Tài liệu Energy Research at DOE WAS IT WORTH IT? Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy Research 1978

Energy Research at DOE

WAS IT WORTH IT?

Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy Research

1978 to 2000

Committee on Benefits of DOE R&D on Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy

Board on Energy and Environmental Systems

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

National Research Council

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS

Washington, D.C.

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the

National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy

of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of

the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard

for appropriate balance.

This report and the study on which it is based were supported by Contract No. DE-AM01-

99PO80016, Task Order DE-AT01-00EE10735.A000, from the U.S. Department of Energy. Any

opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the agency that provided support for the project.

International Standard Book Number: 0-309-07448-7

Library of Congress Control Number: 2001093513

Available in limited supply from: Additional copies are available for sale from:

Board on Energy and Environmental Systems National Academy Press

National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Box 285

HA-270 Washington, DC 20055

Washington, DC 20418 800-624-6242 or 202-334-3313 (in the

202-334-3344 Washington metropolitan area)

http://www.nap.edu

Copyright 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distin￾guished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of

science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter

granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the

federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the

National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National

Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its

administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences

the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also

sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and re￾search, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the

National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure

the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters

pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National

Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and,

upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I.

Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to

associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of further￾ing knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general poli￾cies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the

National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to

the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is admin￾istered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm.

A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.

National Academy of Sciences

National Academy of Engineering

Institute of Medicine

National Research Council

COMMITTEE ON BENEFITS OF DOE R&D ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND FOSSIL ENERGY

ROBERT W. FRI, National Museum of Natural History, Chair

WILLIAM AGNEW, NAE,1 General Motors Research Laboratories (retired)

PETER D. BLAIR, National Academy of Sciences

RALPH CAVANAGH, Natural Resources Defense Council

UMA CHOWDHRY, NAE, DuPont Engineering Technology

LINDA R. COHEN, University of California, Irvine

JAMES CORMAN, Energy Alternative Systems Inc.

DANIEL A. DREYFUS, National Museum of Natural History (retired)

WILLIAM L. FISHER, NAE, University of Texas, Austin

ROBERT HALL, CDG Management, Inc.

GEORGE M. HIDY, Envair/Aerochem

DAVID C. MOWERY, University of California, Berkeley

JAMES DEXTER PEACH, Ellicott City, Maryland

MAXINE L. SAVITZ, NAE, Honeywell

JACK S. SIEGEL, Energy Resources International, Inc.

JAMES L. SWEENEY, Stanford University

JOHN J. WISE, NAE, Mobil Research and Development Company (retired)

JAMES L. WOLF, consultant, Alexandria, Virginia

JAMES WOODS, HP-Woods Research Institute

1NAE = Member, National Academy of Engineering

Committee Subgroup on Energy Efficiency

MAXINE L. SAVITZ, Co-chair

JAMES L. WOLF, Co-chair

WILLIAM AGNEW

PETER D. BLAIR

RALPH CAVANAGH

UMA CHOWDHRY

LINDA R. COHEN

DAVID C. MOWERY

JAMES WOODS

Committee Subgroup on Fossil Energy

JACK S. SIEGEL, Chair

JAMES CORMAN

WILLIAM L. FISHER

ROBERT HALL

GEORGE M. HIDY

JAMES DEXTER PEACH

JOHN J. WISE

Committee Subgroup on Benefits Framework

JAMES L. SWEENEY, Chair

LINDA R. COHEN

DANIEL A. DREYFUS

ROBERT W. FRI

DAVID C. MOWERY

Liaison from the Board on Energy and Environmental

Systems

WILLIAM FULKERSON, University of Tennessee,

Knoxville

Project Staff

RICHARD CAMPBELL, Program Officer and Study

Director

JAMES ZUCCHETTO, Board Director

DAVID FEARY, Senior Program Officer, Board on Earth

Sciences and Resources (BESR)

ROGER BEZDEK, consultant

ANA-MARIA IGNAT, Senior Project Assistant

iv

v

BOARD ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS

ROBERT L. HIRSCH, RAND, Chair

RICHARD E. BALZHISER, NAE,1 Electric Power Research Institute (retired)

DAVID BODDE, University of Missouri

PHILIP R. CLARK, NAE, GPU Nuclear Corporation (retired)

WILLIAM L. FISHER, NAE, University of Texas, Austin

CHRISTOPHER FLAVIN, Worldwatch Institute

HAROLD FORSEN, NAE, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, D.C.

