Critical National Needs in New Technologies:

Efficiency & Renewables

National Academy of SciencesApril 24, 2008

Sam BaldwinChief Technology Officer and Member, Board of Directors

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable EnergyU.S. Department of Energy

Context• Energy-Linked Challenges

• Economy—economic development and growth; energy costs• Environment—local (particulates), regional (acid rain), global (GHGs)• Energy Security—foreign energy dependence, reliability, stability• Scale and Time Constants

• Responses: EERE R&D Activities– Energy Efficiency FY06 App FY07 App FY08 App

• Buildings $ 68.3 $ 104.3 $108.9• Industry $ 55.8 $ 56.6 $ 64.4• Vehicles $ 178.4 $ 188.0 $213.0• Hydrogen $ 153.5 $ 193.5 $211.1

– Renewable Energy• Biomass $ 89.7 $ 199.7 $198.2• Wind $ 38.8 $ 49.3 $ 49.5• Solar $ 81.8 $ 159.4 $156.1• Geothermal $ 22.8 $ 5.0 $ 19.8Total Research $ 689.1 $ 955.8 $1021Total EERE $1162. $1457. $1722

Saudi Arabia 26%Iraq 11Kuwait 10Iran 9UAE 8Venezuela 6Russia 5Mexico 3Libya 3China 3Nigeria 2U.S. 2

U.S. 24.4%China 8.6Japan 5.9Russia 3.4India 3.1Germany 2.9Canada 2.8Brazil 2.6S. Korea 2.6Mexico 2.4France 2.3Italy 2.0

Nations that HAVE oil Nations that NEED oil(% of Global Reserves) (% of Global Consumption)

Source: EIA International Energy Annual

The Oil Problem

Impacts of Oil Dependence• Domestic Economic Impact• Trade Deficit: ~47% of $710B trade deficit in 2007• Foreign Policy Impacts

– Strategic competition for access to oil– Oil money supports undesirable regimes – Oil money finds its way to terrorist organizations

• Vulnerabilities– to system failures: tanker spills; pipeline corrosion; …– to natural disasters: Katrina; …– to political upheaval: Nigeria; …– to terrorist acts: Yemen; Saudi Arabia; …

• Economic Development– developing world growth stunted by high oil prices; increases instability

• Natural Gas?– Russia cut-off of natural gas to Ukraine– Russia provides 40% of European NG imports now; 70% by 2030.

Oil Futures

Oil Sources

• Constraints– Cost– Energy – Water– Atmosphere

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Other

Czech Republic

Poland

South Africa

Germany

Australia

India

China

Former Soviet Union

United States

Coal Reserves World Total: 1,088 Billion Short Tons

Peak Year of ROW Conventional OilProduction: Reference/USGS

0.000

0.020

0.040

0.060

0.080

0.100

0.120

0.140

Mean=2022.669

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20502000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

5% 85.87% 9.13% 2016 2028

Mean=2022.669

Source: David Greene, ORNL

• Resources – Oil Shale

• U.S.—Over 1.2 trillion Bbls-equiv. in highest-grade deposits

– Tar Sands• Canadian Athabasca Tar Sands—

1.7 T Bbls-equivalent• Venezuelan Orinoco Tar Sands

(Heavy Oil)—1.8 T Bbls-equiv.– Coal

• Coal Liquefaction—4 Bbls/ton

Potential Impacts of GHG Emissions• Temperature Increases

• Precipitation Changes• Glacier & Sea-Ice Loss• Water Availability

• Wildfire Increases • Ecological Zone Shifts• Extinctions

• Agricultural Zone Shifts• Agricultural Productivity

• Hurricane Intensity• Sea Level Rise• Ocean pH Decreases

• Human Health

• Feedback Effects Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group 2, “ImpactsAdaptation and Vulnerability”.

Carbon Emissions, Ocean pH, & Coral ReefsHoegh-Guldberg, et al., Science, V.318, pp.1737, 14 Dec. 2007

Climate Change

– “We urge all nations … to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change …”.

