Posts

12th Ann. Conf Fossil Energy Materials

Just obtained the program for this upcoming conference..
http://www.ornl.gov/fossil/FEP_WCon.html

Twelfth Annual Conference on Fossil Energy Materials

Knoxville, Tennessee
May 12-14, 1998

The Twelfth Annual Conference on Fossil Energy Materials will review the work performed by the Fossil Energy Advanced Research and Technology Development (AR&TD) Materials Program. The AR&TD Materials Program provides needed long-range research in areas not addressed by the Department of Energy line programs and focuses on the unique needs of fossil energy systems which cannot be met by currently available materials. The intent of the AR&TD Materials Program is to provide major materials developments that can dramatically affect the feasibility of some fossil energy systems concepts. Research is conducted at national and government laboratories, universities, and industrial research facilities.

Current research activities will be described in oral presentations and posters by the researchers working on the AR&TD Materials Program. These technical presentations will address research on ceramic composites, iron aluminide alloys, advanced high-temperature alloys, and functional materials such as inorganic membranes, filters, activated carbon absorbents, and solid oxide fuel cells. Several developments are in the demonstration and commercialization stage. The status of these technology transfer activities will be presented.

Conference Details
The Twelfth Annual Conference on Fossil Energy Materials, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and ORNL, will be held May 12-14, 1998, at the Hilton Knoxville, 501 West Church Avenue, Knoxville, Tennessee. Your registration fee of $150 (in U.S. dollars) includes: continental breakfast, refreshment breaks, a buffet reception, the extended abstracts, and a copy of the proceedings mailed to the registrants after the meeting.
The registration fee of $150 (in U.S. dollars) is due on or before May 1, 1998 and is non-refundable after May 1. Credit cards are not accepted.
A block of rooms is reserved until April 15, 1997, at the Hilton Knoxville (423-523-2300) at a rate of $64 per night plus tax. When making your reservations, please mention the Conference on Fossil Energy Materials.
For more information, please contact the conference coordinator, Judy Fair, at 423-576-7270 (fax: 423-574-5812).

————————————————————

PRELIMINARY PROGRAM
CONFERENCE ON FOSSIL ENERGY MATERIALS
Knoxville, Tennessee
May 12-14, 1998

SESSION I – Ceramic Composites and Functional Materials

Tuesday, May 12, 1998

7:00 Registration and Continental Breakfast
8:00 Welcome and Introductory Remarks, Program Managers, DOE and ORNL
8:20 Keynote Address – Marvin I. Singer,
Sr Advisor for Advanced Research,Office of Fossil Energy, DOE
8:40 Invited Speaker – Deborah Haught, Program Manager
Ceramic Fiber-Reinforce Ceramic Composites,
Office of Industrial Technologies, DOE
9:00 Development of Oxidation-Resistant Composite Materials and Interfaces
R.A. Lowden, ORNL
9:30 Environmental Barrier Coatings
J. A. Haynes, ORNL
10:00 BREAK

10:20 Corrosion Protection of SiC Based Ceramics with CVD Mullite Coatings
V. Sarin, Boston University
10:50 Iron-Aluminide Filters for IGCCs and PFBCs
P. F. Tortorelli, ORNL
11:20 Exposure Testing of Materials at Galatin Power Plant
J. L. Blough, Foster Wheeler
11:50 LUNCH

1:15 Development of Nondestructive Eval Methods for Structural Ceramics
W. A. Ellingson, Argonne National Lab
1:45 Mechanical Performance of Hi-Nicalon/CVI-SiC Composites with Multilayer SiC/C Interfaces
W. A. Curtin,Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ
2:15 Modification of Slags and Monolithic Refractories to Reduce Corrosion Rates
J. P. Hurley Univ of N Dakota Energy & Environ Research Center
2:45 BREAK
3:00 Corrosion and Mechanical Properties of alloys in FBC and Mixed-Gas Environments
K. Natesan,Argonne National Lab
3:30 Solid State Electrolyte Systems
L. R. Pederson, Pacific Northwest Lab
4:00 Ceramic Membranes for High Temperature Hydrogen Separation
D. F. Fain, East Tennessee Technology Park

4:30 ADJOURN

————————————————————

SESSION II – Ceramic, New Alloys, and Functional Materials

Tuesday, May 12, 1998
5:30 – 7:30 p.m.