WILLIAM FULKERSON, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (retired) and University of Tennessee, Knoxville

MARTHA A. KREBS, California Nanosystems Institute

GERALD L. KULCINSKI, NAE, University of Wisconsin, Madison

EDWARD S. RUBIN, Carnegie Mellon University

ROBERT W. SHAW, JR., Arete Corporation

JACK SIEGEL, Energy Resources International, Inc.

ROBERT SOCOLOW, Princeton University

KATHLEEN C. TAYLOR, NAE, General Motors Corporation

JACK WHITE, Association of State Energy Research and Technology Transfer Institutions (ASERTTI)

JOHN J. WISE, NAE, Mobil Research and Development Company (retired), Princeton, New Jersey

Staff

JAMES ZUCCHETTO, Director

RICHARD CAMPBELL, Program Officer

ALAN CRANE, Program Officer

MARTIN OFFUTT, Program Officer

SUSANNA CLARENDON, Financial Associate

PANOLA GOLSON, Senior Project Assistant

ANA-MARIA IGNAT, Senior Project Assistant

SHANNA LIBERMAN, Project Assistant

1 NAE = Member, National Academy of Engineering.

Acknowledgments

vii

The Committee on Benefits of DOE R&D on Energy Ef￾ficiency and Fossil Energy wishes to acknowledge and thank

the staffs of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy and the Office of Fossil Energy for their exemplary

cooperation during the course of this project. The committee

called on these offices for extensive data, analyses, and pre￾sentations, which added significantly to their already heavy

workload.

The committee also wishes to express appreciation to a

number of other individuals and organizations for providing

important background information for its deliberations.

Loretta Beaumont of the U.S. House Appropriations Com￾mittee briefed us on the congressional origins of this study.

Members of the committee visited the General Electric Com￾pany and Babcock & Wilcox, whose cooperation and open￾ness are greatly appreciated. Other organizations that briefed

the committee at one or more of its public meetings include

the Ford Motor Company, the Gas Research Institute, Wolk

Integrated Services, the Foster Wheeler Development Cor￾poration, International Fuel Cells, Siemens Westinghouse,

the Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, the U.S.

General Accounting Office, Avista Laboratories, the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, the Peabody Group,

CONSOL Energy Incorporated, and SIMTECHE. The com￾mittee is grateful for the facts and insights that these brief￾ings provided.

Importantly, the committee recognizes the contribution

of Roger Bezdek, whose analytic support and keen advice

were essential to the completion of its work.

Finally, the chair is acutely aware of the extraordinary

efforts of the members of the committee and of the staff of

the Board on Energy and Environmental Systems of the Na￾tional Research Council (NRC). Every member of the com￾mittee contributed to the analysis of the case studies that

form the foundation of this report and to the deliberations on

the report itself. The staff, led by Richard Campbell, man￾aged a very complicated and voluminous process in accor￾dance with the highest standards of the NRC. What the com￾mittee was able to accomplish of the ambitious agenda set

by Congress is entirely due to the efforts of these persons.

This report has been reviewed by individuals chosen for

their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accor￾dance with procedures approved by the National Research

Council Report Review Committee. The purpose of this in￾dependent review is to provide candid and critical comments

that will assist the institution in making its published report

as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets insti￾tutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsive￾ness to the study charge. The review comments and draft

manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the

deliberative process. We wish to thank the following indi￾viduals for their review of this report: Joel Darmstadter, Re￾sources for the Future; Clark W. Gellings, Electric Power

Research Institute; Robert L. Hirsch, RAND; John Holdren,

John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard Univer￾sity; James J. Markowsky, American Electric Power Service

Corporation (retired); John McTague, Ford Motor Company

(retired); Glen R. Schleede, consultant; Frank J. Schuh, Drill￾ing Technology, Inc.; and Lawrence Spielvogel, Lawrence

Spielvogel, Inc.

Although the reviewers listed above have provided many

constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked

to endorse the conclusions or recommendations nor did they

see the final draft of the report before its release. The review

of this report was overseen by Harold Forsen of the National

Academy of Engineering. Appointed by the National Re￾search Council, he was responsible for making certain that

an independent examination of this report was carried out in

accordance with institutional procedures and that all review

comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the

final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring

committee and the institution.

