Hybrid Power Plant (SOFC and MTG)

/0 Comments/in , /by

At the Palm Springs Fuel Cell Seminar (Nov 19), Edison Technology Solutions (ETS) announced plans to demonstrate and lead the commercialization of the first 250 kW “hybrid” generating plant integrating a fuel cell with a microturbine generator. The first unit, with a 200 kW pressurized SOFC and a 50 kW microturbine, will be installed in mid-1999 at the National Fuel Cell Research Center (NFCRC) at UC Irvine. Commercial launch is anticipated for 2001.

The hybrid plant will operate at an efficiency of 60 percent and a cost of $1000/kW, i.e. at lower capital costs than a standalone fuel cell, and with twice the efficiency of a standalone micro-turbine.

A variety of hybrid concepts have been discussed for several years by DOE. ETS is supporting an approach using the pressurized Siemens-Westinghouse tubular SOFC. It uses the microturbine compressor to pressurize the fuel cell to approximately three atmospheres. Exhaust gas at 1,500 deg F from the fuel cell is then used as the motive force for the microturbine, driving both its compressor and generator. While the plant at the NFCRC will run on natural gas, it is flexible to operate with other fuels. The plant has no detectable nitrogen oxide emissions, and greatly reduces carbon dioxide emissions.

Hospitals, hotels, universities and other customers with high load factors are seen as likely users of the hybrid power plant. ETS will work with utilities and energy service companies to commercialize and deploy the technology.

ETS is offering a proposition to utilities to become part of a focused fast-track commercialization program. From 5-10 participants will provide development funding in exchange for access to technical information and priority rights to commercialization opportunities. Based on earlier discussions with several prospective customers for the program, ETS is proposing a graduated series of commitment levels. Companies which commit to the highest level now would be first in line for commercialization rights.

By design, the program will remain flexible as to which brand of microturbine can be used, though the first plant is planned around a Northern Research unit. For the fuel cell, the entire program is integrally connected to the Westinghouse SOFC.

ETS has an exclusive license to a recent patent with broad claims focused on high speed turbines and pressurized fuel cell operation. ETS also has exclusive worldwide marketing rights to the hybrid power plant (based on the Westinghouse SOFC) up to 500 kW.

Contact: Jaime Medina, Edison Technology Solutions
626-815-0516, jmedina@edisontec.com
http://www.edisontec.com

——————————————————————-
US 5811201: Power generation system utilizing turbine and fuel cell
Inventor(s): Skowronski; Mark J. , Walnut, CA
Applicant(s): Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, CA
Issued/Filed Sept. 22, 1998 / Aug. 16, 1996
Abstract: A system for generating electricity comprises a fuel cell, a heating stage, and an integral, power generator. The power generator comprises a compressor, an electricity generator and a turbine. Hot exhaust gas from the fuel cell is used for driving the turbine, which in turn drives the generator and the compressor. Both the fuel cell and the generator produce electricity. The compressor is used for compressing air for use in the fuel cell. A portion of the waste heat from the turbine drive gas is used for preheating the air utilized in the fuel cell.

————

(Edison Technology Solutions, a non-regulated company of Edison International, develops and markets new technologies, products, and services for the emerging energy and electricity marketplace.)

Inverters – State-of-the-Art

/0 Comments/in , /by

Sandia’s Energy Storage Program has published a new report on power conversion systems which gives a comprehensive overview of the various design approaches, the current state of the art, and recommendations for future development (specifically targeting cost reduction).

The abstract appears below. I also have an electronic copy of the Executive Summary, which I can provide on request (specify RTF or HTML format).

To request copies, contact:
Imelda Francis, 505-844-7362, Fax 505-844-6972, igfranc@sandia.gov

Technical contact:
Stan Atcitty, 505-284-2701, satcitt@sandia.gov

————
“Summary of State-of-the-Art Power Conversion Systems
for Energy Conversion Storage Applications”

Sandia National Labs, SAND98-2019, September 1998

Abstract

The power conversion system (PCS) is a vital part of many energy storage systems. It serves as the interface between the storage device, an energy source, and an AC load. This report summarizes the results of an extensive study of state-of-the-art power conversion systems used for energy storage applications. The purpose of the study was to investigate the potential for cost reduction and performance improvement in these power conversion systems and to provide recommendations for future research and development.

This report provides:
– an overview of PCS technology,
– a description of several state-of-the-art power conversion systems
and how they are used in specific applications,
– a summary of four basic configurations for the power conversion
systems used in energy storage applications,
– a discussion of PCS costs and potential cost reductions,
– a summary of the standards and codes relevant to the technology,
– recommendations for future research and development.