POSTER PRESENTATIONS – BUFFET RECEPTION

Development of Scale-Up CVI System for Tubular Geometries
T. M. Besmann, ORNL
Mass Transport Measurements and Modeling for Chemical Vapor Infiltration
T. L. Starr, Georgia Institute of Technology
Thermal Cycling Characteristics of Plasma Synthesized Mullite Films
I. Brown, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
A Carbon Fiber Based Monolithic Adsorbent for Gas Separation
T. D. Burchell, ORNL
Mechanisms of Defect Complex Formation and Environmental-Assisted Fracture Behavior of Iron Aluminides
B. R. Cooper, West Virginia University
Study of Fatigue and Fracture Behavior of Cr2Nb-Based Alloys: Phase Stability in Nb-Cr-Ni Ternary Systems
P. Liaw, Univ of Tennessee
Weld Overlay Cladding With Iron Aluminides
G. M. Goodwin, ORNL
High Temperature Corrosion Behavior of Iron-Aluminide Alloys and Coatings
P. F. Tortorelli, ORNL
Electro-Spark Deposition Technology
R. N. Johnson, Pacific Northwest Lab
Poster
R. Walters, Albany Research Center
Oxide-Dispersion-Strengthened Fe3Al-Based Alloy Tubes
B. K. Kad, Univ of California at San Diego
Reduction in Defect Content of ODS Alloys
A. R. Jones, Univ of Liverpool
Low-Aluminum Content Iron Aluminum Alloys
V. K. Sikka, ORNL
Mo-Si Alloy Development
J. H. Schneibel, ORNL

————————————————————
SESSION III –
Workshop on Materials for Separation Processes for Vision 21 Systems

Wednesday, May 13, 1998

7:00 Registration and Continental Breakfast

8:00 Speaker: William Fulkerson
President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST) Energy R&D Panel – Chairman
Fossil Energy Committee
8:30 Speaker: Howard Feibus, Director
Office of Advanced Research, Fossil Energy, DOE
This year’s workshop will focus on separations issues particularly
as they apply to the FE Vision 21 concept. Although Vision 21 embodies
several technologies in yet-to-be-defined configurations, materials
for separations systems will be critical to any and all of the
possible technology elements of a Vision 21 plant. Separations process
include, among others, gas-gas separations, such as the separation of
hydrogen from synthesis gas or from carbon dioxide, air separation to
produce oxygen, and gas-solid separation devices, i.e., hot-gas
filters. Representatives from companies working on Vision 21
technologies will establish a commercial perspective for the
separations processes and materials required for these systems. The
objective of the workshop will be to establish the highest priority
materials developments for these separations systems, and determine
how well the AR&TD Materials Program is addressing these priorities.

————————————————————

SESSION IV – New Alloys

Thursday, May 14, 1998

7:30 Registration and Continental Breakfast

8:00 Welcome and Introductory Remarks
8:10 Speaker:
John Stringer, Executive Technical Fellow
Strategic Science and Technology, EPRI
8:30 Development of ODS Fe3Al Alloys
I.G. Wright, ORNL
9:00 The Influence of Processing on Microstructure and Properties of Iron Aluminides
R. N. Wright, Idaho National Engineering Lab
9:30 Iron Aluminide Weld Overlay Coatings for Boiler Tube Protection in Coal-fired Low NOx Boilers
J. N. DuPont, Lehigh University
10:00 BREAK
10:15 Corrosion Performance of Iron Aluminides in Fossil Energy Environments
K. Natesan, Argonne National Lab
10:45 Effects of Titanium and Zirconium on Iron Aluminide Weldments,
G. R. Edwards Colorado School of Mines
11:15 Microstructure of Mechanical Behavior of Alumina Scales and Coatings
P. F. Tortorelli ORNL
11:45 LUNCH
1:15 Investigation of Austenitic Alloys for Advanced Heat Recovery and Hot-Gas Cleanup Systems
R. W. Swindeman, ORNL
1:45 Fireside Corrosion Testing of Candidate Superheater Tube Alloys, Coatings, and Claddings – Phase II
J. L. Blough, Foster Wheeler Development Corporation
2:15 Processing of Advanced Austenitics for Recuperator Service
P. J. Maziasz, ORNL
2:45 Ultrahigh Temperature Intermetallic Alloys
C. T. Liu and M. Brady, ORNL
3:15 SHS Processing and Properties of Intermetallic Alloys and Composites
W. Riley,Albany Research Center
3:45 ADJOURN

DOE 11 Lab Study on technology, greenhouse gases

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

DOE 11 Lab Study on technology, greenhouse gases

Subject: UFTO Note – DOE 11 Lab Study on technology, greenhouse gases
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998
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.

