Posts

Distribtued Power R&D Solicitation

/0 Comments/in , /by

[Commerce Business Daily: Posted in CBDNet on November 8, 1999]
[Printed Issue Date: November 10, 1999] [cbdnet.access.gpo.gov]

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, CO 80401-3393
SUBJECT: A–DOE/NREL DISTRIBUTED POWER PROGRAM – DISTRIBUTED POWER SYSTEM INTEGRATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

SOL 0-380 DUE 112299
POC Judith A. Foster; Telephone (303) 384-7387; e-mail judith_foster@NREL.gov

DESC: DOE Distributed Power Program – Distributed Power System Integration Research and Development The National Renewable Energy Laboratory anticipates issuing Letters of Interest (LOI) to solicit research and development efforts from members of the Distributed Power Community and related industries. The anticipated effort will be directed to include modeling, field testing, and analysis to determine the means of integrating distributed power resources, including renewable energy, combined heat and power, and hybrid systems into the electricity system in a manner that enhances reliability, safety, and power quality. The solicitation will be open to U.S. organizations and/or teams with activities directly related to distributed power and electric power system integration and operation. The Distributed Power Program system integration research and development activities are being conducted for the DOE by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (Golden, Colorado). The proposed work areas may include, but will not be limited to, issues such as universal distributed and electric power system interconnection technology including current and advanced/future designs; requirements and tests for interconnection; interconnection equipment performance and functional characterization and installation test method design, development, validation and documentation; command, control, communication, monitoring, and remote and on-site intelligent controls for interconnection; interconnection equipment/technology body of tests and procedure for certification of equipment and installation; design and development requirements for the establishment of an industry-wide accreditation and certification 3rd party body for accrediting facilities/entities for certification testing and for certifying interconnection equipment as well as for on-site interconnection approval; field testing and analysis (data analysis) of selected and configured distributed systems already installed in the field and represent an aggregated system for validating and confirming various established electric system/distributed resource models; analysis of current and potential distributed power markets, and institutional, regulatory and market barriers; design and analyze business/economic and technical models and characterizing future distributed power infrastructures that are conducive to open markets and customer choice; and, design and document the procedure (handbook) on how to establish an interconnection agreement that represents a common approach and recommended improvements that will help all parties involved with interconnection. Proposals received in response to the anticipated LOI will be accepted only if submitted by a U.S. organization or a team led by a U.S. organization. Successful offerors must demonstrate significant price participation (cost sharing) with each proposal. Subject to the availability of funds, multiple Firm-Fixed Price awards are anticipated. Current plans are to limit each award within a range of $50,000 to $300,000 (maximum) with anticipated 50 percent price participation (cost sharing). Organizations desiring a copy of the solicitation setting forth the LOI requirements should make written request within 14 days of this announcement at the above address, referencing Synopsis No. 0-380. The LOI is anticipated to be issued within 21 days. This is not a request for proposal. Telephone requests will not be accepted.
EMAILADD: judith_foster@nrel.gov
CITE: (W-312 SN399022)

DOE Distrib Power Review & IEEE Interconnection Working Group

/0 Comments/in , /by

** DOE Distributed Power Program Review and Planning Meeting
** IEEE SCC21 P1547 Interconnection Working Group
Arlington, VA, September 27-30, 1999

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

** DOE Distributed Power (DP) Program Review and Planning Meeting

— Welcome and Introduction
— Dan Adamson, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Power Technologies
______________________
— Distributed Power in DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
— Dan Reicher, Assistant Secretary, EE

DP covers a wide gamut of topics, from village power and rural electrification to industrial power parks, partially self-powered office towers (incl. PV), combined heat and power (CHP) and all varieties of renewable energy. There are three “elements of success” that must be met — technologies, markets, and policies. A number of DOE programs involve DP, and there are several cross-cutting initiatives: CHP, Million Solar Roofs, Buildings for the 21st Century, Bioenergy, and Distributed Power (i.e. to address interconnection issues). A DP website is under construction.

