Posts

T&D R&D Gaining Attention

/0 Comments/in , /by

Here are some high-level pointers to an array of resources related to ongoing developments in T&D research, sponsored by DOE, NSF and the CEC (Calif Energy Commission), which demonstrate a new level of attention to grid reliability and security.

Let me know if I can be helpful digging deeper into any of these areas.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DOE – Office of Electricity Transmission and Distribution

The Dept. of Energy will announce, perhaps as early as next week, the creation of a new office for T&D reporting directly to the Secretary, as recommended in the National Transmission Grid Study* done last year. The Office of Electricity Transmission and Distribution will start with a budget of $85 million, however all but $8 or 9 million is already committed to earmarks ($27 M) and high temperature superconductors ($40 M). The office will be headed by Jimmy Glotfelty, an assistant to Abrahams. The staff currently in the Transmission Reliability Program in EERE will move over to the new office.

Meanwhile next week, a new Center will be dedicated at Oak Ridge:
http://www.ornl.gov/ORNL/Energy_Eff/nttrcdedication.htm

The dedication of the National Transmission Technology Research Center (NTTRC) and the Powerline Conductor Accelerated Facility (PCAT), the first working facility of four planned for the Center, will be held March 25. The Center, sponsored by ORNL, DOE, and TVA, will test and evaluate advanced technologies, including conductors, sensors and controls, and power electronics, under a wide range of electrical conditions without jeopardizing normal operations. The first component of the NTTRC, the PCAT facility, is initiating its first test protocol with 3M’s advanced Aluminum Conductor Composite Reinforced conductor.
— Overview of NTTRC:
http://www.ornl.gov/ORNL/Energy_Eff/PDFs/NTTRCoverview.pdf

The existing Transmission Reliability Program was reestablished by Congress in 1999 to conduct research on the reliability of the Nation’s electricity infrastructure during the transition to competitive markets under restructuring.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/der/transmission/
Go to “Documents and Resources” for recent studies and materials.

*(May 2002 http://www.energy.gov/NTGS/reports.html)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Calif Energy Commission

The CEC Public Interest Energy Research program (PIER) has a very active effort underway in Transmission Research. They recently released a 140 page “Electricity Transmission Research and Development Assessment and Gap Analysis – Draft Consultant Report” — now available online along with other materials and presentations:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/strat/strat_research_trans6.html

This report is one of two reports which were discussed at a public workshop held March 12, 2003 at the CEC.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

National Science Foundation
Directorate for Engineering, Elec. And Communications Systems
http://www.eng.nsf.gov/ecs/

1. Workshop on Modernizing the Electric Power Grid, Nov 02
— http://eent1.tamu.edu/nsfw/index.htm

Starting on slide 14 of James Momoh’s presentation there is a good overview of the EPNES initiative (next item)
http://eent1.tamu.edu/nsfw/documents/Presentation_JMo.ppt

2. NSF/ONR Partnership in Electric Power Networks Efficiency and Security (EPNES)
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf02188/nsf02188.htm

This solicitation seeks to obtain major advances in the integration of new concepts in control, modeling, component technology, social and economics theories for electrical power networks’ efficiency and security. It also encourages development of new interdisciplinary research-based curriculum… Proposals were due Feb 3.

3. The Power Systems Engineering Research Center (PSERC)
PSERC is an NSF Industry/University Cooperative Research Center, involving a consortium of13 universities working with government and industry. The website has a huge array of reports and publications.
http://www.pserc.wisc.edu/

For the NSF’s “fact sheet”, see:
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf01168/nsf01168ee.htm

Leveraging the Feds

/0 Comments/in , /by

Federal research programs represent an opportunity for private industry to get additional resources applied to their RD&D projects and other business goals. Many companies, and a few utilities, have been successful at this for a long time.

This discussion is an initial introduction to what it takes to tap the Feds, and DOE/Labs in particular. If there is interest, UFTO stands ready to dig deeper.

The good news is that: it can be done, as evidenced by the companies that do it successfully and repeatedly (“best practice”). The bad news is that it isn’t easy, especially starting fresh. “Startup costs” may be considerable, and the ongoing costs are significant as well, particularly administrative. Companies with a lot experience have advised: don’t do it for a couple $100K; be in for the long haul; it’s a means, not an end; and start with knowing what you want to do. Bottom line– there are resources, programs, and mechanisms that can lead to leverage, but if you want to drink, you have to go to the well.

Federal Tech Transfer

Starting in the early 80’s, Congress and executive orders have been steadily reshaping U.S. federal research policy to expand the importance of technology transfer. Over time, it has become easier and easier for federal agencies to grant private parties the rights to technology and IP developed at federal labs. Working with industry is now the norm.

The emphasis on tech transfer is aimed to get results of federal R&D programs into use — thus fulfilling a (new) mission to help U.S. industry be more competitive. Where these efforts provide resources, industry gets a chance for leverage –it’s just the other side of the same coin.

Where federal spending is targeted at policy goals (such as conservation or advancing a new technology), utilities can be particularly appropriate partners. Another point to keep in mind–the labs are always looking for ways to maintain funding for their programs. An outside funder can gain tremendous leverage by adding resources to ongoing programs which can adapt to meet the funder’s own requirements.

If a private company wins a government award to develop new technology, it usually has to come up with matching funds (especially if it expects to hold on to the resulting IP). From the company’s point of view, their portion is leveraged substantially compared with a go-it-alone approach. (In the case a startup, an equity investor who provides the matching funds will find that his money goes that much farther.)

For a good overview and introduction to federal tech transfer, see the Federal Lab Consortium’s “Green Book”, available online or in hardcopy.
http://www.federallabs.org/ (scroll down, on left margin under “Resources”)

There are many contracting mechanisms for working with the government, ranging from outright grants to actual fee-for-service. National labs in particular like to say that contracting should not be an obstacle, that they will find a way to make it work. (Non-U.S. companies shouldn’t be discouraged from looking into opportunities– there usually are ways to deal with restrictions that might otherwise interfere.)

– CRADA (Cooperative R&D Agreement)
– Cost Share/Cofund
– Licensing
– User Facilities
– Work-For-Others
– Personnel Exchange
– Data & Information Exchange
– Consulting & Technical Assistance (by Lab personnel)
– Contracts
– Financial Assistance
– Grants (SBIR, Clean Coal, STTR, TRP, ATP, etc.)
– Consortia (“Industry Partnerships”)
– Informal Collegial Contact!

