Basic Research Needs To Assure A Secure Energy Future: Dr. John Stringer, EPRI, Chair Dr. Linda Horton, ORNL, Co-Chair

Basic Research Needs to
Assure a Secure Energy Future
Dr. John Stringer, EPRI, Chair

Dr. Linda Horton, ORNL, Co-Chair
Workshop: October 21 – 25, 2002

Energy Biosciences Follow-up Workshop: January 13-14, 2003
BESAC Workshop on the Basic Research Needs to Assure a Secure Energy Future
Dramatis Personae
 John Stringer (Ch); Linda Horton (VC)
 The Team Chairs:
 John Ahearne
 Charles Baker
 George Crabtree
 Lutgard De Jonghe
 Mildred Dresselhaus
 Jan Herbst
 Marvin Singer
 Rick Smalley
 The Factual Document Team:
 Roger Stoller, Claudette McKamey, Stan Hadley, Tom Rosseel, and
Barbara Ashdown
 The Planners, Organizers, and General Support:
 Sharon Long, Tim Fitzsimmons and Harriet Kung
BESAC Charge Language
Date: June 18, 2001

From: James Decker, [then] Acting Director, Office of Science
To: Geraldine Richmond, University of Oregon, BESAC Chair
What are the 21st century fundamental scientific challenges that

BES must consider in addressing the DOE missions in energy
efficiency, renewable energy resources, improved use of fossil
fuels, safe and publicly acceptable nuclear energy, future energy
sources, science-based stockpile stewardship, and reduced
environmental impacts of energy production and use?
Remarks by Secretary Abraham
Brookhaven National Laboratory – June 14, 2002
The Department of Energy could well have been called the Department of
Science and Energy given our contribution to American science. And the
reason we are so deeply involved in science is simple. Our mission here at
DOE … as I have stressed since becoming Secretary … is national security.
And in my view, a serious commitment to national security demands a

serious commitment to science, including basic research. This commitment
strengthens our energy security, international competitiveness, economic
growth, and intellectual leadership. Moreover, if we ever hope to leapfrog
today's energy challenges we must look to basic research.
I think it's clear. A nation that embraces basic research embraces a brighter
future.
The Reasons for the Concern
 Increase in world population
 Increase in individual expectation for
Energy – world wide
 Current dependency on fossil fuels
 Finite resources of fossil fuels
 Need to extend time to exhaustion
 Need to develop new alternatives to
lower CO2 emissions
Fundamental Research for Energy Security
BESAC Workshop on the Basic Research Needs to Assure a Secure Energy Future 6
Distinctions Among Four Social
Conditions
International Collaboration
Annual Global R&D, global investment,
GNP/capita global peace, global technologies
105 104
Amenities
Education, recreation, the environment,
intergenerational investment
104 103
Basic Quality of Life
Literacy, life expectancy, sanitation, infant
mortality, physical security, social security
103 102
Survival Annual
Food, water, shelter, minimal kWh/capita
health services
Source: Chauncey Starr
Trends in Per Capita
Electricity Consumption
20
Per Capita Electricity Consumption (10 kWh)
18 U.S.
World
3
16
Developing Countries
14
12
10
0
1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060
Year
World Population, 1850-
2100
Billion
12
10
6 DCs
2
REFs
OECD
0
1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100
Source: WEC/IIASA-Global Energy Perspectives to 2050 and Beyond
A Possible Outline for a Workshop
Fossil Energy Renewable Energy Hydrogen Consumption
Petroleum Solar electric, solar Sources Transportation
Reserves photochemical, and solar Production On board energy sources
Production thermal Future potential Current
Issues Production Issues Future
Basic research needs Future potential Basic research needs Primary fuel efficiency
Issues Current
Natural Gas
Basic research needs Future
Reserves Wind Fusion Energy Basic research needs
Production Production Issues Residential
Issues Future potential Basic research needs Energy sources
Basic research needs Issues Current
Coal Basic research needs Electrical Energy Future
Reserves Geothermal Production Efficiency
Production Production Energy sources Current
Issues Future potential Generation, Future
Basic research needs Issues transmission, and Basic research needs
Other (oil shale, tar Basic research needs storage Commercial
sands, gas hydrates, Biomass, biofuel, Current technologies Energy sources
biofeedstock Current
etc.) Future technologies
Production Future
Reserves Future potential Basic Research needs Efficiency
Production Issues Current
Issues Basic research needs Future
Basic research needs Hydroelectric Basic research needs
Production Industrial
Nuclear Energy Future potential Energy sources
Reserves Issues Current
Production Basic research needs Future
Issues Other (tides, ocean Efficiency
Basic research needs thermal, etc) Current
Future potential Future
Issues Basic research needs
Basic research needs
Conversations with BESAC on the Workshop
“The basic research community has focused

