[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NEW ROADMAPS FOR WIND AND SOLAR
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 14, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-42
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
50-746 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
JIM MATHESON, Utah BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PETE OLSON, Texas
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
HON. BRIAN BAIRD, Washington, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
PAUL D. TONKO, New York
JIM MATHESON, Utah
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
JEAN FRUCI Democratic Staff Director
CHRIS KING Democratic Professional Staff Member
MICHELLE DALLAFIOR Democratic Professional Staff Member
SHIMERE WILLIAMS Democratic Professional Staff Member
ELAINE PAULIONIS PHELEN Democratic Professional Staff Member
ADAM ROSENBERG Democratic Professional Staff Member
JETTA WONG Democratic Professional Staff Member
ELIZABETH CHAPEL Republican Professional Staff Member
TARA ROTHSCHILD Republican Professional Staff Member
JANE WISE Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
July 14, 2009
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Brian Baird, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 8
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 9
Written Statement............................................ 9
Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 10
Witnesses:
Mr. Steven C. Lockard, President and Chief Executive Officer, TPI
Composites, Inc.; Co-Chairman, American Wind Energy
Association, Research & Development Committee
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 14
Biography.................................................... 15
Mr. John Saintcross, Program Manager, Energy and Environmental
Markets, New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority (NYSERDA)
Oral Statement............................................... 16
Written Statement............................................ 18
Biography.................................................... 31
Dr. Andrew Swift, Director, Wind Science and Engineering Research
Center, Texas Tech University
Oral Statement............................................... 32
Written Statement............................................ 33
Biography.................................................... 36
Mr. Ken Zweibel, Professor of Energy; Director, George Washington
Solar Institute, George Washington University
Oral Statement............................................... 36
Written Statement............................................ 38
Biography.................................................... 39
Ms. Nancy M. Bacon, Senior Advisor, United Solar Ovonic and
Energy Conversion Devices, Inc.
Oral Statement............................................... 39
Written Statement............................................ 41
Biography.................................................... 47
Discussion
The Economic Impacts of Energy Policy Changes.................. 47
Technology Offshoring.......................................... 48
Solar Roof Installation........................................ 49
Offshore Wind Power............................................ 51
General Challenges With Wind and Solar......................... 52
Government's Role in Technology Deployment..................... 54
Increasing Efficiencies........................................ 56
Achieving Economic Viability................................... 57
Decentralizing the Transmission System......................... 59
Permitting and Wildlife Issues................................. 59
More on Storage................................................ 61
Bringing Down Costs to the Consumer............................ 63
Net Metering................................................... 65
Nuclear Power.................................................. 66
More on Net Metering........................................... 67
Keeping Jobs and Products Domestic............................. 68
Grid Compatibility With Power Sources.......................... 69
Storage Research Initiatives................................... 70
Closing........................................................ 72
Appendix: Additional Material for the Record
Letter to Bart Gordon and Ralph M. Hall from the Members of the
Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition, dated July 29,
2009........................................................... 74
Restoring American Competitiveness, by Gary P. Pisano and Willy
C. Shih, Harvard Business Review, July-August 2009............. 76
NEW ROADMAPS FOR WIND AND SOLAR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:19 p.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian
Baird [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
New Roadmaps for Wind and Solar
Research and Development
tuesday, july 14, 2009
2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On Tuesday, July 14, 2009 the House Committee on Science and
Technology, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment will hold a hearing
entitled ``New Roadmaps for Wind and Solar Research and Development.''
The Subcommittee's hearing will receive testimony on H.R. 3165
sponsored by Rep. Tonko to authorize a comprehensive research,
development, and demonstration program to advance wind energy
technologies. The hearing also will examine the status of solar energy
research and development programs and the need for a comprehensive plan
to guide future solar R&D, including advanced manufacturing techniques
for solar equipment.
Witnesses
Mr. Steve Lockard is CEO of TPI Composites and Co-
Chairman of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA)
Research & Development Committee. Mr. Lockard will testify on
the findings of a recent AWEA report on wind energy research
and development needs.
Mr. John Saintcross is an Energy and Environmental
Markets Program Manager at the New York State Energy Research
and Development Authority. Mr. Saintcross will discuss the
current challenges associated with using wind energy systems to
meet New York State's renewable portfolio standard.
Dr. Andrew Swift is Director of the Wind Science and
Engineering Research Center at Texas Tech University. Dr. Swift
will testify on ways to best integrate academic, governmental,
and private sector resources to advance wind energy and wind
forecasting technologies.
Mr. Ken Zweibel is the Director of the George
Washington University Solar Institute. Mr. Zweibel will testify
on the current status of solar energy technology and the
potential for this resource to have a much larger impact in the
Nation's energy portfolio.