European utility industry

/0 Comments/in , /by

This is a good summary…but what’s described here is certainly not unique to Europe. Anderson leaves out the significance of technology as a competitive differentiator.

—————————————
Andersen Consulting Research Finds U.S. Utilities Investing in Europe Must Consider New Emerging Landscape

December 4, 1998

LONDON–(BUSINESS WIRE) via NewsEdge Corporation — European Utility Industry Faces Entirely New Market Structure

With the European Union’s Electricity Directive set to formally start opening Europe’s electricity markets on February 19, 1999, new research from Andersen Consulting suggests that American utilities investing in Europe will be faced with an entirely new market structure within a few years.

“Deregulation and privatization in the EU will unleash numerous economic, political and technological factors which will reshape the entire European utility landscape. The industry will be completely changed by 2015,” says Robert A. Anclien, utilities global managing partner for Andersen Consulting. “U.S. utilities investing into Europe must realize traditional assumptions will be meaningless as everything from the dominant forms of power generation to the transmission system will be altered by nimble competitors, new technology, and freely traded energy.”

The research, based on extensive interviews with industry executives, regulators and analysts across Europe, concludes that price pressures from electricity-supply competition, new gas-fired co-generation technologies and an improved trans-European gas-supply network will boost gas use and change the way electricity is produced in Europe.

The industry will be completely changed by 2015, according to the research. Large, remote power stations will increasingly be replaced by smaller, cleaner forms of generation located closer to demand, in cities or individual factories, for example. These “demand hubs” in turn will decrease the need for costly, long-distance transmission wires. Emerging will be a single European energy network where gas pipelines and reliability of gas supply actually become more important to providing electricity than high-voltage wires.

“By 2015, we see the gas and electricity industries in Europe converging into a single European energy network,” says Gill Rider, Andersen Consulting partner and head of the firm’s North Europe utilities practice. “Companies seeking success in this market will need new investment strategies, new skills like energy trading, improved regulatory management and a reliable supply of natural gas.”

Evidence for Growth of Gas

The studies point to a number of factors supporting the growth of gas in an open European electricity industry. First, more than 70 percent of the world’s supply of natural gas is deliverable into Europe from such gas-rich areas as the North Sea and Russia. Second, new co-generation technology makes some forms of gas-fired electricity generation capable of achieving 65-75% efficiency, compared with 30-40% efficiency with a traditional coal-fired plant. Third, co-generation plants can be built in as little as 18 months. Fourth, a shift toward natural gas is environmentally and aesthetically appealing because it is cleaner-burning and can be transported via underground pipelines instead of above-ground wires.

The research predicts that by 2015, 30-40 percent of European power is likely to be generated using gas, compared with 7.5 percent in 1992.

Utilities Must Rethink Business

To succeed in the emerging European energy market, Europe’s gas and electricity companies will have to rethink how they do business, how they are organized and where they invest. Winning companies will be those who define their space in the market early on, rather than wait to be led to it, and who possess the management skills to negotiate far-reaching change.

Flexibility will be key as winners create networked organizations to develop and/or acquire new capabilities through strategic alliances and acquisitions. Deep risk management skills will be necessary to navigate through the numerous political, economic, financial and regulatory uncertainties of a liberalizing industry. Complex energy trading capabilities will be essential because industry profitability increasingly will be determined by decisions made on the trading floor, not in the boardroom. Finally, winning companies will be organized around focused business units, a departure from current governance in the utility industry.

“Tremendous opportunities exist for companies that are willing to view the uncertainties of liberalization as a strategic advantage over the next 15 years,” Rider says. “Companies that understand the process of liberalization and are willing to take positions in numerous segments of the industry will be successful over the medium term.”

Nationalism Poses Risk to Liberalization

The research also contains a strong warning for Europe’s politicians and regulators: the biggest potential barriers to an open European electricity industry are politically motivated policies designed to protect some indigenous industries such as coal and oil in individual EU countries. Politicians and regulators throughout Europe eventually will be forced to resolve their countries’ national interests with the EU’s intent to create an open energy market.

“As consumers start to see lower energy prices in other countries, governments across Europe will be forced to examine the economic consequences of protectionism on both the country’s utilities and its manufacturers,” says Rider. “We believe that liberalization will create customer demands for cheaper power that even the most dedicated nationalists and protectionists will have to yield to.”