on many of the known problems in energy
technologies for many years – the workshop
should not rehash these areas.”
“Rather, the workshop should focus on new,

revolutionary basic research opportunities.”
Objective
 This is a statement concerning the
mission of OBES at the time of the
beginning of this task:
 “Deliver the scientific knowledge and
discoveries for DOE’s applied missions;
advance the frontiers of the physical
sciences and areas of the biological,
environmental, and computational sciences;
and provide world-class research facilities
and essential scientific human capital to the
Nation’s overall science enterprise.”
Path to Attain Objectives
 Participation of Stakeholders
 As wide a constituency as possible
 Focus discussions to a limited
number of proposals
 Support, not duplicate, applied
mission offices of DOE
 Understand time scale of the
objectives
Stakeholders
 DOE Applied Missions Offices
 Academia
 National Laboratories
 Industry
 DOE Office of Science
Stakeholders
 Over 100 people participated in the
discussions:
 DOE Applied Missions Offices 8%
 Academia 27%
 Federal Laboratories 39%
 Industry 16%
 DOE Office of Science 10%
Three Phase Process to Answer the Charge – Phase I
• Select Chairs for Topical Groups

• Chairs Select Members of Topical Groups
• Topical Groups Prepare Recommendations for Discussion and
Development at Workshop
• Topical Groups Review and revise Draft Factual Documentation
Deliverables From Phase I:
• Group Recommendations for Research Directions to be developed
at the Workshop
Define Topical Areas
1. Fossil Energy
2. Distributed Generation
3. Nuclear Energy
4. Industrial, Residential, Commercial
5. Transportation
6. Renewable Energy
7. Fusion Energy
8. Energy Biosciences
9. Crosscutting Research
Topical Team Chairs
1. Marvin Singer (DOE OFE); Fossil Energy;
2. John Ahearne (Sigma Xi); Nuclear Fission Energy;
3. George Crabtree (ANL); Renewable and Solar Energy;
4. Charles Baker (UCSD); Fusion Energy;
5. Lutgard DeJonghe (UCB); Distributed Energy, Fuel
Cells, and Hydrogen;
6. Jan Herbst (GM R&D Center); Transportation Research;
7. Mildred Dresselhaus (MIT); Residential, Commercial
and Industrial Energy;
8. Richard Smalley (Rice U); Crosscutting Research;
9. John Stringer (EPRI); Energy Biosciences.
Three Phase Process to Answer the Charge – The
Workshop - Phase II
• Conduct Workshop
• Additional Members Added to Topical Groups to Form Topical
Teams
• Teams Develop Recommendations for Proposed Research
Directions
• Teams Prepare Supporting Statements for Their Proposed
Research Directions
• Prioritize Proposed Research Directions from all Topical Groups
Deliverables from Phase II:

• Selected PRDs with Supporting Statements
Introductory Presentations
Overview of the Office of Science, James Decker, Deputy Director
Overview of the Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Patricia Dehmer,
Director
Overview DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy Programs, Rita A. Bajura,
Director, NETL
Basic Research Needs in Support of Advanced Nuclear Reactor and
Fuel Cycle Technologies, R. Shane Johnson, Associate Director for
Advanced Nuclear Research, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science
and Technology
Science Issues in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, Sam Baldwin, Chief Technology Officer and Member,
Board of Directors, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy
Marvin Singer, Chair
Fossil Energy
Director, Advanced Research
Office of Fossil Energy
(FE-25) US Department of Energy
Topical Group: Extra Attendees:

Armstrong, Tim ORNL Allison, Edie DOE/FE
Bockelie, Mike Reaction Eng. Caldeira, Ken LLNL
Carling, Bob SNL/CRF Carim, Altof DOE-BES
Dogan, Cindy DOE/FE Albany Cugini, Anthony NETL
Gleeson, Brian Iowa State U./AMES Myer, Larry LBNL
Hardage, Bob University of Texas Ray, Doug PNNL
Nenoff, Tina SNL/Alb Richards, Geo NETL
Keith, David Carnegie Mellon White, Curt NETL
Suuberg, Eric Brown University Winans, Randy ANL
Wang, Anbo VPI Woodward, Nick DOE-BES
Wimer, John NETL
Distributed Generation Lutgard DeJonghe, Chair
Professor of Ceramics
Materials Science and Engineering
University of California, Berkeley
Garland, Nancy EE Adzic, Radoslav BNL

