Posts

Institutional Issues Facing Distributed Resources

/0 Comments/in , /by

Subject: UFTO Note – Institutional Issues Facing Distributed Resources
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997
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
————————————————————–

Institutional Issues Facing Distributed Resources

“Legal, Regulatory, and Institutional Issues Facing Distributed Resources Development”

J.T.Nimmons, T.J.Starr, R. Orans, J.Swisher, and J.Singer, December 1996. 120 pages.

Work performed on behalf of NREL and four investor owned-utilities (C&SW, Cinergy, Florida Power Corp., and SDG&E), bertween August 1995 and march 1996, by a team of four consulting firms. It was the survey phase of a project known as the Distributed Resources Institutional Analysis Project, which UFTO member utilities first heard about in early 1995 (UFTO Report on NREL, and UFTO Meeting at NREL).

The report provides an overview of the legal and regulatory framework governing U.S. utilities, both Federal and State, and discusses how Distributed Resources may be affected, in the context of open access and restructuring. Order no. SR-460-21791

This is an NREL Technical Report, available in limited quantities from NREL’s Document Distribution Service at 303-275-4363, fax 303-275-4053, or evanss@tcplink.nrel.gov (You can also want ask to be put on the mailing list for the quarterly NREL EnergyPubs list>)

John Nimmons & Associates, Olympia WA can be reached at 360-786-6040, email jna@nwrain.com

Next Generation Wind Turbine

/0 Comments/in , /by

Subject: UFTO Note – Next Generation Wind Turbine
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 17:03:33 -0800
From: Ed Beardsworth

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

This Summary was prepared for UFTO by the Wind Turbine Company. Complete details on their business plan and technical approach are available from the company. The company is seeking business partners and equity investment capital.

——————————————–

THE WIND TURBINE COMPANY December 12, 1996

WTC’s 2-blade, downwind turbine design holds the promise of reducing the cost of wind generated electricity from its current level of 5¢/kWh to less than 3.5¢/kWh without resorting to available subsidies. WTC has significantly refined and improved upon the downwind design, incorporating proprietary technology, in a quest to reduce the initial turbine cost, the primary cost driver of wind energy, without sacrificing reliability. WTC’s turbine will weigh 60% as much as a comparably rated 3-blade, upwind turbine. Its lighter weight will permit WTC’s turbine to operate higher above ground (100 meters or more) than is economic for upwind turbines, thus exposing it to higher winds resulting in more energy production. Lower weight and higher energy capture combine to provide a substantial reduction in the cost of wind generated electricity.

WTC was selected by the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (DOE and NREL) to participate in Stage 2 (the hardware building stage) of the “Next Generation Turbine Development Project.” This is a $20 million project with the DOE picking up 70% of the cost. It will last 5-6 years. Two commercial wind turbines, the WTC 250 and WTC 1000, will be developed. As the result of its cost sharing, WTC will own all hardware produced.

A contract with NREL permitting work to begin on this project is expected by the end of December, 1996. To begin work, WTC needs to obtain initial funding for its share of the cost. WTC has identified two outside sources of funding and would like to identify one or two additional sources, one of which is ideally a strategic partner that can help commercialize the wind turbines when they are available.

The project will be executed in three phases corresponding to the development of three wind turbines:

In the “proof-of-concept” (POC) phase, WTC will manufacture and begin testing the POC 250, a 250 kW turbine. This turbine will demonstrate the technology that is novel to WTC’s design-WTC’s proprietary, hydraulically operated system in the turbine’s rotor that permits the cone angle between the blades to adjust depending on wind speed. Building the POC 250 will take approximately 12 months with an extended testing period to follow.

In the second phase WTC will develop the first full-scale 1000 kW turbine. This phase will begin in the second quarter 1998. During this phase, WTC will also develop an all new wind turbine blade for the 1000 kW turbine.

Concurrently, and independent of the NREL contract, WTC will refine the POC turbine with the intention of having the WTC 250 commercially available in early 1999.

3. The second full-scale turbine, the WTC 1000 production prototype, will be manufactured in the third phase. This turbine will be a commercial product.

To execute the project, commercializing the WTC 250 in parallel, WTC will have to raise approximately $12 million in equity funding over the next 5-6 years before reaching a break-even cash flow. This fund raising occurs in stages corresponding to the turbine development phases. Presently, WTC is raising $2 million by selling equity representing approximately 40% ownership of the Company. This will permit execution of the POC phase.

One of WTC’s current shareholders will participate in this financing, and WTC also expects a newly formed, electric utility-funded venture capital company to participate. Together these investors will account for a minimum of $1 million of the required initial funding, and could easily account for more. Both would like WTC to identify a strategic partner.

