CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION National Energy Technology Lab Morgantown, West Virginia June 26, 2002 Terry Surles, Director Technology Systems Division.

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION

National Energy Technology LabMorgantown, West Virginia

June 26, 2002

Terry Surles, Director

Technology Systems Division

California Energy Commission


Eligible Renewables

12%

Large Hydro19%

Coal16%

Nuclear17%

Natural Gas36%

2000 Net Power System

Eligible RenewablesBiomass & Waste - 2%

Geothermal - 4.6%

Small Hydro - 3%

Solar - 0.4%

Wind - 2%


How We Got HereHistory of CA Energy R&D Programs

California has historically been a leader in energy innovations and advancements in science

Legislation in the early 1980’s mandated public interest research programs by California’s major investor-owned utilities

IOU RD&D programs were regulated by the CPUC and totaled about $120 million/yr before deregulation in the mid-90’s

IOU RD&D programs declined precipitously in the mid-90’s


PIER Program Legislative History

AB 1890 (September 1996) established a new policy (Public Goods Charge) to support public interest energy research (PIER),

renewable market support (CEC), and

energy efficiency market support (CPUC)

SB 90 (November 1997) created the Public Interest Energy Research Trust Fund

AB 995/SB 1194 (September 2000) continued PIER program for another 10 years (through 2011) at $62.5 M/yr.


California has Established a $62M/yr Public Interest Energy Research Program (PIER)

California’s Energy Future

Economy:AffordableSolutions

Quality:Reliable and

AvailableEnvironment:Protect and

Enhance


Vision Statement

The future electrical system of California will provide a clean, abundant and affordable supply

tailored to the needs of “smart”, efficient customers and will be the best in the nation.

Tailored, clean, abundant, affordable supply

Smart, efficient customers


Our R&D Program Must Address FutureMarket Scenarios

Regulated

De-regulated

De-centralizedCentralized

Status Quo • New energy systems

• Same players

Supermarket of Choices

• Same energy systems

• New players


PIER Public Benefit Objectives

Improve energy cost/value

Improve environment, public health, and safety

Improve electricity reliability/quality/sufficiency

Strengthen the economy

Provide consumer choice


Carbon Management: An Approach for Integrated Energy Systems R&D

Carbon Management

Efficiency < CO2

Btu<

Sequestration

CO2 atmCO2 produced

<

EfficiencyBtu/GDP


PIER Projects Related to Major Topics Funding (in millions)

Supply $82Renewables, EPAG

Demand $50Buildings, Ind/Ag/Water

System / Environment $47Strategic, Environmental


PIER Research Partners

Utilities (25%)

University (12.3%)

Large Business (3.3%)

Small Business (22.5%)

Government (2.9%)

Non-Profit (23%)

National Labs (11%)


PIER Objectives: Meeting Ratepayers Needs

Tangible products reach market legislative justification

Prepare for the next crisis end-use energy efficiency

Distributed generation sources supply alternatives demand side management (DSM) enabling systems

Externalities (environment, resource, security), climate change


EPAG’s Distributed Generation Focus

Distributed generation (DG) that is clean, efficient, and cost effective

Small, innovative generation vs. large central power plants

Elimination of emissions vs. post-combustion cleanup

Initially a niche market with large growth potential


PIER DG Projects

DG is a major focus for PIER - DG-related projects total have received 22% of total funding ($83M of $377M)

Each of the PIER program areas have ongoing or planned DG-related projects

As of March 2002, 8 DG projects have been completed, 61 DG projects are ongoing and 11 DG projects are planned


Environmentally-Preferred Advanced Generation

Advanced Turbine Generators Develop ultra-low NOx combustor and other advanced

control technologies Targeted microturbine development and

demonstration and testing

Fuel Cells Targeted fuel cell development Residential-scale fuel cell testing and development Fuel cell performance analysis tools


CompletedProjects CEC

($M)Match

($M)

OngoingProjects CEC

($M)Match

($M)

FuelCells

4 3.96 10.7 4 6.5 10.5

Turbine 2 1.5 8.6 10 14.9 11

PIER Fuel Cell and Turbine Projects

Contractors: UCI, Solar, Catalytica, Alzeta, ALM Turbine, CES, LLNL, Edison, SDG&E, GE Energy, M-C Power


Kalina Cycle Canoga Park FacilityKalina Cycle uses working fluid of 70% ammonia and 30% water

Ammonia has much lower boiling point than water and spins the steam turbine at lower temperatures

3.2 MW plant at Canoga Park, CA

GE has purchased exclusive license to use Kalina in their combined-cycle gas turbine systems worldwide

$505,000 royalties received from Exergy, Inc.