Ms. Nancy Bacon is a Senior Advisor for United Solar
Ovonic and Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. Ms. Bacon will
testify on the private sector's view of the federal role for
solar energy research and development in manufacturing and
materials.
Background
Wind Energy Research and Development Needs
Current U.S. land-based and offshore wind resources are sufficient
to supply the electrical energy needs of the entire country several
times over according to a Department of Energy report published in May
2008 entitled: 20% Wind Energy by 2030. A map of these resources
produced by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) can be
found in Figure 1. A further illustration of the large wind resource
potential in the U.S. can be found in Table 1. Factoring in
environmental and other relevant land use exclusions, Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory determined that the top 12 states in wind energy
potential (in order: North Dakota, Texas, Kansas, South Dakota,
Montana, Nebraska, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Iowa, Colorado, and
New Mexico) could theoretically produce more than double the U.S.'s
current annual generation of electricity.
However to expand from today's proportion of electric generation
from wind (less than two percent) to a scenario where the U.S.
generates 20 percent or more of its power from wind energy would
require several significant advances including: improved wind turbine
technology, improved wind forecasting capability, improved energy
storage, and expansion of transmission systems to deliver wind power
from resource centers to centers of population. In turn, these changes
in the power generation and delivery process may involve changes in
manufacturing, policy development, and environmental regulation.
Overall performance of wind energy systems can be substantially
improved to become more efficient, cost-effective, and reliable.
Fundamental technical issues remain even while wind power is
competitive with coal and other conventional forms of energy in some
markets. As a follow-up to DOE's wind energy report the AWEA Research
and Development Committee produced a detailed Action Plan to 20% Wind
Energy by 2030 in March 2009. This plan proposed $217 million in annual
federal funding combined with a $224 million industry/state cost share
to support specific research and development programs which the AWEA
Committee believes are necessary to meet a goal of providing 20 percent
of America's electricity from wind by 2030.
This would be a significant increase from the DOE wind program's
current annual budget of roughly $50 million, notwithstanding the one-
time expenditure of $118 million currently identified by the Department
for additional wind research and development activities from the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. In recent years much of
the federal wind program has focused on testing and evaluation of
commercial turbines rather than advanced research, leading to gaps in
our national wind R&D portfolio. There is broad consensus among
government, academic, and industry leaders that research areas in which
greater federal support could have a considerable impact include:
new materials and designs to make larger, lighter,
less expensive, and more reliable rotor blades;
advanced generators to improve the efficiency of
converting blade rotation to electric power;
automation, production materials, and assembly of
large-scale components to reduce manufacturing costs;
low-cost transportable towers greater than 100 meters
in height to capitalize on improved wind conditions at higher
elevations;
advanced computational tools to improve the
reliability of aeroelastic simulations of wind energy systems;
and
advanced control systems and blade sensors to improve
performance and reliability under a wide variety of wind
conditions.
Wind energy forecasting is another important area of concern
identified in the AWEA plan and by producers and users of relevant data
provided by the National Weather Service. Current observational
networks in the U.S. are relatively sparse and widely spaced for the
purposes of forecasting for wind energy activities. These networks
emphasize data collection at a height of 10m or less above the surface
compared to today's typical wind turbine hub height of roughly 80m.
This makes it difficult to detect and forecast weather events such as
large wind speeds over short time periods. In addition, collaborative
field and computational modeling research is considered necessary in
strategic areas of the country to better detect and forecast complex
flow regimes that lead to unexpected turbine outages, long-term turbine
performance issues, and wind forecasting errors.
New Directions for Solar Technology Development
Solar energy constitutes the largest global energy resource.
Currently the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has 158 active solar
applications, covering 1.8 million acres with a projected capacity to
generate 97,000 megawatts of electricity on the public lands that have
been fast-tracked for renewable energy development in six western
states. These BLM solar projects could provide the equivalent of 29
percent of the Nation's household electricity use. In addition, the
United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that 48 percent of
freshwater withdrawals in 2000 were used for electric power generation.
The combination of life-cycle analysis of carbon emissions with this
land and water usage data has resulted in a boom in the growth of
applications for solar energy projects on public and private lands and
on residential, commercial, and municipal sites. An array of solar
technologies are currently available for use in lighting, heating, and
cooling (air or water) as well as to generate electricity on a wide
range of scales from the residential level to utility-scale
installations.
The solar industry faces a number of challenges to achieving a
significant, stable domestic energy supply for U.S. consumers while
meeting greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Reaching these goals
will require the coordination of the solar research and manufacturing
supply chains. The U.S. solar industry faces a number of barriers to
entry in energy markets. Utilities are justifiably risk-averse and need
access to best practices and expertise in order to efficiently
integrate solar loads especially in urban areas. Some examples of this
were identified in the April 2009 NREL publication: Photovoltaic
Systems Interconnected onto Secondary Network Distribution Systems--
Success Stories. In addition, there are additional opportunities for
the solar manufacturing industry to make large gains through
technological advancement.