Markets for the WTC 250 and WTC 1000

The opportunity for the WTC 250 is in developing countries and in installations that are not grid connected. For example, the standard WTC 250 would be ideally suited for islands in the Caribbean, the Azores, etc., as well as mainland-based installations in Latin America and Asia. Primary considerations for this turbine are climates where fully weather protected maintenance is not critical, and where existing infrastructure such as roads, as well as the unavailability of large-size erection equipment, prohibit the installation of large wind turbines.

Many such installations are currently served by diesel generation units or are candidates for such units. Even in locations where diesel fuel is low cost, integrated wind/diesel systems will emit less pollutants and therefore should be viewed favorably by customers.

One modification to the WTC 250 which has been considered is the development of a cold weather version. Though the market for this wind turbine is a subset of the market for stand-alone systems, it is a high value opportunity. In many remote, cold weather locations, the cost of delivering diesel fuel is high.

WTC believes it can sell a limited number (20+/-) WTC 250 wind turbines in early 1999, generating its first revenue from commercial sales. Specific customers for these turbines have not been identified, however, a number of opportunities exist including the DOE/Electric Power Research Institute sponsored Turbine Verification Program. The US military is also known to be considering use of renewable energy technologies.

The opportunity for the WTC 1000 is large scale, grid connected applications. At present, and for perhaps the next 5-10 years, this market will be primarily in North America and “off-shore” in Europe. If the WTC 1000 achieves its cost and energy production targets, it will be competitive in the deregulated North American marketplace. Initially, it will displace higher cost sources of electricity from the grid when the wind is blowing. Storage technologies will eventually improve to the point where wind energy will become a major contributor in the North American electricity system.

During the next 3-5 years, however, there will be limited opportunities for new wind energy projects in North America as the generation industry deregulates and excess capacity is absorbed. This is the period during which WTC will be developing its new technology. By the time the WTC 1000 is available for commercial sale in the year 2000, the US market for low-cost wind energy will be rebounding.

The immediate opportunity for wind energy will be presented by the closure of aging nuclear power facilities. WTC believes the public will not accept a lessening of air quality as the price for a more competitive electricity market. Thus, in spite of an abundance of coal in North America, natural gas will to continue to be the fuel of choice. If the WTC 1000 achieves its cost objectives, electricity generators will turn their gas turbines off when the wind is blowing.

For more information please contact:

Larry Miles, President
The Wind Turbine Company
515 – 116th Avenue NE, Suite 263
Bellevue, WA 98004 USA
telephone: (206)637-1470
facsimile: (206)637-1483
email: MilesLW@MSN.com

Bulletin #6 – NREL Visit, UFTO Meeting, Sandia, Los Alamos

/0 Comments/in , /by

UFTO Bulletin #6

March 21, 1995

To: UFTO Subscribers

. . in this issue: . . . . . . . . .

NREL Visit, UFTO Meeting, Sandia, Los Alamos

1. On Thursday March 9, we had an all day nonstop series of follow-up presentations and discussions with NREL staff, on all aspects of their programs. Everyone found the day to be very valuable, including the NREL folks, who appreciated the chance to present their work and to learn a bit more about what the industry is up to. Our group was the first of its kind that NREL had ever encountered, and the sessions gave them some important new perspectives.

2. On Friday 3/10, we had our own group meeting, to discuss the UFTO program and ways it could be made more effective. Every UFTO member utility was represented except for Wisconsin Electric (Graham Siegel made his own visit to NREL a few weeks ago.) A draft “Proceedings” is attached, subject to any comments that attendees might want to offer. (Please send me comments ASAP, along with copies of your notes or “trip report” if any!).

3. The next week, I went to Sandia and Los Alamos for more “drinks from a fire hose”. Once again, there appears to be some very exciting opportunities for utilities in what these labs are doing, and a strong interest on their part in getting closer to utilities.

A few highlights are outlined in an attachment. There are some very significant ground floor opportunities, some of which are quite new, unannounced, and time-sensitive.

4. One key issue keeps coming up. The labs want to know if we’re serious, and if there’s a real possibility that we (you) are prepared to do business with them in some concrete way, if the right kind of technology opportunity comes along. They’re understandably wary of all the time it takes for them to host visitors, unless there’s a reason to think something will come of it.

I’ve indicated that we (you) are interested, motivated, and serious, and that if the technology is right, “anything is possible,” ranging from substantial funding under a Crada or work for others agreement, to hosting demos, to investments in new ventures.

As you review the various “deals” I report to you, be thinking not only if the technology is interesting, but also what kinds of resources you’d be prepared to bring to the table, and what kind of business arrangement you’d want. Let’s show the labs we mean business.

PS: If any of you are looking for a better way than Dialog to search for technology information, particularly from government sources, give me a call. I’ve got a recommendation for you.

NOTE: The current domestic UFTO membership comprises approximately 1/6 of the total U.S. electric utility industry! And the international participation amounts to about 1/7 of the U.S. industry.

(Thanks to Janie Farrington at PSI/Cinergy for the figures.)