Additional Findings

Additional findings from the research include:

The growth of co-generation will change the structure of power generation. New technology will decrease the barriers to entering generation and enable large industry to partner with energy companies to generate its own power needs. Gas producers will respond to the increasing use of co-generation by moving into power generation.

Supply constraints posed by electricity transmission networks will ease as gas transportation networks grow. The use of gas-fired generation will significantly increase the importance of transporting gas to localized generating facilities, and decrease the need to transmit electricity long distances.

Failure to realize the increasingly important role gas will play in electricity generation leaves incumbent utilities vulnerable to significant loss of market share as their power costs are undercut by new competitors from other countries and industries.

Sophisticated energy trading will become an essential part of the European utility industry as increased competition creates multiple buyers and sellers needing to hedge against market price volatility.

Significant convergence will occur at all levels of the electric and gas industries as common skills such as energy trading, asset management, customer care and billing/metering develop across both industries. Oil companies pose a serious threat to traditional utilities as they are likely to leverage their vast experience in asset management to enter low-risk, asset intensive parts of the utility industry.

Electricity and gas suppliers will increasingly offer a bundle of additional products and services to offset falling margins, more discerning customer demands and low growth. Companies will seek to take integrated positions in fuel sourcing, power generation, trading and customer supply to hedge their risks in these related segments.

Intensive industry consolidation will continue across Europe, making borders less important and increasing difficulties for regulators monitoring the sector. Import dependence and market maturity (per capita gas consumption) will combine to dictate the way in which individual EU countries approach gas liberalization. Countries with high levels of indigenous gas production and/or high consumption are likely to open their markets to competition faster than those with low or no gas reserves and/or low levels of consumption.

The Andersen Consulting Utilities practice provides strategic management and technology consulting to many of the world’s largest and most innovative electric, gas and water utilities. Clients include 90 percent of the U.S. utilities listed in the Fortune 500 and two-thirds of the international utilities appearing in the Forbes list of the 500 largest international companies.

Andersen Consulting is a $6.6 billion global management and technology consulting organization whose mission is to help its clients change to be more successful. The organization works with clients from a wide range of industries to link their people, processes and technologies to their strategies. Andersen Consulting has more than 59,000 people in 46 countries. Its home page address is http://www.ac.com.

CONTACT: Douglas W. MacDonald | Andersen Consulting | +1 312 693 7463
| douglas.w.macdonald@ac.com | or | Julia J. Wright | +44 171 304 1812
| julia.j.wright@ac.com

NIST Advanced Technology Program

/0 Comments/in , /by

NIST Adv Technology Program (ATP) Announcements

If you want government funding for your projects, you may want to get familiar with this program, which makes multimillion $ awards for cost shared projects, often to teams of companies, universities and labs.

ATP website is: http://www.atp.nist.gov

–1998 Program Awards — include major projects in “Premium Power”
–1999 Proposal Solicitation and Proposers Conferences

——————————————————–
1998 AWARDS

On October 7, 1998, NIST announced results of nine ATP competitions conducted in 1998, including a general competition open to proposals from any area of technology and eight competitions in focused technology areas.

If carried through to completion, the 79 projects will be funded at approximately $224 million from private industry, matched by approximately $236 million from the ATP. The awards are contingent on the acceptance of the awards by the recipients.

Detailed lists and descriptions of the 1998 ATP projects and their participants are available from the ATP World Wide Web site at:
http://www.atp.nist.gov/www/comps/index98.htm

or by contacting NIST Public and Business Affair at (301) 975-2758.

The 1998 Competition categories were:
General Competitions
Photonics Manufacturing
Premium Power (** See below)
Digital Video in Information Networks
Catalysis and Biocatalysis
Microelectronics Manufacturing Infrastructure
Selective-Membrane Platforms
Tools for DNA Diagnostics
Adaptive Learning Systems

**1998 Premium Power Awards

– Preparation and Fundamental Evaluation of Catalytic Materials for Energy Applications
– Modular 2KVA Fuel Cell Power Plant with Live Replaceable, Self-Hydrating, PEM Smart Cartridges
– Novel Process for High-Efficiency Copper-Indium-Gallium-Diselenide (CIGS) Photovoltaic Modules
– Higher Voltage, Lower Impedance Aerogel Ultracapacitor
– Asymmetric Supercapacitor Based Upon Nanostructured Active Materials
– Lightweight, Flexible, High-Efficiency CIS-Alloy Tandem Photovoltaic Devices
– Reduced-Temperature, Electrode-Supported, Planar (RTESP) Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) System for Premium Power Applications
– Advanced Materials and Processes for Cost-Effective High-Power Ultracapacitor Modules
– Distributed Premium Power Fuel Cell Systems Incorporating Novel Materials and Assembly Techniques
– Propane-Fueled Fuel Cell Power System for Telecommunications Applications
– Advanced Lithium Solid Polymer Battery Development

