solar water heating in Hungary is, up until now,
non-existent. As such it is necessary to provide a framework by which the data which
was obtained in this research can be made useful for other researchers.
Chapter seven contains a discussion of the finding, a set of obstacles to and solutions to
help achieve greater diffusion of solar water heating in Hungary via DIY
Chapter eight is a summary of conclusions.
3
1 Literature review
This section is a review of the literature on the topic of do-it-yourself solar water in
Hungary and Austria. It beings will the broader theoretical contexts into which the issue
fits such distributed energy supply, the question of sustainable growth and user-
innovativeness. The review then moves to moves to the more specifically related topic of
solar thermal energy and ends with a discussion of literature on the topic of DIY in
Austria and Hungary and its relationship with national and local policies
2.1. Distributed Energy Supply and Rural Electrification
Datta et al. (2002) argue for more dispersed, smaller-scale energy production. They list
reduced costs, increased competition, free market entry, improved technology and
increased energy reliability as benefits. The market has increasingly moved in this
direction since the 1980‘s . Datta et al’s book use examples only from the U.S. energy
market.
Even developing countries have chosen to make large investments in creating distributed
generation supply. Argentina established “Electric Supply Program for the Rural
Dispersed Population” to provide electricity for the hundreds of thousands of
Argentinians who do not have access to electricity (Fabris et al 1996). Priority is given
to renewable electricity sources including photovoltaics and windmills. Country specific
research by done on the potential for renewable energy in developing to meet energy
4
need from a non-natives perspective, such as Rudd’s (2001) examination of photovoltaic
technology potential in Nicarauga.
Grubb and Vigoti (1997) discuss, in the European context, Dispersed Energy Supply
(DES) and the problem of small islands other isolated energy systems. They argue,
similarly to Lovins, that the energy market in the 21st century will move from centralized
to distributed electricity systems. Mitchell (1996) claims that the current European
electricity system is characterized by increasing demand and that future markets will be
characterized by “static or falling, not increasing demand”.
Twidell and Weir(2000)“…finite energy is most easily harnessed centrally and is
expensive to distribute. Renewable energy is most easily harnessed in dispersed
locations and is expensive to concentrate. A practical consequence of renewable energy
is development and increased cash flow in the rural economy. Thus the use of renewable
energy favors rural development and not urbanization”. This idea is mirrored by
Johnson, Kelly, Reddy and Williams (1993) who state that “production of renewable
energy … can provide economic development and employment opportunities, especially
in rural areas, that otherwise have limited opportunities for economic growth. Renewable
energy can thus help reduce poverty in rural areas and reduce pressures for urban
migration.”
2.2 Energy policy and the renewable energy market
Flavin and Lenssen (1995) argue that policy, speaking in a world wide sense, are biased
against renewable energy. Governments often subsidize traditional energy “keeping
prices artificially low and encouraging waste”. Flavin and Lenssen claim that direct
5
fossil fuel subsidies in 1991 totalled approximately $220 billion worldwide, about “20-
25% of the value of all fossil fuels sold.”
Removing these kind of subsidies is effecting in reducing. Flavin and Lenssen report that
there was a 20-percent decline in coal use between 1990 and 1993, when subsidies were
gradually withdrawn.
Lovins et al (1981) argue that the best subsidy is no subsidy, for either, and that the only
justifiable residual ones are those “improve market structure, enhance competition,
compensate for...social costs and not …self-perpetuating.” Loans for end-users are a
suggested as a way to allow for low-cost choice since “Correct price signals are useless if
people cannot respond to them.”
2.2 Questioning Growth
How is it possible as Mitchell states that demand can decrease. Most economists assume
growth as both inevitable and desirable. However, Bennholdt-Thomsen and Mies (1999)
put forth another vision
…there exists a different conception of ‘economy’, which is both older and
younger than the capitalist patriarchal one which is based on the ongoing
colonisation of women, of other people and nature. This ‘other’ economy puts life
and everything necessary to produce and maintain life on this planet at the center
of economic and social activity and not the never-ending accumulation of dead
money.
6
They continue by recommending development which is locally driven.
… such a vision of subsistence requires that people, particularly women, stop
devaluating … their own work, their own power – and stop expecting the good
life to be handed down to them by those ‘on top’
.
So the question is, what kind of energy do we want to produce and towards what end?
2.4 Citizen-innovator: User-end participation
As Fischer (2003) states, it is …“not easy to find scientific studies dealing with consumer
aspects of the introductions of respective technologies. Studies usually focus on
technological performance and economic feasibility.” She lists twelve studies of
consumer aspects including a 1992 article by Hackstock et al about the Austrian DIY
movement. At the time of the literature review, the thesis author was unable to find this
document and part of the research with include an attempt to find and gain access to
whatever archive in which it is stored.
2.5 Diffusion of innovation
Use of solar energy is a type of innovation. Rogers (2003) look at diffusion, which he
defines as the process by which an innovation is communicated among the members of a
social system. Rogers creates a terminology for discussing innovations and their
diffusion, which can be applied to any innovation in any context. His examples of
7
innovations range from water boiling in Peruvian villages and the Dvorak typing
keyboard to the kindergarten system and news of the September 11th attacks on the World
Trade Center buildings. Technology, in his terminology, is a type of innovation, more
specifically “a design for instrumental action that reduces the uncertainty in the cause-
effect relationships involved in achieving a desired outcome.” He further subdivides the
concept of technology into two components hardware and software, that is, the “…
material, or physical object…” and the “…information base for the tool.”
Rogers discusses the rate of adoption of any new innovation as following an S shaped
curve characterized by an exponential and sharpening change in the rate of adoption
during the initial adoption phase, followed by a sharp, steady increase in the number of
adopters, finally followed by an asymptotic decline in the rate of adopters.
Rogers provides statistical evidence of the adoption of mobile telephones in Finland, of
weed sprays in Iowa and even the diffusion of diffusion studies and uses these statistics
to support the theory of S- growth of innovations. He also provides anecdotal evidence
of the S- shaped diffusion rate and the examples strike the readers and logical and
plausible. Furthermore, the theory seems to hold true in the case of the diffusion of the
DIY system throughout Austria. However, although Roger’s theory allows for an
extended time periods for diffusion he does not seem to allow for step-like diffusion, that
is, rapid diffusion, followed by stagnation and then followed by revitalization of the
spread of an innovation. Perhaps Rogers would treat the second rapid diffusion rate as a
new innovation or a “re-invention”. The theory falls short by defining the phenomena in
terms of the theory and by not addresses or bringing forth example of cases were the
theory does not hold true. Also, Rogers examples tends to look at relatively coherent or
8
cohesive societies or civilizations (within a Peruvian village, among Balinese rice
farmers, among Americans) and does not address the crossing of innovation over societal,
national or cultural borders.
Despite certain problems, Roger’s theory is a useful tool for comparing various types of
social phenomena and finding common elements in their spread within societies.
2.6 Solar thermal collectors
Solar thermal collectors are a particularly attractive way, from a resource efficiency and
environmental perspective, of generating heat. The system essentially “traps” heat that
would other wise escape. Using fossil fuels requires converting energy from one state to
another which inevitably result in some loss of energy to entropy. Scheer (1994) argues
that the use of solar and other wave energy adds no new energy to earth and thus do not
contribute to an increase in entropic heat in the system. “The Second Law of
Thermodynamics states that with every conversion of energy form one form to another,
inescapable conversion losses occur. Because of these losses-during the conversion of
resting energy into available energy and then into diffused and no longer available energy
– heat and other emissions are released that bring disorder to the ecosphere’s order state,
which in the end bring about its heat death.” Twidell and Weir (2000) state similarly, but
less catastrophically, that “Renewable energy is always extracted from a flow of energy.
The energy is then returned to the environment, so thermal pollution can occur on
anything but a small scale.” They continue discussing the benefits of renewables
“Likewise, material and chemical aspects of pollution in air, water and refuse tend to be
minimal.”
9
Humanity’s use of solar energy is dates as far back as the 7th century B.C. (U.S. DOE
2004) for use in lighting fuels. There are even disputed claims that Greek soldiers used
reflected light from bronzes shield to set fire to enemy ships (ibid.)
Even the specific the specific application of solar energy for water heating is far from
new. Indeed, in 1891 Clarence M. Kemp patented the Climax solar water heater. It
combined the old practice of painting metal tanks black with “the principle of the hot
box, thereby increasing the tank’s ability to collect and retain solar heat.” (Butti and
Perlin 1981). A market developed and solar water heaters became very popular. In pre-
World War II America the heater became quite popular and federal programs supported
the market. “With an FHA (Federal Housing Administration) Home Improvement Loan
a homeowner could buy a solar heater at 4 percent interest in installments of only $6 a
month, with no money down. With monthly payments lower than normal utility bills for
an electric water heater, people started saving money right after buying a solar
unit.”(ibid.). Rising copper prices and labor costs caused the market to dwindle after the
Second World War and after the late fifties the California and Florida markets were
largely dead.
The oil shocks of 1973 gave boosts to solar water heater markets in Japan and Australia
(Perlin 2004). Also, the Israeli oil boycott, which followed the Yom Kippur War, caused
a boom in Israel. Interesting, the greatest success in soalr water heating has been for pool
heating, the first design originating from American Freeman Ford. In the United States
pool heaters produces the energy equivalent of 10 nuclear power plants (ibid).