The United States has a long history of leadership in solar energy
technology, in part due to development of photovoltaic technologies for
space applications. However, in recent years other nations have come to
dominate the solar market through aggressive policy and favorable
market conditions. Spain and Germany installed the largest amounts of
solar energy capacity in 2007 and 2008. And China, Korea, and Taiwan
continue to show significant growth in photovoltaic manufacturing
capacity.
To help accelerate the widespread deployment of solar technologies
in the U.S., the Administration recently dedicated $117 million in
Recovery Act funds to projects administered by the DOE solar program.
This program currently has a base annual budget of roughly $200
million.
In reviewing ways to support the long-term growth of a domestic
solar manufacturing industry the semiconductor industry may provide a
model for partnership on R&D between government and the private sector.
In the case of semiconductors, in the mid-1980s the U.S.--and the
Department of Defense in particular--became concerned that Japanese
semiconductor manufacturers were limiting access to semiconductor chips
for two years or longer, delaying or halting the progress of
technological advancement. In order to protect its strategic interest
in advancing electronics the U.S. opted to support the growth of a
domestic semiconductor industry through support for a semiconductor
manufacturing technology research consortium. Sematech which still
exists today was created along with a National Technology Roadmap for
Semiconductors.
These two activities brought together key players within the
industry, from semiconductor manufacturers to manufacturing equipment
builders and members of the semiconductor materials supply chain. This
model of coordination and collaboration helped to keep the technology
moving forward at a quick pace, encouraged the industry to adopt cost
and time-saving standards, and helped to eliminate the duplication of
research efforts on pre-competitive technologies through communication
and coordination. The U.S. continues to host some of the world's most
prominent semiconductor companies including Intel, AMD, National
Semiconductor, and Texas Instruments.
By 1994, the U.S. semiconductor industry had grown considerably and
expanded its share of the world market for these products. The
membership of Sematech voted to end federal matching funds for its
activities in that same year and all federal funding for Sematech ended
in 1996. During that same time period, Sematech expanded its membership
to include non-U.S. manufacturers and it continues to serve the
industry as a global consortium supporting collaborative research.
In late April 2009, the National Academies organized a meeting on
``The Future of Photovoltaic Manufacturing in the U.S.'' At this
meeting a large number of industry players including DuPont, Dow
Corning, FirstSolar, SunPower, Applied Materials, and IBM expressed the
view that the photovoltaic industry needed to develop a comprehensive
R&D agenda in order to grow the industry. They also suggested the
government could facilitate these activities.
While there are American solar companies that have emerged as
strong players in the world solar market, they do not have the
resources to individually support long-term research, development, and
commercial application of new solar technologies while sustaining rapid
growth and expanding production capacity. A jointly-developed
comprehensive solar technology plan with public and private support may
provide a framework for strengthening U.S. leadership in renewable
energy technology.
Chairman Baird. I think our witnesses will be joined
shortly by additional Members who will be coming from the vote.
Our hearing will now come to order. I want to welcome everyone
to today's hearing on New Roadmaps for Wind and Solar Research
and Development. One moment, please. I heard Mr. Inglis was
coming, and I had to pause because I know he hates to miss
opening statements, they being so important.
Today's hearing will explore research and development needs
for both wind and solar energy technologies. The U.S. has great
potential for expanding the use of both renewable energy
resources. According to a study by the Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory, accessible wind potential in just 12
states could power the entire country twice over. Lawrence
Berkeley National Lab has also shown that if we covered just
one-fourth of one percent of the total U.S. land area with
currently available solar panels, we could meet all of our
nation's energy needs.
In order to realize this potential, however, considerable
investments are required. We need a significant upgrade to our
transmission grid and to move beyond fossil fuels and address
the growing threat of climate disruption, our overheating and
ocean acidification, these domestic energy options must receive
additional support. Wind and solar technologies have progressed
over the last several decades to a point where cost-
competitiveness with fossil fuels is considered achievable, and
paths toward this goal can be laid out in detail.
Today we will hear from an excellent panel of witnesses on
the concrete steps government and the private sector can take
to overcome the technical and economic barriers that wind and
solar still face in the U.S. We will also receive testimony on
H.R. 3165, the Wind Energy Research and Development Act of
2009. The bill was recently introduced by our friend and
colleague, Mr. Tonko, to establish a more comprehensive
research, development, and demonstration program at the
Department of Energy. I believe this bill goes a long way
toward helping wind power reach its full potential.
I thank the witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee
this afternoon.
With that I yield to our distinguished Ranking Member, Mr.