HY MELT

(Sandia)

Ashland Oil has demonstrated proof of concept in their labs, and has funding committed for a production installation. What’s missing is the piece in the middle — the intermediate scale demonstration R&D. Sandia Labs has made a proposal to DOE/Fossil to fund the government side of a CRADA with Ashland, but with budget cuts, it’s possible the funds might not be available.

The technology makes it possible to convert low grade hydrocarbon feedstocks (or fossil fuels) directly into Hydrogen and Carbon Monoxide (separate streams!) while sequestering impurities, even producing elemental sulfur. There is no stack, and no emissions.

Ashland wants this technology for its refineries, to deal with the sour crude it often has to deal with, to produce hydrogen, and to handle refinery “bottoms”, which are a costly disposal headache.

As a Hydrogen producer, HYMELT is estimated to be 30% cheaper than steam reforming, when using the same feedstock, i.e. fuel gas. It is much cheaper still, when the cost of the feedstock is removed, and a waste stream is used instead.

In case DOE doesn’t come up with the money, Ashland has asked Sandia to begin looking discretely for a partner interested in other fields of use, and who could put up $800k/year for 3 years, leveraging the many $ millions that Ashland has spent and committed.

We are the first to hear this story. Please handle with discretion, and do not discuss outside your company.

Contact is Al Sylwester, Sandia Tel # 505-844-8151

or call me

Ed Beardsworth 415-328-5670

 

Diamond Like Coatings (DLC) on Large Objects

with Plasma Source Ion Implantation.

(LANL)

Based on an invention at the Univ of Wisc from the early 80’s, Los Alamos has developed the capability to cost-effectively put DLC on large objects of arbitrary shape without preheating, and with a high degree of intrinsic adherence. It is the subject of a $14 million crada with GM for automotive applications.

DLC has been viewed almost entirely as a means to prevent wear . However, Los Alamos recently published a paper showing a many-fold improvement in corrosion resistance (done for a neutrino detection experiment!).

This could fulfill a personal vision of mine of many years that diamond coatings would be a major breakthru for turbine blades, or any component subject to wear or corrosion. The only utility interest to date has been by EPRI, to prevent fouling of nuclear power plant venturis, but funding isn’t available!

Los Alamos hadn’t been thinking in terms of other utility industry applications until we spoke. A joint development effort with utilities, Lawrence Berkeley Lab and possibly a vendor would be a brand new initiative. Los Alamos is already active in setting up “vertical consortia” to apply this technology in other industries, and would be very interested in working with us.

Please call me if you’re interested in pursuing this.

Ed Beardsworth 415-328-5670

 

MICRO (MINI?) SMES

Both Sandia and Los Alamos seem to have a hand in this program to build a SMES unit that would be about 10x larger than Superconductivity, Inc.’s unit, and smaller than the B&W/Anchorage device. The application is Power Quality for industrial customers, and/or at the substation level — on the order of 10’s of MW for seconds. This is seen as a development project, not a research one, with the goal to learn if such a device is the solution to an industry problem.

CRADA negotiations are underway with one utility already, however there may be (and I feel there ought to be) a way for other utilities to participate, if only by providing modest funding for a seat at the table.

Please call me if you’re interested in pursuing this.

Ed Beardsworth 415-328-5670

 

PEM Fuel Cell

(LANL)

Los Alamos has the oldest ongoing program in PEM, and some key breakthroughs in lowering the cost (by reducing the Pt catalyst requirement, and new designs and fabrication methods), and overcoming sensitivity to impurities. They also are working with an unidentified major company who’s supplying a new membrane, different from Dupont or Dow’s, and less expensive.

They believe PEM can “leapfrog” the high temperature fuel cell technologies (MC, SO) in stationary applications, which will be much easier than mobile ones (the conventional view of where PEMs belong). At least 10-15 companies large and small are working on PEM in one form or another (not just Ballard!). Los Alamos has lab units at 100 sq. cm. reliably demonstrating their technology.

There is no utility “user group” for PEM, and one is needed. We can be instrumental in forming one with Los Alamos, the other labs, and their other industrial partners. There’s also the obvious opportunity to stake out a piece of this very interesting nontraditional approach to fuel cell technology.

This group was initially wary of spending time on visitors unless it could lead to something. After I described the strategic interest utilities have in fuel cells and the new kinds of business initiatives utilities are taking, the PI offered to prepare a brief discussion paper, outlining their ideas and how utilities could participate.

Please call me if you’re interested in pursuing this, and want a copy of the paper when I receive it. Ed Beardsworth 415-328-5670

 

Catalytic Reduction of NOx

by microwave assisted chemistry

LANL

Los Alamos has demonstrated at lab scale a means to remove NOx from a simulated gas stream, and need to implement it at a utility or factory/process that generates NOx.