The solar water heater market in the United States also experienced a boom after 1973
bust experienced a bust again in1985 (Hoffman et al 1998)
10
2.7 The Austrian DIY solar thermal movement: Origin and spread
In the early nineteen eighties two skilled amateur inventors from the Styria region in
Austria “… a fruit farmer and a technical engineer..” (Ornetzeder and Rohracher 2003)
developed a self-build technique for constructing solar thermal water heaters. The
system was designed with to meet the needs and fit with the abilities of the rural
population, who were otherwise outside of the solar heater market. The motives for
designing the system were well developed:
Our primary aim was to build a collector that was inexpensive and easy to build
for every one of us. Having become aware of the finiteness of natural resources,
we also aimed at avoiding all material waste in constructing the collector. Other
important aspects were the saving of energy, environmental protection, and
community building. Every body was expected to build their own collector in
order to be sufficiently familiar with its function. (Hodl and Plesch 1988)
According to Ornetzeder and Rohracher, the building as group fit well with local
lifestyle. “This rural part of Austria, Eastern Styria, is well-known for its wine and fruits.
People of this countryside are used to cooperating at least during the harvest season.”
There was initially one self-build group. Word of mouth of positive experiences with
self-build led to increased demand and two more groups were formed in 1984.
“From 1986 onwards, the self-build group leaders met on a monthly basis to discuss the
advantages and drawbacks of different types of systems.” (Ornetzeder and Rohracher)
11
The leaders order parts in bulk, which lowered costs. Feedback was used to refine the
design of the system (e.g. using a one piece pipe instead of one that needed to be
soldered). Experimentation led to the discovery that the solar system could also be used
for space heating. Stryian self-builders from 1986 onwards were producing as many or
more solar collectors as all of the commercial builders in the country combined.
In 1988 The Association for Renewable Energy was formed (AEE) to promote the
movement in a more institutional way. “As an official representative of the solar system
self-build movement, the AEE was able to receive public funds. Self-build and assembly
procedures were optimized, technical and organizational material prepared … and was
supported by the Ministry of Environment, Youth and Family Matters.” (Fink and Blumel
2002)This enabled the AEE to do their work on both a broader and more stable
basis.”(Ornetzeder and Rohracher). The AEE set up regional offices throughout the rest
of Austria and the movement “found followers in neighbouring countries such as
Switzerland, the Czech and Slovak Republics, and Slovenia.”(ibid.). “… in Northen (sic)
parts of Italy, do it yourself have played and are playing a certain role.” The Inco-
Copernicus program is support efforts by the AEE to promote the transfer of solar
technology to the Baltics and there is “…An information campaign financed by a
bilateral Austrian-Slovenian project, offering solar information and consulting for solar
DIY construction systems by "Bauinstitut" Ljubljana for 3 years, completing 30 to 50
solar installations a year.” (Schwarzler 2005). The AEE even has cooperation projects
with Zimbabwe and Uganda. Schwarlzer also states that the DIY system is used by
“professional installers” in Hungary.
12
According to Fink and Blumel “…demand for ‘do-it-yourself’ system declined more
and more…” due to improvement in the distribution networks of commercial producers.
Fink and Blumel do not use statistics to illustrate that point so it is unclear whether they
mean an absolute decline in demand or a decrease in market share. Fink and Blumel’s
aim was to describe the Austrian solar market as a whole and not DIY.
Both Ornetzeder and Rohracher as wells as Fink and Blumel fail to paint the whole story
of the spread of DIY in Austria. There appears to be a slowing down of the DIY
diffusion innovation. The two articles did not intend to be diffusion studies but in
absence of a true diffusion study they are closest thing we have.
Rogers suggest that diffusion studies take samples of diffusion at multiple stages of the
process. Ornetzeder and Rohracher seem to do a good job of this for the early adoption
and growth face but not for the market decline and Fink and Blumel describe the decline
in a vague (for our purposes) manner. A coherent study of the “rise and fall” so speak
would be useful.
2.8 The Hungarian Scene
Three aspects of the literature on solar in Hungary are examined here: potential, energy
issues and experience with DIY solar water heating.
2.8.1 Solar potential in Hungary
Hungary has a large potential for making use of solar. “Those areas where the summer is
longest i.e. the region between the Danube and the Tisza rivers as well as the
13
southeastern lowland of the country enjoy … 2050 to 2100 hours of sunshine a year,
while the western parts of Trandanubia, in sub-alpine areas in the north of the country,
the amount may fall below 1800 hours a year… The relatively favorable radiation and
atmospheric conditions are also of great significance to tourism…” (Bernat 1989).
2.8.2 Energy issues in Hungary
Writing in 1997 the EIA reported that Hungary’s energy market is made up largely of
fossil fuel inputs, the greatest of these being natural gas which makes up 38.3 percent (9.7
Mtoe) of Total Primary Energy Supply (TPES), follow by oil and coal. Nuclear accounts
for 14.4% of TPES . The EIA predicts that Hungary will become increasing reliant on
imports, coming from Russia and Ukraine. Gas prices are subsidized in Hungary and
regulations keep prices below costs.
2.8.3 The Hungarian experience with DIY
In Hungary, a non-profit initiative “…based on the Austrian ‘Do-it-Yourself Construction
Method…This method decreases the installation costs by 50 % compared to conventional
methods.” (Palfy 2005). The initiative operates out of centers in
Esztergom(Environmental Culture Association), Pecs (Green Circle), Nyiregyhaza (EKA,
Energy and Environment Foundation) and Gomorszollos (Ecological Institute
14
Foundation). These centers provide basic equipment and expert advice for those seeking
to build their own solar heaters.
An OPET Energy Centre Hungary representative (A. Monoki) made a presentation in
Warsaw on May 6, 2002 entitled “Experiences in the Do-it-yourself collector building in
Hungary, specially considering the ‘NIMFEA’
Nature Conservation Association.” (Anonymous 2005A) I was not able to find the text of
that presentation, however a summary was published which states: “The organization
NIMFEA is engaged, among others, schooling the volunteers on building and installing
solar collectors DIY method. There are seven such centres places in different parts of the
country. The cost of simple collector made by DIY methods …(about 170 EUR).”
2.6 Reasons for Success
There tend to be similar ideas about why DIY was successful in Austria . The AEE list
the following reasons the for the its success in Graz:
Area's relative poverty and the widely-dispersed population (need for cheap
heating systems), the high proportion of pluriactive people (in general, such
people with multiple skills can learn how to construct a system in a short time); a
strong tradition of village solidarity helped the “group dynamics”; active support
from the Land authorities, who have provided financial support for installing
these solar-based systems since 1990, most often in the form of low-interest
credit. (AAE 1996)
15
2.7 Policy support for DIY In Austria
“If renewables are to achieve … prominence in world energy .. coordinated
national and international programs are needed to promote institutional and technological
innovations.” (Johansson et al 1992).
In 1995, the city of Graz adopted a programme entitled “Okostadt 2000- Agenda
21 – the path to sustainable development (Energy Cites 2003). “The programme includes
an assessment of the local situation, directives for the political environment and
principles for sustainable urban development… The program’s goal is to switch from a
protective and curative policy for natural environments to a bolder preventative approach
based on economic and social considerations.” The assessment resulted in the
identification of nine action areas, called action plans in the document, the ninth being
“Energy and protection of climate.” The design of a community energy plan, the
Kommunales Energiekonzept Graz or Municipal Energy Concept (KEK), was key feature
of the action plan.
The Municipal Energy Concept (KEK) for the city of Graz, under its Solar
Initiative programme, sets out a goal for solar thermal heater installations for the years
2000 and 2010 under the policy existing framework 17,000 m2 and 67,000m2
respectfully and of 24,000 and 200,000 if new frameworks are put in place. The KEK
plan also lists actions to promote to the use of solar thermal heater for water systems and
“…development of the execution of the Do-It-Yourself building of solar
installations.”(Papousek, Kirchpal and Lesch 1997). However what concrete actions “…
develop of the execution…” entails is not explained.
16
“The ‘Solar Initiative’ action programme is a vast programme for the distribution
of solar panels aimed at direct thermal exploitation of solar energy. Solar initiative
activities include the following: Modular system of assembly of solar installations with
specialist groups providing assistance for assembly for user…” (Energy Cites 2003)
AEE, along with the Austrian Energy Agency (EVA) and eight other Austrian
Organization, are members of the Organisations for Promotion of Energy Technologies
(OPET) Network. OPET’s goal is to “promote European energy technologies across the
EU and thereby to reduce global warming” (OPET Network 2005).
2.8 Summary
The spread of solar water heating technology be means of the DIY system in Austria was
impressive. The technique had unique benefits such as low cost, a great deal of user-
input into innovation. The movement became institutionalized, which allowed it to
spread throughout and spread across and beyond Austria. Institutionalization allowed it
to receive public support and funding and its inclusion into larger frameworks such
Agenda 21. DIY solar water heating’s ultimate potential for dissemination is unclear
There is no definitive text on the DIY solar movement and its potential. This may be due
to its quick rise and decline. The period immediately after a phenoma’s decline is the
time when it is of least interest, it is temporarily “out of fashion”. It seems to be between
two windows of opportunity for being a subject of study by academics. The first would
have been as an exciting “new” innovation, the second as an interesting, historical
subject. The possibilities for the use of DIY in other countries, where the market for
17
solar heaters is not yet developed (i.e. costs are still high), are evidenced by the interest
that Austria and the AEE have shown in spread their techniques around the world. That
being the case, this thesis will attempt to pull together the disparate information that
exists on the subject in a whole, which is useful for those interested in dissemination of
solar energy practices.