The main agency for energy is obviously DOE, and other agencies have extensive energy programs as well (e.g., DOD , NASA, Commerce, EPA, Agriculture, Transportation, Interior, etc.). Within DOE, two major programs account for most of the relevant activity:
– Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (EREN) http://www.eren.doe.gov/
– Fossil Energy (FE) http://www.fe.doe.gov/

Solicitations are handled by headquarters, regional program offices, or labs. NREL and NETL in particular seem to be heavily involved in supporting headquarters with administering solicitations and managing programs.
NREL-Nat’l Renewable Energy Lab, CO http://www.nrel.gov
NETL- Nat’l Energy Technology Lab; WV, PA — formerly METC & PETC
http://www.netl.doe.gov/

Solicitations Listings

EREN provides this site as a general starting point
>> http://www.eren.doe.gov/solicitations/

DOE’s Seattle Regional Office publishes a comprehensive compilation of solicitations — from multiple agencies and foundations — relating to energy efficiency, renewable energy, and sustainable development. They maintain online a 15-20 page “Open Solicitations Summary” and also send out a monthly email announcement of all new items.
>> http://www.eren.doe.gov/sro
Go to “Open Solicitations” link to see the new monthly listings. Also note instructions on how to be added to the email distribution. The link “Open Solicitations Summary” will take you to the archive where you can download the complete list. (Be sure to look at the last page of the summary for additional information about sources of information.)

On behalf of Fossil Energy, NETL provides alerts, solicitations, CRADA lore, etc., at:
>> http://www.netl.doe.gov/business/
The “Solicitations” link gives a list of current and future opportunities (plus a link to archives).
>> http://www.netl.doe.gov/business/solicit/main.html

All DOE solicitations are now handled through the new centralized Industry Interactive Procurement System (IIPS). It is used to post solicitations and amendments, receive proposals/applications, and disseminate award information. Entities wishing to participate in these solicitations will need to register at the IIPS Webster. Proposals will only be accepted through IIPS, unless otherwise indicated within the solicitation document.

IIPS takes some getting used to. “Guest” users can see most everything, but navigation is not easy. Guest users click on “Browse Opportunities”, and are stuck scrolling through 100’s of listings by number. It’s worth registering for a password, otherwise you can’t use the “Main View” which gives you much better sorting capabilities (e.g., by contracting office).
>> http://e-center.doe.gov or http://pr.doe.gov

[Caution: Don’t be surprised to see that “solicitations” in IIPS include everything DOE buys, from research (RFPs) to light bulbs to janitorial services. The Seattle list is a valuable filter.]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some additional links that provide information and guidance on working with the government:

Argonne National Lab Tech Transfer Office
http://www.techtransfer.anl.gov/

Laboratory Coordinating Council
Specifically geared to the major “Industries of the Future” from the DOE Office of Industrial Technology.
http://www.oit.doe.gov/lcc/

DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Program
— Sign up to receive notices (right margin, at the bottom)
http://www.eren.doe.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Advanced Technology Program: partners with the private-sector to develop broadly beneficial technologies. ATP applies across almost any technology area–R&D, (*not* commercialization). Proposal teams often include private companies, startups, labs, universities, etc.
>> http://www.atp.nist.gov/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Utilities and DOE

Some utilities have been working closely with DOE for a long time, and others are just now entering the game.

Electricity Advisory Board http://www.eab.energy.gov/
Established Nov 2001 to advise on electricity policy issues. Specifically, the DOE’s electricity programs; current and future capacity of the electricity system; issues related to production, reliability and utility restructuring; and coordination between the DOE and state and regional officials and the private sector on matters affecting electricity supply and reliability. Chair is Lynn Draper, CEO of AEP. Many of the CEO members come from utilities that are household words in DOE. (NiSource, DTE, SoCo, etc.)

The Clean Coal Program, which began mid 80’s, has funded major projects with companies like AEP, Tampa Elec, SoCo, etc. The recent solicitation (Clean Coal Power Initiative Round One Proposals – 8/02) attracted a number of new players (Ameren, IP&L, LG&E, Wepco, etc.).
http://fossil.energy.gov/techline/tl_ccpi_round1_proposals.shtml
http://fossil.energy.gov/techline/tl_ccpi_rd1proposals.html

Efficiency & Renewables likewise sees old and new companies at its conferences and responding to its solicitations, particularly in DG, Storage, Hydrogen, etc. (SCE, Nipsco, DTE, Com Ed, SRP…)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here is some advice compiled from conversations with people at DOE and in the utilities.

Know what DOE is trying to do that fits with your company’s goals
(attend workshops, review meetings, conferences etc.)

Get to know the people and programs, and understand what they’re up to.
( might be able influence what goes into an RFP)

Information/access is public, but only some companies bother to look.
extent of involvement depends on objectives

Work out a strategy, pick out a couple of areas, and put foot in the door.

Key is to find a (programmatic) match and a (contracting) vehicle.
(most DOE work is competed and cost-shared)

Follow the solicitations; understand procedures

Congressional earmark is a possibility, but doesn’t make any friends in DOE

Companies participate (in R&D/DOE) for variety of reasons
(PR, reg. pressures, …and sometimes… actual business goals!)

Don’t need to be insider (but it doesn’t hurt). DOE welcomes new faces and new ideas.

Staged Combustion with Nitrogen-Enriched Air (SCNEA)

/0 Comments/in , /by

Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL) recently announced they’re developing a unique combustion method that results in lower power plant pollutant emissions, without efficiency penalties, by combining staged-combustion with nitrogen-enriched air.

The SCNEA combustion method burns fuels in two or more stages, where the fuel is combusted fuel-rich with nitrogen-enriched air in the first stage, and the fuel remaining after the first stage is combusted in the remaining stage(s) with air or nitrogen-enriched air. This method substantially reduces the oxidant and pollutant loading in the effluent gas and is applicable to many types of combustion equipment including: boilers, burners, turbines, internal combustion engines and many types of fuel including coal, oil and natural gas.

Results to date are from computer models. The next stage (Phase 1), to be completed in October ’02, is to do a small scale-pilot program involving experimental measurements at a bench scale (10-50 kw) to confirm predictions. Thereafter, Phase 2 will be conducted using commercial boilers and burners with an industry partner.

Provisional patents have been filed for the coal applications, and are in the process of filing on others.