————————————

1999 COMPETITION

On November 16, ATP announced the opening of its 1999 competition to support innovative, cost-shared industrial research and development. There will be only one single solicitation this year, open to all technology areas. The ATP has approximately $66 million dollars in fiscal year 1999 for first- year funding of new projects.
Full Proposals Due: 3p.m. Eastern Time April 14, 1999

Applicants may, if they wish, submit abbreviated pre-proposals to the ATP to receive feedback from the ATP as to suitability of the proposed project. Starting in FY1999, ATP will accept and provide feedback to pre-proposals throughout the year. However, ATP suggests that pre-proposals be submitted at least two months prior to the full proposal deadline to allow the proposer enough time to incorporate feedback into a 1999 proposal.

A complete collection of the ATP Proposers’ Conference presentations is available on line, along with the 1999 Proposal Preparation Kit.
http://www.atp.nist.gov/atp/opencmpt.htm

Hardcopies can be obtained from ATP by phone 1-800-ATP-FUND or 1-800-287-3863.

CURC Annual Conf. 11/98

/0 Comments/in , /by

California Utility Research Council
Annual Technology Conference
November 2-4, 1998
Costa Mesa CA

Background Information —————–

——- Who is CURC? ——-
CURC (California Utility Research Council) was established by the California Legislature (Public Utilities Code, Sections 9201-9203) in 1984 to:

– Promote consistency of utility RD&D programs with state energy policy
– Prevent unnecessary duplication of research efforts
– Encourage the free exchange of information related to utility RD&D projects where appropriate
– Identify opportunities for research coordination between energy utilities and for joint funding of RD&D projects of benefit to California ratepayers

CURC Board includes representatives from the CPUC, CEC, PG&E, SDG&E, SCE, and SoCalGas. [Recently, a new category of “Associate Member” was created, and includes CIEE, CMUA, EPRI, GRI, LADWP and SMUD.]
Website —- http://www.curc.org

——- Restructuring and Public Interest R&D ——-
Restructuring of the electric and natural gas industries is having a dramatic effect on the energy RD&D landscape in California. Previously, most of this work was funded by ratepayers and managed by the four largest investor-owned California utilities: PG&E, SCE, SDG&E, and SoCalGas. Supplemental funding for California RD&D interests was provided by GRI, EPRI, and Federal Agencies.

Restructuring is providing new opportunities for collaboration of energy RD&D efforts. Recent California legislation (AB1890) has made available $62.5 million per year for public interest energy RD&D to be managed by the California Energy Commission (CEC). Utilities will continue to fund ratepayer RD&D activities, although on a lesser scale. It is also expected that there will be an increasing interest in shareholder-funded technologies by energy companies seeking a competitive advantage. Finally, restructuring will have a direct effect on programs offered by EPRI, GRI, and perhaps even Federal Agencies.

——- Purpose ——
– To help attendees better understand how all of the energy RD&D pieces fit together in a restructured environment.
– To provide participants with an overview of technology trends and energy RD&D collaboration activities which benefit California.
– A first hand look at how the California PIER (Public Interest Energy Research), Renewables, and Energy Efficiency programs are being implemented.
– Opportunities to network directly with peers and funding agencies.

—————————————–
Highlights from the Conference

– Keynote : “California’s Electric Restructuring: a Stunning but Secret Success”
Phil Romero, Chief Economist, Office of the Governor, outlined how rapidly the transformation of California’s electric industry has proceeded and the significant benefits already being realized. He summarized the “deal” struck between all players on stranded assets and rates (recently upheld by the defeat of Proposition 9), and replied to some of the criticisms — there are consumer choice, numerous competitors, and longer term benefits of a renewed generation base, new energy services, and the chance for California to be a winner in world energy service markets.
One surprise was the high price paid in auctions of the fossil power plants. On average, they have sold for 2.5 times more than anticipated. The CEC had expected a “fire” sale. Book value seems to be irrelevant–the underlying issue seems to be the cost to rebuild at a greenfield sight.
California needs to prepare for a population that is expected to double within the next 25 years.