18
3. Methodology
This thesis is an exploratory study of the diffusion of a particular technology. As such
several types of data are relevant, both qualitative and quantitative. Since the author’s
background is in social sciences emphasis will be placed on the social factors that
contribute to the success or failure of distribution but of course relevant economic and
technological data should be included.
The author’s goal is to try and paint a picture of the historical spread of DIY solar
technology in Austria and Hungary and identify barriers to its areas for future research.
As such a modified grounded theory approach will be used. Certain techniques from
grounded theory are particularly useful such as coding and the use inductive analysis.
The main modification of derivation from strict ground theory will be the use of some
degree of deductive approach. Instead of approaching the subject, from an analytical
“blank slate” approach, theories such as diffusion of innovation will be applied from the
get-go. The aim is to construct some type coherent whole as quickly as possible, since
data is scattered and sparse.
Research will consist of a literature review including relevant academic articles and
books as well as news articles, interviews with experts, important promoters of DIY and
participants in DIY projects. As possible, efforts to participate in DIY projects first-hand
or, at least, to observe the end results.
In the end, this research project should serve as a springboard for researchers who may
wish to look deeper into the topic. The thesis will identify what aspects of the DIY
19
movement are likely candidates for future research. Towards this end, this research will
be as multi-layered as possible, from discussions with analyst to first-hand examination
of the process. Using a variety of approaches will allow a more three-dimensional view
of the subject. The author agrees with the sentiment expressed by Webb et al (2000):
Today, the dominant mass of social science research is based on interviews and
questionnaires. We lament this over upon a single fallible method. Interviews and
questionaires intrude as a foreign element into the social setting they would
describe, they create as well as measure attitudes, they ellicit atypical roles and
responses, they are limited to those who cooperate… But the principal objection
is that they are used alone.
Similarly, as Creswell (2003) states when describing methodological pragmatism “For
many… instead of the methods being important, the problem is most important, and
researchers use all approaches to understand the problem.”
3.1 Data collection methods
A literature was conducted to gather information about dissemination, potential barriers
and the current status of the DIY movement. Though some broad information was
available, much the subject is still unexamined. Often it is buried in articles about other
topics. This posed difficulties in obtaining a clear picture of what occurred. For
example, statistics for the number of solar water heaters installed each year was available
only up till the mid-nineties.
20
Interviews were semi-structured with specific questions about the interviewee’s
experience with or knowledge of the DIY movement. As much as possible interview
question were tailored to the expertise and background of the interviewees (See Appendix
A). Interviews are useful sources of information in themselves, as ways to supplement
and fill in the holes in the spotty literature and to identify other potential interviewees and
literature on the topic.
3.2 Data analysis methods
The primary tool used for analysis of data will be diffusion of technology theory.
Information gathered in the research will translated into and analyzed using the
terminology of diffusion theory.
In identifying potentials and barriers, coding will be used to create analyzable data. Data
was coded into broad categories of relevance such as economics, social, policy,
technological. Once this is done, then factors which contribute to the success or failure
of DIY in Austria and Hungary can be identified.
3.3 Access and Power
Although the topic is not a controversial one and in general, all those with whom the
researcher has spoken expressed enthusiasm it is worth questioning that access to experts
would probably easier to obtain the higher the research is in the academia.
21
Language can be both an enabling and limiting factor in research. Much of the material
on DIY was available in both German and English. The researcher has a reading
knowledge of German and thus was able to supplement his knowledge with German.
Also, having an introductory level of Hungarian proved useful when intrepreting certain
documents and websites. The status of English as the unofficial language of the
European Union and perhaps even the globe gives English speakers access to a great deal
of information in other countries.
3.4 Mobility and Technology
Interviews took place in Vienna, Austria, Budapest, Hungary as well as the NIMFEA
office in Turkeve, Hungary and the Esztergomi Kornyezetkultura Egyesulet in
Esztergom, Hungary. The researcher lived in Budapest and use rail to reach these
destinations. Interviews were taped and written notes were taken simultaneously
22
4. Theoretical Framework
This section will introduce the concepts and terminology of diffusion of innovations. The
focus of this theory is on social framework in with innovations spread and the way in
which agents and actors within the society spread them. All of the information in this
section is derived from Rogers “Diffusion of Innovations” (2003 edition).
The process by which an innovation, a new idea, is communicated through certain
channels over time is diffusion. Communication is a process by which participants create
and share information with each other. Rogers reiterates the definition of diffusion in
order to focus on its four elements innovation, communication, time and social system.
Part of the charm of the theory is its ability to describe complex phenomena by separating
the information into discrete elements. Following that example each element will be
described in a different sub-section of this chapter.
4.1 Innovation
Since diffusion of innovation theory is concerned with human behavior, an innovation
need not “objectively” new in order to qualify as an innovation, only new to the
individual who is exposed to it. Like most diffusion studies, this thesis will analyze a
technological innovation. A technology can consist of hardware, the physical or material
embodiment of a technology, and software, its information base. Rogers equates
software with information and states that some innovations consist entirely of
information “Marxism… Christianity, a news event and a policy such as a no-smoking
ordinance.” Any given technology can be part of a technology cluster, a group of closely
related technologies.
23
What attributes an innovation are perceived to have are useful for understanding their rate
of adoption. These attributes are relative advantage, compatability, complexity
trialability and observability. Relative advantage is the degree of perceived superiority an
innovation has to the one that preceded it. Compatability is the consistency with
“existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters.” The degree to which
an innovation is perceived as difficult to use and understand is its complexity. The term
triability describes to what degree the innovation may be experimented with on a limited
basis. Observability is the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to
others.
Re-invention is the degree to which an innovation is changed or modified by a user.
Although some innovations can not be re-invented, Rogers uses the example of hybrid
corns which hold a gene for only one generation allowing farmers.
4.2 Communication Channels
Two types of communication channels are described mass media channels and
interpersonal channels. Mass media channels are means of transmitting messages which
enable one or a few individuals to reach an audience of many. Interpersonal channels are
the face-to-face-exchange between two or more individuals. Interactive media such as
internet chat rooms, although not belonging to a formal category in diffusion theory are
recognized as playing an important role in recent decades.
Also important to understand diffusion with a network is the degree of similarity or
difference between individuals. Homophily, is the degree of similarity between
24
individuals in certain attributes. Heterophily, is the degree of difference in certain
attributes. Heterophility of participants is one of greatest obstacles to diffusion.
4.3 Time
Time is involved in diffusion in the innovator-decision process, the innovativeness of
individuals compared with others and an innovations rate of adoption within a system.
The innovation-decision process has five main steps knowledge, persuasion, decision,
implementation and confirmation. Knowledge occurs when the individual first becomes
aware of the innovation. Persuasion occurs when an individuals forms an opinion
towards the innovation. Actions that an individual engages in to accept or reject an
innovation are the decision step. Implementation begins with the use of the innovation.
Confirmation occurs when the individual either confirms or reverses a previous decision.
The innovation-decision period is the amount of time required to pass through innovation
design process. The process results in either acceptance, the decision to continue, or
rejection, the decision not to adopt.
Time is also important in measuring innovativeness, the degree to an individual adopts
new ideas relatively early compared with other members of a social system. Based on the
amount of time required to adopt an innovation individuals can be placed in adopter
categories which include innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and
laggards.
Rate of adoption is the relative speed by which innovations are adopted in a system. This
refers not so much to individuals but rather that of the social system.
25
4.5 Social System
Rogers defines a social system as “ a set of interrelated units that are engaged in joint
problem solving to accomplish a common goal.” These units can be either groups or
individuals. The arrangement of these units is the systems structure. Norms are the
standard of behavior for member of a social system.
Opinion leadership is the degree of that an individual is able ot influence the opinions
and behavior of other members of the social system. An opinion leader is not necessarily
the most innovative member of society, but rather models for behavior of other members
of a society. Change agents attempt to influence innovation-decisions in the direction
desired by a change agency. Consquences are the changes that occur as a result as a
result of adopting or rejecting an innovation.
26
5. Findings
This section will describe the results of interviews as they relate to three topic
areas the diffusion of the solar water heaters in Austria, attempts to reproduce the
phenomena outside Austria and the use of DIY in Hungary. Also included is an
evaluation of economic factors to determine for DIY to succeed in Hungary.
5.1 The Austrian Scene
A more focused picture of how DIY was promoted during its heyday was obtained
through interviews. Know-how carriers were invited by interested communities to make
presentations about DIY. Self-build projects were then organized (per. comm.
Ornetzeder 2005). Some research had been done within Austria which has documented
the success of the DIY solar water heater movement and analyzed what kind of
preconditions were necessary for its, however no follow work up has been done (per.
comm. Schwaerzler 2005).
Interviewees who were acquainted with the Austrian Do-it-Yourself solar heater
movement agreed that it has essentially run its course. In the mid-nineties the number of
heater being installed in Austria each year began declining while the number of
commercially manufactured solar heaters increased (per comm. Hackstock 2005,
Ornetzeder 2005, Roharacher 2005).
Unpublished statistics (Faninger 2005) show, numerically, the decline of the significance
of DIY in Austria. The peak year for the self-built solar heaters in Austria was 1992.