To date, the work has been funded internally by the lab, and they are seeking additional funds (e.g. DOE, industry matching, etc.) to continue. LLNL is in the process of forming a consortium that includes the EPA, DOE, utilities, suppliers to the industry (e.g. boiler and burner manufacturers), engineering design firms, and suppliers of nitrogen enriched air. They are actively encouraging participation from industry.

^^^^^^^
Here is the abstract of a recent 8-page unpublished white paper prepared by LLNL. (I can send the pdf on request).

“A new primary control process for stationary combustion processes is predicted to significantly reduce NOx emissions, reduce corrosion in equipment, and enhance energy efficiency. This combustion method combines the technologies of stage-combustion with nitrogen-enriched air for the oxidant stream in one or more of the combustion stages, and is termed Staged Combustion with Nitrogen-Enriched Air (SCNEA). … SCNEA can replace or enhance currently employed NOx control technologies, such as low-NOx burners, overfire, reburning, and advanced flue gas treatment. SCNEA offers the ability to achieve NOx emission levels lower than levels attained using secondary control methods (e.g. SCR and SNCR) without the use of a catalyst.”

[another excerpt]
“SCNEA utilizes two stages. The first combustion stage is operated fuel-rich so that enough fuel remains for a second combustion stage. Nitrogen-enriched air is used as the oxidant stream in the first combustion stage, which allows precise control of the combustion temperature while producing effluent gases that have a very low oxidant and pollutant loading. The fuel remaining after the first combustion stage (along with the other effluent gases) is mixed with a stoichiometric amount of air and burned in the second stage. The temperature of the second combustion stage is maintained at or below the temperature of the first combustion stage by: (1) controlling the amount of fuel remaining after the first combustion stage (the equivalence ratio of the first combustion stage), (2) using nitrogen-enriched air as the oxidant stream for the second stage, and/or (3) controlling the minimum temperature between the two combustion stages.
NOx levels are significantly lower (1.40×10-2 lb NOx/MBTU) than either of the other single stage methods. Oxidant levels are also significantly reduced (3.30×10-2 lb O2/MBTU, and 6.45×10-6 lb O/MBTU). These advantages are coupled with an improvement in the amount of heat released per scf, i.e. 75.2 BTU/scf. ”

For more information, contact:
Kevin O’Brien, New Business Development
LLNL, Livermore, CA
925-422-7782 obrien14@llnl.gov

DOE H2&FC Reviews

/0 Comments/in , /by

Hydrogen – Fuel Cells for Transportation – Fuels for Fuel Cells
— 2002 Annual Program/Lab R&D Review —

These three US DOE programs held their combined review meetings, May 6-10, 2002 in Golden CO. Proceedings are available on the Hydrogen Information Network:
http://www.eren.doe.gov/hydrogen/hydrogen_review.html

……..[addendum July 17]………
The proceedings of the 2002 US DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Review are available on-line.
http://www.eren.doe.gov/hydrogen/docs/2002toc.html

The 70 technical reports, each available as a separate downloadable file, represent the efforts of researchers and engineers at National Labs, universities, and in industry from across the US. They cover hydrogen production, storage, and use, with excellent papers on analysis and the Program’s technology validation projects. The CD-ROM will be available for purchase soon.
…………………………

As you know, UFTO made its group visit to NREL on the Wednesday. I was there all week and caught four days of the review meetings.

The first big news was that all three programs are now combined into one, under the major reorganization of Energy Efficiency and Renewables (aka EE or EREN). (See UFTO News March 26–if you missed it let me know. Also http://www.eren.doe.gov/ee.html.) These programs had been under separate offices (Power, Industrial, and Transportation).

HYDROGEN: May 6-8

Technical abstracts appear in two documents, each of which contain 2-3 pages on each of 38 presentations. Technical Papers from the meeting will be posted by mid-July 2002.

Session A – Production and Technology Validation
– Biological Hydrogen Production
– Fossil ? Base Production
– Renewable Production/Electrolytic Processes
– Technology Validation
– Separation And Purification

Session B – Storage, Utilization, Analysis
– Analysis Projects
– Hydrogen Utilization Research
– Technology Transfer
– Storage

FUEL CELLS FOR TRANSPORTATION (21 papers): May 9
– Fuel Cell Modeling/Analysis
– Fuel Cell Stack Components
– Membranes/MEAs
– Electrodes/Electrocatalysts
– Direct-Methanol Fuel Cells
– Fuel Cell Materials

FUELS FOR FUEL CELLS (13 papers): May 10
– Fuel Processing
– Water-Gas Shift Catalysts
– Fuels Effects

Complete papers for fuel cells are already posted, along with 20 poster papers.

—— ——— ————
DOE is required by law to do these reviews, and they are quite scripted and formalized. A panel of grey-beard expert reviewers sit in the front and ask probing questions and give sage advice to each of the researchers who present an update of their progress since last year. Meanwhile several hundred observers fill the rest of the room, and can ask questions if there’s time after the reviewers are finished. The format of the presentations were very tightly prescribed, with a number of required points to cover (e.g. ‘collaborations and outreach’). The Hydrogen program even banned fancy graphics and powerpoint, insisting on plain vu-graphs (bad experiences in the past with computer glitches).

Presentations covered projects funded by the three DOE programs. Most were from national lab researchers, with only a handful of industrials. As such the emphasis seemed to be heavily in favor of basic research/long-term R&D, and “analysis” projects, e.g. to estimate the costs and benefits of various infrastructure schemes. As such, it was a long five days, and only moderately rewarding at best (especially if one considers that developments with real commercial potential are not going to be talked about in public). As usual, the informal networking during breaks and receptions were at least as worthwhile. One can only hope that the reorganization will bring greater clarity to all of this work, along with a rethinking of the review process.

—— ——— ————
DOE staff gave overviews of the issues, programs, and progress–these are also on the website above.