Liu, Meilin GIT Buchanan, AC ORNL
Ogden, Joan Princeton Henderson, David NE-20
Pecharsky, Vitalij Iowa State/Ames Kelley, Dick DOE-BES
Ross, Philip LBNL Lutz, Andy SNL
Singhal, Subhash PNNL Noceti, Rick NETL
Turner, John NREL Suenaga, Mas BNL
Wheeler, Douglas United Tech. Tully, Frank DOE-BES
Williams, Mark NETL
Nuclear Energy John Ahearne, Chair
Executive Director
Sigma Xi
Scientific Research Society

Bennett, Ralph INEEL Allen, Todd ANL-W
Croff, Allen ORNL Beitz, Jim ANL
Gottschall, Bob DOE-BES Mike Kassner, Oregon State
Klein, Andy Oregon State Millman, Bill DOE-BES
Richards, Jack Cal Tech.
Phase I Assistance: Versluis, Rob NE-20
Wirth, Brian LLNL
Goldner, Frank NE-20
Weber, Bill PNNL
Taylor, John Former EPRI
Todreas, Neil MIT
Transportation Jan Herbst, Chair
Materials and Processes Laboratory
GM R&D Center

Ahn, Channing California Institute of Technology Anderson, Iver AMES
DebRoy, Tarasankar Pennsylvania State University Baskaran, Suresh PNNL
Eberhardt, Jim EE Duong, Tien EE
Grostic, Ed ORNL Kirchhoff, Bill DOE-BES
Hadaller, Oren The Boeing Company Leesing, Paul INEEL
Hass, Kenneth Ford Motor Company McGurl, Gil NETL
Heremans, Joseph Delphi Research Labs Miles, Paul SNL
Sloane, Chris General Motors Morris, Jamie AMES
Ott, Kevin LANL
Varma, Matesh DOE- BES
Renewable Energy George Crabtree, Chair
Senior Scientist and Director
Materials Science Division
Argonne National Laboratory

Baldwin, Sam EE Baker, Tom LANL
Bullock, Morris BNL Ginosar, Dan INEEL
Cooke, John ORNL Gui, John GE
Ingram, Lonnie Univ. of Florida Kennedy, Mack LBNL
Kazmerski, Larry NREL Miranda, Amy DOE-EE
Lewis, Nate Cal Tech. Paladino, Joe NETL
Mazer, Jeff EE Weatherwax, Sharlene DOE-BES
Nozik, Arthur NREL Zhu, Jane DOE-BES
Sutula, Ray EE
Tiede, David ANL
Industrial, Residential, Milldred Dresselhaus
and Commercial Institute Professor
Physics and Electrical Engineering
MIT
Panel Members: Speakers:
Sam Baldwin (EE) Dr. Anil Duggal (GE)
Hylan Lyon (Marlow Industries) Dr. Jerry Simmons (SNL)
Gerald Mahan (Penn State U.) Prof. Woods Haley (UMN)
Anne Mayes (MIT) Dr. Ron Judkoff (NREL)
Steve Selkowitz (LBNL) Dr. Ertugrul Berkcan (GE)
Jerry Simmons (SNL) Dr. Dickson Ozokwelu (DOE/EE)
Harriet Kung (BES) Prof. Vitalij Pecharsky (Ames/Iowa State)
Aravinda Kini (BES)
Panel Members with Phase I Task:

Paul Alivisatos (UC, Berkeley)
Sam Bader (ANL)
Terry Michalske (SNL)
Fusion Energy Charles Baker
Virtual Laboratory for Technology
University of California, San Diego

Zinkle, Steve ORNL Berk, Sam DOE-Fusion
Jones, Russ PNNL
Lindl, John LLNL
Phase I Assistance: McNight, Ron DOE-Fusion
Abdou, Mohamed UCLA Rohlfing, Eric DOE-BES
Bangerter, Roger LBNL Schoenberg, Kurt LANL
Dahlburg, Jill General Atomics Scott Willms LANL
Efthimion, Phil Princeton

Morley, Neil UCLA
Crosscutting Research Rick Smalley, Chair
Professor of Chemistry
Rice University

Bekey, Ivan Bekey Designs ***All Topical Chairs***
Boubour, Emmanuelle Ohio State Stringer, John EPRI
Green, Art ExxonMobil Horton, Linda ORNL
Kwok, Kwan DARPA Thomas, Iran DOE-BES
Lavin, Gerry DuPont Fellow
Mankins, John NASA
Marek, Reinnette Rice U.
Shoham, Yoram Shell
Tester, Jeff MIT
John Stringer, Chair
Energy Biosciences Research
EPRI
Topical Group: Other Attendee:

Mark Alper, LBNL
Linda Horton, ORNL
Heinz Frei, LBNL
Evan Hughes, EPRI
Laurie Mets, U. Chicago
John Shanklin, BNL
Chris Somerville, Stanford U.
Walt Stevens, BES
Lut De Jonghe, UCB
Products of the Workshops
 The products of the two Workshops
consisted of four items:
 A set of Proposed Research Directions (PRDs).
Altogether, 37 were produced.
 Supporting statements for each PRD, in the
form of a one-page Executive Summary and
three pages of detailed information.
 A list of General Research Areas, derived from
the PRDs. 10 of these were identified
 The ‘Factual Document’, summarizing the
status of energy supply and use.
Proposed Research Directions
Fossil Energy
 Reaction Pathways of Inorganic Solid materials: Synthesis, Reactivity,
Stability
 Advanced Subsurface Imaging and Alteration of Fluid-Rock Interactions
 Development of an Atomistic Understanding of High Temperature
Hydrogen Conductors
 Fundamental Combustion Science Towards Predictive Modeling of
Combustion Technologies
Nuclear Fission Energy
 Materials Degradation
 Advanced Actinide and Fission Product Separations and Extraction
 Fuels Research
 Fundamental Research in Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow
Renewable and Solar Energy
 To Displace Imported Petroleum by Increasing the Cost-Competitive Production of
Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Biomass by 100-fold
 Develop Methods for Solar Energy Conversion that Result in a 10-50 fold Decrease
in the Cost to Efficiency Ratio for the Production of Fuels and Electricity
 Develop the Knowledge Base to Enable Widespread Creation of Geothermal
Reservoirs
 Conversion of Solar, Wind, or Geothermal Energy Into Stored Chemical Fuels
 Advanced Materials for Renewable Energy Applications
Fusion Energy
 Multiscale Modeling of Microstructural Stability of Irradiated Materials
 Deformation and Fracture Modeling
 Plasma-Surface Interactions
 Thermofluids and “Smart Liquids”
 Plasma Aerodynamics
Distributed Energy, Fuel Cells, and Hydrogen
 Advanced Hydrogen Synthesis
 High Capacity Hydrogen Storage for Distributed Energy of the Future
 Novel Membrane Assemblies (for Ion Transport)
 Designed Interfaces
Transportation Research
 Integrated Quantitative Knowledge Base for Joining of Lightweight Structural
Materials for Transportation Applications
 Vehicular Energy Storage
 Fundamental Challenges in Fuel Cell Stack Materials
 Integrated Heterogeneous Catalysis
 Thermoelectric Materials and Energy Conversion Cycles for Mobile Applications
 Complex Systems Science for Sustainable Transportation
Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Energy
 Sensors
 Solid State Lighting
 Innovative Materials for New Energy Technologies
 Multilayer Thin Film Materials and Deposition Processes
Energy Biosciences Research

 Energy Biotechnology: Metabolic Engineering of Plants and Microbes for Renewable
Fuels and Chemicals
 Genomic Tools for the Development of Designer Energy and Chemical Crops
 Nanoscale Hybrid Assemblies for the Photo-Induced Generation of Fuels and
Chemicals
Cross Cutting Research and Education