– Signed by National Academies’ of Science: Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, U.S.A., 2005.

• Joint Science Academies’ Statement: – “There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.”– “…most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities.”– “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify

nations taking prompt action.”– “Long-term global efforts to create a more healthy, prosperous, and sustainable

world may be severely hindered by changes in climate.”

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2

ElectricityBuildingsIndustryTransport

U.S. Energy-Linked Emissions as Percentage of Total Emissions

New York City during the August

2003 blackout

Kristina Hamachi LaCommare, and Joseph H. Eto, LBNL

Costs of Power Interruptions

Time Constants• Political consensus building ~ 3-30+ years• Technical R&D ~10+ • Production model ~ 4+ • Financial ~ 2++ • Market penetration ~10++ • Capital stock turnover

– Cars ~ 15 – Appliances ~ 10-20– Industrial Equipment ~ 10-30/40+– Power plants ~ 40+ – Buildings ~ 80 – Urban form ~100’s

• Lifetime of Greenhouse Gases ~10’s-1000’s• Reversal of Land Use Change ~100’s• Reversal of Extinctions Never

• Time available for significant action ??

End-use Efficiency Upstream LeverageMotor Drive System Efficiency

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Mining

Genera

tion

T&D

Motor

Coupli

ngPum

p

Thro

ttle Valv

e

Piping

Inpu

t Ene

rgy

Rem

aini

ng

Reducing energy loss in end-use systems has large leverage upstream!

U.S. Energy Consumption

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Qua

ds

U.S. Energy Consumption

U.S. Energy Consumption atconstant 1970 E/GDP

Energy Efficiency

Efficiency; StructuralChange

1970-2003Gas 0.7QRETs 2.1Nucl 7.7Oil 9.6Coal 10.4

Site Electricity Consumption

Source: Building Technology Program Core Databook, August 2003. http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/frame.asp?p=tableview.asp&TableID=509&t=xls

Buildings Energy Use

Space Heating10%

Lighting30%

Water Heating9%

Space Cooling17%

Refrigeration11%

Electronics9%

Appliances7%

Ventilation4%

Computers3%

Space Heating27%

Lighting21%

Water Heating14%

Space Cooling12%

Refrigeration8%

Computers2%

Ventilation3%

Appliances7%

Electronics6%

Total Primary Energy (all fuels)

8.2 quads2400 B kWh 37.6 quads

(2001)

Building EnvelopeWindows, Walls, Floors

Building Systems(“whole-systems”)Design toolsSystem IntegrationBenchmarking(EnergyStar, LEED)

On-Site Power SystemsBuilding Integrated PhotovoltaicsFuel Cells

Building EquipmentSpace conditioningLightsAppliancesSmart Controls

Net Zero Energy Buildings

Reduce total building energy use by 60–70 percentHighly efficient, cost-effective solid-state lighting technologies,

advanced windows and space heating and cooling technologies. Source: BTP

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Year

1972, first oilprice shocks.

1974, California AuthorizesEnergy Efficiency Standards.

1977, first Californiastandards take effect.

Average 1980 model had19.6 Cu. Ft. of capacity, andused 1278 kWh per year.

By 1993, a typical model had 20.1 Cu. Ft. ofcapacity, featured more through-the-door serviceslike ice and water, and used 48% less energy thanthe 1980 models.

1986, Average UEC when firstUS Standard is negotiated(1074 kWh)

1990, First US Standard takeseffect (976 kWh)

1993, Updated USStandard (686 kWh)

LBNL Projections

-9%

-36%

-56%

2001, Second Update ofUS Standard (476 kWh)

Average 1961 model hadapproximately 12 CU. Ft. ofcapacity and used 1015 kWhper year.

U.S. Refrigerator Energy Consumption(Average energy consumption of new refrigerators sold in the U.S.)