For HYDROGEN:
– Storage is progressing well, notably pressurized tanks, but a breakthrough would be welcome
– Production is from natural gas in the nearterm, capitalizing on existing infrastructure, though not sustainable for the long term.
– Long term (20+ years) the goal is hydrogen from biomass, coal, nuclear* and waste.
(*by electrolysis, or better, direct thermal decomposition of water at high temperature)
– The essential end-use device- the fuel cell- continues to need huge cost reductions
– Safety, codes, standards, and fair trade issues are a major piece of the puzzle
– On-board vehicle reformers are only a transition strategy. Startup time and efficiency are key.
– Vehicle Insfrastructure Demonstration partnerships, involving the deployment of progressively larger fleets and charging station

DOE initiated a National Hydrogen Vision and Roadmap process in response to recommendations made in President Bush’s National Energy Policy. The Vision Meeting took place Nov 2001 and the Roadmap Workshop took place Apr 2002 in Washington, D.C. The summaries, the proceedings, and the individual presentations are available at:
http://www.eren.doe.gov/hydrogen/features.html

This presentation contains a lot of information about the perceptions, priorities and programs: — Review of the Hydrogen Program (N. Rossmeissl, DOE)
http://www.eren.doe.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/32405c.pdf

For FUEL CELLS:
National policy is indeed driving things. There is a draft report to Congress, following a workshop held in February, available now at:
http://www.sentech.org/fuelcell.html
“…an assessment of the technical, economic, and infrastructure barriers to commercialization of fuel cells for transportation, portable power, stationary and distributed generation applications. This full report is due November 5, 2002. In addition, the Department is to provide an interim assessment that describes the need for public and private cooperative programs to demonstrate commercial use of fuel cells by 2012.”

The FreedomCAR Partnership is the successor to PNGV, whose goal had been a very high mileage auto. Go to: http://www.cartech.doe.gov/
The new emphasis is on hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Scroll down this long list of publications (probably a lot more than you wanted to know):
http://www.cartech.doe.gov/research/fuelcells/index.html
Note in particular, the 2001 Annual Progress Report for Fuel Cells for Transportation

The name “Freedom” is meant to represent freedom from foreign oil and emissions and freedom of choice, with myriad technologies and products. These programs address technical challenges such as cost (platinum), durability, fuel processing, air-thermal-water management, and higher temperature (=new membranes). Specific stretch goals: 60% efficiency; 325 W/kg; $45/kw (including storage!). For storage, 2 kwh/kg, 1 kwh/L.

NREL VISIT

/0 Comments/in , /by

Six stalwart UFTO company representatives and yours truly spent the entire day on May 8 at the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL), in Golden CO.

NREL is the smallest of the DOE national labs, with just over 1000 staff, and an annual budget of $187 million (FY00).. It is also the only lab with a specifically defined mission to advance renewable energy technology. NREL has a number of special purpose facilities and programs in wind, solar (PV and thermal), biomass/bioenergy, hydrogen and advanced transportation vehicles.

One impression that struck us was the strong sense of purpose and commitment that the NREL staff bring to their work. They really seem motivated by a desire to make the world a better place.

In terms of technical content, it was a bit of a drink from a firehose. Each presenter managed in under an hour to encapsulate the state of the art, explain the context and importance, and indicate what NREL’s particular role is.

(Presentations are available for download from the UFTO website–client password required. To access the directory of all presentation files, go to:
http://www.ufto.com/clients-only/nreldocs/
Or click on the links below to download individual documents directly.)

Obviously, in this amount of time we were only beginning to scratch the surface–myriad information resources abound on the DOE, NREL and other websites and publications. Best of all, perhaps, was the opportunity to meet the people doing the work, and to be able to recontact them to dig deeper.

Discussions of context and importance reflected a familiar list of driving forces (climate, resources, population, poverty, etc.). Energy demand will grow substantially; oil and gas won’t last forever. Renewables are on a decades-long development cycle that most new technologies (e.g. oil) have experienced in the past. Their cost and performance characteristics are now beginning to reach a point where their use is increasingly entering the mainstream in a major way.

One idea that NREL has been talking about for a couple of years — if the 20th century was the fossil energy century, then perhaps the 21st will be the biological energy century, with “biorefineries” gradually taking the place of oil refineries to provide fuels, chemicals, and myriad other material feedstocks of the economy. It’s definitely a long-term vision, but one can cite several examples where this already happens, e.g. in a paper mill, trees become paper, energy and other products. Another is corn, which becomes ethanol, corn, and livestock feed.

————————-
NREL Overview
http://www.ufto.com/clients-only/nreldocs/Overview.pdf (1.2 mb)
David Warner, david_warner@nrel.gov
Lee Boughey, lee_boughey@nrel.gov
Industry Liaison

————————-
Distributed Energy Resources and Hydrogen
http://www.ufto.com/clients-only/nreldocs/Der.pdf (820kb)
Tony Schaffhauser, AC_Schaffhauser@nrel.gov
Director , Distributed Energy Resources Center
http://www.nrel.gov/energy_resources/

This group pursues the linkages of renewables and natural gas with national energy needs through distributed generation. They provide analysis tools, test facilities, resource assessment, and work on standards, codes, and regulatory/institutional issues.

Renewable Resource Data Center (RReDC) provides information on several types of renewable energy resources in the United States, in the form of publications, data, and maps. GIS integration enables overlay of related infrastructures, e.g. pipelines, roads, and transmission lines.
http://rredc.nrel.gov/

————————-
Solar Programs Overview
http://www.ufto.com/clients-only/nreldocs/PV.ppt (7mb)
John Benner, john_benner@nrel.gov
http://www.nrel.gov/photovoltaics.html

PV Roadmap: http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/pvplans.html

Some key take-aways:
– “Breakthroughs” are not necessary. PV is on track to become a major energy supply via gradual improvement. The range of cost-effective applications is rapidly expanding, with PV energy costing from 10-50¢/kwh. Over the last 20 years, prices have fallen 25% with each doubling of cumulative shipments.
– Silicon PV rides on the shoulders of the semiconductor industry, with all its materials, equipment and manufacturing technology (e.g. the progress from 6″ to 8″ to 12″ wafers). (NREL’s PV lab does research funded by IC companies!) Even amorphous silicon can draw from the flat panels industry. The various thin-film technologies have no such opportunity to leverage better established industry capabilities.
– Thin film, though less efficient, is cheaper, and can fill important niches such as building-integrated PV.
– US market share is dropping. Elsewhere in the world, interest, and government support is leading to faster growth. World wide production is over 400 MW/year.
– There are lots of myths to dispel. For example, some say that huge land areas are required. Answer: existing roofs are more than enough.

————————-
Superconductivity
http://www.ufto.com/clients-only/nreldocs/Superconduct.pdf (2.8mb)
Richard Blaugher, richard_blaugher@nrel.gov
Technology Manager, Superconductivity Program

NREL is one six DOE labs that work in superconductivity (SC). The DOE website has a lot of information about the overall effort:
http://www.eren.doe.gov/superconductivity/
(note in particular “Library” and “Technology Status”)

There are two main thrusts: basic research into new materials and wire or ribbon fabrication methods, and develop superconducting electronic power devices, in collaboration with industry. Devices include transformers, cables, a motor, current limiter and a magnetic separator. (Fact sheets on each one are available under “The Partnership”.) Utilities are involved with several of these projects.