Inglis.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Baird follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Brian Baird
Today's hearing will explore research and development needs for
both wind and solar energy technologies. The U.S. has great potential
for expanding the use of renewable energy resources. According to a
study by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, the accessible wind
potential in just 12 states could power the entire country twice over.
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab has also shown that if we covered just
one quarter of one percent of total U.S. land area with currently
available solar panels, we could meet all of our energy needs.
In order to realize this potential, considerable investments are
required. We need a significant upgrade to our transmission grid and
substantial investments in new generation equipment. However, if we are
to move beyond fossil fuels and address the growing threat of climate
disruption and ocean acidification, these domestic energy options must
receive additional support. Wind and solar technologies have progressed
over the last several decades to a point where cost-competitiveness
with fossil fuels is considered achievable and paths toward this goal
can be laid out in detail.
Today we will hear from an excellent panel of witnesses on the
concrete steps that government and the private sector can take to
overcome the technical and economic barriers that wind and solar still
face in the U.S. We will also receive testimony on H.R. 3165, the Wind
Energy Research and Development Act of 2009. This bill was recently
introduced by my friend and colleague, Mr. Tonko, to establish a more
comprehensive research, development, and demonstration program at the
Department of Energy. I believe the bill goes a long way toward helping
wind power reach its full national potential.
I thank the witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee this
afternoon. With that I yield to our distinguished Ranking Member, Mr.
Inglis.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing. South Carolina, like much of the country,
is suffering in this economic downturn. Our unemployment rate
is at an all-time high of 12.1 percent. Thankfully though,
General Electric's turbine facility is helping to cushion the
impact in the upstate of South Carolina where about 1,500
engineers and 1,500 production employees are designing and
building wind turbines and advanced gas turbines.
Doubling worldwide production of wind energy will generate
$100 billion in sales for the wind industry. So I am very
excited about improving the domestic wind energy industry.
The United States was an early leader in photovoltaic power
in large part due to our robust space technology. Government
policy and strong market signals have since increased solar
energy installation and manufacturing capacity in other
nations, and we have fallen behind. American companies are
poised, though, to reclaim leadership in renewable energy
technology and revitalize our economy through innovation. Well-
focused research dollars can support long-term research to keep
us ahead of the development curve and can spur opportunity and
growth in the private sector.
The renewable electricity industry faces a number of
important research topics. Wind energy in particular will
improve through wind forecasting capacities, increased turbine
efficiency and reduced capital costs, all of which will make
wind farms easier to site and cheaper to build and operate.
Both wind and solar energy face a hurdle in terms of
reliability. Energy storage systems that convert intermittent
renewable capacity into base-load power source will be
necessary to move beyond our dependence on fossil fuel energy.
Once we have addressed these obstacles, we are still left
with the aging and inefficient electricity grid geared to
centralized generation of conventional power plants. I am glad
we will have a chance to address that critical challenge in our
next Subcommittee hearing.
I am looking forward to hearing from these witnesses, Mr.
Chairman, about ways to reshape and properly focus our
renewable energy research dollars, and I thank you again for
holding the hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Bob Inglis
Good morning and thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.
South Carolina is suffering a great deal in this economic downturn.
Our unemployment rate is at an all time high of 12.1 percent.
Thankfully, General Electric's turbine facility is helping to cushion
the impact in Greenville where about 1,500 engineers and 1,500
production employees are designing and building advanced gas and wind
turbines. Doubling worldwide production of wind energy will generate
$100 billion in sales for the industry, so I'm very excited about
improving the domestic wind energy industry.
The U.S. was an early leader in photovoltaic power, in large part
due to our robust space technology industry. Government policy and
strong market signals have since increased solar energy installation
and manufacturing capacity in other nations, as we fall behind.
American companies are poised to reclaim leadership in renewable
energy technology and revitalize our economy through innovation. Well
focused research dollars can support long-term research to keep us
ahead of the development curve, and can spur opportunity and growth in
the private sector.
The renewable electricity industry faces a number of important
research topics. Wind energy in particular will improve through wind
forecasting capability, increased; turbine efficiency, and reduced
capital costs, all of which will make wind farms easier to site and
cheaper to build and operate. Both wind and solar energy face a hurdle
in terms of reliability; energy storage solutions that convert
intermittent renewable capacity into a base load power source will be
necessary to move beyond our dependence on fossil fuel energy.
Once we've addressed these obstacles, we're still left with an
aging and inefficient electricity grid geared to centralized generation
at conventional power plants. I'm glad we'll have a chance to address
critical challenges in electricity delivery at our next Subcommittee
hearing.