27
The AEE is no longer focused on promoting solar water heaters. When asked what
caused the declined experts cited an increase in market supply and a decrease in prices
(per. comm. Ornetzeder 2005, per. comm Hackstock 2005). Both researchers
emphasized the increase in supply as being the motivating factor for consumer to choose
commercial systems but were less certain as to what influence the decrease in prices had.
In a phone conversation on July 27th, Ornetzeder explained that the establishment of a
firm which dealt in solar water heaters on a national level in Austria reduced the need for
Figure 2. Rise and Fall of the Austrian Do-it-yourself movement. Source Faninger 2005
28
self-build groups, as well demand for higher efficiency collectors than those which could
be made by the self-build groups.
Analysis of the Austrian DIY movement by experts such as Ornetzeder, Rohracher, and
Hackstock contain similar ideas as to what contributes to the success of DIY. Social
cohesiveness and industriousness of resdients in Eastern Styria and later
institutionalization and funding which allowed for the movement’s spread into other
Austrian Bundeslander.
5.2 The spread beyond the borders
Researchers within Austria are skeptical about the possibility of promoting the DIY solar
movement in Eastern Europe. In conversation on the seventh of June, 2005 Roger
Hackstock said that he and other researchers were highly optimistic about the
transferability of the movement in 1991 but after ten years on the subject felt that it may
have been unique. The social mileu in Eastern Styria was favorable. ”They produced the
collectors together. You had to have the industrialization in the blood but living in a
farmers mileu…(it won’t work)…in eastern Turkish farms. High organization,
purchasing together. It doesn’t fit to any [other] culture.”(per. comm. Hackstock 2005).
Attempts have been made to use DIY as a mean of promoting renewable energy in all the
countries surrounding Austria (per. comm. Schwarzler 2005) as well as Eastern European
countries such as Bulgaria and Lithuania. Schwarlzer states that none of these attempts
have achieved the kind of “critical mass” that was hoped. Several factors seem to
contribute to what seems to be the lack of success outside of Austria. Schwaerzler
29
attributes to lack of information in native languages, a lack of social cohesiveness at the
community level i.e. outside the family unit, a developed solar commercial market and
low gas prices in the east may be contributing factors. Schwarlzer’s consulting firms has
worked with technology transfer and making available information on renewables in
languages such as Bulgarian.
5.3 DIY in Hungary: Self-build Workshops
Attempts at using DIY as a way of making solar heating affordable in Hungary has been
the made through NIMFEA organization in Turkeve and the Esztergomi
Kornyezetkultura Egyesulet (EKE) in Ezstergom. A comprehensive examination of all
DIY activites in Hungary is not available and due to a lack of the ability to speak
Hungarian, the researcher was not able to contact other organizations which may be
doing self-build.
5.3.1 DIY in Hungary: Turkeve
At the NIMFEA Nature Conservation Association (NIMFE) organization a workshop
have been made available to those interested in building their own solar heaters. In the
workshop are a special table for bending the copper pipes into the proper shape, a
welding table and a metal rack on which the pipes cool after welding. According the
representatives I spoke with, two people can build a solar heating unit in about two days.
30
Only twelve people have actually built solar heater systems using the workshop, which
has been available since 1997. When interviews were conducted in June and July of
2005, no collectors had been built in the workshop that year.
When asked what possible reason could be given for these disappointing (relative to the
Austrian experience) results, the NIMFEA representative attributed it mainly to an
increasing lack of free time for Hungarians.
In regards to what would be required in order to enhance the spread of DIY, a full-time
representative(s) who could go from town to town would be needed.
5.3.2 DIY in Hungary: Esztergom
At the Esztergomi Kornyezetkultura Egyesulet (EKE), a mile and a half by train outside
of Budapest, a Do-it-yourself educational workshop is held four times yearly. The
organization reports that their workshop attracts 10 to 15 people per workshop.
Participants are charged a nominal fee of 2000 HUF. In total, over a hundred and ninety
people have attended the workshops (Ledzenyi 2005).
The workshop is run as a weekend course. The goal is not to build the collector at the
workshop but rather to show how the collector is built. The EKE makes available the
special tools, such a special turning table (See Figure 2), blow-torch and soldering table
(piping is solder on to a copper plate [See Figure 3]) for participants who would like to
follow-up.
31
When asked how many of the participants are women the project manager replied out of
“ten or fifteen people at a workshop, one or two.” Participants are of all ages but tend to
be higher-income brackets and have some technical background.
The organization estimates the building costs of the collector as being around 40,000
HUF and the all around costs for a heating system (including water tank, heat pump and
regulator) at 500,000 HUF.
Figure 2 Bending copper tubing using special turning table. EKE workshop. Photo taken by Monika Pacziga
Figure 3 Tubing soldered onto a copper plate. Same location. Photo: Monika Pacziga
32
When asked how long is required for the participants to build their systems, the EKE
representative replied it would take ten people two days to make five collectors
In terms of policy support the EKE representative made reference to a 30% subsidy for
home improvements that was discontinued last year. He appeared to be referring to the
Szechenyi Plan although he seemed uncertain on that point. The organization must apply
to the Hungarian government. Each years funding is contingent on the success of their
application.
5.4 DIY in Hungary: Workshop participants
Peter Marton was a participant in the Estergom workshop who lives in the outskirts of
Budapest. An engineer by trade, he had been interested in the idea of obtaining a solar
heater for his house by either buying or building a system. He had done his own cost-
benefit analysis and estimated that with a solar system which provides 65 percent of his
homes hot water needs (the rest supplemented by gas). Peter created an itemized list of
construction costs (See Appendix B) and estimated the pay back time would be
approximately eleven years.
Peter Marton’s wife was supportive of the project. Neighbors showed interest in his
project and showed interest in investing in their own systems but were intimidated by the
cost and the skill involved.
Peter initially stated that his motive for building the system was that of personal interest
in solar heating and technology, as a “hobby”. He relented after he was asked to rank the
33
top reason for choosing to build a system listing economics as the first reason, “hobby”
interest as the second, and environmental concern as the third.
When asked what pay-back period for a system would be too long to justify the
investment in a solar system he replied that 10 years was in his comfort range and that 15
years was his personal limit. In other words if the pay-back period was longer than 15
years he most likely would not have chosen to invest in a system.
Peter already had a 240 liter hot water tank. To install his system he added piping and
altered his roof so the collector was part of the roof and not simply attached on it. He had
pre-estimated the cost of the equipment and materials required for the project and
estimated that all told they would come to 195,000 Forints. His yearly gas charges which
he be attributed to water heating were 27,315 ft per year. A 65 percent saving is 17754
which goes into 195,000 about 10.9 times.
Marton created his own blueprint for the system. He used the Esztergom workshop more
for collecting information and to help him in his decision as to whether to go ahead with
his project than to learn how to build a system. He felt the specific design used at
Esztergom was apt to run into problems in five or ten years time and attempted to design
his in such a way that he would not have to make repairs in the near future. Peter also
made use of the Esztergom workshop’s turning table (see graphic) to bend the copper
piping which goes inside the collector.
Marton attended the Esztergom workshop in March , worked on weekends and had only
recently finished his project when he was interviewed in July. He was aided by his father
and father-in-law.
34
When asked about the role of government subsidy he said that there were no government
subsidies but that subsidies had existed “three years ago” for home improvements such as
insulation.
5.5 Hungarian self-build projects by individuals
Marton informed me, that he was aware of another individual in his town who had built
their own solar system in his village. We sought this individual out and stopped at a
house which had a solar heater on the roof. With Marton serving as an interpreter, the
individual who will remain anonymous and referred to as Mr. A, was briefly interviewed
(the visit was unannounced and so décorum required brevity).
Mr. A had built his system three years before. He had purchased the 3 collector units
form Naplopo, a solar collector dealer centered in Budapest. He installed the piping
himself. He was an electrical engineer and appeared to be around fifty or more years of
age.
When he had built his system, Szechenyi fund were available to subsidize costs. His
system cost about 300,000 Ft of which 30% was subsidized leaving him with 200,000 ft
in end costs.
Mr. A informed us that he was aware of another individual in the village who had built
their own system. He was uncertain of the exact address but gave the approximate
location. Marton and I found the house, much as we had found the first, by looking for a
roof with a heater. We knocked on the house’s door, explain the nature of the research
and were invited inside.
35
The individual at the second home, who will referred to as Mr. B, was also an engineer
by profession. B’s motivation in building the heater was primarily personal interest
(followed by economic and environmental concerns). He has also felt that at the time
when he built his it was an opportune time to build, because as he claimed a friend of his
could offer a “special discount”. His system cost 600,000 Forints including the cost of
a 250L water tank which would cost 150,000 Forints by itself. B had not done an
economic evaluation of the pay-back period for the heater. The cost of the system did not
seem to be a major issue to him.
B’s “can-do” spirit was evident even in the design of his home. B had done a major
landscaping on his property. He had purchases small boulders from local inhabitants and
and used the boulders to reinforce the hillside underneath which his house lay. A guest
house was built alongside the hill and the stone wall continued into the bathroom, giving
the room a unique cave-like appearance. B mentioned that professionals had told him
incorporating the wall into this house would lead to problems, warning which he
disregarded. B is a clear innovator carrying out innovative projects in the face of
resistance from authoritative sources (such as professionals)
Mr. B exhibited cosmopolite qualities, he was well travelled throughout Europe and
spoke English quite fluently and with only a slight accent (which seemed to indicate that
he used English on a frequent basis for international work).