______________________
— An Industry Perspective — Beverly Jones, Consolidated Natural Gas

Broad trends are setting the stage for DP: industry restructuring, gas/electric convergence, and the role of information technology in energy. All of these are changing the buyer seller relationship dramatically, as the distinct “one-point” of contact is replaced by myriad complex and overlapping interactions. As the slow process of policy change proceeds, the action is mostly at the state level, where there are many opportunities to bring up DR issues arise. States are competing for jobs, and see energy prices/markets as a key determinant. There is less urgency at the federal level, and the lack of standardization is a big problem. One area that’s particularly important–tax policy, especially depreciation rates for DR investments, which should be faster than for traditional generation and distribution facilities.

______________________
— Creating Value Streams for Distributed Resources — Dave Hoffman, Celerity Energy

Barriers to DP growth include 100 years with a regulated monopoly system, with it’s concerns about reliability, and the credibility, reliability and costs of DR. Market pressures and technology are driving change. Celerity’s business is acquiring options on peaking capacity from existing gensets, which will be linked via networks and bid into th e power market.

______________________
— Program Overview — Joe Galdo, DOE Program Manager

A workshop Dec 98 made recommendations for DOE program actions for DP:
-Interconnection (standards, documentation of the problem,
system integration modeling, and equipment certification)
– Outreach to state regulators
– Quantify benefits
– Model (building) codes and ordinances

The program is organized around three main topics:
– Strategic Research (concepts for advanced system control, etc.)
– Systems Integration (address safety, reliability, etc issues.
Analysis, modeling, hardware testing, interface hardware
and software)
– Regulatory and Institutional Barriers

FY99 Program — $1.2 Million funding — planning, support IEEE standards working group, document interconnection barriers, outreach to stat es.

______________________
— Documenting Barriers to Distributed Power — Brent Alderfer, Competitive Utility Strategies

[DP is not new. DOE commissioned a major study to examine what is currently being done.]

A report is due in the next 2 months, detailing 70 case studies of current interconnection experience and practices. Sizes ranged from 300 watt PV to 100 MW combined cycle.

DP “barriers” are seen differently by utilities–who are concerned with safety, reliability, risk, liabilities, and who don’t want “gadgets and gizmos” on the grid. Some utilities simply refuse any (non-QF) connection.

Standby tariffs range widely ($1 to $250/kw/yr). These are arbitrary now, often set to discourage DP. In the future, however, real markets may probably show as wide a range, but for entirely different reasons.

Uplift tariffs are usually based on entire radial system, even if transaction only uses a portion.

Restructuring by states generally has no impact on barriers. Some utilities have embraced DP (O&R 10 years experience using reciprocating gensets owned by 3rd parties to defer substation additions) Southern Co, while opposing FERC restructuring of G&T markets, is actively hooking up cogenerators.

______________________
— Interconnection Standard Development — Richard DeBlasio, NREL

[brief overview of SCC21 working group progress]

______________________
— Technical Assistance to States and Localities — Gary Nakarado, NREL

Assumed (interconnection) goals are uniform technical requirements, minimized cost, standardized contracts, and costs commensurate with DP system size. PV has paved part of the way. Standards alone won’t assure adoption of DP. For example, net metering laws can limit utility’s ability to resist.

[DOE “State Energy Alternatives” — this website gives specific information on the potential of selected renewable energy resources in each state as well as background information on each state’s electricity sector
http://www.eren.doe.gov/state_energy/ ]

[The Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP) provides assistance to state regulators.
http://www.rapmaine.org/ ]

______________________
— Environmental and Economic Impact Assessment — Howard Gruenspecht, DOE Office of Policy

The administration’s restructuring proposal addresses DP issues.
(See: http://www.doe.gov/policy/ceca.htm)

A pdf document (the 3rd one listed on the webpage) is an explanatory memo for the proposed legislation, and discusses DP issues in several aspects:
http://www.doe.gov/policy/elecrol.pdf