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

EMF Engineering Review Symposium, April 28-29, 1998

Reporting briefly from ORNL–a heads up about this upcoming conference on EMF.

The RAPID program is drawing to a close, but more critically, DOE may not continue with its own core EMF program. This conference may be an important forum for that issue to be raised. One implication-a void in the U.S. when and if standards are set internationally!

An excellent contact on EMF issues overall is Paul Gailey at Oak Ridge.
423-574-0419 pg7@ornl.gov

http://www.emf-data.org/symposium98.html

(Note this website as a resource on emf generally)

EMF Engineering Review Symposium
Status and Summary of EMF Engineering Research

April 28-29, 1998
Sheraton Charleston Hotel
Charleston, SC

Organized by the United States Department of Energy

Last updated: February 11, 1998
————————————————————

BACKGROUND

The Electric and Magnetic Fields Research and Public Information Dissemination (EMFRAPID) Program was established by Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) are partners in the EMFRAPID Program’s effort to address the question of whether extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields (EMF) produced by the generation, transmission, and use of electric energy pose a risk to human health, and if so, to determine the significance of the risk and to develop mitigation technologies.

ENGINEERING REVIEW SYMPOSIUM

Engineering results provide one of the foundations for understanding and characterizing EMF exposures in biological and epidemiological studies. DOE is convening a public symposium to assess the state of knowledge of EMF engineering issues and to present results of RAPID engineering studies conducted by DOE. These studies focus on exposure characterization and methodologies, exposure levels, and evaluation of strategies for field reduction.

Symposium presentations will address current knowledge of EMF exposure parameters, measurement technology, exposure systems, quality assurance, modeling, and exposure distribution. Participants will evaluate these results and discuss the potential social and economic implications. DOE will document the evaluations and conclusions of participants, together with summaries of each RAPID engineering study. Findings will be integrated into the risk evaluation process, which NIEHS is conducting.

Details and updates on the EMF Engineering Review Symposium will appear on this webpage.

————————————————————

EMF Engineering Review Symposium

Status and Summary of
EMF Engineering Research

April 28-29, 1998
Sheraton Charleston Hotel
Charleston, SC

GOALS

1. To assess the state of knowledge of EMF engineering issues, and
2. to provide engineering input to the RAPID risk evaluation process.

PROGRAM

The symposium will allow all participants to attend all discussions (there will be no break-out groups). Both on-site discussions and written comments will be incorporated into the report. Proposed topics are listed below.

* Field Parameters
* Measurement Technologies
* Laboratory Exposure Systems
* Field Calculation Models
* Field Management
* Interaction with Biological Systems
* Exposure Assessment Methodologies
* Engineering Quality Assurance for EMF Studies
* Exposure Distribution Across Populations
* Implications of Imposing Field Limits

WHO SHOULD ATTEND

Investigators and users of EMF source characterization, exposure assessment,
laboratory exposure systems, field management techniques, and field modeling
are invited to attend and participate in the discussions. This symposium
will be of interest to researchers in engineering, biological sciences, and
epidemiology, as well as electric utility personnel and regulators. The
meeting is open to the public.

Hotel

A block of rooms is being held through March 27, 1998 at the Sheraton
Charleston Hotel, 170 Lockwood Drive, Charleston, SC 29403, at the
government per diem rate ($89.00 plus 12% tax). For reservations, call
800-968-3569, or fax 803-723-6276. Be sure to state that you are attending
the DOE Engineering Symposium.

Travel Information

The Charleston International Airport services this area. Low Country
Limousine Service offers transportation to and from the airport. The one-way
fare is $15.00 per person. For reservations, call 800-222-4771. Taxis are
available at a slightly higher cost.

Registration

Advance registration is required in order to receive pre-conference
materials. The deadline for registration is March 27, 1998. To register,
please send the following information for each attendee:

* Name
* Name for badge
* Title/Position
* Company/Institution
* Address
* City/State/Zip
* Country
* E-mail address
* Telephone number
* Fax number

To:

W/L Associates
7519 Ridge Road
Frederick, MD 21702
Telephone: 301-663-1915
Fax: 301-371-8955
e-mail: 75230.1222@compuserve.com

Update on UFTO Operation Update

See earlier note attached below. Thanks to the many of you who responded.