5.6 Hungarian solar thermal market
36
Jula Schill is the owner of a thermal collector company that operates out of Csepel Island
in Budapest. While on holiday abroad, he first noticed saw a collector in a showroom
and contacted the U.K. dealer. He set up a solar heater in a company shower and said
that he observed he observed high energy savings. He began dealing in solar heaters and
made a very successful demonstration at the Hungaro Expo.
His company arranges exports through a representative in Croatia and is looking for a
representative in Transylvania. He has an engineering background and has worked in
Iran Iraq and Kuwait.
Schill’s business is family run and has four employees in Hungary including him and his
wife. The firm keeps a little of contacts interested in solar collectors and has stop
advertising in mass media, believing that demonstrations are more effective. Schill even
posited the theory that advertising is ineffective in Hungary, as compared with countries
like America. Schill stated that many of his clients became aware of his firm through the
Zoldtech website.
Schill characterized his customers as generally being in there forties. He estimates that
thirty percent are women.
E is the owner of a security equipment dealership, whom the researcher spoke with him.
While on vacation in Greece, he had observed solar water heaters and eventually became
involved in selling solar water heater systems in Hungary. The heaters he sells are Greek
made. E described his customers as mainly middle-class individuals in their forties, who
were in the process of buying new homes.
37
5.7 Hungarian policy support and gas prices
Beginning in 2000, subsidies were available under the Energy Saving Program of the
Szechenyi Plan which would cover up to 30% of home improvement costs. In 2004 and
2005 subsidies were no longer being given. Mr. C, (per comm. 2005) a representative of
the Magyar Energia Hivatal (MEH) stated that funds were no longer available but alluded
to the fact that funds may be available in the future.
Approximately 80% of Hungarian homes use gas for heating. In a formal interview on
the 28 of July, 2005 Mrs. G, an expert on energy prices estimated that the average
Hungarian uses about 3000 cubic meters of gas a year, 1200 of which is used for water
heating. Mr. D (per. Comm) confirmed 40% water heating use estimate.
When asked to conjecture on the possibility of the establish of a distinct government
office for renewable energy, Mrs. G was skeptical, explaining that there was little interest
in renewable in general and that increased to the subject was unlikely given that the
government was already downsizing the workforce at her office.
5.8. The payback period for DIY solar heaters
The Hungarian Energy Office (Magyar Energia Hivatal, MEH) list the average standing
charge for a gas connection as being 4030 forints (HUF) per year. A representative from
MEH estimates a Hungarian household of four people will use about 3000 m3 of gas a
year, roughly 40% of which goes towards water heating. Gas is priced (after VAT taxes)
at a 46.5 HUF per m3 e for the first 1500 m3 used and 51.48 for the next 1500 m3. Thus
a Hungarian household that uses 3000 m3 will pay 151000 forints (69750 for the first
38
1500 m3 plus 77220 for the second) per year. 60400 (forty percent of 151000) forints
goes towards water heating. Let us estimate an average house size of four people.
NIMFEA’s and the EKE’s representatives estimate that solar water heaters can provide
for approximately 60% of hot water needs. Assuming this to be true, a solar water heater
can provide a savings of 36240 HUF a year. A self-built collector such as the one Peter
Marton made (costing, in total, 195,000) would have a pay-back time of about five and a
half years. (See Figure 1)
ConsumptionAverage yearly gas consumption four person house
3000 m3
Costs HUF
Standing charge 4030Price first 1500 m3 69750Price second 1500m3 77220
Average yearly gas bill 151000Percentage of gas use for water heating *
40%
Yearly cost to heat 60400Percentage of hot water from solar heater * 60%
Yearly saving by using solar heater **
36240
* This is an estimated figure** Since percentages of gas used for water heating and the efficiency/effectiveness of heaters varies this number this number is only an estimateTable 1. Yearly saving on gas bill for Hungarian family homes. Source of information
used to generate table per. comm. MEH representatives D and G 2005
39
Marton’s self-generated payback estimate was eleven years. His low consumption rate
may be attributed to presence of a wood heater in his house and insulation. Also, the
percentage of gas used to heat water over the last two years was 27%, 13% lower than the
40% estimate.
There is, of course, a difference between real and perceived costs and real and perceived
efficiency levels. The purpose of this evaluation of pay-back period is to determine
whether a consumer would view installing a solar water heater as an economically
beneficial choice. So for this reason, as well as the fact that effectiveness of solar heaters
is highly variable depending on geography and quality of water heater, we will use the
commonly understood 60%, not the more scientific percentages such as can be generated
using Naplopo’s online calculator of water heating effectiveness.
Schill and Tarsa offer a vacuum-tube collector costing 580 Euro per collector. They
recommend two collectors for a household of four, priced at 580 Euro per panel. Prices
are additional necessary equipment such as electrical regulator, circulation pump and
plumbing plus installation costs bringing the final cost to about 780,000 forints. A
system such as this would have a pay back time of twenty-two years, seventeen without a
water tank. Naplopo offers a similar system for 773,750 forints. Estimate the payback
period for a complete system (with a water tank) as being 15 years. The payback period
for the 3000 m3 consumer would be reduced to three and a half years and Marton’s
payback time to a little over seven years.
40
The thirty percent subsidy for home improvements previously available under the Energy
Saving Program of the Szechenyi Plan would change the picture somewhat. The payback
period for a commercial solar heater would be about thirteen years.
The average monthly wage in Hungary in 2004 was 93,783 Forints (ITD Hungary). So a
solar collector built by DIY would represent an investment of two weeks wages. For an
individual earning minimum wage this would be closer to four weeks wages.
Weiss’ comparison (1993) of the payback costs in Austria describe the cost of
commercially built complete systems as being between 80-12,000 Austrian Schilling
(Euro 5354-8788) and 35-40,000 for Self-built systems (Euro 2544-3100). “In 2003 the
median gross annual income of the 3.57 million gainfully employed persons (not
including apprentices) was € 21,709.” (Huber-Bachmann 2005). This equates to a
monthly salary of 1809 Euro. A self build system would require an investment of
between one and two months salary and a commercial system about 4 to 5 month’s
salary. Weiss’s cost calculations include the price of a 500 liter and 6 to 10 meters square
of solar collector.
As noted before Hubacek et al claim the payback period for commercial water heaters in
Austria to have been 44 years for a five person house, 25 years for a new building and 9
years for a self constructed system.
5.9 Comparison of payback periods and their significance
The payback time ratio between a commercial system (without a water tank) in Hungary
and a self-built system in Hungary is a little more than three to one (about 3.14). This is
41
a smaller ratio than the ratio between a commercial system installed in a pre-existing
house and a self built heater (44 years to 9 years or about 4.9 to one) and greater than the
ratio between new buildings and a self-constructed system (25 to 9 about 2.7)(Pay back
period estimates from Hubacek et al 1992). (see Table 2)
Ratio may be deceptive however. The collectors sold by Schill and Tarsa and Naplopo
are vacuum tube collectors which have a higher efficiency rating than flat plat collectors.
Table 2 Costs and payback periods for various solar water heating options. Source of information: per. comm. Marton 2005, A 2005, B 2005, Jula Schill 2005, F 2005
Care must be taken when interpreting payback data, for example, Hubacek et al’s give no
details as to how their calculations were made.
42
6. Discussion, Analysis and Recommendations
This section will consist of discussion of the findings, interpretation of what are the major
obstacles to DIY implementation in Hungary and suggestions as to how they can be
overcome.
6.1 Theoretical Analysis
A do-it-yourself solar heater is embodied as hardware in the collector, the labor used to
construct it, and the material used to construct and design it. The software element
consists of knowledge, such as how to construct a collector unit and how it operates. It is
part of a technology cluster on “general” technology such as water heater tanks, pipes and
technologies closely related to its operation such as heat regulators and construction such
as copper pipes, welding equipment and pipe turning and soldering tables.
The relative advantage of a DIY solar water heater is different depend on what is
considered to be the preceding innovation. It can potential have a long-term cost benefit
compared with conventional gas or electric heaters. If compared with commercial solar
heaters it has a cost advantage in terms of monetary expenses and a disadvantage in terms
of time. When considering the compatibility of the technology it tends to be highly
compatible with existing household needs. On the national policy level, these kind of
technologies which have subtle long-term benefits and which involve renewable energy
do not seem compatible with certain notions of development and how to provide for
energy needs. Solar water heating, in general, is low in complexity. However, the
complexity of construction is high, especially in terms of installation. The researcher, for
43
example, would not feel capable to do the pipe and electrical work that the subjects he
interviewed in Hungary did. In term of home installation of heaters there is no trialability.
However, heaters exhibit a high degree of observability, neighbors can see the heaters, as
can strangers passing by in automobiles, so there is correlation between being use by
some individuals and awareness in others.
There has been a large degree of re-invention involved in the history of construction of
self-build water heaters in Hungary and Austria (Ornetzeder and Rohracher 2003). In
Austria group leaders altered the design of systems based on feedback from participants.
Although the EKE stick firmly by their design (citing cost-effectiveness) the actual
participants, such as Peter Marton, have gone so far as to draw up their own designs and
blueprints and built their own style of heater.
Both mass media and interpersonal communication are important means by which solar
water heating diffuses. Both Marton and Mr. B. used information from the Internet to aid
them in developing their designs. Marton also relied on interpersonal communication to
supplement other information. If a larger sample size of participants who use self-build
could be obtained, it would be interesting to see what are the main sources of information
by which individuals become aware of the innovation. There appear to be a tendency
towards homophily in terms of technology transference. The participants in the EKE’s
workshops tend to be higher- income men with a technical background.