—-
from CECA Supporting Analysis, Chapter 3, page 34

Distributed Power

“The revised Administration proposal includes a package of provisions designed to promote the adoption of efficient combined heat and power and distributed generation technologies. It proposes the development of nationally applicable interconnection standards, clarification of depreciation treatment to assure that distributed generation installations are not subject to unfavorable schedules for the depreciation of structural components, and State-level consideration of stranded cost recovery mechanisms that do not impede cost-effective and energy-efficient combined heat and power projects. It also promises continued efforts by the EPA and the DOE to explore and implement regulatory approaches that recognize the environmental benefits of combined heat and power technologies.”
—-

Secretary Richardson held a “Midwest Electricity Summit” in Chicago on October 8, with several dozen invited stakeholders (utilities, regulators, local government, etc.) to discuss industry issues. Anyone is welcome in the audience. His prepared remarks are posted at: http://www.doe.gov/news/speeches99/octss/midwest.htm

Another is to be held somewhere in the Northeast in a couple of weeks — details tbd.

______________________
— Where Are We Going? A framework for planning White Paper on Interconnection and Controls for Large-Scale Integration of Distributed Energy Resources — Phil Overholt, DOE Program Manager, Transmission Reliability; Joe Eto, LBNL

This was a presentation of the 2nd of the 6 draft white papers.

See: 20 Sep99 UFTO Note-CERTS Draft White Papers
01 Mar99 UFTO Note-CERTS-New DOE Prog in Elec. Reliability

(There’s still time to provide comments on any of the 6 papers.
See 20 Sept note for details.)

______________________
— How Do We Get There? — Five-Year Planning (Breakout Sessions)

– Interconnection Standards, Certification and Testing
– Interconnect Hardware and Software
– Addressing Regulatory and Institutional Barriers
– Planning Analysis and Tools

These were facilitated sessions to develop recommendations for near and longer term destinations, R&D requirements, recommended program activities and resources. A summary is being prepared by DOE and should be available in 6-8 weeks.

UPDATE: It looks DOE’s DP program will have a budget of about
$4 million in FY2000.

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

IEEE SCC21 P1547 Interconnection Working Group
Sept 28-30

Topical Presentations:

The first morning of the 3 day meeting was a series of presentations to further the mutual understanding of technical issues.

______________________
— VAR Control from a DR Perspective (T.-E. Moen, ABB)
A detailed technical discussion of voltage source inverters (VSI) and how they can be an economic option for supplying VAR’s into a network.

— Distributed Resources in Downtown Networks (N. Ioannou, BGE) Downtown grid networks, covering perhaps 5% of the total US system, are very different from standard radial networks. There are two types which are very different from each other: grid (or secondary) and spot (or isolated). DP can be connected to either, though it can’t push power into a spot network.

______________________
— EEI Interconnection Study Update (M. Davis)
Progress is continuin g. Outlined a 7 step process to determine interconnection requirements, beginning with identifying the type of generator, i.e., induction (externally or self-excited), synchronous (cylindrical or salient pole) or inverter (line or self commutated) and then on to defining characteristics of the distribution system, etc. A great deal of material has been added to the Working Group’s “Resource Document”, a 2 inch thick compendium of information that backs up the standards development.

______________________
— Shifting the Balance of Power: Grid Interconnection of Distributed
Generation (Brendan Kirby, ORNL and Nick Lenssen,E SOURCE)

Examines the various issues that hinder DP deployment, mostly coming down to utility resistance, lack of uniform requirements and processes (which are based on large units, and are too extensive for most DP). Points out that loads aren’t very different from DP–both can cause harmonics, ripple, DC, fault current, etc., yet they receive very different treatment. Main difference is intentional injection of power. Existing system built for one way power, but in future may be configured to take better advantage of DP. DP are ideal ancillary service providers, but usually excluded from markets. Need to deal with conflict that utilities are both guardians of the public good, and a competitor in the same system. (This will be published as an E-Source report, with a summary version more generally available. I have a copy of the vugraphs if anyone wants them.)

[Note: check out http://www.homepower.com re the “guerilla solar” movement–people hooking up to the grid without permission.]

______________________
— Proposed Revisions toNEC by EEI Elec Light & Power Group (P. Amos, ConEd)

— Proposed New NEC Article on Fuel Cells (K. Krastins)
(See email forwarded to UFTO list on 31 August)

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

I have email and tel #’s for everyone mentioned above, and some additional hard copy information. Please let me know if you want more details on any o f the above.