Contents

ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1 INTRODUCTION 9

A Brief History of Federal Energy R&D, 9

Origin and Scope of This Study, 10

Organization of This Report, 12

Reference, 12

2 FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY 13

Overview, 13

The Setting, 13

The Framework, 14

Conduct of the Study, 18

Assessment of the Methodology, 18

Reference, 19

3 EVALUATION OF THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS 20

Introduction, 20

Selection of the Case Studies, 22

Buildings: Lessons Learned from the Case Studies, 27

Industry: Lessons Learned from the Case Studies, 30

Transportation: Lessons Learned from the Case Studies, 32

Findings and Judgments, 36

Recommendations, 41

References, 42

4 EVALUATION OF THE FOSSIL ENERGY PROGRAMS 44

Introduction, 44

Selection of the Case Studies, 44

Lessons Learned from the Case Studies, 47

Findings, 57

Recommendations, 61

References, 61

5 OVERALL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 62

Benefits of DOE’s RD&D in Fossil Energy and Energy Efficiency, 63

DOE’s Approach to Evaluating Its RD&D Programs, 65

Portfolio Management, 66

Reference, 69

x CONTENTS

APPENDIXES

A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 73

B PRESENTATIONS AND COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES 77

C BIBLIOGRAPHY RELEVANT TO DOE R&D POLICY, CONGRESSIONAL

MANDATES, R&D RESULTS, AND EVALUATIONS 79

D MEASURING THE BENEFITS AND COSTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF

ENERGY’S ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND FOSSIL ENERGY

R&D PROGRAMS 86

Summary of the General Framework, 86

Discussion of the Rows, 88

Discussion of the Columns, 92

Interpretation and Appropriate Use of the Framework, 93

E CASE STUDIES FOR THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM 95

Advanced Refrigeration, 95

Compact Fluorescent Lamps, 99

DOE-2 Energy Analysis Program, 100

Electronic Ballasts, 104

Free-piston Stirling Engine Heat Pump (Gas-Fired), 106

Indoor Air Quality, Infiltration, and Ventilation, 109

Low-emission (Low-e) Windows, 114

Lost Foam Technology, 118

Advanced Turbine Systems Program, 121

Black Liquor Gasification, 127

Industries of the Future Program, 132

Oxygen-fueled Glass Furnace, 135

Advanced Batteries for Electric Vehicles, 140

Catalytic Conversion of Exhaust Emissions, 143

Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, 145

Stirling Automotive Engine Program, 151

PEM Fuel Cell Power Systems for Transportation, 154

References, 158

Bibliography, 161

F CASE STUDIES FOR THE FOSSIL ENERGY PROGRAM 162

Coal Preparation, 162

Direct Coal Liquefaction, 164

Fluidized-bed Combustion, 166

Gas-to-Liquids Technology, 169

Improved Indirect Liquefaction, 172

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, 174

Emission Control Technologies, 177

Mercury and Air Toxics, 180

Waste Management/Utilization Technologies, 183

Advanced Turbine Systems, 185

Stationary Fuel Cell Program, 187

Magnetohydrodynamics, 190

Coal-bed Methane, 193

Drilling, Completion, and Stimulation Program, 193

Downstream Fundamentals Research Program, 198

Eastern Gas Shales Program, 200

CONTENTS xi

Enhanced Oil Recovery, 202

Field Demonstration Program, 205

Oil Shale, 207

Seismic Technology, 208

Western Gas Sands Program, 211

References, 213

Bibliography, 214

G GLOSSARY 215

H ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 222

xiii

Tables and Figures

TABLES

ES-1 Energy Efficiency Technology Case Studies Slotted in the Matrix Cells That Are Most

Relevant Today, 4

ES-2 Fossil Energy Technology Case Studies Slotted in the Matrix Cells That Are Most Rel￾evant Today, 5

2-1 The Most Important Fossil Energy and Energy Efficiency Technological Innovations Since

1978, 13

3-1 Summary of the Budget for DOE’s Energy Efficiency R&D Programs, FY 1978 to

FY 2000, 21

3-2 Expenditures for Energy Efficiency Programs Analyzed by the Committee, 1978 to

2000, 23

3-3 Categories and Case Studies, 24

3-4 Net Realized Benefits Estimated for Selected Technologies Related to Energy Efficiency

RD&D Case Studies, 29

3-5 Energy Efficiency Technology Case Studies Slotted in the Matrix Cells That Are

Most Relevant Today, 38

4-1 Fossil Energy Budgets for the 22 Programs Analyzed by the Committee, 46

4-2 Fossil Energy Programs’ Cost Sharing, 1978 to 2000, 48

4-3 Net Realized Benefits Estimated for Selected Fossil Energy R&D Programs, 56

4-4 Fossil Energy RD&D Benefits, 57

4-5 Realized Benefits from DOE RD&D Programs, 58

4-6 Fossil Energy Technology Case Studies Slotted in the Matrix Cells That Are Most

Relevant Today, 60

E-1 Funding for Advanced Refrigerators-Freezer Compressors, 96

E-2 Benefits Matrix for the Advanced Refrigerator-Freezer Compressors Program, 98