Carbonaceous material first adsorbs the NOx, and then the bed is purged by heating it with microwaves with O2 (an adsorb/desorb cycle).

One interesting implication– with this capability to remove NOx, it may be possible to operate boilers at higher temperature, for better overall optimal performance.

This was internally funded at the lab, and DOE/Fossil is interested.

Contact is Ed Joyce, 505-665-2964

NREL Gas Jet Proposal (Jan 1995)

/0 Comments/in , /by

From: Edward Beardsworth
To: UFTO Subscribers
January 1995

This cover letter is to introduce the enclosed materials from the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL).

Dr. Desikan (Des) Bharathon has been awarded internal funding at NREL for his proposal to develop efficient gas jet ejectors. He believes he can improve dramatically on the very low efficiency of commercially available units. Dr. Bharathon is looking for utility partners for this program, and I agreed to provide this cover letter and your names to him.

These devices have wide application in utility power plants and in other industries, chemical processing in particular. They use thermal energy in place of mechanical energy to compress gases. In power plants, they are used to remove noncondensible gases from steam systems.

The business terms of any arrangement between you and NREL (and perhaps a manufacturer) are completely open at this point, and could represent an important ground floor opportunity for you.

At this point you know about as much as I do about this technology, but if I can be of any assistance, please let me know.

Sincerely yours,

Edward Beardsworth

Bulletin #4 (Jan 3, 1995)

/0 Comments/in , /by

To: UFTO Subscribers

HAPPY NEW YEAR! I hope your holidays were good, and your in-basket isn’t filling up too fast. We had a great time here, and now it’s time to get UFTO back into high gear.

1. Expect to hear soon from NREL about an internal program to develop more efficient gas jet ejectors. They’re looking for partners, and I gave them your names, along with a letter of introduction.

I also gave your names to Dr. Hanafy Meleis, of the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) at NIST, and asked him to send you information about a workshop he and Dave Cain at EPRI are sponsoring January 30-31 in Atlanta on Information and Telecommunications Technology for U.S. Utilities, and open forum to discuss technical, strategic and economic issues, and needed R&D. Have a look, and see if someone from your company should be there.

2. A revised roster of subscribers is enclosed. Welcome to Bill Muston at Texas Utilities, and Daniel Madet of the R&D Division of Electricite de France (office in Palo Alto!).

3. Plans for January include:

– Writing up the full report for NREL

– On Site Briefings for several more subscriber utilities (3 of you have already completed this).

– Site visits to LBL and possibly another lab.

– Ongoing follow-up

4. If you (or anyone from your company) will be in California for EPRI meetings later this month, let’s try to get together for breakfast, lunch or dinner, and/or for visits to the various startups I’ve been telling you about.

5. By the end of February at the latest, I’d like to try to reach agreement about the scope of this year’s program, and which labs will be included in our program. I’ll propose a list in the next few weeks.

One very important question– Are we going to get together as a group, and if so, when? How does mid to late March sound? Any volunteers to host such a meeting? What are your thoughts about the program or what we’d try to accomplish? I’m sure we could get some Lab (and DOE) representatives who would welcome the opportunity to meet with us and make a presentation.

6. Do you (or someone from your company) want to pay a visit to one of the labs? We found followup visits to be very valuable. Dave Odor at PSI has already said he wants to go to NREL, perhaps in March or April. Want to join us? Let me know.

Sincerely, EdB

PS: I just signed up with a local internet provider, giving me full directaccess via Mosaic. It’s very exciting, but I can see it’s easy to spend far too much time “net-surfing”. Any of you have experience on the net? Any good sites for information on energy technology?

Bulletin #3

/0 Comments/in , /by

December 1, 1994

From: Edward Beardsworth
To: UFTO Subscribers

Happy Holidays!–almost. Getting to be that time when you think of the year as already over, but UFTO has a very full month ahead.

1. On-site briefing and needs assessments are set at NYSEG, Boston Edison and NSP…risky places to travel to in December, but I plan to be lucky with the weather.

2. The last of the “previous reports”, Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL) is enclosed. (You already have 3 reports, ORNL, NIST, and ANL.) Livermore was the first place we went. LLNL has just looked over a final draft, and helped update some of the organizational information, however the technical material is essentially as it was a year ago. LLNL will provide new information to us as it arises. Some new ideas in fuel cells and work in ground penetrating radar will be coming soon.

3 The trip to National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) in Golden CO, November 21 and 22, was quite successful. See the attached sheet of “hot” items. The detailed report is in preparation.

4. Labs to visit: I’m making arrangements to go to LBL and Sandia. You’ve heard from ETEC outside LA, and there’s one vote for going there. How do the rest of you feel?

5. I attended a DOE meeting in San Francisco mid November. It was one of 3 “stakeholder” meetings around the country for the DOE Fossil Energy International Progam to get input on how it could best help with the export of U.S. fuels, technology and know how. Several interesting items came to light–see attachment.