We are making progress.

OAK RIDGE — tentatively scheduled for sometime Apr 1-3.
Need to know — WILL YOU COME??

NIST — looking for a date in May

ARGONNE — we’d hoped to go to ANL in March, however they’re gearing up for an initiative to approach utilities, and will be better prepared for us if we wait until June. I’ll keep you posted.
(note to Cubs fans–see how things work out?)

Subject: UFTO Operation Update
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:41:54 -0800
From: Ed Beardsworth
To: note@ufto.com

————————————————————–
| ** 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
————————————————————–

At our June meeting in SF last year, there was a strong consensus behind the idea to revisit some of the Labs that we first went to several years ago. I’ve already gone to Sandia, and am beginning to put the plans in place for other Labs.

A number of you expressed an interest in accompanying me on such trips, so this note is to find out how many of you are likely to come.

The format will depend on how many of you attend, and what your interests will be. I would go ahead for meetings on Day 1, and then be prepared for your arrival that evening. Day 2 would be tours, presentations and meetings for the group. You certainly could expect a good overview of relevant programs at each Lab, and a chance to meet some of the management and key investigators.

I’ve contacted Oak Ridge, Argonne, and NIST, to start the process of finding possible dates. My goal is to accomplish all three visits by the mid July, though we may let one slide to the Fall.

(To review our materials for each of these labs, go to the website/ members only/ “advanced” search, and put the lab name in “Source”…For NIST use “institute”. Also, note new “reports and workshops” section.)

———————————————
It’s very important to have good estimates for this. Please REPLY, by cob Tues Jan 27. Thank you.

A. ____ NIST (Wash DC)
____ Oak Ridge (Tenn.)
____ Argonne (Chicago)

_1_ Almost certain we will send someone, schedules permitting
_2_ A distinct possibility
_3_ Almost certainly won’t send anyone

B. Comments or suggestions on:
TIMING? (good, bad dates–preferred days of week, etc.)
AGENDA?
Other comments?

C. ____ UFTO Members Meeting?
When? Where? (Combine with a Lab visit? Another event?)
Comments?

Ancillary Services – new ORNL report

In a continuing series on utility industry restructuring, Oak Ridge has just released a new report on Ancillary Services:

“Creating Competitive Markets for Ancillary Services,” ORNL/CON-448,
Eric Hirst and Brendan Kirby, October 1997

FERC has recognized the importance of ancillary services for bulk-power reliability and support of commercial transactions on interconnected transmission systems, and Order 888 includes a pro forma tariff for six key ancillary services. To date most tariffs that have been filed have prices these services on the basis of traditional cost-of-service (embedded) costs. Because most of these services are provided by generating units, however, it should be possible to create competitive markets for them. Recent proposals for ISOs call for such markets, but lack the details on how these markets would be structured and operated.

This report describes a spreadsheet model that simulates markets for sevsen services: losses, regulation, spinning reserve, supplemental reserve, load following, energy imbalance, and voltage support. The work demonstrates the likely complexity of markets for energy and ancillary services, arising because the markets are highly interdependent. Costs and prices will vary considerably as functions of system load and current spot price of energy. Also, embedded cost prices bear little relationship to costs and prices that would actually occur in competitive markets. (Capital costs which figure so prominently in embedded costs would be largely irrelevant, and opportunity costs ignored in cost of service analysis can dominate the prices of some ancillary services at times.)

———————
Copies of this report and others listed below can be obtained from Ethel Schorn, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, PO Box 2008, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6206, e-mail schornem@ornl.gov, or fax 423-576-8745.
———————
Eric Hirst, who is always interested in discussing industry issues, can be reached at 423-574-6304, hirstea@ornl.gov

————————————-
ELECTRIC-INDUSTRY POLICY STUDIES
Here is a partial list of recent ORNL publications, including several earlier ones on Ancillary Services:

L. Baxter, E. Hirst, and S. Hadley 1997, Transition-Cost Issues for a Restructuring U.S. Electricity Industry, ORNL/CON-440, March.