 Nanomaterials
 Preparing Tomorrow’s Workforce for the Energy Challenge and Heightening the
Public’s Awareness.
Basic Research Directions
 Materials Research to Transcend Energy Barriers
 Energy Biosciences
 Research Towards the Hydrogen Economy
 Energy Storage
 Novel Membrane Assemblies
 Heterogeneous Catalysis
 Energy Conversion
 Energy Utilization Efficiency
 Nuclear Fuel Cycles and Actinide Chemistry
 Geosciences
Three Phase Process to Answer the Charge –
Phase III
• Coordinate/assemble results of Phases I and II
• Expand Information
• Follow up meeting on biological opportunities in energy
research
• Prepare Report, Including Appendices
• Summary of workshop activities and proposed research
directions for each topic
• Factual documentation
Deliverables from Phase III:
• Report to BESAC
Materials Research to
Transcend Energy Barriers
Many of the technological barriers related to
energy hinge on improved materials. This
theme appeared in nearly half of the PRDs.
 Nanomaterials
 Materials Degradation
 Composite Materials
 Materials Fabrication Issues
 Advanced Materials and New Materials
Opportunities
Energy Biosciences
 Biomimetic approaches to solar energy
capture and generation of fuels and
chemicals
 Using emerging knowledge in functional
genomics and molecular technology to
develop plants optimized to produce fuels
and chemicals
 Development of biocatalysts
Research Towards the
Hydrogen Economy
 Hydrogen production: high-
temperature splitting of water;
thermochemical splitting; harnessing
light for photovoltaic splitting.
 Atomistic understanding of hydrogen
conductors for fuel cells
 New hydrogen storage concepts
Energy Storage
 This is of great importance for the
development of ‘transient’
renewable resources such as wind or
solar energy
 Photoconversion of renewable
substrates to liquid or gaseous fuels
 Phase transitions in materials for
energy storage
Novel Membrane
Assemblies
 This is of great importance for gas
separations enabling lower cost fossil-
based hydrogen production
 Needed for fuel cell operation in the 200o
– 600oC range
 Basic research needed that will support
the establishment of a fundamental
understanding of the relationship between
membrane structure and functionality
Heterogeneous Catalysis
 Heterogeneous catalysis underlies a
number of the concepts proposed for new
directions in energy production and
utilization
 Research needed to establish detailed
structure-function relationships to allow
the development of a predictive capability
for new process concepts and materials
design
Energy Conversion
 Basic research to support advances in diagnostic
tools to advance combustion science and lead to
predictive models for design and real-time
operation control.
 Multi-phase fluid flow and heat transfer; effect of
nanophase dispersions
 Improvements in conversion efficiency of solar
devices: problem is rapid decay of photogenerated
carriers
 Fuel cells for transportation and distributed power
 Significant improvements in thermoelectric
materials.
Utilization/Efficiency
 A major opportunity is lighting. Science
underlying solid state lighting, with light-
emitting diodes (LEDs)
 New light-emitting materials: nitride-
based wide band-gap semiconductors and
polymer-based organic electronic
materials
 Research needed to allow viable use of
biomass energy using marginal land,
limited water supplies, and low fertilizer
use
Nuclear Fuel Cycles and
Actinide Chemistry
 Expansion of the nuclear option for
electricity generation will probably require
fuel reprocessing.
 Fundamental research is needed to
understand the fuel cycle and the
chemistry of the associated radionuclides
 Research on the extraction of uranium
from seawater offers the possibility of a
large increase in the fuel resource
Geosciences
 Geosciences underpin the discovery of
new fossil fuel resources, the utilization of
hard-to-access reserves and the storage
of carbon dioxide.
 Research in subsurface imaging
 In-situ alteration of fluid/rock interactions
 Development of understanding of wave-
propagation and scattering in complex
heterogeneous media
Summary
 There is no single solution to the problem of
assuring a secure energy future for the U.S.
 Problems that must be addressed are truly
interdisciplinary.
 This means that research will require the
coordinated participation of investigators with
different skill sets.
 Basic science skills have to be complemented by
awareness of the overall nature of the problem,
and with knowledge of the engineering, design,
and control issues in an eventual solution.
Summary
 It is necessary to find ways in which this
can be done while still preserving the
ability to do first-class basic science
 The traditional structure of research, with
specific disciplinary groupings, will not be
sufficient.
 This presents great challenges, and also
great opportunities
Recommendation
 A major program should be funded to
conduct a multidisciplinary research
program to address the underlying
fundamental knowledge that must be
developed to address the issues
involved in providing a secure energy
future for the U.S.
 This program must be ensured of a
long-term stability.
Recommendation (continued)
 The Department of Energy’s Office of

Basic Energy Sciences is well-
positioned to support this initiative by
enhancement of their already world-
class scientific research programs and
user facilities.
In the first century C.E., Manilius
remarked in Astronomica, i. 104, of
human intelligence:
“Eripuitque Jovi fulmen viresque tonandi.”
Which, as we all know, means:
“And snatched from Jove the lightning

shaft and the power to thunder.”
James Baldwin (1924 – 1987):
If we do not now dare everything, the fulfillment of

that prophecy, re-created from the Bible in song by a
slave, is upon us:
God gave Noah the rainbow sign:

No more water, the fire next time!
Do not all charms fly
At the mere touch of cold philosophy?
There was an awful rainbow once in heaven:
We know her woof, her texture; she is given
In the dull catalogue of common things.
Philosophy will clip an Angel’s wings,
Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,
Empty the haunted air, and gnomed mine –
Unweave a rainbow, as it erewhile made
The tender-person’d Lamia melt into a shade.
John Keats (1795 – 1821)
Sustainability
The Global Viewpoint
 EPRI believes that we must aim at a
minimum level of 1,000 kWh per capita
per year to achieve acceptable levels of
literacy, health, and security.
 The world-wide average in 1950 was 400
kWh; this has risen to 2,100 kWh in 2000,
and is predicted to be 6,000 kWh per
capita in 2050
 The achievement of these levels, with the

universal foundation level of 1,000 kWh,
represents a major challenge.
Electric Power Production in
the USA (2000)
 Net Generation 3,800 billion kilowatt-

hours
 In 1973, 1,861 BkW-h
 Total population in the US 285.4 million
 Per Capita generation: 13,315 kW-h per