Source: LBNL

Buildings R&D Opportunities• Cooling Technologies: Building A/C & Refrigeration (7.5Q—utility peak load);

Industrial A/C & process cooling (~1.6Q); transportation A/C (1.0—vehicle load):– Thermoelectrics; Magnetic Cooling; Dehumidification materials; Heat pumps

and heat exchangersAvoiding HFC refrigerants also reduces GHGs

• Lighting:– LED lighting—additional materials, device structures, phosphors, encapsulants.– Conventional lighting—non-Hg fluorescent lamps; multi-photon phosphors, etc.

• Water Heating: Building water heating (3.6Q); industrial water heating:– Building-Integrated solar water heaters that are low-cost, long-life, freeze-

tolerant, and operate at line pressure. – Low-cost, high reliability electric- or gas-powered heat pump water heaters.

• Building Shells:– Insulants; Phase-change materials for thermal storage– Windows: Electrochromics;

• Others:– Building Intelligence: building-integrated sensors and controls; advanced building

controls; automated continuous commissioning; – Whole Building System Integration: Design tools; Component design/install; – Low-wattage standby devices; low-cost adjustable speed motor drives with integrated

sensors/controllers; selective surfaces for cool roofs, paints; etc.

Buildings Technology Barriers• Buildings sector faces a variety of market frictions/failures, including:

– Consumer Perspective:• Split incentives: owner of building may not pay utilities—paid instead by the tenants—

so that owner has little or no incentive to invest in high efficiency equipment.• Lack of information: The energy performance of a building may not be known,

limiting the ability of the purchaser or user to make an informed investment decision. There are a variety of other shortcomings in information, ranging from difficulty getting reliable, trusted information by the individual to

• Externalities: such as environmental impacts or national security (oil) impacts are generally not fully captured, if at all, in the price/rent of the building and its equipment.

• Capital Cost: consumers are generally more sensitive to first cost than operating cost.• Bundled attributes. Efficiency may be just one consideration among many attributes.• Uncertainties about the new technology may delay consumer adoption.

– Corporate Perspective:• Appropriability of R&D. Corporations may not adequately invest in R&D because it

is difficult to capture the full value of the knowledge gained.• Externalities. Many external costs are not included in the price of energy, limiting

R&D value.• Market Fragmentation may limit the ability of new efficiency technologies to penetrate

or for industry to gather critical mass for conducting the R&D or market development.• Compartmentalization of architects, developers, construction firms, others, fail to

provide appropriate incentives for energy efficiency and limits technology adoption.• Economies of scale/learning may be difficult to develop for new efficiency technology

• Appliance standards/building codes assist rapid deployment at low risk.

Industrial Energy Use

Agriculture8%

Forest Products

11%

Chemicals19%

Petroleum24%

Steel6%

Aluminum2%

Metalcasting1%

Other26%

Mining3%

32.5 Quads(2003)

ITP R&D Areas: Focus on Energy EfficiencyITP R&D Areas: Focus on Energy Efficiency

Fabrication and Infrastructure

Industrial Reaction and Separation High Temperature Processes

• Advanced Metal Heating and Reheating

• Advanced Melting• Efficient Heat Treating• High Efficiency Calcining• Next-Generation Steelmaking

• Oxidation Processes• Microchannel Reactors• Hybrid Distillation• Alternative Processes• Advanced Water Removal

• Near Net Shape Casting and Forming• Energy Efficient and Safe Extraction

Operations• Inferential Process Control for Product

Quality• Ultra-hard Materials• Joining and Assembly

Develop energy efficient technologies for making near net-shape finished products from basic materials

Develop technologies for efficient reaction and separation processes

Develop energy efficient high-temperature process technologies for producing metals and non-metallic minerals

Energy Conversion SystemsDevelop high efficiency steam generation and combustion technologies and improved energy recovery technologies

• Thermal Transport Systems• Super Boiler• Ultra-High Efficiency Furnace• Waste Heat Recovery

Source: ITP

Industry R&D Opportunities• Advanced Materials: Low-cost, high-strength materials; low-corrosion materials;

micro-structural control of material properties; non-destructive testing of materials. • Advanced Fabrication and Forming Technologies: Near-net shape

forming; microstructure control.• Advanced Processing: High-temperature processing (examples); microchannel

reactors; synthetic biological processing; Agile manufacturing; System integration; Robotics;

• Industrial Energy Flexibility: Flexible multi-fuel industrial energy supply systems, using multiple energy resources—coal (with hot gas cleanup, etc.), biomass, etc.—for boilers, power, feedstocks.