DOE Distributed Power Program Review and Planning Meeting

/0 Comments/in , /by

Just received this notice a few minutes ago…
————————————————————–

Below you will find details regarding a Distributed Power for the 21st Century program review and planning meeting. Please register promptly if you plan to attend. Registration forms should be emailed to kimberly_taylor@nrel.gov
>
<>

U.S. Department of Energy DISTRIBUTED POWER FOR THE 21st CENTURY
DOE Distributed Power Program Review and Planning Meeting

As a result of recommendations from stakeholders at a workshop on removing technical, regulatory and institutional barriers to distributed power, held in December 1998, a Distributed Power Program was initiated at the Department of Energy to address these barriers. The focus of the FY1999 program activities has been on addressing near-term barriers, namely, documenting interconnection issues, supporting the fast-track development of a uniform national interconnection standard, and providing technical assistance to state and local governments as they consider legislative and regulatory actions impacting distributed power.

To continue to build on the results of last December’s workshop, DOE will be having a Program Review and Planning Meeting in conjunction with a meeting of the IEEE SCC21 distributed power interconnection working group, September 27-29, 1999, at the Holiday Inn National Airport in Arlington, VA. This meeting will provide an opportunity for you to evaluate the program=s early efforts and to help formulate multi-year plans to address longer-term R&D needs. These longer-term needs will focus on capturing the full value of distributed power in an electricity market in which customers can sell power, employ load management, and provide operations support services (ancillary services) as easily as the utility, in an automated and adaptive electric power system. As we move into the next century, distributed power will provide the ultimate choice of electricity supply for consumers and will be the real foundation of competition in the electric power industry.

Please join your Distributed Power colleagues in this important meeting.

———————–(additional information sent as follow-up)————–
Just got word from Dick DeBlasio at NREL about the IEEE Working Group meeting and the DOE planning workshop. A decision was reached to open the IEEE meeting to everyone.

“Ed – the IEEE meeting SCC21 P1547 will be on Sept 28-30th, 1999 for 2 1/2 days following the September 27th DOE DPP review and planning meeting. The idea is that all are invited to all 3 1/2 days of meetings . Its one meeting that includes a full IEEE SCC21 P1547 working group session for 2 1/2 days and a DOE planning meeting. I hope that helps. Dick”

Green Power Marketing in Retail Competition: An Early Assessment

/0 Comments/in , /by

LBL and NREL recently released this study on green power marketing that finds that the green marketplace is still in an early stage of development with no clear indication of its ultimate size.

The study examines experiences to date with green marketing programs in states across the country. Among the findings:
– pilot programs which include green products are philosophically supported by consumers, but fail to attract real buyers when consumers are asked to switch to green suppliers;
– where markets have been fully opened to competition, green marketers provide a superior quality product over pilot programs;
– disclosure of resource mix is a key element of consumer interest in green products; and evaluating green market demand is difficult.

The abstract  is shown below, and the entire report
can be downloaded at either of these two sites:

LBL’s Electricity Markets & Policy website:
http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/emp/emppubs.html

DOE’s Green Power Network website:
http://www.eren.doe.gov/greenpower

——————————

Green Power Marketing in Retail Competition: An Early Assessment

(report #  LBNL-42286,    NREL/TP.620.25939)
Ryan Wiser LBNL,    510-486-5474; rhwiser@lbl.gov
Jeff Fang, Kevin Porter, and Ashley Houston,  NREL

February 1999

ABSTRACT

Green power marketing—the business of selling electricity products or services based in part on their environmental values—is still in an early stage of development. This Topical Issues Brief presents a summary of early results with green power marketing under retail competition, covering both fully competitive markets and relevant direct access pilot programs. The brief provides an overview of green products that are or were offered, and discusses consumers’ interest in these products. Critical issues that will impact the availability and success of green power products under retail competition are highlighted. Some of the key observations and conclusions of the work include:

Experience from pilot programs in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Oregon—while insightful in many respects—should not be broadly generalized. The direct access pilot programs in these three states all included green marketing. Yet only a fraction of the green products were differentiated based on their renewables content, and the environmental quality of many of the products has been questioned. Because of the nature of pilot programs, however, there are limits to what can be learned from these experiences.