E-3 Funding for the Compact Fluorescent Lamps Program, 100

E-4 Benefits Matrix for the Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) Program, 100

E-5 Benefits Matrix for the DOE-2 Program, 103

E-6 DOE Funding for the Fluorescent Lamp Electronic Ballast Program, 105

E-7 Benefits Matrix for the Fluorescent Lamp Electronic Ballast for Program, 107

E-8 DOE Funding for the Free-Piston Stirling Engine Heat Pump Program, 108

E-9 Benefits Matrix for the Stirling Engine Heat Pump Program, 110

E-10 Benefits Matrix for the Indoor Air Quality Program, 113

xiv TABLES AND FIGURES

E-11 Benefits Matrix for the Low-emission (Low-e) Windows Program, 116

E-12 Funding for the Lost Foam Program, 119

E-13 Benefits Matrix for the Advanced Lost Foam Technologies Program, 120

E-14 Selected Outage Costs, 122

E-15 Funding for the Advanced Turbine Systems Program (Energy Efficiency Component), 124

E-16 Benefits Matrix for the Advanced Turbine Systems Program (Energy Efficiency

Component), 126

E-17 Predicted Environmental Emissions from the MTCI/StoneChem Steam Reformer

and from a Tomlinson Recovery Boiler, 128

E-18 Funding for the Black Liquor Gasification Program, 129

E-19 Benefits Matrix for the Black Liquor Gasification Program, 131

E-20 Total Funding in IOF/Forest by Program Area, 133

E-21 Changes in IOF Priorities: Share of OIT/Forest Budget by Program Area, 134

E-22 Participation in IOF/Forest Program Then and Now, 135

E-23 Changes in Participation by Share of Budget, 135

E-24 Benefits Matrix for the IOF/Forest Program, 136

E-25 General Funding for the Oxy-fueled Glass Furnace Program, 137

E-26 Funding for the Oxy-fueled Glass Furnace Program by Technology to FY 2000, 138

E-27 Oxy-fuel Penetration and Characteristics by Glass Industry Segment, 138

E-28 Benefits Matrix for the Oxy-Fueled Glass Furnace Program, 139

E-29 DOE Funding for Advanced Battery R&D, 141

E-30 Benefits Matrix for the Advanced Batteries (for Electric Vehicles) Program, 142

E-31 DOE Funding for the Catalytic Conversion Program, 144

E-32 Benefits Matrix for the Catalytic Conversion Program, 145

E-33 Benefits Matrix for the PNGV Program, 148

E-34 MTI Stirling Engine Development Project Budgets, 152

E-35 General Motors STM Stirling Engine Development Project Budgets, 152

E-36 Benefits Matrix for the Stirling Automotive Engine Program, 153

E-37 Funding for Transportation PEM Fuel Cell Power Systems, 154

E-38 Benefits Matrix for the Transportation PEM Fuel Cell Power System Program, 157

F-1 Benefits Matrix for the Coal Preparation Program, 164

F-2 DOE Appropriations and Industry Cost Sharing for Direct Liquefaction, 165

F-3 Benefits Matrix for the Direct Liquefaction Program, 166

F-4 Benefits Matrix for the Fluidized-bed Combustion (FBC) Program, 168

F-5 DOE Investments in the Gas-to-Liquids Program, FY 1978 to FY 2000, 170

F-6 DOE Investments in the Gas-to-Liquids Program, 1999, 170

F-7 Benefits Matrix for the Gas-to-Liquids Program, 171

F-8 Benefits Matrix for the Improved Indirect Liquefaction Program, 173

F-9 Benefits Matrix for the Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle (IGCC) Program, 176

F-10 Benefits Matrix for the Improvement of the Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD)

Program, 180

F-11 Benefits Matrix for the NOx Control Program, 181

F-12 Benefits Matrix for the Mercury and Air Toxics Program, 182

F-13 Benefits Matrix for the Waste Management/Utilization Technologies Program, 184

F-14 Funding for the Advanced Turbine Systems Program (Fossil Energy Component), 185

F-15 Benefits Matrix for the Advanced Turbine System (ATS) Program (Fossil Energy Compo￾nent), 187

F-16 Funding for the DOE Fuel Cell Program, FY 1978 to FY 2000, 188

F-17 Benefits Matrix for the Stationary Fuel Cells Program, 189

F-18 DOE Funding for the Magnetohydrodynamics Program, 191

F-19 Benefits Matrix for the Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) Program, 192

F-20 Funding for the Coal-bed Methane Program, 193

F-21 Benefits Matrix for the Coal-bed Methane Program, 194