• Intelligent Processes: Sensors and Controls, power electronics; Sensors for high temperature, reactive environments;

• Motor Drive: Low-cost adjustable speed drives for motors (also FCVT).• Reactions and Separations: Energy-efficient; high temperature membranes;

reactive membranes; filters; Separation mechanisms in multicomponent systems, heterogeneous/homogenous catalysis;

• Computational Fluid Dynamics: Analysis of multi-phase systems and flows. • Advanced Combustion: Emissions controls; • Super Boilers: high-efficiency and low-emission boiler systems. • Waste Heat Recovery: Thermoelectrics (from FCVT); Heat exchangers;

nanostructured heat-exchanger fluids; • Lighting, Cooling, Water Heating, etc.—(from BTS).

Industry Technology Barriers• The Industrial sector, and especially the heavy materials arena, faces

a variety of market challenges, frictions, and failures, including:– 1) Mandatory investments; 2) Capacity expansion; 3) Product Development; 4) Cost

Reduction—and all face Capital Constraints– Severe International Competition by low-wage, low-cost, low environmental compliance

countries limit U.S. profit margins and ability to invest in product and process R&D improvements. Some industries carry a high retiree and health overhead, further reducing available capital for R&D investment. Underlying financial health is poor with industry profit margins of 1-2%(?), credit ratings downgraded, resulting in higher cost of capital.

– Product Differentiation is more difficult for basic commodity materials, reducing the incentive for product R&D, and focusing R&D instead on process improvements.

– Process R&D. It can be difficult to fully appropriate the benefits from process R&D. Implementing process changes are high risk for operating lines—shutting down production and risking future production in order to save a relatively small cost for energy. Companies prefer to be the 2nd or 3rd to invest, not the leader, to reduce risk and save capital.

– Overall, R&D Investments are low, averaging 0.8% for energy-intensive industries, compared to 4.3% of sales for all industry (update numbers).

– Applications are specialized, often requiring special development for particular industries.

– Scales and capital intensity are large for greenfield development, thus sharply limiting opportunities for next generation systems. Turnover of existing capital stock is very slow.

– Offshoring of consumer product manufacturing reduces geographical benefit for U.S.-based materials industries.

– Research base is eroding, with few grad students in key areas (metallurgy, motors, etc.)

Transport Energy Use

Light-Duty Vehicles

59%

Bus1%

Rail2%

Trucks19%

Marine4%

Pipeline Fuel2%

Air10%

Military3%

27.1 Quads96.6% petroleum

(2003)

Oil Supply, Demand, Options in 2030

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Mill

ion

Bar

rels

/Day

IMPORTS

DOMESTIC

OIL SUPPLY OIL DEMAND

ELECTRICITYRES. & COM.

INDUSTRY

MISC. TRANSPORTAIR

TRUCKS

LIGHTDUTYVEHICLES ETHANOL

EFFICIENCY

OPTIONS

PHEV-20

FCVs

BIOPRODUCTS

EVs

PHEV-40

BIODIESEL/FT

BIO-JET A

Vehicle R&D Needs• High Performance Engines:

– Combustion modeling– Soot formation and evolution– Lean NOx catalyst modeling– Low speed multiphase flows; turbulence

• Battery Storage: HEV/PHEV– High Power/High Energy– Abuse Tolerance; Stability

• Thermoelectrics:– Waste heat recovery– Air conditioning

• Lightweight Frames: – Material deformation in crashes

• Composites; lightweight alloys.• Aerodynamic Drag:

– Low speed flow; turbulence• Heat Exchangers:

– Nanostructured Heat Exchange Fluids– Microchannel Heat Exchangers

• Advanced Motors:– NdFeB temperature sensitivity

• Power Electronics:• Reliability; Temperature sensitivity

Simulation of Fuel-Air Mixing and Combustion. R.D. Weitz, U Wisconsin, in “Basic Research Needs for Clean and Efficient Combustion of 21st

Century Transportation Fuels.”