6. Another connection you may want to know about, if you don’t already: E Source, Inc. is a small company in Boulder CO that spun off from the Rocky Mountain Institute several years ago. They provide excellent detailed information about efficient end-use technology. It’s a subscription/membership service, and each of your companies already belong! The contact person in your utility is most likely in your marketing group. You may see different uses and value in this data resource, e.g. to help assessing technology and developing new business strategies. To find out who the subscriber is in your company, call E Source at 303-440-8500. (Tell them I sent you.)

7. Our contacts at NIST led to an open invitation for any of us to visit the Center for Environmental Engineering at the Univ. of Maryland at College Park MD. Dr. Reinhard Radermacher, Director, sent me some information about their capabilities and expertise in energy conversion cycles, heat transfer and thermophysical properties of materials. They have a membership program as well. Their phone # is 301-405-5286.

8. FEEDBACK–please! Reactions, suggestions, criticisms, requests! Any items pique your interest? Have you tried calling anyone at a lab yet? Let me know how it goes.

9. Save-the-best-for-last department: We have verbal commitments to join from two new subscribers, Texas Utilities and Electricité de France!

National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL)

In the first official UFTO visit, I went to NREL in Golden CO on November 21 and 22, for two very full days of meetings. The full report is in preparation. Meanwhile, here are some “time-sensitive” or special items of interest:

• Distributed Utility Valuation: new two phase program in planning stage. Phase one will be a collaboration between NREL and 10-12 utilities to investigate the institutional (i.e. regulatory) issues. Funding would be 1/2 from NREL and the other half from the utilities (about $10K each). In Phase 2, contractors would work with individual utilities, so that competitive aspects can be handled separately from the (phase 1) aspects that can and should be in a more public forum. The feeling is that this cannot be an EPRI undertaking because of the regulatory aspects.
Contact Lynn Coles 303-275-4699

• Hybrid Solar Thermal — new concept to dramatically lower front end financial risk, by using solar heat as preheater for a gas turbine, instead of a dedicated steam plant. GT could be used stand-alone, and use of the solar would cut fuel consumption (reduce CO2). Looking for interested utilities or IPPs. Contact: Tom Williams 303-275-3602

• “Smartco” — brainstorming concept of the utility of the future that integrates generation, transmission with end use in a technology-based grand optimization, and combines talents in finance, marketing, and high technology. DOE seed program looking for 1-2 utilities to think it through and estimate benefits. Contact is Gary Nakarado, 303-275-3072

• Federal-Utility Partnership Program (FEMP) — Brings to a utility all the Federal government “customers” in the service territory, for concentrated effort to improve efficiency of government buildings by linking to utility DSM and energy savings programs. (Environment Act requires all Fed. buildings to increase effic. by 30% by 2005.) Utility Working Group is forming subcommittees and will hold its 3rd meeting December 6 in Atlanta (at AEE meeting). Contact is Bob Westby 303-275-6021 or Nancy Carlisle 303-275-6034. Program director in DOE is Mark Ginsberg — contact is Lou Harris at 202-586-9794.

• Biomass Power/Climate Change Action Program Item 26 — new RFP due in December for follow-ons to the 10 venture program site-specific feasibility studies done over past 2 years. New entrants welcome. Must involve a dedicated feedstock (i.e. closed loop for CO2) and generation. (Can include ethanol.) Contact is Rich Bain 303-275-2946

• Hydrogen — NREL provides technical oversight for the DOE national program. An RFP has been/will be issued for “any” H2 application. Contact Cathy Gregoire 303-275-2919

________________________________
Here’s an unusual (non-NREL) item: Dr. Tom Marrero of the University of Missouri-Columbia heads a program to develop a way to transport coal in pipelines, not as a slurry, but in compressed “logs”. It’s been under development with DOE funding for several years, and is ready for a demo! He promised to send some information which hasn’t arrived as yet, but if anyone is interested, let me know and I’ll track it down.

DOE Fossil International Program Meeting
Nov. 1994
Items of Interest

Contact Miles Greenbaum, International Programs Manager, Office of Fossil Energy, for information on their “Regional Implemenation Plans” (Africa, E. Europe, Pacific Rim, Russia/NIS, S. Asia/N East, W. Europe, and W Hemisphere). Tel # 301-903-2796

1. The Office of Fossil Energy will issue a RFI soon for Clean Coal Projects in Foreign Countries, as a means to support the goals of reducing Greenhouse Gases. (Increased efficiency leading to lower CO2 emissions.) There will be a conference in Washington on or about Dec. 14. Copies will be sent to everyone on the clean coal mailing list, but to be sure, you can contact Jerry Pell at 301-903-9447. (Note how many birds you could kill with this one stone!)

AID is already funding projects in Poland, administered by DOE, to reduce pollution from low stacks in the city of Krakow, under the Clean Energy Fuels Efficiency Program. Howard Feibus is the DOE program manager 301-903-3348.