I'm looking forward to hearing from the witnesses about ways to
reshape and properly focus our renewable energy research dollars. Thank
you again for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Baird. I thank Mr. Inglis. If there are other
Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your
statements will be added to the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's
hearing to examine research and development programs in wind and solar
energy and to receive testimony on H.R. 3165, a bill to develop a wind
energy research, development, and demonstration program.
Wind and solar energy have potential to provide abundant, clean
energy for the country and increase our energy independence. The
Department of Energy (DOE) estimates wind energy has the potential to
provide two times our energy needs, and the Bureau of Land Management
estimates that 29 percent of household energy needs could be met by
solar projects. There still remain research, development, and
demonstration efforts to guide the next steps to reach the full
potential of these energy sources. For example, Illinois is the 16th
largest sources of wind energy in the country. Technology to utilize
this resource would provide substantial energy to the state and the
region. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how the DOE and
other agencies can collaborate with the private sector, academic
institutions, and State and local governments to support wind and solar
energy projects.
In particular, I am interested in hearing how the U.S. can retain
its position as the leading producer of wind and solar energy. Though
the U.S. once led the world in the development and deployment of solar
technology, our international counterparts have made substantial
investments in photovoltaic technology. The DOE solar program received
$117 million in Recovery Act funding for deployment of solar energy
technology. While this funding will go a long way towards improving our
solar energy research efforts, I would like to hear from our witnesses
today how Congress can continue to support their efforts to return the
U.S. to its leadership role in solar technology and to maintain our
leadership position in wind energy technology.
I welcome our panel of witnesses, and I look forward to their
testimony. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Baird. It is my pleasure to introduce our
witnesses at this time. Mr. Steve Lockard is CEO of TPI
Composites and Co-Chairman of the American Wind Energy
Association, AWEA, Research and Development Committee. Mr. Ken
Zweibel, I am reminded here by my staff, rhymes with Bible.
Thank you, staff. He is the Director of George Washington
University's Solar Institute. Ms. Nancy Bacon, a famous name in
science--Francis Bacon, of course, would be an apt quote to put
up on one side or the other, probably that side would be
safer--is a Senior Advisor for United Solar Ovonic and Energy
Conversion Devices, Inc. I will at this point yield to my
distinguished colleague, Mr. Tonko, to introduce our witness
from Albany, New York.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to
introduce a constituent from the capital region of New York,
John Saintcross. John is the Program Manager of Energy and
Environmental Markets at New York State's Energy Research and
Development Authority, or NYSERDA. He is currently responsible
for managing the centralized procurement of renewable resources
under the renewable portfolio standard in New York and the
auctions and sales of allowances under the Regional Greenhouse
Gas Initiative and Clean Air Interstate Rule programs. Mr.
Saintcross is a member of New York State's Nuclear Assessment
and Evaluation Team which is responsible for conducting
evaluations of physical reactor plant conditions and plant
personnel responses to unusual or emergency reactor and other
plant system events.
Before assuming these current responsibilities at NYSERDA,
John managed various renewable technology product development
and deployment activities including those associated with the
development of green power markets. He was the Director of
Resource Portfolio Management for Green Mountain Power
Corporation where his responsibilities included the development
of renewable and distributed power technologies, integrated
generation and demand planning, and power contract delivery and
trading.
He also led the effort working with Electric Power Research
Institute and the Department of Energy to develop one of the
Nation's first utility-owned wind projects for the testing of
large-scale, pre-commercial turbines located in Searsburg,
Vermont, and I do want to welcome him here today and also speak
to the issues of character because he's a great volunteer for
Habitat for Humanity which I think says volumes for the crew at
NYSERDA. Welcome, John.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. I will yield to our
other colleague, Mr. Neugebauer, to introduce his fellow Texan
and our final witness.
Mr. Neugebauer. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my
honor to be able to introduce a great educator, researcher, and
leader in science and engineering, Dr. Andy Swift, who is the
Director of the Wind Science and Engineering Research Center at
Texas Tech which is home to America's only doctoral granting
program in wind science engineering located in my District as
well.
His previous employment included more than 20 years as
Professor of Mechanical Engineering at University of Texas, El
Paso, the last seven of which was the Dean of the College of
Engineering. He completed his engineering graduate work
obtaining a Doctor of Science Degree at Washington University
at St. Louis where he began conducting research in wind turbine
engineering with a focus on dynamics and aerodynamics of wind
turbine rotors. Dr. Swift has worked in wind energy for over 25
years and has over 100 published articles and books and
chapters in the area of wind turbine engineering and renewable
energy. And in 1995, he received the American Wind Energy
Society Academic Award for continuing contributions to wind
energy technology as teacher, researcher and author. It is my
privilege to welcome a true pioneer in renewable energy and a
recognized leader in engineering of wind energy development,
and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer. I should mention
that we also are joined today by Dr. Bartlett and Dr. Ehlers.
Dr. Ehlers?