Hot exhaust system suitable for thermoelectrics.

Transport Fuels• Advanced Fossil Fuels• Biofuels: Ethanol; Fischer-Tropsch Liquids;

Biodiesel; others.• Hydrogen:

– Production: Fossil or biomass reformers; Fossil-, nuclear-, or renewable-powered electrolysis; Nuclear- or solar-heated thermochemical cycles; Photoelectrochemistry; others

– Storage: Chemical hydrides, alanates, chemical carriers, carbon nanostructures, liquid or compressed gas, etc.

– Use: Fuel cell cathode design and platinum loading; polymer electrolytes; fuel processing catalysis

– “Summary Report from Theory Focus Session on Hydrogen Storage Materials”, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/wkshp_theory_focus.html

• Electricity: Fossil, Nuclear, Renewables.

• MD shows lattice expansion upon H2 adsorption• Calculated average H2 adsorption energy of -

20.2 kJ/mol H2 at 7.4 wt% H2 loading.

7.4 wt% H2 in (C6N2)n2n+ 2nF- @ 300KAir Products and Chemicals, Inc.

Cheng et al., DOE 2007 Hydrogen Program Review

Zhao et al., DOE 2007 Hydrogen Program Review

NREL

• Concepts developed for carbon can be extended to other elements

• Reversible capacity: 8.6 wt%• Binding energies range:

15 - 35 kJ/mol

TM boride (no-carbon) nanostructuresB60M20 + 72 H2 B60M20H144

Bioenergy

Commercial & Residential

16.8%

Industrial 67.5%

Transportation4%

Electric Utilities11.6%

Biomass2.9%

Other Renewable

3.8%

Petroleum products40%Other

0%

Coal22%

Nuclear8%

Natural Gas23%

EIA Coal Price Projections

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Ave

rage

Coa

l Pric

e (1

999)

$/M

MB

tu AEO 1991

AEO 1993

AEO 1995

AEO 1997

AEO 1999

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Ave

rage

Coa

l Pric

e (1

999)

$/M

MB

tu AEO 1991

AEO 1993

AEO 1995

AEO 1997

AEO 1999

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Ave

rage

Coa

l Pric

e (1

999)

$/M

MB

tu AEO 1991

AEO 1993

AEO 1995

AEO 1997

AEO 1999

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Ave

rage

Coa

l Pric

e (1

999)

$/M

MB

tu AEO 1991

AEO 1993

AEO 1995

AEO 1997

AEO 1999

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Ave

rage

Coa

l Pric

e (1

999)

$/M

MB

tu AEO 1991

AEO 1993

AEO 1995

AEO 1997

AEO 1999

USESFuels:EthanolRenewable DieselHydrogenPower:ElectricityHeatChemicalsPlasticsSolventsChemical

IntermediatesPhenolicsAdhesivesFurfuralFatty acidsAcetic AcidCarbon blackPaintsDyes, Pigments,

and InksDetergentsEtc.