Gas Turbine Semi-Radiant Burner - Alzeta Corporation

Description: Gas turbine combustor that

allows fuel to be premixed with large quantities of air prior to combustion.

Benefits: Lower NOX emissions without

SCR; Cheaper than post-combustion

clean-up systems; Allows deployment of smaller

turbines for DG; and CEC is receiving royalties from

Alzeta


Xonon Cool Combustion System - Catalytica Energy Systems, Inc.

Description: Gas turbine combustion

system that controls combustion temperature to prevent the formation of NOX.

Benefits:

Lower NOX emissions without SCR;

Can retrofit existing turbines; Allows deployment of smaller

turbines for DG; and Expandable to large, central

station turbines.


EPAG’s Objectives

A cost of electricity that is competitive with the grid Low environmental impact, especially low air

emissions High reliability, availability, maintainability,

durability, and usability Market connection.

Advance the technical and market status of EPAG technologies so that installed systems will achieve:

Implied objectives: High fuel-to-electricity conversion efficiency Fuel flexibility Dispatchability


EPAG CEC/DOE ProjectsSonoma Development Center

< 2.5ppm NOx from 1.4 MW MTG in CHP application 1st commercial demo of Catalytica’s Xonon catalytic

combustor 1st use of MTG test protocols developed at UCI in a

field installation (CEC $605k) Funded by:

CA Department of Developmental Services $1.17M Kawasaki Gas Turbines $200k CEC $105k DOE $100k


EPAG CEC/DOE Projects

Solar Turbines < 3ppm NOx emissions for turbines w/out exhaust

gas cleanup Parallel R&D until one technology is selected

Project funding (CEC $2.25M) Catalytica, lean catalytic combustion (CEC $750k) Alzeta, surface combustion (CEC $2.4M) Precision combustion, rich/lean catalytic

combustion (DOE)


Dry Cooling Spray Enhancement

Project: CEC is funding development of a hybrid system that couples traditional dry cooling with spray nozzles to improve efficiency.


Dry Cooling Spray Enhancement

Benefits: Reduce regional impacts 2.8 mil gal/day water savings from a 500

MW power plant Spray enhancement provides a 7-14 MW

increase at Crockett on a hot day


Senate Bill 1298 (Bowen)

PollutantDG Unit not Integratedwith Combined Heat

and Power

DG Unit IntegratedWith Combined Heat

and PowerOxides of Nitrogen(NOx)

0.5 0.7

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 6.0 6.0Volatile OrganicCompounds (VOCs) 1.0

1.0

Particulate Matter (PM)

An emission limitcorresponding to natural

gas with fuel sulfurcontent of no more than

1 grain/100 scf

An emission limitcorresponding to natural

gas with fuel sulfurcontent of no more than

1 grain/100 scf

California Air Resources Board DG Certification Standards January 1, 2003 Emission Standards (lb/MW-hr)


Senate Bill 1298 (Bowen)

California Air Resources Board DG Certification Standards January 1, 2007 Emission Standards (lb/MW-hr)

Pollutant

Emission Standard Credit forDG Unit

IntegratedWith

CombinedHeat andPower *

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 0.07

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 0.10

Volatile OrganicCompounds (VOCs)

0.02

Particulate Matter (PM)

An emission limit correspondingto natural gas with fuel sulfur

content of no more than1 grain/100 scf

* Credit is 1 MW-hr for each 3.4E6

Btu’s of heat recovered at a minimum efficiency of 60%


Climate Change Adaptation

Problem: California is unprepared for the likely physical, economic and societal disruptions of climate change