NREL’s own internal R&D includes development of new coating techniques to make HTSC ribbon. One method uses electrodeposition, and recently a dip-coating technique has set new records for current density.

See Blaugher’s excellent review article from 2000 Global Energy
http://www.ufto.com/clients-only/nreldocs/HTSC Prospects.doc (52kb)

————————-
Energy Analysis Overview
http://www.ufto.com/clients-only/nreldocs/Analysis.pdf (3.1mb)
Walter Short, walter_short@nrel.gov

This group, along with counterparts throughout the lab, studies technology, policy and market issues to support decision making at the program level, lab management, and DOE headquarters. They develop models and tools and perform analyses such as life-cycle cost, technology choice, R&D program prioritization and review, etc.
The website has a lot of good material, including publications and even an online software tool for renewable energy cost estimation.
http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/

————————-
Enterprise Development Program
http://www.ufto.com/clients-only/nreldocs/Enterprisdevelp.pdf (1.2mb)
http://www.ufto.com/clients-only/nreldocs/entrep.prog.doc (word 300kb)

Marty Murphy, lawrence_murphy@nrel.gov
http://www.nrel.gov/technologytransfer/entrepreneurs/entrepreneurs.html

This unique program supports innovators, recognizing the need for viable small companies as one of the principal mechanisms to carry new technologies forward to commercialization. The website offers an broad array of reference and other materials to help them with all aspects of their business, especially fundraising. Venture investment forums are held around the company. Over 200 companies have presented in past events. NREL has also been instrumental in establishing a new national alliance of incubators around the country which focus on clean energy.

Next event: The 15th NREL Industry Growth Forum
Oct. 29- 30, 2002 in Albany, NY.
http://www.nrel.gov/technologytransfer/entrepreneurs/pdfs/forum_6.pdf

————————-
Biofuels Overview
http://www.ufto.com/clients-only/nreldocs/Biofuels.pdf (1.9mb)
Cindy Riley, cynthia_riley@nrel.gov
Process Development Leader
Biotechnology Division for Fuels and Chemicals

Ethanol from cellulosic biomass is a key goal of NREL’s. For thousands of years, ethanol has been made by fermentation of sugars and starches; most of today’s US ethanol is made from corn. Most biomass, however, consists of lignin and cellulosic material which has to be broken down first. Various combinations of acids and enzymes are used to convert the cellulose to sugars which then can be fermented. (Lignin remains, and once separated has uses of its own.)

The DOE website gives a good overview of the process:
http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/advanced_bioethanol.html

NREL’s program includes engineering new enzymes and yeasts, process technology, a major test facility, resource analysis, and systems economics studies, with a goal to bring the production cost of bioethanol down to $1/gallon by 2010. Bioethanol, and many various potential coproducts, could be a major realization of the “biorefinery” vision.

————————-
Bioenergy Overview
http://www.ufto.com/clients-only/nreldocs/Bioenergy.pdf (5.3mb)
Rich Bain, Group Manager, richard_bain@nrel.gov
Chemistry for Bioenergy Systems

Following the ethanol story, bioenergy is a far broader topic. Noting there are hundreds of bio-based production facilities in the US already (which already produce over 6000 MW of power), this presentation reviewed many of the huge variety of opportunities within the biorefinery concept, from biodiesel to biopower and gasification at scales ranging from 15 kw to the 200 tons/day Battelle Gasifier.

————————-
Tour of the National Wind Test Center
http://www.ufto.com/clients-only/nreldocs/Wind.nrel.ppt (2.4 mb)
Brian Smith, Turbine Program Development, brian_smith@nrel.gov,
Jim Johnson, Site Operations, james_a_johnson@nrel.gov,

As with solar, Europe leads the US by a wide margin in deployment of windpower, with a total installed capacity nearly four times ours. The economics of wind are steadily improving, and some very large companies are heavily committed. As DOE’s lead laboratory in wind technology development, NREL operates the National Wind Technology Center and manages turbine research programs and applied research activities.
http://www.nrel.gov/wind/

We visited the Center, 30 minutes from NREL, and toured the facilities, which are available to wind turbine manufacturers for equipment test and evaluation.

NREL operates the only full-scale blade testing facility in the U.S. for MW-scale wind turbines. 35 meter length blades are pushed and pulled a million times to find their weak points. The full-system wind turbine drive train testing accommodates up to 2.5 MW turbines. A huge electric motor drive simulates the wind, pushing systems to their limit. This facility in the only one of its kind in the world. In addition, there is a strong gusty wind that comes through a notch in the mountains. This would make a poor production resource, but is an excellent testing environment, as it subjects systems to highly variable and difficult conditions. Full scale turbines of all sizes are installed at the site and monitored in detail. Our group actually got to up inside a 600 kw wind turbine– impressive to say the least, at 120 feet above the ground.

————————-
Distributed Energy Resources/Hybrid Test Facility
http://www.ufto.com/clients-only/nreldocs/DERtestfacility.pdf (256kb)
Ben Kroposki, benjamin_kroposki@nrel.gov

This facility has a variety of distributed generation technologies, a grid simulator and load banks. It is used to test inverters and interconnection power electronic systems, especially those developed under the DOE Distributed Power Program. Recently, the mission has been expanded to do testing of standards, “testing the test” to see if proposed standards can be used in practice.

DOE Distributed Power Review

/0 Comments/in , /by

DOE Distributed Power Program
& IEEE Interconnection Working Group

29 Jan ?1 Feb 2002, Arlington, VA.

-Tue/Wed = DOE Distributed Power Program
-Thur/Fri = IEEE SCC21 Working Group [Covered in a separate UFTO Note]
(P1547 Draft Standard For Interconnection)

Distributed Power Program Review

^^^
The DPP website has the proceedings (and pdf downloads) for this meeting, and also for the last review meeting held in Golden CO, Oct’01.
http://www.eren.doe.gov/distributedpower/ (box in upper right corner.)
^^^

There is a requirement at DOE for “peer review”, so we’re seeing many of these meetings throughout the year. Last fall there was one for Distributed Energy Resources Program (DER), which includes the Distributed Power Program. (This confusing bit of terminology will be cleared up soon with a name change of the latter to something more accurately reflecting the focus on integration of DR in power systems, not DR itself.) OPT is the new entity formed last year to pull together a number of activities from across EREN.