Food and Feed

Bio-gas

Synthesis Gas

Sugars and Lignin

Bio-Oil

Carbon-RichChains

Plant Products

Hydrolysis

Acids, enzymesGasification

High heat, low oxygen

Digestion

Bacteria

Pyrolysis

Catalysis, heat, pressure

Extraction

Mechanical, chemical

Separation

Mechanical, chemical

Feedstock production,collection, handling & preparation

Ultimate Biorefinery Goal: From any Feedstock to any Product

BioFuels

• Novozyme, Genencor, NREL received 2004 R&D100 award for improving the cellulase enzyme, reducing its cost by ~30-fold to ~$0.18/gallon-ethanol; with corresponding reduction of ethanol cost from $5+/gal to ~$2.25/gal. at present. 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007e* 2008e*

Capacity Under Construction:6.14 Billion Gallons per Year Expected by End of 2008

Current Production Capacity:5.58 Billion Gallons per Year

• US near-term potential of 1.3 billion dry tons biomass for energy, with minimal impact to ag/forests; could displace up to 30% oil use as fuel.

• Corn ethanol net energy ~25%; cellulosic ethanol net ~85-90%

• Cargill (-Dow) has 150,000 tons capacity of polylactide polymer/yr.

• Toyota projects global bioplasticsmarket of >$50B by 2020

Fermentation Platform Cost Reduction

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Min

imum

Eth

anol

Sel

ling

Pric

e ($

/gal

)

State of Technology Estimates

Feed $53/ton

2005 Yield65 gal/ton

Feed $35/tonYield 90 gal/ton

Feed $35/tonYield 94 gal/ton

10,000 TPD

Costs in 2002 Dollars

EnzymeConversionFeedstockCurrent DOE Cost TargetsPresident's Initiative

Source: NREL

BioEnergy R&D• Feedstock production and collection

– Functional genomics; respiration; metabolism; nutrient use; water use; cellular control mechanisms; physiology; disease response;

– Plant growth, response to stress/marginal lands; higher productivity at lower input (water, fertilizer)

– Production of specified components• Biochemical platform

– Biocatalysis: enzyme function/regulation; enzyme engineering for reaction rates/specificity

• Thermochemical platform– Product-selective thermal cracking. Modeling

catalyst-syngas conversion to mixed alcohols, FTs—predicting selectivity, reaction rates, controlling deactivation due to sulfur (e.g. role of Ru in improving S tolerance of Ni).

– CFD modeling of physical and chemical processes in a gasification/pyrolysis reactor

• Bioproducts– New and novel monomers and polymers; – Biomass composites; adhesion/surface science

• Combustion– NOx chemistry, hot gas cleanup

Cellulase Enzyme interacting with Cellulose.Source, Linghao Zhong, et al., “Interactions of the Complete Cellobiohydrolase I from Trichodera reesei with Microcrystalline Cellulose I”

Wind Energy

• R&D has reduced cost of wind power from 80 cents per kilowatt-hour in 1979 to a current range of ~5+ cents per kWh (Class 5-6), moving towards 3 c/kWh.

• Low wind speed technology: x20 resource; x5 proximity• Offshore Resources

U.S. Wind Market Trend

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 20040

102030405060708090

100

Cap

acity

(MW

)

Cos

t of E

nerg

y (c

ents

/kW

h*)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 20040

102030405060708090

100

Cap

acity

(MW

)

Cos

t of E

nerg

y (c

ents

/kW

h*)

9245 MW (End of 2005)

11,6002006

>16,8002007

Typical Rotor Diameters

.75 MW 1.5 MW 2.5 MW 3.5 MW 5 MW

50m (164 ft)

66m (216 ft)

85m (279 ft)

100m (328 ft)747

120m (394 ft)

Boeing

Big Machines, and Growing…

GE Wind 1.5 MW

Source: WTP

U.S. Wind Supply Curve

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

12 2,454 4,896 7,338 9,780

Quantity Available, GW

Leve

lized

Cos

t of E

nerg

y, $

/MW

h

Class 6

Class 4

Class 7

Class 5

Class 3

Onshore

Shallow Offshore

Deep Offshore

Busbar Cost, No Transmission Cost, Today’s Cost/Performance, with PTC (2006$)

Wind Energy Challenges• Wind Energy Systems:

– Stiff, heavy machines that resist cyclic and extreme loads—Versus—Lightweight, flexible machines that bend and absorb or shed loads.