Green power markets have developed in all four states currently open to full competition. Experiences in the more fully competitive markets of California, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania provide a more realistic test of green marketing. These markets have only been open for a short time, and each differs substantially. Green power marketing is occurring in each market, however, and a total of 20 green power products have been launched. All of these products have been differentiated based on their renewables content, and 60% of the products include commitments to incorporate some new renewables over time. While concerns remain over the environmental and resource content of some products, overall product quality is superior to that seen in the pilot programs.

The availability and success of green power products will hinge on several factors, including the regulatory rules and public policies established at the onset of restructuring. Differences among the markets discussed here can largely be traced to the design of specific market rules and public policies, particularly the default generation price offered by incumbent utilities. For the green market to succeed, regulators and policymakers will have to develop market structures, rules and policies in ways that are at least neutral to, and perhaps even support, this emerging new market. Surprisingly, market rules that promote vigorous price competition and overall customer switching appear especially important.

Environmental disclosure requirements and certification programs may also play an important role in the success of green power markets. Given ongoing concerns about the credibility and environmental value of some of the green power products, customer information requirements and credibility-enhancing programs may be critical.

Evidence to date shows that green products have had some success in markets newly opened to competition. Niche markets clearly exist for green power. Residential demand has been most prominent, though nonresidential demand has been more significant than many expected. Nonetheless, it will clearly take time for the green market to mature, and there remain legitimate concerns about the ability of customer-driven markets to support significant amounts of renewable energy. Unfortunately, there is currently insufficient data with which to predict the long-term prospects for green power sales with any accuracy.

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

DOE 11 Lab Study on technology, greenhouse gases

/0 Comments/in , /by

At long last, DOE’s “11 Lab” study has been released.
The DOE press release is attached below.

The report is on the web (pdf acrobat format) at
http://www.ornl.gov/climate_change

Oak Ridge will have hardcopies available shortly.
Contact Brenda Campbell, 423-574-4333, xbd@ornl.com

Here’s a part of an UFTO Note (11/97).
————-
The work began in June 96 following Clinton’s speech to the U.N. Each of the 11 labs that worked on the study took the lead on a specific technology area, such as efficiency in buildings, efficiency in transportation, fossil power generation, nuclear, renewables, cross-cutting areas, basic research, and carbon sequestration. It was a bottom-up effort, looking in depth at the technology itself. There was no analytical modelling of the overall energy system or economy.

NREL and ORNL were the lead labs for the effort, with direction and involvement at the lab director level.

The report concludes that science and technology can do a lot, but that appropriate policies and funding are needed for commercialization. Appendices detail 50 separate technology categories, with order-of-magnitude range estimates of carbon emission reductions to the year 2030 and beyond. ————

————————————————————–
| ** UFTO ** Edward Beardsworth ** Consultant
| 951 Lincoln Ave. tel 650-328-5670
| Palo Alto CA 94301-3041 fax 650-328-5675
| http://www.ufto.com edbeards@ufto.com
————————————————————–

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 22, 1998

WIDE RANGE OF TECHNOLOGIES COULD REDUCE GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS, STUDY FINDS

National Laboratories Highlight Pathways to Cleaner Environment

The United States has many options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions through new, cleaner energy technologies, the directors of 11 of the Department of Energy’s national laboratories conclude in a study released today. The directors recommend aggressively developing a wide range of technologies over the next several decades.

The directors’ report, Technology Opportunities to Reduce U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, outlines almost 50 technology pathways that could eliminate the emissions of hundreds of millions of tons of carbon per year. They include such near-term practical technologies as electric hybrid vehicles, high-efficiency lighting, super-insulating windows, and passive solar heating and cooling of buildings. They also include mid-term to longer term technologies that need further development, such as fuel cells for transportation, microturbines, broad use of biomass fuels and hydrogen-fueled energy systems.