The innovation-diffusion process in our case is one which should be measured in terms of
years. As Peter M. had stated he had been interested in building a heater for years. This
is known as the persuasion stage, doing which he was forming his opinions about the
technology and whether to adopt it. Whatever time he has aware of solar water heating
44
before that was his knowledge stage. His decision stage occurring sometime during
around the time of the Esztergom workshop. Implementation began when he started
construction of the his system which, for him, lasted several months. Peter is now is the
confirmation stage, seeing to what degree the heater will be effective in providing hot
water.
It is not possible to determine at this point in time the ultimate potential for diffusion of
the self-build heater. It is hard to project, given the lack of statistical data what the shape
of the diffusion curve may even look like. The Hungarian interviewees are, however,
definitely somewhere in the innovator or early adopt categories. It is striking to what
degree they match the profile of innovators, highly educated, higher income. Mr. B also
exhibited the cosmopolitan characteristics of innovators.
The Austrian case in contrast was characterized by early adopters who were low-income,
rural farmers. This is atypical of the finding that are reported most diffusion studies
(REF?) and part of what make the phenomena of interest for study by Austrian
researchers.
Is also only possible to conjecture as to the rate of adoption that will occur in Hungary.
In Austria the rate of adoption is best measured in years. The first solar heater was built
by the Styrian inventors in 1979 and the movement was dormant until1983 when 10
heaters were built. Hungary’s limited success so far, if compared to the early years of the
movement in Austria, does not seem off track if one were to look forward to potential
success not necessarily in the next few years, but rather in the next decade or two.
What constitutes the social systems involved in this study can be looked at in different
ways. Austrians and Hungarians can be seen as heterophilous members of the European
45
community or Austria and Hungary can be each themselves two distinct social or ever
smaller units such as regions can be looked at (e.g. Styria and various Bundelander in
Austria). For the purposes of this thesis the most useful size of system to examine is
country.
The representatives in Turkeve and Esztergom who run the DIY workshop are both
change agents, serving the same functions that the AEE and group leaders in Austria did.
The AAE’s technique relied on groups working together while the Hungarian
organizations target individuals. In the AAE’s case a collective decision was required in
order for the innovation to be adopted, while in Hungary individual/collective decision is
required. In Hungary the decision is a hybrid because the decision is made primarily by
an individual but building projects do require some outside help. Though the decision to
begin a project is dependent on one individual, a decision by one or two other people to
help is required (especially during installation i.e. lifting the unit into place)
6.2 Discussion
Self-build techniques can significantly reduce the cost of a solar heater in Hungary (see
section 5.5.1). When care istaken in keeping costs low (the Marton case) the price can be
reduce to nearly one quater the cost of a commercial heater. Even in cases where less
care was taken in finding the least cost options, saving versus the cost of a commerical
system can be achieved (as was the case with B and C).
Attempts to spread the DIY movement beyond the borders of Austria have, especially in
Eastern Europe, not as of yet shown to be successful or at least there is no quantitative
46
evidence of such success. However, since a small town such as Buda Kalas (7900
inhabitants [Vendegvaro no date]) had at least three self-builders, is it not possible that
other innovators like them exist in other parts of the country and their efforts not yet
documented?
There is a perception from both inside and outside Austria that there is lack of social
cohesiveness in Eastern Europe. Assuming this bears some truth, can any country be
monolithic in this respect? Can there be variation within a country or region? It does not
seem appropriate to characterize an entire nation or region as lack community spirit.
Furthermore, social cohesiveness on the community level does not seem to be the pre-
requisite that in was in Austria for all self-build projects. Assistance in installation can be
obtained within the family as was shown in the case of Marton and Mr. B.
There are differences in the degree of knowledge that exists regarding attempts to
promote DIY in Austria and knowledge about DIY in Eastern Europe. There are no
formal studies in countries like Hungary, of the potential for DIY to promote solar water
heating. Emphasis here is on potential. In Austria studies focused on events that had
already taken place, a phenomena that had nearly run its course by the time of the first
study in 1992. Studies in Eastern Europe would be necessarily predictive in nature.
Emphasis in previous research has been placed on the necessary pre-conditions for
dissemination and the method by which the movement was promoted. However,
problem-solving has been discussed as a means to overcome technology problems or to
enhance the usefulness of the technology. Can the Austrian Do-It-Yourself movement be
adapted to fit these contexts?
47
One way to approach the question of promoting a renewable energy, such as solar water,
is to how to make it more accessible for low-income family and communities. One’s first
instinct is to think of ways of “bringing it to the people” such as lowering by using a DIY
or group-build approach and raising public awareness about renewables. Perhaps in the
long run “the people will be brought to the innovation”. The “classic” innovator or early
adopter is male, in his early adult life (20-40s), well-educated (especially with technical
training), relatively wealthy and cosmopolite. If the wealth was better distributed to rural
population or if more women sought out technical degrees, etc, would this create a larger
market for innovations? Rogers (2003) suggest that innovators will tend to be a small
part of any social system. Assuming this is true, is this because of inherent qualities of
human nature or because access to education and wealth is concentrated among certain
segments of society?
6.3 Recommendations: Obstacles and how to overcome them
The following is a list obstacles to using DIY to promoting solar heating in Hungary and
possible solutions
1. Gas prices are low in Hungary due to government subsidies. While it is unlikely
the Hungarian government will cease its subsidization of gas prices in Hungary
simply as a means of creating an incentive for consumers to seek alternative
methods of heating that the International Energy Agency has already suggested
that subsidies be phased out. However, a decrease in subsidies is not likely to
48
find political support, especially considering the uncertainty as to whether suitable
renewable substitutes can replace. Shifting subsidies away from fossil fuels
towards renewables could target the motion of the market in the right direction
better.
It is impractical to simply pull the rug out from under the Hungarian public by
entirely removing subsidies. Once the market for renewables was further
strengthened and alternatives made available to the general public, then the
reducing of subsidies could become a more attractive solution.
Gradual reduction of subsidies could be very effective. A Small reduction year-
by-year would not put undue burden on industry or consumer, yet at the same
time could create an atmosphere of anticipation that prices will increase in the
future, given consumer and industry motivation to explore non-natural gas
sources.
The market is moving in this direction already. Gas prices have been rising in
Hungary and if this continues more and more will seek out alternatives to fossil
fuels. The government should design policies which can help the market to
provide alternatives and enable the consumer to afford these alternative by means
of loans.
2. Awareness of renewable alternatives to fossil fuels should be raised in Hungary,
particularly in government. Information about practical, low-cost alternatives
should penetrate in the sources of information that decision makers use. One
49
future area of research could be communication channels in Hungarian
government concerning renewables and energy.
3. Hungary does not have any national level office for renewable energy. Activities
relating to renewable energy are spread between the Ministry of Energy and
Transport, the Magyar Energia Hivatal and the Ministry of the Environment.
Such an office should be established to coordinate research on, funding for and
implementation of renewable energy and renewable energy projects in Hungary.
Such an office could be set up as independent office or developed in a distinct
entity within the three offices mention before.
4. Workshops are limited in their geographic availability to the target participants
(i.e. Hungarians in rural areas). This problem was overcome in Austria by
“bringing it to the people”. This is the ideal way of reaching isolated
communities. In the Austrian case promoter traveled to the communities and
promoted the technology on-site. Ideally an organization, similar to the AEE,
could serve such a role. Energia Klub recently organized a bio-mass workshop in
the Eastern part of Hungary which was highly successful.
5. In the long-term, people can be “brought to the technology”. If, at the current
time, solar water heaters are too expensive and self-build too complicated for
lower income Hungarians without technical training, then the answer may simply
lie in continuing existing development projects in rural areas and disenfranchised
groups, like Roma, and assuring access to, as well as encouraging pursuance of,
higher education.
50
6. So-called lack of social cohesiveness prevents the same kind of diffusion scenario
as Austria. An Austria renewable energy consultant who works with promoting
low-cost renewable in Central and Eastern Europe claims that there is a lack of
social cohesiveness at the local community level and that cooperation and trust
are contained rather in the family unit. Issues and solutions related to this issue:
(a) Further study of the relationship between technology and the social structure
in Eastern Europe is warranted. (b)While group build projects have advantages
(hands-on education for a variety of individuals, shortened work times, more
enjoyable experience) they are not absolutely necessary. Three Hungarians had
done projects on a solo basis (with some assistance from family members). The
kind of group cohesiveness that was present in Styria does not seem to be a
prerequisite to transferability.
7. No international network of DIY solar heater promoters exists. The creation of
such a network could create a “base” to which enthusiastic renewable energy
promoters who wish to try to promote DIY projects in their home countries can go
to find information. It became overwhelmingly clear doing the research, that
there is a dearth of information on one the Hungarian national level concerning
small-scale renewable energy soruces.
8. Full-time local advocates are necessary. Although economics are an important
influencing factors, so are other factors such as passion for protecting the
environment or excitement for new technologies. Advocates can help create this
“excitement” and, more importantly, by seeking out their target audience find
communities will the correct pre-conditions. When the movement takes hold in a
51
community such as this, a “critical mass” can be reached. Successful trials in one
community, can create confidence in other communities in both the technology
and the organizations which promote it. Problems that exist in particular regions
may be surmounted by adaption of dissemination techniques.