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Even though she
doesn't live in my District, she does have a plant very close
to my District, and I have to recognize Nancy Bacon. And the
firm she represents has been far and away the leader in solar
electric panels in the Nation. And they hired her because she
can bring the bacon home. And so we are pleased to have her
here, too. Thank you.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. We also have Ms.
Edwards and Ms. Giffords, both outstanding Members of this
committee as well. Thank you both for being here.
And with that, as our witnesses should know, you will have
five minutes for your spoken testimony. Please do your best to
keep around that. We try to be fairly rigorous on that. Your
written testimony will be included in the record for the
hearing. When you have completed your spoken testimony, we will
begin with questions. Each Member will have five minutes to
question the witnesses after that point. We will start with Mr.
Lockard. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF MR. STEVEN C. LOCKARD, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TPI COMPOSITES, INC.; CO-CHAIR, AMERICAN
WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION, RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Mr. Lockard. Good afternoon. Chairman Baird, Ranking Member
Inglis, distinguished Members of this subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today.
Our company, TPI Composites, is a manufacturer of large
wind turbine blades for leading turbine makers including GE and
Mitsubishi. We are headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona. TPI
operates wind-related factories in Rhode Island, Mexico, China,
and most recently, Newton, Iowa.
In addition to my role with TPI, I also Co-Chairman the R&D
Committee of the American Wind Energy Association, on whose
behalf I am testifying today.
Before proceeding I would like to thank Congressman Tonko
for sponsoring legislation to authorize a comprehensive
research, development and demonstration program for wind
energy. AWEA and TPI endorse this legislation and urge Members
to support its passage. Representative Tonko's legislation
authorizes wind energy R&D at a level that will allow the wind
industry to significantly improve turbine reliability and
reduce capital costs.
Combined with a strong national Renewable Electricity
Standard and broader transmission cost-allocation, planning,
and siting policies, greater R&D funding will increase wind
energy production and lead to the creation of more high-paying
jobs across our country.
Last year, at a time when most U.S. industries were
shedding jobs, the wind industry added 35,000 jobs and deployed
over 8,500 megawatts. This record growth amounted to more than
40 percent of the country's new electricity generating capacity
in that year.
However, our job is far from complete. Wind power is still
constrained by difficulties in market acceptance and needed
improvements in cost, performance and reliability.
The $70 million approved by the House Appropriations
Committee for wind energy R&D, combined with funds that will be
provided through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,
will finance a number of key wind industry priorities.
However, in order to fully address all of the key wind
energy R&D and deployment challenges, a sustained annual budget
of at least $200 million is needed.
The Department of Energy's 20 percent by 2030 wind report
was released in 2008. The report assumes that capital costs be
decreased by 10 percent and turbine efficiency increase by 15
percent to reach this achievable goal of providing 20 percent
of our nation's electricity from wind.
Meeting this goal will require increased R&D funding.
Meeting the 20 percent goal will provide a host of benefits,
including supporting 500,000 jobs and generating over $1
trillion in economic impact by 2030, decreasing natural gas
prices by approximately 12 percent, avoiding 825 million tons
of CO2 emissions in 2030, equivalent to 25 percent
of the electric sector emissions, and reducing cumulative water
consumption in the electric sector by 17 percent in 2030.
Increased R&D funding will bring down capital costs and
increase turbine efficiency to help realize these benefits and
keep America's wind industry competitive with other electric
generation sources and the wind industries of other countries.
Last year, as part of an AWEA R&D Committee effort, a team
of over 80 AWEA members and advisors from industry, government,
and academic institutions worked over several months to develop
a specific action plan and funding proposal to meet our 20
percent goal.
Participants determined that $217 million in annual federal
funding, combined with $224 million annual industry and State
cost share, would be necessary to support the R&D and related
programs. The group determined that $201 million of the $217
million should be directed toward the DOE.
AWEA and the wind industry support funding for this action
plan. AWEA also recognizes the need to reduce the cost of
offshore energy, offshore energy technology to provide the
estimated 54 gigawatts of the 300 gigawatts needed to meet the
20 percent goal by 2030.
AWEA recommends funding for programs that focus on the
power system operations issues of integrating variable power
sources, such as wind, into the electric grid. An important
component of such integration includes developing and promoting
advanced forecasting methods.
Another important research area is wind project siting
including better understanding the impact of wind turbines on
wildlife and radar installations and mitigating these impacts.
While the wind industry is continuing to add new electric
generation capacity, a number of challenges still exist.
Continued support for wind energy R&D is vital to helping wind
become a more prominent energy source that leads to a host of
benefits.
Continued investments in wind energy R&D are delivering
value for taxpayers by fostering the development of a domestic
energy source that strengthens our national security, provides
economic development, spurs new high-tech jobs, and helps
protect the environment.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify. I'd
welcome any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lockard follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steven C. Lockard
Introduction
Good Afternoon. Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Inglis, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity
to testify before you today.