2. As you’ve seen in the press, Secretary O’Leary has led a couple of very successful trade missions, to China, India and Pakistan. U.S. business representatives go along at their own expense, after a thorough preparation on opportunities in the target country, and come back with signed contracts for big projects! The extensive briefing materials prepared for these trips, and summaries about the results, are available (but are not “published”) from DOE. You can also get information about future trips, and how to apply to go along.
Contact Dawn Schrepel, DOE Trade Mission Coordinator, at 800-860-1097. (very sharp!)

The Dept of Commerce’s International Trade Administration also has an energy office: Andy Vitali is Director of the Office of Energy Infrastructure. tel 202-482-1466. Others in that group include Joe Yancik (Div. Director, Energy), Les Garton (renewables), and Katherine Viel (electric utilities).

Commerce also has a Trade Information Center, 800-USATRADE. They’ll connect you with country and or industry experts, and explain Federal export assistance centers.

Other resources: Overseas Private Investment Corp, and US Trade & Development Agency. Call me for details if there’s interest.

3 The U.S. Energy Association: Contact John Rasmussen, USEA, 1620 Eye St. NW, Suite 210, Washington DC, 20006, tel 202-331-0415.

The USEA is the USA’s official link to the World Energy Council, which puts on the major “World Energy Conference” every 3 years. The next WEC is in Houston in 1996, and there will be a “warmup” meeting in Houston May 8-12, 1995 on the Strategic Value of Fossil Fuels, sponsored by USEA and DOE.

Working with AID (Agency for International Development) the USEA has arranged 10 partnerships between US utilities and countries in E. Europe. (Two UFTO members are in this program, e.g. Comm•Ed with Poland, and Boston Edison with Romania.) EEI is the partner for Russia, owing to the huge size of the utility there. The issues dealt with are mostly management, efficiency of operation, finance, budgets, and business planning. [Our ANL report mentioned this program.]

4. The National Coal Council, is not the National Coal Association. It’s a non-profit that advises DOE, and has a series of publications. Contact James McAvoy, 703-527-1191

Bulletin #2

/0 Comments/in , /by

From: Edward Beardsworth
November 1, 1994

To: UFTO Subscribers

Greetings! We’re making progress. You’ve had the Oak Ridge report for a few weeks–any thoughts?

1. Two more reports on last year’s work are enclosed, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and Argonne National Lab (ANL). I’ve asked each institution to put you on the mailing list for their respective tech transfer newsletters.

You’ll also find another report that gives a set of background reference materials that may be helpful to you in understanding the program. Note the long list of newsletters and magazines that are available to technology scouts–some are even free!

2. I’ll be going to the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) in Boulder CO, November 21 and 22. If you have any particular leads you want me to follow, please let me know.

FYI — see the enclosed new fax newsletter from NREL: Distributed Utility Valuation Project ResearchUpdate. The Oct 94 preliminary issue has instructions on how you can get on the distribution list.

3. Regarding selection of the list of labs to visit, NREL seemed to be an obvious choice. Lawrence Berkeley Lab also appears to be a natural for us. My plan is to get started with these two, and take more time to develop our complete list, based on additional conversations with each of you.

4. I decided not to attend Technology 2004 in Washington DC. If any of you do go, please give me a call and tell me what you thought of it.

5. We need to schedule my briefing/needs assessment visit to your company! Let’s do it. You call me or I’ll call you.

Technology Transfer Opportunities in the National Laboratories Background Reference Materials

/0 Comments/in , /by
PROPRIETARY
Final Report
Technology Transfer Opportunities in the National Laboratories
Background Reference Materials
July 1993
Revised September 1994
Prepared for:
Utility Federal Technology Opportunities (UFTO)
By:
Edward Beardsworth
Consultant

Part of a series examining technology opportunities at National Laboratories of possible interest to electric utilities

Contents:
page
1. DOE Industry Partners Program
2. Search & Inquiry Support Services
(including the National Tech Transfer Center)
Newsletters
3. The GM Story
4. Outline of a Generic Process

This report is proprietary and confidential. It is for internal use by personnel of companies that are subscribers in the UFTO multi-client program. It is not to be otherwise copied or distributed except as authorized in writing.

DOE Industry Partner Programs

AMTEX — American Textile Partnership

Announced in March 1993, the DOE and the american textile industry formed a multi-million dollar agreement to create a research collaboration among the 8 DOE labs, DOE, and five R&D consortia in the textile industry. It is coordinated by Pacific Northwest Labs.

It is being viewed with considerable optimism, and is one of several organizational “models” for DOE to establish closer ties to industry, noting in particular that it was designed to create a relationship where there hadn’t been one at all–unlike the case of the utility/energy industry.

TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIP (as of 7/30/93)

Also in March, Secretary O’Leary directed the DOE and labs to evaluate eight more industries in terms of what the labs might have to offer them. One of the eight was the Utility Industry.

On April 7, a hastily organized meeting was held at Brookhaven National Lab to begin to draft an evaluation and set of recommendations. (BNL had volunteered or been chosen to take the lead for the utility industry study.) Most of the labs were represented (though not LLNL), and GRI and EPRI (Bob Aldridge) were asked to participate as spokesmen for the utility industry, in the interests of time and efficiency, noting the very short time available (one month) to develop the report for Secty O’Leary.

Reports were submitted to the Secretary in early May, on schedule, and some indication of a response is expected by mid June. What form that response will take is not known. There may be a request for more detail, or perhaps a directive to go ahead with a major planning activity. Reports for some of the other 7 industries were sent back to authors for more information. There was no such request for the BNL report, though there have been some comments that the BNL report took insufficient note of extensive and long standing relationships between DOE, the labs and the utility industry.

BNL indicates that they are aware that they only scratched the surface of both the industry and of what the labs might have to offer. These aspects, along with detailed consideration of the organizational model, will be pursued in whatever follow-on activity is put in place.

Update 6/24/93
Rumors have it that the BNL report was not well received, due in large part to internal criticism within DOE. Tracking a report of another intiative reportedly underway in NREL and the DOE/Energy Effic& Renewable Energy.

Update 7/30/93
The NREL initiative is proceeding. A meeting will be held in Denver on August 4 with representatives of all the laboratories. The BNL proposal is reportedly dead.
[Note 10/94 : This effort appears to have faded away also. Rumors are that EPRI had some problems with it. More recent developments will be covered in a separate report.]

Search & Inquiry Support Services

There are a number of public and private operations that provide support and access services of various kinds, to help clients with a specific need or problem to find resources in the federal laboratories.

The National Technology Transfer Center, (316 Washington Ave., Wheeling, WV 26003)
Established 1992. Provides a free inquiry service intended to put one in touch with one or more contact individuals. They are not supposed to to “searches’ (database) per se, as that role is assigned to the various “Regional Tech Transfer Centers”, who do it for pay. NTTC has a free online service called “Business Gold”
1-800-678-NTTC 304-243-2456 fax 304-243-2539

Regional Technology Transfer Centers (various locations around the US)
Originally set up by NASA, these now have a broader charter to do “value-added” service, charging for searches and technical and commercialization assistance.
Westborough MA 508-872-0042 Pittsburgh PA 412-648-7000
Univ of Florida 904-462-3913 College Station TX 409-845-8762
Cleveland OH 216-734-0094 Los Angeles CA 213-743-6132

Federal Laboratory Consortium (224 W. Washington, Suite 3, Sequim WA 98382)
Holds conferences and workshops, publishes guidebooks and a newsletter. Offers “locator” service and has a set of regional contacts around the country.
206-683-1828 fax 206-683-6654

Newsletters:

“Technology Transfer Business” quarterly magazine, free to TT professionals. Published by Washington Technology in association with NIST. Vienna VA 703-848-2800

“Cooperative Technology RD&D Report”, $640/yr., monthly by Technology Publishing Group, Washington DC 202-966-9610

“Technology Access Report”, $447/yr, monthly by University R&D Opportunities, Box 2189, Berkeley CA 800-959-1059. (broad coverage of university & int’l tech. opptys)

“Inside R&D”, $740/yr, weekly by Technical Insights, Inc, Englewood NJ (incl international).

“Inside Technology Policy”, biweekly, $499/year, 1333 H Street,NW, Wash DC 2005, (202)842-0520.

“New Technology Week”, weekly, $624/year, , King Publications (publishers of Energy Daily), 627 National Press Bldg, Wash DC 20045, (202) 662-9711

“Tech Transfer Report”, $395/yr., monthly by McGraw Hill, NY NY, 800-223-6180

“NASA Tech Briefs”, $75 /year. Free to qualified subscribers, monthly by Associated Business Publications, 41 E. 42nd St. NY NY 10017-5391. Contact NASA, Manager Tech Transfer, 800 Elkridge Landing Rd. Linthicum Heights, MD 21090-9908 and ask for application form. Tel 410-859-5300

“Technologies Tomorrow”, $450/year, 8 issues/yr., Box 21897, Albuqurque NM 87154, (505)237-1070.

The General Motors Story

General Motors made a corporate decision to go to the national labs to see what opportunities awaited them there. They made a major commitment of resources to do it, and are participating vigorously at the Federal policy level to improve the process.

• In January ’92 they hosted a conference for the national labs at their Technical Center in Warren MI, with the largest number of National Lab personnel ever, and over 2000 GM employees.
• They have visited or will visit all the major DOE labs repeatedly, and with numbers of personnel, for a series of meetings designed to establish joint projects.