– Keynote: Telecomm RD&D Transition
Peter Magill, Bell Labs reviewed what happened to Bell Labs as AT&T was broken up in the 1980’s, and how the R&D evolved. Under the regulated monopoly, R&D was decoupled from the needs of the business. Interest and dollars dipped and work became much more targeted under the local operating companies and long distance provider. Now Lucent, the new owner of Bell Labs, dedicates 1% of revenues to an agile and strategic research program, and regards it as critical to their success. He noted the complex array of technologies and markets that are converging now in the telecomm industry, and outlined the opportunities for energy utilities to play. In particular, they have no legacy networks to overcome, and have the chance to leapfrog technologically, avoiding a “me-too” approach.

— National R&D Needs and Programs

– EPRI – an overview of EPRI’s continuing process of providing more options, and exploring new ways of providing services.

– GRI – FY 1999 R&D Plan is on their website (www.gri.org). GRI has just done a major reorganization with business units focused on customer segments, and offering staff services on a competitive basis. GRI’s traditional funding mechanisms are disappearing, so they are looking at new business models.

– Livermore and Idaho National Labs – representatives presented overviews of their programs. LLNL sees their advanced computing for weapons modeling as a capability that can make contributions in energy, and expect hydrogen to play a major role in the future. INEEL offers capabilities in environmental management and systems integration, and Lockheed Martin has strong incentives to work with industry and commercialize technology under its management contract.

—————————————–
— California Utility R&D Perspective

1998 is the last year of ratepayer funded research by electric utilities in California, as the transition proceeds (with the CEC public interest programs–see below). Corporate R&D departments have been disbanded, and the function decentralized completely into separate business units, for each to pursue according to their own priorities. Human and financial resources are declining dramatically, and there is little or no coordination among departments.

PG&E – In 1999, R&D funding will come from foreign utilities, the CEC PIER program, co-funding, and department operating funds. R&D must compete with maintenance projects for funding, and is expected to be about 1/4 of 1998 levels. Current programs of interest include: Information technology, Environmental impacts and compliance, Real time data for customer decisions, Life extension, Pipeline rehabilitation, Fitness for service–better utilization of assets, and Underground construction activities. Needs include: Reducing the time to bring technologies to the field, Producing products in a shorter timeframe, Looking to others for fundamental research. PG&E expressed concern over loss of in-house expertise. There is a need to collaborate and work with other utilities/research organizations toward reaching common goals.

San Diego Gas & Electric – R&D funding is now focused on technology development and application for core business. A four to five year time horizon for a new product is too long. Programs must focus on the near term – one to two years. SDG&E has interest in programs that increase system reliability, improves performance, and minimizes service.

So Cal Edison – In 1997, SCE spent $30 million in R&D related activities. The 1998 budget was $1.5 million. It has disbanded its research department. Research activities are being conducted by the business units and Edison Technology Solutions, which is a new unregulated unit competing for R&D funding, notably the CEC PIER program. With strong affiliate transaction restrictions in effect, ETS and SCE must keep very separate, and carefully handle any contacts between them.

Sacramento Municipal Utility District – Unlike the IOUs, SMUD’s R&D programs are stable. They are spending 3.7% of their revenues on R&D. SMUD is interested in photovoltaics for parking lots and rooftops and renewable programs. SMUD’s R&D funds are committed, but they welcome collaborations. They will use their funds, others will have to use their funds. Current areas of interest include: landfill gas, fuel cells, microturbines, and wind.

All the utilities represented at this meeting are looking for third party funding—federal, state, partnering arrangements. Utilities can supply test beds for new products and systems, and are interested in collaborative research.

—————————————–

— Environmental R&D

California EPA – is a family of regulatory bodies, including the Air Resources and Water Resources Boards. The Innovative Clean Air Technology Program (ICAT) has been set up to help new technologies thru the “valley of death” by providing funding, guidance, and certification for new technologies trying to become commercial.

South Coast Air Quality Management District – In So. Calif, 88% of NOx and two-thirds of VOC emissions from mobile sources. The SCAQM spends nearly $5 Million per year to advance new technology solutions to air quality–priorities include fuel cells, electric/hybrid vehicles, and stationery VOC source reduction. They look for cost-sharing, and will accept unsolicited sole-source proposals.

CEC Environmental R&D – The CEC has its own role in supporting energy related environmental R&D focused on improved siting and regulatory decisionmaking. Topics include upper atmosphere NOx transport modeling, avian mortality and wind turbines, and power plant water sources.

——————————————

CEC – Public Interest Energy Research (PIER)

(Extensive information is available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/research

Questions regarding PIER should be directed to Mike Batham
of the Commission’s Energy Development Division at:
916-654-4548, MBatham@energy.state.ca.us

PIER is for “public interest” not for regulated utility or competitive research, though it is recognized that the boundary is fuzzy.