annum
Carbon Intensity of World Primary
Energy, 1900-2050
Carbon Intensity (tC/toe)Carbon Intensity of: Wood = 1.25
1.2
1.1
Coal = 1.08
1.0
0.9
Oil = 0.84
0.8
0.7
Gas = 0.64
0.6
0.5
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2050
Source: National Academy of Engineering, 1997
U.S. Competitiveness -
Technology Opportunities
0.4
1950
0.3
1990
Energy Intensity
2020
toe*
0.2 2050
103$GDP
0.1
0
10 20 30 40 50 60
Electricity (%)
*tons of oil equivalent
Generating Electricity with
Coal
 A little more than half of the electricity
generated in the USA comes from coal-
fired Rankine cycle plants
 Electricity generation is responsible for

about 35% of the anthropogenic CO2
 However, the coal-fired generating

stations are large fixed sources, and it
is likely that they will be targeted for
remedial actions
Electric Power Production in
the USA (2000)
 In units of BkW-h:
 coal: 2,000; 53%
 natural gas 600; 16%
 nuclear 754; 20%
 hydroelectric 279; 7%
 renewables 84; 2%
 (Quantities don’t add to 100% because of

rounding-off)
Distribution of Generation Source
Other 2%
Renewables 2%
7%
Hydro
20%
Nuclear Coal
53%
Natural
Gas
16%
U.S. CO2 Emissions, 1997
Source: Howard Hertzog
11.40%
Buildings
36.00%
20.70%
Industry Electricity
Transportation
Total:
31.90% 5,438 Megatonnes CO2
Metric Tons per Capita per
Annum
Un
ite
d
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
0.0
5.0
St
a
Au tes
st
ra
lia
C
Sa a n
ud ad
iA a
ra
G b
er ia
m
an
Un y
ite Ru
d ss
K
in ia
gd
om
So J a
ut pan
h
Af
ric
Country
Po a
So l
ut an
h d
K
or
ea
Per Capita CO2 Emissions
Ita
ly
C
hi
na
In
di
a
Series1
Coal Production in the USA
 In 2000, total coal production in the US
was 1.075 billion short tons (0.976 billion
tonnes)
 This is the seventh year in a row that coal
production has exceeded 1 B short tons.
 The coal consumption by the electric
power sector in 2000 was 0.983 B short
tons.
 This corresponds to the production of
2.280 billion short tons of CO2 (2.069
billion tonnes)
 The density of supercritical liquid CO2 is
0.9 (water is 1.0); coal is somewhat
Coal
 Approximately 1200 coal-fired power
plants in the US greater than 50 MW(e)
 Earliest dates from 1940, most recent
about 1987. Majority built in the period
1952 - 1975
 Overall net efficiencies (coal pile to
busbar) of current units typically in the
range 34% - 37%; oldest plants
somewhat less.
 Best efficiency ever achieved in the US
was 42% by the Eddystone plant.
 Capacity factor approximately 65% or so.
Age Distribution Chart of 1200 Fossil Units
Greater Than 50 MW in the USA
90
80
Number of Units
70
60
50
Series1
40
30
20
10
0
40
43
46
49
52
55
58
61
64
67
70
73
76
79
82
85
88
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
Commercial Date: Year
Coal
 The Rankine cycle boils water to form
superheated steam, which is then
expanded through a turbine which in turn
drives a generator.
 At the exhaust of the steam turbine, the

steam is condensed and the water is
returned to the boiler; the pressurization
of the working fluid is achieved with the
water pumps.
Coal
 Most of the Rankine cycles in the US are
subcritical; the critical point for water is
 647.29 K (705.47 F)
 22.089 Mpa (3208.2 psia)
 Subcritical steam conditions:

 811 K (1000 F); 16.55 Mpa (2400 psia)
 Supercritical steam conditions:
 811 K (1000 F); 24.1 Mpa (3500 psia)
Coal
 The efficiency of a heat engine is related
to the Carnot efficiency:
 μc = (Tmax - Tmin) / Tmax (T in Absolute)
 So, for the steam conditions given before,

and assuming a condenser temperature of
290K, μc = 0.64
 Actual efficiency for a Rankine cycle is
closer to μR = 0.35
Coal
 Recent studies in the US, Japan, and
Europe have examined the possibility of
increasing the maximum steam
temperature. The major limitation is
related to the available materials for the
hot components. 920 K is regarded as
attainable; above 1020 K is not.
 μR, 920 = 0.40;

 μR, 1020 = 0.45
(approx!)
The Kenosha Plant
 300 MW(e), Appalachian coal, 35%
efficiency.
 3,000 tonnes coal per day