9. There is a dearth of research and information on the potential, or even the current
state, of the solar heating market in Hungary. This, however, leaves the field of
research open for intriguing approaches. One attractive type of research for the
future would be participatory research. Analysis of the Austrian phenomena was
made easier by the presence of a large, tangible movement. Researchers can do
research of the sort where they learn how to build a solar collector, attempt to
involve a community in their home country and then survey the reactions of the
community.
It is high time for an “energy ethnography” such as the type which looks at the
energy lifestyle of Hungarians and the means they use to obtain energy, such as
the type written by Wilhite et al (1996) comparing lighting and heating habits in
Norway and Japan and by Agbemabiese, Berko and Du Pont (1996) concerning
air conditioning in the Tropics. A cross-cultural study of say, Hungary and
Austria (close in geography but different in history, culture and economic
situation) could serve many purposes. Asides from being interesting in its own
right, it could aid the bounding of institutional relationships (between researching
universities, for example) cross-border. For a cross-cultural study, funding could
be obtained from a country in which institutional funds and support are more
readily available. Also, having a side-by-side comparison of similar attributes
52
could bring to light what solitary study can not reveal. “A cross-cultural
comparison can help sort out… complexities” (Wilhite et al 1996) or as Ruth
Benedict (1946) put it “Nothing is more helpful to the anthropologist (and this
could well apply to any social scientist) than to study contrast he finds between
peoples who share many traits.”
A simple version of these cross-cultural studies could make for interesting future
research topics and are operational by students. German is a common second
language for Hungarians to speak (especially for the older generation and in the
West) and so a study of how energy needs are met in Austro-Hungarian villages
by a graduate student is not out of the question.
53
7.1 Summary
The DIY solar heater movement has run its course in Austria. A large number of water
heaters were built using this method and the interest it created prepared the market for the
commercial market. The improved market and its resultant lower costs made the cost
advantage of self-build less significant. Solar water heaters were the right fit for Eastern
Styria and rural Austria. Whether it could be the right fit in Hungary remains to be seen.
Attempts to promote DIY in Eastern Europe (as well as Switzerland and Germany) have
been only have not given evidence of widespread success (although lack of evidence does
not neccesarily indicate evidence of lack). Although theories exist as to why
dissemination has not yet been successful, such as lack of social cohesion and low gas
prices, no formal study has been conducted on DIY in Eastern Europe, and as such, any
conclusions as to whether it can ultimately be successful beyond Austria are premature.
The precondition of large groups willing to work together on a common project, which
were necessary in Austria during the peak of its self-build movement may not necessary
pre-conditions in Hungary. The pre-condition of social cohesion in the Austrian case is
not neccesarily a pre-condition in the Hungarian case since self-build can be almost
entirely by individuals.
Clear obstacles to dissemination in Hungary can be identified including low gas costs,
lack of research which identifies energy needs in rural areas, no centralized renewable
energy office in the Hungarian and a lack of funding for new projects, as well as
uncertain funding for existing ones. Further research, forward looking policy changes, an
overall improvement of the economic situation in Hungary and a problem-solving
54
approach to challenges can pave the way for a second, international, DIY solar water
heater movement.
55
Reference List
Arbeitsgemeinschaft Ernuebauenergie (AEE). 1996. Community development and the
environment: DIY movement - building your own solar-based heating system.
Styria, Austria. AEE
Bernat, T. 1989. An economic geography of Hungary. Budapest. Academia Kiado.
Butti, K. and Perlin, J. 1981. A golden thread. London, Boston. Marion Boyars.
Datta E, Feiler, T. Rabago, K, Lovins, A., Swisher, J. Lehmann, and Wicker, K. 2002.
Small is profitable. Snowmass, Colorado: Rocky Mountain Institute
Energie Cites. 2003. Local Agenda 21 and Energy. Available online at
http://www.energie-cites.org/db/graz_138_en.pdf
Fabias, A., Servant M., Gallo, R., Betlido P., Sotelino, E. Quiles E., Frigiero A.,
Combetto A., Marazzi, M. 1996. Argentina dispersed rural population electricity
supply program. Energy for Sustainable Development. 2 (5)
56
Fink and Blumel. 2002. Soltherm Europe – Market analysis. Soltherm Europe. Available
online at http://www.soltherm.org/download/SOLTHERM%20EUROPE
%20Austria.pdf
Fischer, C. 2003. Users as pioneers: Transformation in the electricity system, MicroCHP
and the Role of the Users. Available online at
http://www.fu-berlin.de/ffu/akumwelt/bc2003/proceedings/319%20-
%20337%20fischer.pdf
Golebiowski, S 2002. Assembling procedure for Solar DHW-Systems. Available online at
http://www.opet-solar.org/datapool/page/1114/Summary.pdf
Hoffman, J, Wells, J. and Guiney, W. 1998. Transforming the market for solar water
heaters: A new model to build a permanent sales force. REPP Renewable Energy
Policy Project Research Report. August 1998. No.4
Hubacek, K. Hackstock, R. Kastner, and O. Ornetzeder M. 1997 Diffusion of Solar Water
Heaters in Austria. In WU Umwelt Reader: Umelt and Wirtschaft an der
Wirtshaftsuniversitaet ed Mag. Dr. Christine Fohler-Norek and Dr. Reinhard
Paulesich. pg. 149-169 Vienna: Verlag Österiech.
Huber-Bachmann. Updated 2005. Personal Income. Available online at
http://www.statistik.at/englisch/results/population/income_txt2.shtml
57
Hungarian Investment and Trade Development Agency (ITD Hungary). 2005. Hungary
2005. Available online at
http://www.itd.hu/itdh/static/uploaded/document/Hungary%202005.pdf
John, T., Kelly, H., Reddy, A. and Williams, R. 1992. Renewable fuels and electricity
for a growing world economy: Defining and achieving the potential. Published in
Renewable Energy. Washington D.C. and Covelo, California.
Lovins, A., Lovins, L., Krause, F. and Bach, W. 1981. Least-cost energy: Solving the
CO2 problem. Andover, Massachusetts. Rocky Mountain Institue
Palfy, E. Solar Collectors in Hungary. Available online at
http://www.zpok.hu/inforse/20.html. Accessed June 21, 2005.
Rogers. E. 2003 Diffusion of innovations. New York. Free Press
Schwarzler, G. 2005. Cross-Border Dissemination of Austrian Solar Do-It-Yourself
Construction System. Available online at http://www.zpok.hu/inforse/19.html.
Organisations for Promotion of Energy Technologies Network (OPET). No date. Untitled
press release. Available online at
58
http://www.opet-network.net/opetnetworkinfo/19992001activities/pdf/OPET-
HUNGARY-644.doc.pdf. Accessed 2005
Organisations for Promotion of Energy Technologies Network. Accessed 2005. Available
online at ftp://ftp.cordis.lu/pub/opet/docs/opet_list.xls and
http://www.cordis.lu/opet/about_opet.htm
Ornetzeder, M. and Rohracher, H. 2003. User-led innovations, participation processes
and the use of energy technologies. ECEEE Summer Study Proceeding.
Stockholm: pg. 1099-1110.
Rudd, B. 2001. Sustainability and photovoltaic technology in Nicarauga. Capstone
project. California State University, Monterey Bay. Available online at
http://essp.csumb.edu/capstone/
Scheer, H. 1994. A Solar Manifesto. London. James and James.
Twidell, J. and Weir, T. 2000. Renewable energy resources. London. E & FN Spon.
United States Department of Energy. 2004. Solar History Timeline: 7th Century B.C. to
1200s A.D. United States Department of Energy. Available online at
http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/solar_time_7bc-1200ad.html
Vendegvaro. No date. Budakalász. Available online at http://www.vendegvaro.hu/5-388
59
Whilhite, H., Nakagami, H., Masuda, Yamaga, Y. and Haneda H. 1996. A cross-cultural
analysis of household energy use behavior in Japan and Norway. Energy Policy.
24 (9): pp. 794-803
Wiess, W. 1993. Successful Dissemination of 160,000m2 solar systems by Do-It-Yourself
Groups in Austria. Gleisdorf, Austria. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Erneubare Energie.
60
Personal Communications
Hackstock Roger. Managing director of Ausria-Solar. Formal interview in Vienna
Austria June 7 and phone interview July 26, 2005.
Ledzenyi, Andras. Representative from the EKE. Formal interview. Esztergom,
Hungary July20, 2005
Monoki, Akos. Nature conservation program lead and renewable energy advisory
NIMFEA nature park. Formal Interview Turkeve, Hungary June 16, 2005
Ornetzeder, Micheal. 2005. Sociologist with the Centrum for Social Innovation. Formal
interview June 7, 2005 and phone interview July 26, 2005.
Rohracher, Harald. director of the Inter-University Research Centre for Technology,
Work and Culture (IFZ) in Graz and research fellow at the Department of
Research on Technology and Science, Faculty for Interdisciplinary Studies (IFF).
Budapest. Formal Interview. April 20, 2005
Schill, Jula. Owner of Tarsa and Schill Bt. a company in Budapest which sells and
installs vacuum tube solar collectors. Budapest. Formal interview July 14, 2005.
61
Schwarzler, Gunther. Involved in the Austrian Do-it-Yourself movement doing its hey-
day. Currently working as consultant with technology transfer from Austria to
Eastern Europe. Formal interview. June17, 2005.