“Technologies already being developed by industry and by national laboratories are key to meeting President Clinton’s challenge to reduce greenhouse gases while contributing to economic growth,” said Secretary of Energy Federico Pe–a. “This report lays out what we need to do to bring our nation’s best scientific and engineering talent to bear on solving this problem. With the support of American consumers and businesses, we can have a major impact on the kind of world we leave for future generations.”

The 11 laboratory directors recommend that the federal government lead a vigorous national push to develop energy technologies during the next three decades to achieve a major reduction in the risk of global warming. While the study does not recommend specific funding levels for technology research, development and deployment, it estimates some increases will be needed to push critical technologies to the commercialization stage. A report issued last year by the President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology reached a similar conclusion about the need for increased investment in energy research and development. Also, government-industry partnerships are essential, the laboratory study says, to overcome scientific, technical and commercial challenges to developing the recommended technologies.

The United States emits 23 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Some 90 percent of those emissions come from energy use, and about 85 percent of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere comes from burning fossil fuels. The study examines technologies that can reduce emissions in three ways — by using energy more efficiently, reducing the amount of carbon released through energy use and increasing the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere.

Technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will become available at different times over the next 30 years, according to the study. In the first decade, significant advances in energy efficiency technologies — such as in appliances, heating and cooling systems, and transportation — would produce the greatest reductions in emissions. During the following 10 years, research-based advances in clean energy technologies could greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These could include high-efficiency natural gas systems, renewable energy such as solar and wind, and fuel cells. And by 2030, research in carbon sequestration — carbon storage, carbon absorption and carbon removal by oceans, forests and soils — could produce valuable results.

The study stresses the importance of pursuing a number of technologies at each stage to provide choices and flexibility for energy users. The 47 options the lab directors recommend cover almost all sectors of the economy, including buildings, industry, transportation and agriculture.

Admiral Richard Truly, director of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and Dr. Alvin Trivelpiece, director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, co-chaired the technology study. The participating labs were Argonne National Laboratory, Brookhaven National Laboratory, E.O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Federal Energy Technology Center, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories.

NOTE: The study, Technology Opportunities to Reduce U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, is on the World Wide Web at: http://www.ornl.gov/climate_change The files are in PDF format and can be read in Acrobat Reader.
-DOE-

R-98-051

Second DOE study on Greenhouse Gases

/0 Comments/in , /by

DOE is preparing another major study on greenhouse gases for release by the end of Novermber, called “Technology Opportunities to Reduce U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions”, also known as the “11-Lab Study”.

———————
| This is separate from the “5-Lab Study” released in September
| (see UFTO Note Sept 10)
| “Scenarios of U. S. Carbon Reductions Potential Impacts of Energy-
| Efficient and Low-Carbon Technologies by 2010 and Beyond”
| Full text available in pdf Acrobat at
| http://www.ornl.gov/ORNL/Energy_Eff/CON444/
| Copies available on request from Tonia Edwards, 423-241-5961
——————–

The work began in June 96 following Clinton’s speech to the U.N. Each of the 11 labs that worked on the study took the lead on a specific technology area, such as efficiency in buildings, efficiency in transportation, fossil power generation, nuclear, renewables, cross-cutting areas, basic research, and carbon sequestration. It was a bottom-up effort, looking in depth at the technology itself. There was no analytical modelling of the overall energy system or economy.

NREL and ORNL were the lead labs for the effort, with direction and involvement at the lab director level.

The report concludes that science and technology can do a lot, but that appropriate policies and funding are needed for commercialization. Appendices detail 50 separate technology categories, with order-of-magnitude range estimates of carbon emission reductions to the year 2030 and beyond.

Principal contact for the study at DOE is:
Robert San Martin
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency
202-586-9277 fax 202-586-9260
robert.sanmartin@hq.doe.gov

Request for copies can go to his office, once the report is released.