 270 tonnes ash per day
 6,960 tonnes CO2 per day
 305 tonnes CaSO4 per day

 2,400,000 tonnes cooling water per day
 (1 tonne CO2 = 2.27 tonnes CaCO3)
The Magnitude of the
Problem
 As will become clear later, the current
objective is to capture the CO2 as a pure
gas, which is then compressed to form a
supercritical liquid; this is then pumped to
a storage site.
 Supercritical CO2 has a density lower than
water; coal has a density higher than
water.
 So the volume of the CO2 is more
than twice that of the coal that was
mined!
The Overall Options
 If we are to achieve these national and
global goals, with the additional
requirements for global sustainability and
national strategic security, together with a
reduction in global anthropogenic CO2
emissions, it is obvious we are faced with
major challenges.
 The options are:
 Decarbonization of fuels
 Moves to non- CO2 emitting options
 Capture and sequestration of CO2
 In fact, all these options must be pursued!
Decarbonizing the Fuel
 Obviously, an important direction for the
industry is to continue ‘decarbonizing the
fuel’, which amounts to continuing to
increase the H/C ratio.
 Current preferred direction: increasing the
natural gas/coal ratio.
 Two paths for this:
 Use natural gas for all ‘new power’ that would
have used coal
 Replace existing coal-firing with natural gas
firing
Substituting Natural Gas
 U.S. Usage of Natural Gas in 2000 in
units of ‘billion cubic feet’:
 Total: 22,775
Residential: 4,943
Commercial: 3,332
Industrial: 9,581 (3,500 of this to generate electricity)
Utilities: 3,043
• If all electricity were generated with natural gas, this last
figure would be 31,528
Natural Gas
 The Brayton Cycle is that which is used by
combustion turbines
 The working fluid is the hot combustion
gas, which is compressed, and expands
and cools through a turbine.
 The turbine drives the compressor, which
works on the inlet combustion air;
generally the appropriate increase in the
pressure of the fuel is dealt with
separately.
 The remaining energy in the gas following
driving the compressor drives the
generator
Natural Gas
 The combustion turbines first used by the
utility industry were liquid fuel-fired.
 Liquid fuels can be stored on site
relatively easily.
 They are expensive; but the capital cost
of the turbine, and its footprint, are
small.
 A combustion turbine is capable of very
rapid start and ramp-up.
 Accordingly, these turbines were used for
peaking.
Natural Gas
 The efficiency of the ‘simple-cycle’
combustion turbine is not particularly
high.
 This is because, at least in part, there is a
practical limit to the ability to recover the
energy in the gas once the pressure and
temperature have fallen below certain
values at which the gas, nonetheless, still
contains significant energy.
 This can be recovered by a ‘bottoming
cycle’ the most common of which is a
Rankine cycle
Natural Gas
 The combination of two or more cycles
like this in an energy conversion process
is called a combined cycle (CC).
 From a Carnot efficiency point of view,
one is still only concerned with the
overall input and output temperatures;
the ‘CTSTCC’ combined cycle uses the
ability of a CT to use high inlet
temperatures, and the ability of the ST
to recover energy at low outlet
temperatures.
 But practically, since the departures
Natural Gas
 Newer plant in the US have been fired with
natural gas.
 While there are Rankine units fired with
natural gas, most of the new units use
combustion turbines (the Brayton cycle)
 The most recent development has been to
use Rankine steam cycles in combination
to recover the sensible heat in the turbine
exhaust.
 In the most recent units, these have
achieved efficiencies as high as μCC =
0.59
Is There Enough Natural
Gas?
 Depends where it comes from.
 If bacterial routes to generation of natural
gas from carbon, or even carbon dioxide,
prove to be viable, then perhaps yes.
 However, at the present rate of discovery,
the competition for the gas available, and
political uncertainties, the situation over
the next twenty years looks very dicey.
 IGCC costs are very sensitive to the fuel
costs - 75% of the life-cycle costs are
related to fuel costs at present prices!
Is There Enough Gas
Distribution Infrastructure?
 This is a difficult question - the answers

you get depend on who you ask.
 A more important issue may relate to the
dynamical response required of the
distribution system to accommodate the
variation of electricity demand.
 It will also depend on the distribution of
the gas sources related to the distribution
of electric generating plant. It might
seem that this would not be an issue,
because the users are essentially the
same, but it’s not so simple.
Capture and Sequestration of
CO2
 This topic has been very extensively
covered.
 The currently preferred option for fossil-
fuel fired heat engines is to develop a
method to generate an exhaust gas
stream which is essentially pure CO2.
 This is then ‘sequestered’ in a stable
reservoir, such as an isolated aquifer, a
spent oil well, or the deep ocean.
 We have been looking at permanent
sequestration by mimicking natural
processes.
Sequestration Options
Carbon Dioxide – Where do we
put it?
Carbon dioxide ocean disposal options