My name is Steve Lockard. I am the CEO of TPI Composites. TPI is a
manufacturer of rotor blades for leading wind turbine makers including
GE Energy and Mitsubishi Power Systems. TPI operates wind-related
factories in Rhode Island, Mexico, China, and Newton, Iowa.
In addition to my role with TPI, I also Co-Chairman the Research
and Development Committee of the American Wind Energy Association, on
whose behalf I am testifying.
Before proceeding I would like to thank Congressman Tonko for
sponsoring legislation to authorize a comprehensive research,
development, and demonstration program for wind energy.
AWEA and TPI endorse this legislation and urge Members to support
its passage.
Representative Tonko's legislation authorizes wind energy research
and development (R&D) at a level that will allow the wind industry to
improve turbine reliability and reduce capital costs.
Combined with a strong national Renewable Electricity Standard; and
broader transmission cost-allocation, planning, and siting policies;
greater research and development funding for wind energy will increase
wind energy production and lead to the creation of more high-paying
jobs across the country.
The American Wind Industry Today
Last year, at a time when most U.S. industries were shedding jobs,
the wind industry added 35,000 jobs and deployed over 8,500 megawatts
(enough to serve the equivalent of more than 2.5 million homes
nationwide).
This record growth amounted to more than 40 percent of the
country's new electricity generating capacity.
Our job is far from complete. Wind power is still constrained by
difficulties in market acceptance and needed improvements in cost,
performance, and reliability.
In addition, research and development funding for wind energy has
lagged behind funding levels for other energy technologies over the
past few decades, which held back the growth of wind energy in the
United States.
The $70 million approved by the House Appropriations Committee for
wind energy R&D, combined with funds that will be provided through the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, will finance a number of key
wind industry priorities to help overcome the challenges to meet the 20
percent by 2030 vision.
However, in order to fully address all of the key wind energy
research, development, and deployment challenges, a sustained annual
budget of at least $200 million is needed.
Importance and Benefits of Wind Energy Research and Development
The Department of Energy's 20% Wind Energy by 2030 report was
released in 2008. The report assumes that capital costs decrease by 10
percent and that turbine efficiency increases by 15 percent to reach
the achievable goal of providing 20 percent of our nation's electricity
from wind by 2030. That will require increased R&D funding.
Meeting the 20 percent goal will provide a host of benefits,
including:
Supporting 500,000 jobs and generating over $1
trillion in economic impact by 2030;
Decreasing natural gas prices by approximately 12
percent;
Avoiding 825 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions
in 2030, equivalent to 25 percent of expected electric sector
emissions, and;
Reducing cumulative water consumption in the electric
sector by 17 percent in 2030.
Increased research, development, and deployment funding will bring
down capital costs and increase turbine efficiency to help realize
these benefits and keep America's wind industry competitive with other
electric generation sources and the wind industries in other countries.
Needed Funding Levels for Wind R&D
Last year, as part of an AWEA Research and Development Committee
effort, a team of over 80 AWEA members and advisors from industry,
government, and academic institutions worked over several months to
develop a specific action plan and funding proposal to meet the goal of
providing 20 percent of our nation's electricity from wind energy by
2030.
Participants determined that $217 million in annual federal
funding, combined with a $224 million annual industry/state cost share,
would be necessary to support the research, development, and related
programs needed to meet the 20 percent goal. The group determined that
$201 million should be directed to DOE.
AWEA and the wind industry support funding for wind turbine
technology and reliability to develop wind turbine components that will
reduce capital costs, improve performance, and enhance reliability.
AWEA also recognizes the need to reduce the cost of offshore wind
energy technology to provide the estimated 54 gigawatts (GW) of the 300
GW needed to meet the 20 percent goal by 2030.
In addition, AWEA recommends greater federal funding for programs
that focus on the power system operations issues of integrating
variable power sources, such as wind, into the electric grid.
An important component of such integration includes developing and
promoting advanced forecasting methods.
Another important research area is wind project siting. In general,
increased funding in this area should be targeted toward better
understanding the impact of wind turbines on wildlife and radar
installations and mitigating these impacts.
Conclusion
While the wind industry is continuing to add new electric
generation capacity, a number of challenges still exist. Continued
support for wind energy R&D is vital to helping wind become a more
prominent energy source that leads to a host of benefits.
Continued investments in wind energy R&D are delivering value for
taxpayers by fostering the development of a domestic energy source that
strengthens our national security, provides economic development, spurs
new high-tech jobs, and helps protect the environment.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify. I welcome any
questions you may have.