E. Hirst, and B. Kirby 1997, Ancillary-Service Details: Dynamic Scheduling, ORNL/CON-438, January.

E. Hirst 1996, “Bulk-Power Reliability: More Than Apple Pie and Motherhood,” The Electricity Journal 9(10), December.

E. Hirst 1996, Ancillary-Service Details: Regulation, Load Following, and Generator Response, ORNL/CON-433, September.

E. Hirst, S. Hadley, and L. Baxter 1996, Factors that Affect Electric-Utility Stranded Commitments, ORNL/CON-432, July.

L. Baxter, S. Hadley, and E. Hirst 1996, Strategies to Address Transition Costs in the Electricity Industry, ORNL/CON-431, July.

B. Kirby and E. Hirst 1996, Ancillary-Service Costs for 12 U.S. Electric Utilities, ORNL/CON-427, March.

B. Tonn and M. Schweitzer 1996, Public Policy Responsibilities in a Restructured Electric Industry: Analysis of Values, Objectives, and Approaches, ORNL/CON-428, March.

S. W. Hadley 1996, ORFIN: An Electric Utility Financial and Production Simulator, ORNL/CON-430, March.

E. Hirst and B. Kirby 1996, Electric-Power Ancillary Services, ORNL/CON-426, February.

Second DOE study on Greenhouse Gases

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.

NY Times article: The Private-Sector Life of a Government Lab

RECOMMENDED READING — On the front page of (8/23) Saturday’s NY Times business section, there was an extensive article on the relationships between DOE National Labs and private industry.

————————————————————–
August 23, 1997 The Private-Sector Life of a Government Lab By CLAUDIA H. DEUTSCH

[G] oodyear Tire and Rubber Co. wanted to predict, without weeks of test drives, how its tires would perform under various conditions. So it went to the Energy Department’s Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, N.M., for help. “Their computer models show how a nuclear weapon will react to different conditions, so why shouldn’t they show how a tire will react?” said William Sharp, president of Goodyear’s global support operations.

A federal weapons laboratory might seem an unlikely partner for a tire maker, but with the Cold War over and military spending shrinking, Sandia is putting out the welcome mat to private industry. And U.S. corporations, which have emerged in this era after downsizing as far more willing to turn to outside sources, are lining up to tap into its technology storehouse.

They are using Sandia to develop new manufacturing processes, to run what-if simulations on new products, to solve environmental problems. In the process, they are helping Sandia move beyond its once single-minded focus on the arms race.

For example, a consortium of 17 casting and forging companies, recognizing that few young engineers were joining their industry, asked Sandia to help it simplify software so that employees who were not engineers could create and test new casting equipment. “None of us have the time or money to do this ourselves,” said Robert Kervick, chief executive of Komtek, a casting company in Worcester, Mass.

And Motorola asked Sandia to run reliability tests on computer chips without using the standard chemical cleaning agents — the chlorofluorocarbons that destroy the atmosphere’s ozone layer. “Customers feel more comfortable buying a product whose reliability is verified by a government lab,” said James Landers, a manager in Motorola’s Space and Systems Technology Group.

For Sandia, the money pouring in from its corporate partners helps keep many of its 7,642 employees — about 800 fewer than two years ago — gainfully employed. But the real winner, Sandia insists, is the U.S. economy. “National security starts with economic security, and that means helping our industries compete,” said Paul Robinson, Sandia’s president.

Sandia (pronounced san-DEE-uh) is not the only Energy Department lab sounding that theme. Although documents emerged last week indicating that some of the labs, including Sandia, are still hard at work on new or modified designs for nuclear arms, private-sector projects are nonetheless occupying an ever-larger share of their time.

Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, Lawrence Livermore — the heart, lung and brain of the Manhattan Project’s atomic bomb and its progeny — all have been accelerating their industrial endeavors since 1989. That was when Congress removed many of the legal impediments that had kept them from transferring intellectual property or licensing technologies to private industry.

Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island, N.Y., which is grappling with environmental problems caused by the leak of radioactive tritium from a research reactor’s storage tank, is looking to commercialize its medical and environmental technologies.

In the last eight years the labs have written more than 3,000 Cradas — the acronym for cooperative research and development agreements — that spell out who pays for what, and how the results can be used. Some call for companies to foot the entire bill in return for proprietary rights to anything that is developed.

But more typically, the labs chip in some cash, retain the rights to the resulting technology and give the corporations that contributed several years of free, exclusive use.