The following are rough notes are from a telephone conversation in April 1993 with Rich Marczewski about the process of getting acquainted with a DOE lab. Rich is a Manager at GMs Tech Center.*

– Phone call to the Lab’s TT office, introducing their objectives
– Followup letter outlines high-level array of the company’s needs
– Schedule a 2 day visit —
– Lab drafts a suggested agenda with one paragraph summaries of presentations to be made by lab personnel.
– GM published abstracts in internal company newsletter to find GM people with the needs

Initially, the lab and GM know virtually nothing about each other, so GM starts meeting with presentation about GM. Need to get acquainted, see what lab’s strengths are, and match to GM needs.

Internally GM identified problems/needs and assistance needed — 1 pagers sent on ahead to Lab.

GM Needs Briefing–GM presentations to audience of lab personnel. GM and lab people pair off to go discuss possible projects and collaborations in greater detail. In one such session, had 60 presentations resulting in 34 matchups.

Social time built into the schedule–to allow relationships to develop.

Repeat visits–get match ups by the 3rd visit and start writing SOW’s. Takes a lot of time

2 day visit is the most anyone can handle–info overload (e.g. Sandia and Los Alamos too much in one go). Set aside time back at the office immediately on returning to go over notes and follow up, or you’ll forget!

Look beyond what the lab suggests for applications, and look at the underlying technology (e.g. High power lasers adapted for metal parts fab)

Program had a lot of doubters in GM but fewer as time goes on.

The system (and attorneys) holds things back. Government bound to “fairness”. National competitiveness vs exclusivity, etc etc.

More cooperative arrangements and fewer straight licenses or Scientist/Engineer exchanges.

(* Rich left GM in 11/93 and went to NREL.)

Outline of a Generic Process

Getting to Know a National Laboratory

1. Getting Started — Finding allies and network

Call the Lab’s Technology Transfer office, and get names of appropriate people to talk to, as senior as possible. Start calling them. Have crisp “message” to leave with secretary or voicemail. Get secretary’s name. Explain reason for calling. Offer to send a letter/fax outlining the project (e.g. a stripped down version of the proposal), and send it if it’s wanted.

Ask about how tech transfer is accomplished, and by whom. Ask about overall lab organization, key issues, management style, etc.

(It’s also useful to call on the Public Information office, and ask for any publications that describe the overall lab program. Ask a number of different people about this. Also ask to be put on mailing lists.)

2. Expand the Network

As the organization begins to come into focus, identify key people in business development roles and in technical roles — people who are involved in making industry partnerships happen. Call them and get to know them. Keep good notes. Write down as much as possible during phone conversations.

Try to identify a main ally, as a point of contact, and who can sponsor or host a visit, and as someone who’ll begin to identify with the project.

3. Site Visits

Arrange to visit the lab, making no more than 5-6 appointments for one day. Sometimes an hour with someone isn’t nearly enough, but having a time limit does help focus the conversation. Scheduling can be difficult, both as to the day and times of day for individual appointments. A host can be very helpful in making arrangements. They may suggest group meetings, or offer a room where lab people can come to you. (This saves time getting around an unfamiliar campus, but it loses the advantage of visiting people in their offices, where serendipity can intervene in terms of picking up printed materials and meeting people.)

The purpose should be billed as a get-acquainted session, with overviews of programs relating to energy (directly or indirectly), and brief descriptions of the lab’s technology that’s ripe for codevelopment and/or tech transfer.

It is wise to set aside time to review notes and do some follow-up immediately after the visit.
This first visit will invariably open up more areas for investigation, and identify more contacts to make. Telephone calls and perhaps one or two more site visits may be called for.

By now, the relevant opportunities will have begun to emerge, and a few specific areas will have been identified. Focus on these for planning the Utility site visit, where the utility personnel come to the lab for a perhaps more formal set of meetings, including overviews of both the lab and the utility (for the benefit of the lab), and specific topics of interest that have been identified.

4. Making Deals

Know in advance what kinds of business deals are real options for the Utility. Understand what the objectives are. The lab will need to have a sense that the utility is a bonafide industry partner prospect, and not just a curious observer, though they shouldn’t expect to know the utility’s bargaining position or business interests in any detail at the outset.

General Comments:
* People in general are very interested and willing to tell you about their work. It’s human nature, but in the case of researchers, they’re even more glad to do it. It’s important to establish trust, be honest about your intentions and about how much you do or don’t understand of what they’re telling you. Try diplomatically to guide them to the level of technical detail that’s appropriate to what you need to know (in order to evaluate whether to dig deeper). Probe behind the claims. Ask about specifics of performance and cost estimates, and how they were obtained.

* In this iterative process of trying to become a little bit acquainted with a large complex bureaucratic organization, respect the unique culture, recognize the pressures on people, and avoid getting drawn in to local politics.

* Take lots of notes, and begin documenting right at the start.