(Adapted from Fujioka et al, 1997)
(Adapted
BESAC Workshop from Needs
on the Basic Research Fujioka
to Assureet al, 1997)
a Secure Energy Future
Sinks
Sink Opportunities Barriers
Geologic Ubiquitous Storage Integrity
Environmental
Oceanic Large Potential
Concerns
Measurement
Terrestrial Inexpensive ?
Verification
Small Markets
Conversion Sell Products
Thermodynamics
Sink Capacity
Worldwide Capacity
Sequestration Option
(Order of Magnitude)
Ocean 1000s GtC
Aquifers 100s – 1000s GtC
Depleted Oil and Gas 100s GtC
Coal Seams 10s – 100s GtC
Terrestrial 10s GtC
Utilization < 1 GtC per year
CO2 Capture and
Sequestration Options
 Enhancement of Natural Sinks
 CO2 Capture
 CO2 Reuse/Storage
 Geological Storage
 Deep Ocean Disposal
 Pipelines -- Corrosion/Safety
 Monitoring Procedures (applies to all
above)
CO2 Capture
 Membranes
 Amines
 O2 Enhanced Combustion
 Physical Adsorbents
 CO2 Hydrates
Establishing R&D Programs
 Japan
 RITE (Research Institute of Innovative
Technology for the Earth) established in July
1990
 About $50 million USD per year in direct
expenses
 IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme
 Established 1991
 Currently has 17 members plus 7 sponsors
 US
 Pre-1998, only about $1.5 million per year
 Budgets show significant growth starting in
The Sleipner CO2-Injection
Project
The Sleipner CO2-Injection
Project
Natural CO2 Sequestration
 60 million years ago, the CO2
concentration in the atmosphere was
7,000 ppm!
 One can identify at least three natural

sequestration processes:
 Coalification
 Terrestrial weathering
 Marine carbonate formation
Natural Sequestration
 Weathering:
 MgSiO3 + CO2  MgCO3 + SiO2
 Marine Carbonate:
 Ca2+ + CO32-  CaCO3
 CO2 + H2O  CO32- + 2H+
Energy/Carbon and Global
Sustainability
Limit-Breaking
Technologies
 Advanced nuclear, fuel
cell, and renewable
technologies
 Electricity/hydrogen
infrastructure
 Carbon sequestration
 Advanced sensors and
controls
 Advanced materials
 Micro-miniaturization
of processes

Basic Research Needs To Assure A Secure Energy Future: Dr. John Stringer, EPRI, Chair Dr. Linda Horton, ORNL, Co-Chair

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Basic Research Needs To Assure A Secure Energy Future: Dr. John Stringer, EPRI, Chair Dr. Linda Horton, ORNL, Co-Chair

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Basic Research Needs to

Assure a Secure Energy Future

Dr. John Stringer, EPRI, Chair

Workshop: October 21 – 25, 2002

Date: June 18, 2001

What are the 21st century fundamental scientific challenges that

And in my view, a serious commitment to national security demands a

“The basic research community has focused

“Rather, the workshop should focus on new,

• Select Chairs for Topical Groups

Deliverables from Phase II:

Topical Group: Extra Attendees:

Topical Group: Extra Attendees:

Garland, Nancy EE Adzic, Radoslav BNL

Topical Group: Extra Attendees:

Topical Group: Extra Attendees:

Topical Group: Extra Attendees:

Panel Members with Phase I Task:

Topical Group: Extra Attendees:

Abdou, Mohamed UCLA Rohlfing, Eric DOE-BES

Bangerter, Roger LBNL Schoenberg, Kurt LANL

Dahlburg, Jill General Atomics Scott Willms LANL

Efthimion, Phil Princeton

Topical Group: Extra Attendees:

Topical Group: Other Attendee:

Energy Biosciences Research

Cross Cutting Research and Education

 The Department of Energy’s Office of

“Eripuitque Jovi fulmen viresque tonandi.”

Which, as we all know, means:

“And snatched from Jove the lightning

If we do not now dare everything, the fulfillment of

God gave Noah the rainbow sign:

 The achievement of these levels, with the

 Net Generation 3,800 billion kilowatt-

 In 1973, 1,861 BkW-h

 Total population in the US 285.4 million

 Per Capita generation: 13,315 kW-h per

 Electricity generation is responsible for

 However, the coal-fired generating

 (Quantities don’t add to 100% because of

 At the exhaust of the steam turbine, the

 Subcritical steam conditions:

 So, for the steam conditions given before,

 μR, 920 = 0.40;

 3,000 tonnes coal per day

 305 tonnes CaSO4 per day

 This is a difficult question - the answers

Carbon dioxide ocean disposal options

Aquifers 100s – 1000s GtC

Depleted Oil and Gas 100s GtC

Coal Seams 10s – 100s GtC

Terrestrial 10s GtC

Utilization < 1 GtC per year

 One can identify at least three natural

Potrebbero piacerti anche