Stage I is nearly complete, and Stage II is about to start.

In Stage I, three 1998 solicitations have been completed, with 83 projects approved for funding totaling $53 million through June 1999 (FY).
– One-time Transition Project Funding, for up to one year to continue ongoing (ratepayer-funded) public interest energy RD&D projects
– 1st General Solicitation funding, for projects in Environmental, Advanced Generation and Renewable Research
– 2nd General Solicitation funding, in End Use Efficiency and Strategic Research

*************************
UFTO has an electronic version of the complete listing of these projects that was handed out at the conference. It is available on the UFTO website, or on request. Send an email to pierprojects@ufto.com
*************************

Other accomplishments include establishment of the “Small Grants” program ( $2.5 Million for grants up to $75K each for concept development–announcement due soon, with grants early in ’99). Also, membership in seven EPRI targets has been approved ($1.5 Million).

PIER has a14 member Policy Advisory Council with representation of industry, universities, government and environmental groups.

Stage II Funding is organized around six Program Areas, with a staff team for each area. The team leaders, which in some cases are interim at this time, are listed in the respective program area.

– Industrial/Agricultural/Water — John Sugar, 916-654-4563
– Residential and Commercial Buildings — Nancy Jenkins, 916-654-4739
– Energy-Related Environmental Research — Bob Eller, 916-654-4930
– Environmentally-Preferred Adv. Gen. — Mike Batham, 916-654-4548
– Renewables — George Simons, 916-654-4659
– Strategic — Tom Tanton, 916-654-4930

Each team has compiled a list of high-level issues, based on input from focus groups, the Policy Advisory Council, and the Commissioners. These draft issues are still a work-in-progress as the teams proceed with the next steps: (1) identification of program goals and objectives; (2) prioritization of technical issues corresponding to the high-level issues; and (3) funding options and strategies. (Note: The complete document is available online and as an Acrobat pdf file).

CEC claims it has “streamlined” the contracting process. The Commissioner admitted that the contracts offered previously were difficult to accept. A team has recently reviewed and modified the terms and conditions (T&C’s). The T&C’s now used are in the best interests of the program—not the State’s. Modifications will be very difficult to get in the next solicitation. It was strongly recommended that the T&Cs be reviewed before preparing a bid, and be ready to accept them if selected for an award.

The next solicitation opportunity is tentatively scheduled to be released late winter (likely in February). A series of solicitations will address clearly defined target areas. There is no policy in place for reviewing, approving, or handling unsolicited proposals, and they are distinctly not encouraged. Would-be applicants probably would do well to contact CEC program staff informally to explore their ideas.

Criteria include: eligible organizations, public interest benefits in California, technical merit, credible team and schedule, policy fit — scores by independent evaluators are weighted, added and ranked. Matching funds can be zero if benefits are 100% public–must increase in proportion to non-public benefits.

NOTE: A proposal does not have to be submitted by a California company, nor does it have to be performed in California. There is no “favorable weighting” for California companies in the PIER program. The program, however, must clearly benefit California rate payers. The program requires matching funds. There will be a PIER workshop in January or February.

—————————————

The Other Public Benefit Programs

There are two other major “public benefit” programs that were established under AB1890 restructuring that represent a much larger $ resource than PIER — Renewable Technology, and Energy Efficiency. Presentations and discussions explored how these programs bridge to or overlap with PIER.

— Renewable Technology Program (www.energy.ca.gov/renewables)

AB1890 provided for $540 Million ( of the “Public Good Charge” to be collected from the IOUs) to support existing, new and emerging technologies, and SB90 codified recommended allocation and distribution mechanisms. Basically, there are four separate “accounts” (existing, emerging and new technologies, and consumer-side), all of which provide some form of “buy-down” for renewable generation, with no participation in any form of RD&D. The purpose is to encourage the renewables industry to accept and promote new renewable technology.