Here is the line-up of these groups on the org chart:
– DOE
– EREN — Efficiency and Renewable Energy
– OPT — Office of Power Technologies
– DER — Distributed Energy Resources Program
– DPP — Distributed Power Program [name to change]

^^The DER Review was held in DC, 28-30 Nov 2001
http://www.eren.doe.gov/der/conference_01.html

^^Proceedings of the 2001 Hydrogen Program Review are posted at:
http://www.eren.doe.gov/hydrogen/docs/30535toc.html.

Other upcoming review meetings:
^^Hydrogen and Fuel Cells — Denver, 6-10 May
(We may try to combine this with an UFTO visit to NREL)
^^Microturbine and Industrial Gas Turbines — Fairfax VA, 12-14 March
http://www.eren.doe.gov/der/microturbines/pdfs/microt_indsturb_peerrev.pdf

———-

Presentations- Introductions and Overviews

Bob Dixon, head of OPT, opened the conference, commenting that September 11 is the main driving force in Washington. Energy security is a high profile part of it, which translates into redoubled interest in DG.

Bill Williams, IEEE-USA government liaison, outlined the many bills in Congress that deal with interconnection at both the bulk and DG level. He also noted that FERC has opened a rule-making for interconnection under 20 MW. (see below).

Richard Brent, Solar Turbines, pleaded the manufacturers’ concerns about there being different policies at every utility, in every state–sometimes different within the same utility. Many of these practices are still based on utility systems and technology of long ago.

Patricia Hoffman, head of DER, commented that just as with any infrastructure, the energy system needs to advance and evolve. One of the roles of DOE is to help bring consistency.

Joe Galdo, who leads the DPP Program, explained DPP’s mission to remove barriers to DG that arise from technology and regulation. The goal is to reduce installation cost, delay and hassle. The strategy is reflected in the array of projects supported, from the IEEE 1547, to system integration, interconnection and control, to institutional and regulatory barriers. A list of subcontracts awarded to date appears at:
http://www.eren.doe.gov/distributedpower/contracts.asp
See also “Research Activities” for a good overview:
http://www.eren.doe.gov/distributedpower/sublvl.asp?item=activities

Presentations – Technical Interconnection Standards and Testing

— First up, Dick DeBlasio gave an update on IEEE 1547. See separate UFTO Note on the Working Group meeting.

— Murray Davis of Detroit Edison reported on a study of penetration limits for DG on a distribution feeder. This ranks very high on the list of concerns about widespread deployment of DG. (Davis started with a quick aside that there would be no limit if grids were isolated–he’s submitted a paper to IEEE about this.) They did detailed modeling of two actual feeders using ASPEN and the Distribution WorkStation, and then modeled the impact of various amounts of DG placed at various locations. The striking conclusion, at least for these two particular feeders and for the two variables considered, is that DG penetration (or stiffness ratio, i.e. the amount of the DG compared to the size of the feeder) had no predictive value for when problems (e.g. over/under voltage) would arise. The line length, circuit particulars, and DG device sizes were far more significant. A feeder could accommodate as much as 10 times more total DG if it comes as many small units instead of 1 big one.

— NRECA has an aggressive program to support its members to do fuel cell demonstrations, with training, handbooks, databases, and a users group. Coops view DG as “a solution, not as a problem”. Together coops represent the largest “single” utility in the country, with 34 million customers in 46 states. The handbook will be available on the DOE website in the near future, and many more resources are available only to members of NRECA.
Contact Ed Torrero, 703-907-5518, ed.torrero@nreca.org

— DUIT — Distributed Utility Integration Test – This project is to come up with a plan, including a facility, to do testing of the interaction of DG with the electric system. A key element is the selection of a site or sites for the facility. To that end, a number of sites around the country at utilities and universities were evaluated as candidates. In addition, the Nevada Test Site received particular attention, in view of the extensive inventory of pre-existing buildings and equipment. (The NTS study came up with a conceptual design of a large “pole field” to be used to simulate actual distribution feeders. Rows and rows of utility poles could be patched together to provide everything from a single 30 mile feeder to countless different configurations.) (The DER Test Facility at NREL, which evaluates performance of DG interconnection systems, became operational Dec’01)
Contact Joe Iannucci, Distributed Utility Associates, joe@dua1.com, 925-447-0604.

— Certification Lab Pilot — EPRI-PEAC’s project is to define a path to “certified grid-compatible DER”. They’re writing an accreditation plan and an interconnection handbook. The effort includes actual testing of interconnection standards. For details, see the pdf download^^^, and:
http://www.epri-peac.com/project_opportunities/cert_grid_conn.html
Contact: Tom Key, 865-218-8082, tkey@epri-peac.com

— UL Standard for DG – Underwriters Lab is developing a standard for testing DG equipment, combining appropriate safety requirements with interconnection requirements from IEEE 1547, to produce a DG ANSI Standard that can be used to evaluate utility interconnected DG products for both electrical safety and utility interconnection to address the needs of Electrical AHJs and Utility Interconnection Engineers. This document will be UL 1741, The Standard for Inverters, Converters and Controllers for Use In Independent Power. Contact Tim Zgonena, UL, 847-272-8800 ext. 43051, timothy.p.zgonena@us.ul.com

Presentations – Codes and Regulations

— Regulatory Policy Options for DG — The Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP) is a non profit that educates and helps state regulators with electric utility regulation. With DOE funding they’re developing a series of issue papers and prototype standards documents for states to use as templates or starting points for DG interconnection, emissions, etc. One interesting observation: RAP suggests that restructuring can actually works against DG, when wholesale markets (ISOs) don’t offer payment for demand reduction, and distribution-only companies become more susceptible to revenue loss. The website has a wealth of material. Of particular interest, policy papers on DG and Electric System reliability, cost methodologies, customer value, and “Accomodating DG in Wholesale Markets”. Particularly note the Draft of a “Model DG Emissions Rule” which is getting a lot of comment. DOE is looking for more input from industry.
http://www.rapmaine.org/distribution.html
Contact: Cheryl Harrington, 207-582-1135, rapmaine@aol.com

— DG and FERC – Dan Adamson has done a detailed report on FERC’s role in DG, including policy directions and numerous cases that have come up over the last 10 years or more. Expect increasing complexity and litigation. Adamson believes that FERC has the authority to assert jurisdiction over interconnection of DG no matter how small, if it involves wholesale transactions, but not retail or self-generation. Last October, FERC announced an ANOPR on generation interconnection. On 11 January, consensus drafting groups submitted a lengthy filing, with big disagreements between transmission owners and small generators. A new strawman proposal was due Feb 1. Expect a NOPR for comment soon; FERC hopes to issue a final rule later this year. Even if FERC does get jurisdiction, they don’t have the staff expertise or resources to regulate at the distribution level, and will likely look to the new RTOs do handle the details. States will still have a big role in any case. And, many bills are before Congress; how they’d interact with FERC’s efforts needs to be watched closely. (There is a case before the Supreme Court that may decide much of this issue.