– Need 30 year life in fatigue driven environment with minimal maintenance/no major component replacement.

– Improve models of turbulence and flow separation; Improve analysis of aeroacoustics, aeroelastics, structural dynamics, etc.

• Wind Turbine Design Methods:– Replace full-scale testing with computational models to prove the efficacy of blade and

turbine design.• Wind Farm Design:

– Model turbine interactions with each other and with complex terrain to improve farm layout.• Composite Materials:

– Model material strength, fatigue (progressive loss of strength and stiffness), and failure (fiber failure, bond failure, wall collapse, buckling, etc.)

• Grid Integration:– Understand impact of system on the

utility grid—to better accommodate intermittent wind.

• Atmospheric Modeling:– Improve modeling for wind

forecasting; turbine interactions.• Optimize Turbines for Ocean:

– Wave loading; marine environmentSource: Steve Hammond, NREL

Solar EnergySolar Energy• Price of electricity from

grid-connected PV systems are ~20¢/kWh. (Down from ~$2.00/kWh in 1980)

• Nine parabolic trough plants with a total rated capacity of 354 MW have operated since 1985, with demonstrated system costs of 12 to 14¢/kWh.

PV Shipments and U.S. Market Share

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

400019

9019

9119

9219

9319

9419

9519

9619

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

0220

0320

0420

0520

0620

07

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

ROW

Europe

Japan

U.S.

U.S. Market Share

Best Research-Cell Efficiencies

026587136

Effic

iency

(%)

Universityof Maine

Boeing

Boeing

Boeing

BoeingARCO

NREL

Boeing

Euro-CIS

200019951990198519801975

NREL/Spectrolab

NRELNREL

JapanEnergy

Spire

No. CarolinaState University

Multijunction ConcentratorsThree-junction (2-terminal, monolithic)Two-junction (2-terminal, monolithic)

Crystalline Si CellsSingle crystalMulticrystallineThin Si

Thin Film TechnologiesCu(In,Ga)Se2CdTeAmorphous Si:H (stabilized)

Emerging PVDye cells Organic cells(various technologies)

Varian

RCA

Solarex

UNSW

UNSW

ARCO

UNSWUNSW

UNSWSpire Stanford

Westing-house

UNSWGeorgia TechGeorgia Tech Sharp

AstroPower

NREL

AstroPower

Spectrolab

NREL

MasushitaMonosolar Kodak

Kodak

AMETEK

Photon Energy

UniversitySo. Florida

NREL

NREL

NRELCu(In,Ga)Se2

14x concentration

NREL

United Solar

United Solar

RCA

RCARCA

RCA RCARCA

Spectrolab

Solarex12

8

4

0

16

20

24

28

32

36

University ofLausanne

University ofLausanne

2005

Kodak UCSBCambridge

NREL

UniversityLinz

Siemens

ECN,The Netherlands

Princeton

UC Berkeley

Source: NREL

Trough Systems

Power Towers

Dish Systems

Concentrating Solar Thermal Power

Source: NREL

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

2004Near Term

2006 2010Mid Term

2015 2020Long Term

cent

s pe

r kW

h

S&L-Trough

S&L - Tower

Sunlab - Tower

Sunlab -Trough

6.2 cents/kWh

4.3 cents/kWh

5.5 cents/kWh

3.5 cents/kWh

CSP Cost Projections

Sargent & Lundy

State Land Area (mi²)

Solar Capacity (GW)

Solar Generation Capacity (GWh)

AZ 19,279 2,468 5,836,517CA 6,853 877 2,074,763CO 2,124 272 643,105NV 5,589 715 1,692,154NM 15,156 1,940 4,588,417TX 1,162 149 351,774UT 3,564 456 1,078,879

Total 53,727 6,877 16,265,611

Potential Generation Capacity by State

Concentrating Solar PowerU.S. Southwest – Significant Opportunity for CSP

Untapped Electricity Generation Potential

– Solar energy in southwestern states could generate 6,800 GW of electricity. (Current U.S. generating capacity is approximately 1,000 GW.)