Mr. A. A self-builder. Buda Kalas, Hungary. Interview (with translator) in July 6, 2005
Mr. B. Second self-builder. Buda Kalas, Hungary. Interview in July 6, 2005
Mr. C. First representative from the Magyar Energia Hiatal. Budapest. Formal interview
in July 26, 2005
Mr. D. Second representative from the Magyar Energia Hivatal. Budapest. Informal
interview in July 26, 2005
Mr. E. Owner of a security technology company in Budapest who sells solar systems as
part of retail activities. Buydapestt. Formal Interview July 19, 2005.
Mr. F. Representative of Naplopo, a solar collector dealer. Phone conversation in July
21, 2005
Mrs. G. Representative of Magyar Energia Hivatal. Expert on Gas prices. Budapest.
Formal interview July 28, 2005.
62
Appendix A
Interviews were semi-structured. The nature of the research as exploratory and expertise vary.
Generic Interview Protocol
Opener
“Thanks for taking the time to talk with me …”
“I going to tape our conversation for later reference.”
Personal experience with DIY
“When did you first here about/ get involved with DIY?” “How long …?””What was the nature of your involvement?”
“What have been the positives and negatives of your experience?”(This can apply for anyone)
Topic Areas
Innovation“ How did DIY develop and evolve”(I may already know but I want to get their version)
History/Spread
“ How did DIY spread?” “Why did the EU/Styria regional government /Austrian government decide to adopt it?” (Again even if I already know a version it’s interesting to get their version)
Technology
What equipment/ materials are needed?” ”How specialized are they i.e. are they available everywhere or are some place just to remote to get access to them?”
“How did the solar unit design evolve?”
“Did user input/ user design place a role in the technology’s development?”
Rural Development
63
“Has DIY have any effect on the quality of social, economic or environmental life in the rural areas of Styria/Austria/Hungary/Baltics etc?
Costs/Economics
“What are the costs per 10 m2 of installed solar collector” “What are the material costs?” ”What are the training costs” ”What are the institutional costs?” “How much funding has been devoted on the municipal, regional, national, and EU level” “How much funding would like to see committed to its development or implementation?” “Is the Inco-Copernicus program investing enough or providing enough institutional support”
“As DIY solar became more popular in Austria did unit costs increase or decrease?” ”Did materials cost go up or down?” (How far I go in this particular direction will depend on expertise of the interviewee)
“How did the setting of a conversion standard of 0.7 kWth/m2 come about?” (Who was involved, how why)
Policy
“What sort of policies are in place to support the movement” “Which policies work the best” “Does it differ from region to region?” “What other policies would you like to see?”
Social Capital
Does social capital/ social cohesion playa role is a DIY project’s success?”
Problems/Failures
“To your knowledge has DIY been tried anywhere and proven unsuccessful?” “What were the reasons?” (If uncertain why ask more specific questions such as “Was it too isolated/ too poor/no funding/ lack of social cohesion/ lack of motivation)
Potential
“What do you feel should be the criteria for selecting a region for implementation of DIY?” “What criteria is currently being used” ”What regions/countries fit this criteria?”
“Would a technology like DIY help your country/region/city exploit it’s solar energy potential?” or phrased for a Hungarian expert “Since Hungary has a greater potential for solar energy than many European countries how is it going about exploiting that potential?” “Does DIY fit into the picture?” Closing Questions
64
“Is there anything important that I didn’t ask you about”“Who else should I talk to?”“Can I contact you again?”
Questions were of course adapted to fit the person being interviewed and to address new issues that were discovered during the course of the research, such as the decline of the Austrian Do-it-yourself movement. The following is an example of such an adapted interview protocol.
Preliminary set of research question for Gunter Schwarzler
Personal experience with DIY
How did you become involved with DIY solar?What has been your experience?
Technology Transfer/ Success-failure factors
Though the movement seems to have died out in Austria, the purpose of my research is to ascertain to what degree the technique has for making renewable energy affordable and accessible in Eastern Europe, especially in underdeveloped rural areas. The research will focus, for practical reasons on Hungary, but the experience in any of the CEE is important. Where has the attempt been most successful and least? To what do you attribute this success of failure?
Diffusion methods
Who is the representative of the movement in each country? A local advocate or an international representative, ect? Was information spread through word-of-mouth or through radio advertisements?
Cultural issues/ Suitability
In what ways can the technique or the advocacy thereof be adapted to the character of Eastern Europe?To what degree is language or culture or political climate a relevant factor in the success or failure of the technique in any particular setting?
Policy Support
Though DIY is largely a bottom-up phenomena, top-down support has proven neccesay to expand the geographical reach of the movement (the institutionalization of the AEE, government funding)? What kind of top-down support is available (E.U.,local government, organizations like AEE)? What more would you like to see? What can be done better?
65
The length of interviews was also variable. For example, one interviewee in the Magyar Energia Hivatal, was consulted regarding gas prices and usage. The interviewee professed to having little knowledge of about solar water heater and was definitely not an expert. As a result the interview consisted of four questions.
Interview with Magyar Energia Hivatal representative
Prices
Are gas prices, year by year, generally rising, falling or staying the same each year in Hungary?
Usage
How much gas does the average Hungarian family use? What percentage is used for water heating?
Institutional support
What is the likelihood of the development of a branch of the Magyar Energia Hivatal dedicated to renewable energy sources?
66
Appendix B
Itemized construction costs
The following information was supplied to the author by Peter Marton in the form of an Excel document entitled “kollectorkoltseg”. The document was reformatted in order to fit the thesis document.
Szarufaközönként 4db 2*0,75mKollektoronként: Ft/
kollektor3
kollektorra:4
kollektorra:
Bádog keret 0,75: 1,000 3,000 4,000Hátlap 2mx0,75m 1,728 5,184 6,912
Polikarbonát R10 200x105cm: 6,500 19,500 26,000A61 ALU profil 3,5m 3,500 10,500 14,000
VU10 ALU profil alsó élre 0,75m 375 1,125 1,500
UH10 ALU profil felso élre 0,75m 450 1,350 1,800P11 leszorító gumiprofil 7m 875 2,625 3,500
FG60 alátétgumi 3,5m 1,400 4,200 5,600Kozetgyapot 4cm, 2x0,75m: 2,000 6,000 8,000
0,3 rézlemez 2,5x0,30m: 7,425 22,275 29,700
12x1 lágy rézcso 13m: 7,280 21,840 29,120Fakeret 2x0,80: 300 900 1,200
0 0Összesen: 32,833 97,599 130,132
Hasznos kollektorfelület m2: 1.5 4.5 6.0A sor végére:
A61 ALU profil 2m 2,000VU10 ALU profil oldalsó élekre
2x2m2,000
P11 leszorító gumiprofil 4m 500FG60 alátétgumi 3,5m 800
Összesen: 5,300
Összesen: 38,133 102,899 135,432Ft/m2 kollektorfelület: 25,422 22,866 22,572
67
Saját keretbe 3db 2*1mFt/
kollektor3
kollektorra:
Bádog keret 2x0,9+2m: 3,300 9,900Hátlap 2mx0,95m 2,305 6,915
Polikarbonát R10 200x105cm: 6,500 19,500A61 ALU profil 4m 4,000 12,000
VU10 ALU profil alsó élre 1m 500 1,500UH10 ALU profil felso élre 1m 600 1,800
P11 leszorító gumiprofil 8m 1,000 3,000FG60 alátétgumi 4m 1,520 4,560
Kozetgyapot 4cm, 2x0,90m: 2,200 6,6000,3 rézlemez 1x0,30mx2m: 2,970 8,9100,5 rézlemez 2x0,33mx2m: 8,000 24,000
12x1 lágy rézcso 13m: 7,280 21,840Fakeret 2x1m+2m: 1,200 3,600
41,375 124,125Hasznos kollektorfelület m2: 1.9 5.8
A sor végére:
A61 ALU profil 2m 2,000P11 leszorító gumiprofil 2m 250
FG60 alátétgumi 3,5m 800Fakeret 2m: 600
Összesen: 3,650
68
Összesen: 45,025 127,775Ft/m2 kollektorfelület: 23,451 22,183
Saját keretbe 3db 2*0,9mFt/
kollektor3
kollektorra:
Bádog keret 2x0,9+2m: 3,300 9,900Hátlap 2mx0,9m 2,305 6,915
Polikarbonát R10 200x105cm: 6,500 19,500A61 ALU profil 3,8m 4,000 12,000
VU10 ALU profil alsó élre 1m 500 1,500UH10 ALU profil felso élre 1m 600 1,800P11 leszorító gumiprofil 7,6m 950 2,850
FG60 alátétgumi 3,8m 1,520 4,560Kozetgyapot 4cm, 2x0,90m: 2,200 6,6000,3 rézlemez 3x0,30mx2m: 8,910 26,730
12x1 lágy rézcso 13m: 6,711 20,133Fakeret 2x1m+2m: 1,200 3,600
38,696 116,088Hasznos kollektorfelület m2: 1.8 5.4
A sor végére:
A61 ALU profil 2m 2,000P11 leszorító gumiprofil 2m 250
FG60 alátétgumi 3,5m 800Fakeret 2m: 600
Összesen: 3,650
69
Összesen: 42,346 119,738Ft/m2 kollektorfelület: 23,526 22,174
Rézcsövek 10,000pincei szerelvények 33,000
Fakeret anyag 8,000csavarok 4,000
Polikarbonát és kieg 55,000réz 60,000
bádog 10,000Hoszigetelés 5,600
Rézcsövek 5,000Tágulási tartály 6,800
Összesen: 197,400Összesen/m2: 26,679
70