A detailed report will be made available soon on the DOE/DPP website. See more information at:
http://www.eren.doe.gov/distributedpower/news.asp?Item=105
Contact: Dan Adamson, 202-508-6600, danadamson@dwt.com
Also, go to the source: http://www.ferc.fed.us/Electric/gen_inter.htm
[Sign up for FERC’s “intranet” to see more details. Of note–most utilities’ participants seem to be in transmission or regulatory affairs… is your DG effort in the loop?]

— Local Permitting – This presentation gives a sobering picture of the situation at the local level. There are over 44,000 independent building inspection jursidictions. It can take 10 years or more to get a new technology mentioned in codes, and even then it is up to states which vintage of a code it wants to use. (For example, Nevada still uses the 1978 Electrical Code!?) Most Fire and Building inspectors have little or no experience or understanding of hydrogen, methanol, fuel cells, etc. so developers can have a tough time. DOE is sponsoring an Education and Outreach effort, doing workshops around the country for local inspectors and state officials. Contact Ann Marie Borbely-Bartis, 202-586-5196, anne-marie.borbely-bartis@ee.doe.gov

******** Late Breaking News ******
NARUC passed a resolution this week (13 Feb) to support development of a Model DG Rule — See below for particulars. — I can also send the actual text of the resolution on request.
*****************************************

Presentations – System Integration and Control

A series of ongoing projects address implementation and hardware, including demonstrations of whole building systems, enterprise-wide generation management, and aggregation of DG. Others are developing new hardware to increase capabilities, reliablity and cost-effectiveness of interconnection systems. [As this note is getting a bit too long–please see proceedings for the individual presentations, or contact me to discuss.]

Presentations – Industrial DG

This series of projects involve actual installations or market studies of individual industry sectors. Others addressed market potential in NY, CA and Chicago.

– Increasing the Use of DG in the Semiconductor Industry
Barry Cummings, Salt River Project
– Highly Varying Industrial Load
Dr. Robert Kramer, NiSource
– DG Integration with Telecommunications Facility
Doug Peck, Syska & Hennessy
– CHP Integration with Fluid Heating Processes in the Chemical and Refining Sectors
– CHP Installation at 29 Palms Marine Air Ground Combat
Henry Mak, So Cal Gas
– DG Improvements in Industrial Applications
Rich Biljetina, Industrial Center
– Chicago Industrial Energy Plan
John Kelly, Gas Technology Institute
– New York State Industrial DG
Nag Patibandla, NYSERDA
– Industrial DG Market Transformation Tools
Paul Bautista, Onsite Sycom

**************************
Naruc Adopts Resolution Endorsing Development of Model Interconnection Agreements and Procedures

Washington, February 13, 2002
The Board of Directors of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), this week at the NARUC 2002 Winter Meetings in Washington, D.C., endorsed the development of model interconnection agreement and procedures under the direction of its Committees on Electricity, Energy Resources and the Environment and Finance and Technology. Reiterating its support for open access to the nation’s electricity grid, and the importance of distributed energy resources to our energy future, NARUC noted in is resolution (attached) that:

– Coordination among the States could improve the consistency of treatment so important to the efficient integration of distributed energy resources; and

– Increased national consistency would lower entry barriers and enhance business economic efficiency, and,

– The ready availability of NARUC developed model agreements and procedures will aid in balancing those concerns; and the preparation of model interconnection agreement and procedures by NARUC could provide significant support and

– Efficiencies to those States which have yet to address the challenges of distributed energy resources, and the consideration, adaptation or adoption of such models could provide material assistance in achieving the coordination among the states called for by previous resolutions.

The DOE DPP program has previously support state commissions in their efforts to address the new challenges presented by integrating distributed generation into their energy system, and has been supporting this new initiative. The issue was timely at NARUC because of the FERC’s ongoing inquiry into developing a national rule setting forth interconnection procedures and a standard agreement for FERC jurisdictional interconnections, typically at the transmission level. Some controversy may develop where both state commissions and FERC assert jurisdiction of interconnection issues at the distribution level. For additional information contact Gary Nakarado, DP Program NREL, 303-275-3719 or Gary_Nakarado@NREL.Gov

Small Modular Biopower System

/0 Comments/in , /by

Beginning in 1999, Community Power Corp (CPC) joined with NREL and Shell Renewables to develop a new generation of small modular biopower systems (SMB), designed to replace conventional diesel generators and to free communities from dependence on diesel fuel, with its high cost and environmental damage.

CPC’s fully automated SMB system can use a variety of biomass fuels to generate electricity and thermal energy for rural communities, enterprises and social services, and usually solving a agricultural residue disposal problem at the same time. The initial prototype SMB, rated at 12 1/2 kWe, is performing well in a Philippine village, since it’s commissioning on 2 April 2001.

With support from the Calif Energy Commission, CPC is now installing a second SMB on the Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe reservation in northern California. Fueled with forest residue, the unit will supply heat and power to a greenhouse, and CO2 enriched exhaust gases will also aid plant growth.

CPC’s advanced design, downdraft gasifier with fully integrated and automatic controls, produces an extremely clean combustible gas from a variety of woody fuels. The “producer” gas is conditioned and fed into a standard internal combustion engine genset for conversion to mechanical, electrical, and thermal power. Future systems will be adapted to SOFC fuel cells, microturbines, stirling and other IC engines.

