CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
National Energy Technology LabMorgantown, West Virginia
June 26, 2002
Terry Surles, Director
Technology Systems Division
California Energy Commission
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%
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
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
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
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 ENERGY COMMISSION
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
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
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
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
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
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
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
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
Carbon Management: An Approach for Integrated Energy Systems R&D
Carbon Management
Efficiency < CO2
Btu<
Sequestration
CO2 atmCO2 produced
<
EfficiencyBtu/GDP
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
PIER Projects Related to Major Topics Funding (in millions)
Supply $82Renewables, EPAG
Demand $50Buildings, Ind/Ag/Water
System / Environment $47Strategic, Environmental
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
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%)
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
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
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
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
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
PIER DG Projects
DG is a major focus for PIER - DG-related projects total have received 22% of total funding ($83M of $377M)
Each of the PIER program areas have ongoing or planned DG-related projects
As of March 2002, 8 DG projects have been completed, 61 DG projects are ongoing and 11 DG projects are planned
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
Environmentally-Preferred Advanced Generation
Advanced Turbine Generators Develop ultra-low NOx combustor and other advanced
control technologies Targeted microturbine development and
demonstration and testing
Fuel Cells Targeted fuel cell development Residential-scale fuel cell testing and development Fuel cell performance analysis tools
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
CompletedProjects CEC
($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
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
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.
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
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
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
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.
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
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
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
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
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
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)
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
Dry Cooling Spray Enhancement
Project: CEC is funding development of a hybrid system that couples traditional dry cooling with spray nozzles to improve efficiency.
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
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
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
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)
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
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%
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
Climate Change Adaptation
Problem: California is unprepared for the likely physical, economic and societal disruptions of climate change
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
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
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
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
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
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
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
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
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
Attributes for Addressing State Issues
Program Integration
Balanced Technology Portfolio-Temporal-Technology-Risk
TechnologyPartnerships- Universities- Industry- Federal
Focus onCalifornia- Specific to State needs
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
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
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
$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
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
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
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
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
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
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.
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
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
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
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
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
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