1990-1999 Relative Gross Greenhouse Gas Emissions

0.940.960.981.001.021.041.061.081.101.121.14

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Emis

sion

s n

orm

aliz

ed to

199

0 va

lues

California United States


Carbon Emissions: California is Doing OK

Total carbon Texas 198 mmCTE California 93 mmCTE

But, for tons of carbon per capita Wyoming 33.7 California 2.9


Carbon Sequestration Can Play a Future Role

Indirect sequestration terrestrial enhanced ocean fertilization

Direct sequestration capture, separation, transport geological - EDR, EGR, CBM, brines ocean - direct injection


Zero-Emission Gas Generator - Clean Energy Systems, Inc.

Benefits: High efficiency generation Emissions of only water

and CO2 Emitted CO2 sequestered

for possible commercial application

Water

Oxygen

Clean Fuel

~95% H2O vol

~5% CO2 vol

Description:

High-temperature, high- pressure, steam turbine generation system based upon rocket engine technology


Attributes for Addressing State Issues

Program Integration

Balanced Technology Portfolio-Temporal-Technology-Risk

TechnologyPartnerships- Universities- Industry- Federal

Focus onCalifornia- Specific to State needs


CEC Needs to be Realistic about What it Can Accomplish

DOE funding is over an order of magnitude greater

Industry is putting considerable sums into specific technologies

Environmental research must be targeted to California needs


$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$ M

illio

ns

CEC

DOE

State Funded R&D Programs Result in Collaboratively-Funded Programs with U.S.

Department of Energy

Current Collaborative Programs

Renewables

Efficiency Small-scale Fossil

Systems &

Environment


Project participantsUnited States Department of Energy

California Energy Commission

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs

South Carolina Institute for Energy Studies

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

University of Illinois

University of California

Association of State Energy Research and Technology Transfer Institutions

(ASERTTI) Project


Project Objective Develop standardized nationwide protocols for testing

and reporting performance of DG technologies, including an unbiased database of technology performance

These protocols will: Ensure consistent testing methodology, data analysis

and test results reporting Assist manufacturer in equipment redesign by

providing independent evaluation of technology Verify manufacturer’s claims

ASERTTI Project


Major Potential Players Include: State

potential/funders, e.g.: DGS, DED Regulatory agencies, e.g.: ARB, CPUC, Cal EPA End users, e.g., CalTrans, Corrections, UC System

Federal - EPA, DOE, DOD, California-based national labs

County/Local, e.g.: APCDS and AQMDS Cities and municipalities

Industry - FC makers, utilities, fuel providers, etc.


Summary: Eyes on the Prize Demo’s are a step to “Move fuel cell out of the lab and

into the marketplace.” The measure of success will be near-term deployment

of FCs in stationary applications Actions to be taken

Determine matching of goals, available products, and be willing/able to host sites

Crystallize list of funding mechanisms and sources Develop demonstration plan

Next steps Take stock of firm manpower resources Delegate assignments


Collaboration and Coordination with NETL

Continue existing activities: fuel cells (SECA), fuel cell/turbine hybrids, advanced reciprocating engines (ARES?ARICE), turbines, MTGs, etc.

Possible future activities include determining the appropriate role for the PIER Program in: Sequestration science and technology; Gasification technologies for pet coke and coal; Hydrogen fuels utilization and supply technology

development New concepts for electricity generation including

Clean Energy Systems, Ramgen, etc


PIER Project Attributes Focus on programs that will produce near-term results (3-5

years) and lower-risk projects (includes programs with long-term objectives if they have short-term results)

Be clear on what question we want answered Ensure high public benefits from the projects compared to cost -

and have an exit plan Develop collaborative, high-quality partnerships with

experienced performers who have a record of success Seek performers that are committed to the project, have strong

technical abilities and can deliver product to the marketplace Develop partnerships with other R&D funders to leverage funds

and avoid duplication (benefits of partnerships must outweigh the transaction cost)

Exploit past successes by following up on existing funded projects

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION National Energy Technology Lab Morgantown, West Virginia June 26, 2002 Terry Surles, Director Technology Systems Division.

Documents