— Energy Efficiency (www.cbee.org)

The Calif. Board for Energy Efficiency (CBEE) is a Board established by the CPUC to administer these funds–roughly 10 times the budget for PIER. Under “standard performance contracts, payments are made for measurable energy savings achieved by installation of specific energy-efficiency projects. Savings must be measured and installations verified under standardized program rules. There are also “market transformation” programs providing commercial downstream incentives, LED traffic signal standards, commercial surveys, and a demonstration programs for a premium efficiency relocatable classroom. Nearly 1/3 of the funds will go towards residential programs, e.g. contractor training and labeling programs. Contact Mark Thayer, 619-594-5510

— Bridging PIER (R&D) and the Renewables/Efficiency Programs
California Institute for Energy Efficiency http://eetd.lbl.gov/CIEE/
(CIEE plans, funds and manages a statewide energy R&D program)

CIEE outlined some their own programs, and offered ideas to bridge the gaps between R&D and these two programs. PIER can’t support demonstrations unless they “add to the knowledge”, and the CBEE needs more latitude for emerging technology. PIER needs to awareness of market needs. There is a need to prove cost effectiveness to market participants, etc.

An important element for bridging the gap is the multi-year program strategy that enables orderly transitions from R&D to demos to commercial use. Multi year projects should have advisory committees, direct involvement by market representatives, and deliberate plans for disseminating results in appropriate venues. CIEE also recommends that research be done directly on market processes themselves–barriers, incentives and decisionmaking.
Contact: Jim Cole, CIEE Director, 510-486-5380, jwcole@lbl.gov

——————————————-

Calif. Trade and Commerce Agency, Office of Strategic Technology (OST)
Pasadena CA http://goldstrike.net

Steve Jarvis, 626-568-9437, sjarvis@goldstrike.com
Richard Keeler, ” ”

This agency provides resources, support, funding and access to various state and federal programs to help California companies to be successful and compete globally. OST partners with other organizations that seek to help the formation of partnerships and enable industry to move forward. A total investment 5 year investment approaching $1 Billion has been realized, leveraging funds from federal, state and private sources.

Companies seeking help must meet strict criteria as businesses (i.e. not just technology), much as venture capital investors require.

OST programs include the Calif Technology Investment Partnership, Regional Technology Alliances, Calif. Manufacturing Technology Program, Calif. Information Infrastructure, and NSF Research Centers.

——————————————-

Other agenda items included:

A series of presentations of a sample of PIER funded research projects:
– Waste water and agricultural technology demonstrations
– Monitoring and Diagnostic system for Commercial Buildings
– Global Climate Change–scenarios and analysis
– Low emission Gas Turbine Combustor for Distributed Gen.
– Photovoltaic system implementation

Customer view of RD&D Needs
– Calif. Manufacturers Assoc.
(want certain end in 2002 of ratepayer funded R&D)
(suggest a number of energy conservation items for work til then)
– Applicant Design of Gas and Electric Distribution systems
(evolving to include private ownership and O&M, with many
resulting legal, regulatory and technical issues)

Panel Discussion on Improving Collaborative RD&D Processes

Past Successes of CEC and IOU research (under the old framework)
—————————————–

New Carbon Management Report

/0 Comments/in , /by

DOE has assessed fundamental research needs in carbon management through a series of workshops. A new report based on information from those workshops and other background materials is available on the Internet. The report identifies targets of opportunity for fundamental research likely to lead to the development of mid- to long-term solutions for reducing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.

It covers five topic areas:

1) capture of carbon dioxide, decarbonization strategies, and carbon dioxide sequestration and utilization;
2) hydrogen development and fuel cells;
3) enhancement of the natural carbon cycle;
4) biomass production and utilization; and
5) improvement of the efficiency of energy production, conversion, and utilization.

The report is down loadable in a .pdf format from the Office of Science (Energy Research) website under the link in the website entitled “Carbon Management Research Needs”. http://www.er.doe.gov/

Contact: John Houghton, (301) 903-8288, John.Houghton@oer.doe.gov

Distrib Power Meeting; Interconnection Stds

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Distributed Power Coalition of America (DPCA) is holding its annual meeting this week in Washington, with a special session on Interconnection Issues.

The website is quite informative…see material below, and go to — http://www.dpc.org/events/annual98/agenda.html

In addition (as will be discussed in detail at the meeting), the IEEE standards activity in this area has become quite intense. There was a preliminary session in St. Louis last month in conjunction with the IEEE-IAS Society meeting.
**************************
“IEEE-SCC21″ Standards Development Coordinations for Fuel Cells, PV, Dispersed Generation, and Energy Storage”

Meeting is scheduled for Dec 9-11, also in Washington

Chair is Dick DeBlasio of NREL, 303-384-6452, dick_deblasio@nrel.gov

For a registration form contact: Kim Taylor Conference Coordinator, 303-275-4358, kimberly_taylor@nrel.gov

Meeting will coordinate development of consensus standards within the IEEE-SCC21 committee and its working groups. Emphasis will be placed on technology-specific standards, needs, standards project development, and establishment of working groups. Standards such as utility interconnection and testing protocols will be addressed and coordinated.