Cost Reduction Potential– Estimates from Sargent & Lundy and WGA

Solar Task Force indicate costs can go below 6 cents/kWh assuming R&D and deployment.

Direct-Normal Solar Resource for the Southwest U.S.

Map and table courtesy of NREL

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Cummulative New Capacity by 2015 (MW)

LCO

E (2

005$

/kw

h)

Assumes:- Trough Technology w ith 6 hours of TES- IPP Financing, 30-year PPA- California Property Tax Excemption- Includes scale-up, R&D, learning effects,- Barstow , California site

Total Cost

Solar Energy R&D Opportunities• Photovoltaics:

– Improve understanding of materials/growth/characterization and devices, esp. of CIGS, CdTe and Multi-junction thin films—interface chemistry, physics, defects, etc.

– Improve efficiency of photon use with intermediate-band cells, Quantum Dot cells, etc.

– Transparent conducting oxides – Innovative encapsulants.

• Concentrating Solar Power: – Stable, high temperature heat transfer and thermal storage materials,

with low vapor pressure, low freezing points– Stable, high temperature, high performance selective surfaces– High performance reflectors

• Fuels:– High-temperature thermochemical cycles for CSP production—353

found & scored; 12 under further study; Develop falling particle receiver and heat transfer system for up to 1000 C cycles. Develop reactor/receiver designs and materials for up to 1800 C cycles.

– Improved catalysts– Photoelectrochemical: good band-edge matching, durable in solution,

manufacturable– Photobiological—unleashing hydrogenase pathway; – Electrolysis, including thermally boosted solid-oxide electrochemical cells

• Cross-cutting Areas:– Power electronics—wide-band gap materials; Reliable capacitors– Energy Storage

Source: MuhammetE. Köse, et al. “Theoretical Studies on Conjugated Phenyl-Cored ThiopheneDendrimers for Photovoltaic Applications”, NREL

Solar Decathlon: Solar Decathlon: ““Energy We Can Live WithEnergy We Can Live With””; ; Oct.12Oct.12––Oct. 20Oct. 20

Carnegie Mellon; Cornell; Georgia Tech; Kansas State; Lawrence Technological University; MIT; New York Institute of Technology; Pennsylvania State; Santa Clara University; Team Montreal (École de Technologie Supérieure, Université de Montréal, McGill University); Technische Universität Darmstadt; Texas A&M; Universidad Politécnica de Madrid; Universidad de Puerto Rico; University of Colorado – Boulder; University of Cincinnati; University of Illinois; University of Maryland; University of Missouri, Rolla; University of Texas, Austin.

ArchitectureEngineeringMarket ViabilityCommunicationsComfort

AppliancesHot WaterLightingEnergy BalanceGetting Around

Source: STP

Geothermal Technologies

• Current U.S. capacity is ~2,800 MW; 8,000 MW worldwide.• Current cost is 5 to 8¢/kWh; Down from 15¢/kWh in 1985• 2010 goal: 3-5¢/kWh.

Geothermal R&D Opportunities• Exploration:

– Remote sensing• Reservoir Development:

– Well stimulation techniques; proppants• Drilling and Field Development:

– Bits--advanced materials, controls, mechanisms; (PDC Bits)– High-temp systems; diagnostics while drilling; telemetry – Lost circulation or short circuit control materials/techniques– Liners; casings; cements

• Conversion: – Mixed working fluids in binary plants; – Variable Phase Turbines; – Enhanced Heat Rejection

• Oil & Gas: – Coproduction of geothermal energy using binary systems

• Sequestration: CO2 as a working (supercritical) fluid for EGS– Reduced power consumption in flow circulation; Reduced

viscosity/higher flow rates than water, but lower heat capacity– CO2 uptake/mineralization/sequestration at elevated temp.

EEREEERE--Supported R&D100 AwardsSupported R&D100 Awards

For more information

http://www.eere.energy.gov