Natural cooling via roof water spray

/0 Comments/in , /by

Subject: UFTO Note – Natural cooling via roof water spray
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 13:19:33 -0700
From: Ed Beardsworth

————————————————————–
| ** UFTO ** Edward Beardsworth ** Consultant
| 951 Lincoln Ave. tel 415-328-5670
| Palo Alto CA 94301-3041 fax 415-328-5675
| http://www.ufto.com edbeards@ufto.com
————————————————————–

Natural cooling via roof water spray

Roof Science Corp. has developed a system called WhiteCap which can meet 50%-100% of a commercial building cooling loads in arid or semi-arid climates, by radiating heat to the night sky to cool the roof and water which is sprayed on the roof. (Note this is radiative, not evaporative cooling.) The cooled water is collected in a storage tank to provide cooling during the next day. It thus substantially reduces both energy and peak electric demand for indoor comfort control.

In the last few months, NREL committed to completing their test case study at the Nogales Border Station, under the DOE New Technology Demonstration Program. Results will be promulgated among 2,000 federal energy managers. Also, three private developers have committed to include WhiteCap in new buildings.

The company projects profitability in 2-3 years, and is seeking investment and business partners.

Contact:
Mark Berman or Richard Bourne
Roof Science Corp., Davis Energy Group, Davis CA
916-753-1100 mjberm@davisenergy.com

————————————————-
The following is excerpted from Roof Science’s business plan:

WhiteCap was developed by the Davis Energy Group (DEG) with support from the California Energy Commission, the U.S. Department of Energy, SMUD, and PG&E. The systems use a natural cooling phenomenon to satisfy 50 to 100% of commercial building cooling loads in dry climates. The clear summer night sky is cold; 20-30° F equivalent as a receiver of radiant energy from the earth. Water sprayed at night on roofs facing the sky can often be cooled to 55° F when daytime temperatures exceed 100° F. After night-cooling on the roof, the chilled water is filtered and stored for next-day use. The three WhiteCap system types facilitate integration with most non-residential buildings. Economics are very favorable, generating zero to three year paybacks. Added fire safety, automatic roof cleaning, and utility incentives which recognize peak load reduction further enhance WhiteCap value. WhiteCap also offers substantial environmental benefits by reducing ozone depletion and global warming.

Technology Status: Seven full scale WhiteCap projects are operating as of April, 1997. The largest is a 27,000 ft2 state office building in Los Angeles. Four have monitoring systems which generate continuing performance data verifying effective cooling performance. Recent projects have shifted from “on-roof” to more marketable “off-roof” water storage. This change has required re-engineering and testing of some components. New designs promise even better performance, reduced costs, and additional patent protection. The most immediate technology goal is to demonstrate the new designs in several large (50,000 ft2+) “flagship” projects.

The Market: The primary WhiteCap market is new and retrofit low-rise buildings with low-slope roofs in the Western U. S. This is a very large market; the new construction opportunity alone is roughly 100 million square feet per year in the Western US. The highest growth rates are occurring in locations where high cooling loads offer significant opportunities for WhiteCap. Many existing buildings with central systems are WhiteCap candidates because CFC-based cooling systems must be replaced per the MontreaI Protocol. Underlying market conditions for RSC should remain positive, and electric utility deregulation should enhance WhiteCap’s prospects.

Competition: RSC has relatively strong patent protection on WhiteCap technologies and there are no direct WhiteCap competitors. Two patents have issued and two other applications are being prepared. Inertia is strong in the construction industry, and conventional systems will continue to be strong competitors in the future. Electric utility and government activities are expected to influence the industry toward WhiteCap.

The Company: RSC was formed in 1992 as an “incubator” firm in the Sacramento Technology Development Center, to move WhiteCap from R&D status to a commercialized product. After five years of part-time continuing development and demonstration, the company is now poised for success.

Marketing Strategy: RSC provides engineering services and specialty components for WhiteCap projects. Initial marketing efforts have generated a clear picture of preferred markets which are, in ranked order: (l) local new office projects; (2) Federal and State government retrofit projects; (3) “high tech” industrial facilities; (4) “green” buildings, and (5) schools. Marketing efforts will continue to focus on key Northern California projects with profit potential through 1998. RSC will use current contacts with major commercial building firms to generate new sales. Free publicity, sales agents, advertising, and licensees will be all be used to rapidly increase sales beginning in 1999.