The federal labs, even when shrouded in secrecy, have always intermingled with industry. Many of them have been managed by private corporations — under contract to the Energy Department and its predecessors — for several decades. Sandia, for one, was run by AT&T for nearly 44 years and is now managed by Lockheed Martin.

But while all of the labs are devoting more time and resources to projects in the private sector, the effort seems most crucial at Sandia. Unlike Oak Ridge, which has always been a multipurpose energy lab, Sandia’s raison d’etre has always been the arms race.

And Sandia, which designs the non-nuclear components of nuclear weapons, also is responsible for stockpiling spare parts and for maintaining the existing supply of nuclear weapons. So, unlike Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos, which design and develop nuclear warheads, its duties have not lessened much with the end of the Cold War.

Even so, Sandia’s operating budget is slowly being whittled away. It was down almost $50 million this year, to about $1.28 billion, and Sandia expects it will drop to $1.1 billion in 1999. And a lot of those cuts have come out of the money available for use as matching funds for industrial projects.

In 1995, Sandia got about $100 million from the government for those purposes; it received $56 million last year and $20 million this year. Warren Siemens, Sandia’s director of technology partnerships, doubts it will rise above that again. “Apparently Congress has said, ‘Oops, this is corporate welfare,”‘ Siemens said.

So, while most of the laboratories are looking for ways to apply their existing technologies to corporate use, Sandia is the most willing to develop new processes for industry, with the hope that the companies will kick in most of the costs.

Right now, for example, Sandia is working with a consortium of electronics companies on a project to miniaturize certain types of semiconductor chips to handle 30 times more functions than they typically do now. It is collaborating with numerous manufacturers on ways to cast tools directly from powdered metals.

And it is encouraging industry to tap into its supercomputer — a machine that Sandia says is 300 times more powerful than Deep Blue, IBM’s chess-playing champion — not only to answer questions about products and processes but also to suggest what questions should be asked.

“We hold the record for speed of computing,” Siemens said. “We have great strength in microelectronics, and these are exactly the areas companies look to for help in making products more reliable.”

Progress in convincing industry to chip in has been slow. Five years ago, about $9 million of Sandia’s funds came from industry. Last year corporations provided $27 million. But Siemens thinks private funding will hit $35 million this year, and soar to $100 million by 2000.

And Sandia wants more from industry than simply money. Since it can no longer afford to hire many new researchers, it must rely on industry to keep abreast of new technologies.

Moreover, industrial projects often have implications for the military. “It’s a lot cheaper to maintain an Air Force whose planes need less rebuilding or repairing,” said Gernant Maurer, vice president of technology for Special Metals Corp., a maker of nickel-based superalloys that is part of a consortium working with Sandia to develop defect-free alloys for engine aircraft.

Similarly, weapons and satellites are loaded with semiconductor chips. “Our nation’s defense systems rely on semiconductors, and it would not be great if they had to buy all those chips from overseas,” said Chris Daverse, manager of national resources for Sematech Inc., a nonprofit research consortium of semiconductor makers and equipment suppliers, which has signed on for numerous projects to develop lower-cost production methods and contamination-free chips.

Sandia’s new reliance on industry comes at an opportune time. Companies have grown more comfortable with the idea of outsourcing all kinds of tasks, so letting outsiders work on their research is not as radical as it would have been in the do-it-yourself ’80s. Moreover, many have formed strategic alliances with suppliers and competitors, which has made them less averse to sharing their technologies with others.

“The thinking is, it is better to get half the rights to a product that is first to market, than all the rights to one that comes in late,” said Mary Good, a former undersecretary of commerce who helped set up a project for the auto industry and several national laboratories to develop a fuel-efficient car.

If repeat business is a sign of satisfaction, the corporations that have tried it clearly believe they have gotten their money’s worth. Goodyear, which has completed four cooperative projects in which it used computer modeling to predict how different tread designs and materials would perform, just signed on for its fifth Sandia project. It is aimed at analyzing and improving rubber processing technology.

A deal between Delphi Saginaw Steering Systems, an arm of General Motors Corp., and Sandia to develop better finishing processes for auto parts has metamorphosed into a Detroit-wide project to develop electronic controls for industrial heating and hardening processes.

“We’ll save tens of millions just by eliminating destructive testing,” said James Farago, Delphi’s supervisor of controls engineering. “And we’re going to get better insights into the materials we use.”
Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company