Specifications and Features
– Combined heat and power operation for rural electrification and distributed generation applications;
– Environmentally friendly, non-condensing system without scrubbers, effluents or hazardous wastes;
– Fully automatic, closed-loop control of all components including gasifier, gas conditioning and genset;
– Dispatchable power within one minute of auto-startup ? uses no diesel fuel or gasoline;
– Fuel flexible: wood pellets, coconut shells, wood chips, corn cobs, palm nut shells;
– Electrical output in blocks from 5kWe to 25kWe; 120 and 240 VAC; 50 and 60 Hz;
– Modular, transportable, no need for on-site buildings or waste water disposal, 1 day installation.

Remarkably, Community Power actually first identified a market and need, and then developed SMB as the technology to meet it, rather than the other way around. The founders were experienced in the electrification of offgrid communities using conventional renewable energy technologies (PV, wind).

To serve this large, demanding market, (over 4 million communities) CPC specified a system that was sized for the typical un-electrified community; automated to prevent reliance on unskilled operators; mobile to facilitate easy installation and relocation; able to operate without the co-mixing of any fossil fuels; modular and scalable; and perhaps most importantly, one that met stringent environmental requirements with no liquid effluents or toxic wastes.

Worldwide, millions of potential customers annually dispose of billions of tons of forest and agricultural residues through burning or dumping, generating both air pollution and green house gases. Where these consumers have a sustainable source of biomass residue and where fossil fuel is either very expensive or not readily available, the SMB can be the lowest cost and greenest solution.

(A point that’s often missed in thinking about 3rd world village power– a large fraction of these communities do have currency, and already spend too much of it on energy, as currently their only choices are diesel or lead-acid batteries carried to distant charging stations–both of which are expensive and dirty. These communities can afford, and will welcome, to pay for a cheaper better local source of power.)

The company website has a great deal more information:
http://www.gocpc.com/

A recent slide presentation can be found at:
http://www.energy2001.ee.doe.gov/RenewablApps/S5-Walt/sld001.htm

Contact: Robb R. Walt
rwalt@gocpc.com 303- 933-3135
Community Power Corp., Littleton, Co

——-
There was a recent article in the Far Eastern Economic Review regarding CPC and the use of coconuts as fuel for their small modular bipower system that has been installed in the village of Alaminos in the Phillipines.
http://www.feer.com/2001/0104_05/p036innov.html

——–
( 1 Aug email from Walt Robb, one of the founders)

Big news: Due to our efforts, by the end of September the DOE and US Forest Service will provide CPC with a non-competitive “Phase 3” add-on to our current SMB contract. The add-on will total $3.2 million over 2 1/2 years. We must secure $1.2 million of the $3.2 as cost share (38%). The cost share can come from multiple sources. Already, we have been contacted/visited by firms interested in the possibility of leveraging these funds.
Other news:
1. We have won two SBIR’s
2. California Energy Commission has specifically stated they are ready to give us a significant add-on to scale-up our SMB platform to 50 kW and conduct many more demos in California
3. The US Army has expressed interest in our 25kW SMB and 5 kW micro-modular biomass hybrid power system for their “Zero Foot Print Camp” program
4. A Massachusetts company has proposed a $350,000 demo in the state with state funding
5. The new trailer-mounted SMB for Hoopa is exceeding all of our expectations.
6. Art is back from vacation at Deep Creek Lake and didn’t catch any fish.

Fuel Cell info; DOE DP Program

/0 Comments/in , /by

In the Jan 23 UFTO Note about the Fuel Cell Seminar, several sources of information on Fuel cells were provided. Here is some additional clarification of how four separate publications are related.

Fuel Cells 2000 is an activity of the Breakthrough Technologies Institute (BTI), a non-profit organization formed to promote the development and early commercialization of fuel cells and related pollution-free, efficient energy generation, storage and utilization technologies and fuels. http://www.fuelcells.org

They publish “Fuel Cell Connection”, a monthly sponsored by USFCC, NFCRC, and NETL
(subscribe at http://fuelcellnews.listbot.com)
This will also get you the quarterly “Fuel Cell Catalyst”, (the Winter 2001 issue arrived this afternoon) and access to back issues:
(http://fuelcellnews.listbot.com/cgi-bin/subscriber?Act=view_archive&list_id=fuelcellnews)

Fuel Cells 2000 also publishes and distributes its own monthly “Technology Update”, summarizing recent events in the fuel cell industry
(subscribe: fuelcell-subscribe@yahoogroups.com)

And, they publish “Fuel Cell Quarterly” — subscription requires a paid contribution of $25 or more.

All of the above mentioned organizations have extensive websites with lots of documents, links, lists, etc.
USFCC http://www.usfcc.com
NFCRC http://www.nfcrc.uci.edu
NETL http://www.netl.doe.gov

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The January 2001 issue of Fuel Cell Connection arrived today, with 28 separate items. Here are two that are noteworthy.

9. NREL Establishes Center for Distributed Power
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has established a new “Distributed Energy Resources Center” to conduct research and provide information needed to efficiently develop additional power supplies from small, decentralized generating units. Research on fuel cells and microturbines will fall under the “Hydrogen and Natural Gas Systems” section of the center.
http://www.nrel.gov/hot-stuff/press/0201_dist.html

10. Guide to Doing Business with DOE’s National Laboratories Now Available
The Laboratory Coordinating Council of the DOE has prepared a guide to “Doing Business with the Laboratories of the Laboratory Coordinating Council. (LLC)” The guide is available online through the DOE Office of Industrial Technologies.
http://www.oit.doe.gov/LCC/doing_business.shtml

Even though the “LLC” is focused specifically on the Office of Industrial Technologies, this new document appears to be a good new resource about the whole subject.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Speaking of Distributed Power and NREL, the DOE program is really taking off.

On December 4, 2000, DOE released its “Strategic Plan for Distributed Energy Resources,” (dated September 2000) which outlines a national effort to develop clean, reliable and affordable distributed energy technologies over the next two decades. The goal of the plan is eventually to allow industrial, commercial and residential customers to choose from an array of distributed energy resource products and services. The Strategic Plan will focus initially on developing “next-generation” distributed energy technologies and addressing the institutional and regulatory barriers that interfere with the development of dis-tributed energy resources. The DOE also outlined six separate strategic areas it plans to address in the near future.

“The Strategic Plan for Distributed Energy Resources” can be found on the Internet at
http://www.eren.doe.gov/der
http://www.eren.doe.gov/der/pdfs/derplanfinal.pdf
http://www.eren.doe.gov/distributedpower
(Generally thislast website is the one to pay attention to.)

The DP Program Review meeting was just held the week before last in Washington. Very soon I hope to be able to pass along detailed notes from the NREL folks who are handling the website.