SCC-21’s role was expanded in June to merge SCC23 (dispersed storage and generation) and SCC21 (PV)

(As of this writing, I couldn’t find anything about this on the internet.)

**************************

Thursday, Nov. 12, 1998
“Preparing for the Millennium of Distributed Generation”

Industry-Wide Summit on Interconnection
Friday, Nov. 13, 1998
“Interconnection Issues for Distributed Generation”

Hilton Crystal City at National Airport Washington, DC

Opening Reception Crystal City Hilton
Wednesday, Nov. 11, 1998 6:00 – 7:30 p.m. Everyone Welcome!

The Distributed Power Coalition of America was launched in 1997 as an advocacy group to promote the use of distributed power generation in the marketplace. Small-scale units that produce electricity closer to the customer are becoming an economic reality. Compared to spot prices of $10,000/MWh this summer, distributed generation technology makes good sense–even if only used for limited periods of time!

Our annual meeting this year features a number of exciting case studies about the economic reality of these options in today’s market. These include advanced turbine systems, microturbines in real-life multiple settings, the combination of cutting edge technology to resolve reliability issues, and fuel cells for individual homes. Please check out the enclosed program brochure!

In addition, we are sponsoring a one-day industry-wide summit meeting on interconnection. This event brings together, for the first time, all of the major groups working on this issue–DOE, CADER, GRI, EPRI and IEEE–including case reports from working groups on standards for fuel cells and photovoltaics. This meeting may be the most comprehensive held to date to discuss how these new technologies will connect to the existing electricity grid. If you have a stake in this issue, you need to be there!

So sign up early, as hotel space is limited. We look forward to seeing you at what promises to be the most important networking event in distributed generation this year!

Sincerely,

Wayne Gardner DPCA Chair DPCA Executive Director
Sarah McKinleyDPCA Executive Director

Cold Fusion Quietly Continues

/0 Comments/in , /by

In one of the most balanced and thorough discussions I’ve seen, the new issue Wired Magazine has a feature article this month (November, 1998, “6.11”) that reviews the history and current events of cold fusion research. “What If Cold Fusion Is Real?”, by Charles Platt, looks into the continuing work and tantalizing experimental evidence from all around the world.

A decade ago, after a brief wild explosion of world excitement, the scientific establishment was very quick to label it a fraud after numerous big labs were unable to reproduce any effect.

Today, a few hardy souls still continue the work. Many have seen excess heat and other indications of new phenomena. The difficulty is that no-one has quite figured out what makes it work sometimes and not others, a serious impediment for the reproduceability that the scientific method relies on so heavily.

The situation is complicated by the presence of a number of quacks and new agers, and a new fascination with nuclear transformation (“the end of rad waste!!”) that has divided the already small worldwide community. Still, there are respected bonafide scientists who’ve seen results and take them seriously, even if explanations are in short supply. Interestingly, it’s mostly older people who persist–younger scientists would do real damage to their professional careers by mentioning the subject. And, there’s little or no funding.

The article does a nice job of explaining the corner that cold fusion’s been painted into. Since nearly all scientific journals categorically refuse to publish anything on the subject, it’s difficult for good research on the subject to get heard. The hundreds of reported experimental observations make no difference. They are just dismissed with little or no honest scrutiny.

The best hope seems to be in the hands of a few venture-investor backed small companies, who apparently will be taken seriously only when they can put a commercial device on the market. The trouble is, there’s a lot of basic science to do first, and the very limited resources might not be able to go the whole way from lab to commercial device.

One such firm is discussed in the article, CETI, who dramatically demonstrated a device in public at the PowerGen conference in 1995. Since then, they’ve had trouble getting the same performance. They say only that their first batch of material worked, but not later ones, and they don’t know why.

Notably absent from the article is the high profile Blacklight Power (www.blacklightpower.com), which reportedly refuses all interviews, but claims to have an entirely new physics as a basis for its cold fusion process. Also missing is Eneco, the Salt Lake City firm that UFTO relies on for help in tracking developments in the field. Eneco prefers to stay out of the press, and is working quietly on its own approach.

Eneco actually helped Mr. Platt, and arranged for him to attend the ICCF-7 (7th Annual International Conference on Cold Fusion) in Vancouver, April 1998. The proceedings for this conference are now available for $50 a copy. Contact ICCF-7 c/o Eneco, 801-583-2000, fax 801-583-6245, jaeger@enecco-usa.com.