Biography for Steven C. Lockard
Mr. Lockard joined TPI Composites in 1999 to lead their growth
strategy and has transformed the Company from a recreational boat
builder into a leading manufacturer of wind turbine blades. The Company
is also a composites innovator in military and transportation markets.
Mr. Lockard has 25 years of experience building high-growth,
manufacturing companies. Prior to TPI, Mr. Lockard served as Vice
President of Satloc, a supplier of precision GPS equipment. Prior to
Satloc, Mr. Lockard served as Vice President and a founding officer of
ADFlex Solutions, a leading international manufacturer of interconnect
products for the electronics industry. Mr. Lockard holds a BS degree in
Electrical Engineering from Arizona State University. He serves as Co-
Chairman of the R&D committee for the American Wind Energy Association
(AWEA) and has testified in front of Congress and the National
Governor's Association on behalf of the wind industry.
Over the last seven years, TPI has created five composites
manufacturing plants and over 2,800 jobs worldwide. With over one
million square feet of manufacturing floor space, TPI operates
factories in Rhode Island, Iowa, Ohio, Mexico and China. The company is
headquartered in Arizona. TPI wind customers include Mitsubishi Power
Systems and GE Energy.
TPI's most recent wind blade factory opened in September, 2008 in
Newton, Iowa. This town of 15,800 was the home of Maytag for over 100
years. TPI has already replaced 350 of the 1,800 lost Maytag
manufacturing jobs.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Lockard. Mr. Saintcross,
please.
STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN SAINTCROSS, PROGRAM MANAGER, ENERGY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETS, NEW YORK STATE ENERGY RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NYSERDA)
Mr. Saintcross. Chairman Baird, distinguished Members of
the Subcommittee, good afternoon. My name is John Saintcross. I
am the Program Manager, Energy and Environmental Markets, at
the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
(NYSERDA).
Before I begin, I would also like to recognize Congressman
Tonko on behalf of Governor David A. Paterson for his tireless
efforts toward the advancement of clean energy.
NYSERDA is a public benefit corporation whose mission is to
help grow the State's economy and improve its environment by
partnering with business, industries and residents to invest in
innovative and environmentally friendly renewable energy and
energy efficient technologies.
Its annual budget of approximately $600 million is funded
through multiple sources. NYSERDA currently administers a
systems benefits charge based on a small surcharge on utility
bills which is allocated toward energy efficiency programs and
R&D development initiatives. Funding from the renewable
portfolio standard (RPS) is also a critical part of what we do
to lessen our heavy dependence in New York on fossil fuels and
reduce harmful air emissions.
In addition, NYSERDA expects to realize additional funding
for related research through its participation in the regional
greenhouse gas initiative carbon cap-and-trade program. NYSERDA
will also be implementing Governor Paterson's ``45 by '15''
initiative, the most ambitious clean energy program in the
Nation which requires that by 2015, 30 percent of New York's
energy will be supplied by renewable resources and 15 percent
from energy efficiency.
NYSERDA commends this committee for taking up the issue of
wind technology performance and improvement to apply in
transformational research and demonstration. NYSERDA is here
today to speak to the promise of wind energy and related
technology challenges from two perspectives, the first as a
user of the technology to satisfy State policy goals and second
as an entity committed to the pursuit of technological
advancement for clean energy resources.
As an administrator of the RPS program in New York, NYSERDA
acts as a user of the technology by centrally procuring on a
competitive basis the generation of electric energy and
qualified renewable resources such as wind power. On the
State's installed wind generation of 1,275 megawatts, about
1,100 megawatts are supported through the RPS program. By the
end of 2009, the state is expected to have satisfied 30 percent
of its renewable energy targets. Wind energy represents over 90
percent of the energy associated with this program. The State
of New York is counting on wind project performance and
reliability to satisfy statewide goals.
The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has clearly
identified gaps in research that, left unattended, could
prevent the Nation from realizing the full potential of its
abundant wind resources. NYSERDA believes these challenges are
manageable and not unlike challenges other technologies face.
The evolution from scientific research and analysis progressing
to product and material development, product demonstration and
validation, analysis of commercial feasibility, and ultimately
to operating practices and codes remains a continuum of
integrated activities. It is along this continuum where NYSERDA
makes its home. NYSERDA is committed to working with the
private sector and institutions of higher learning and the
Federal Government to characterize challenges along this
continuum and collaborating where appropriate to overcome them.
New York is unique in that wind technology will be asked to
perform capably on two frontiers, on land and offshore. NYSERDA
believes in a research agenda that addresses technology needs
on both frontiers yet sees a pressing need to increase the
focus of collective energies toward offshore development.
NYSERDA believes increased sophistication and computational
modeling of wind resources, fluid flow and turbulence within
turbine arrays will be of near-term benefit to New York and the
Nation as they pursue ambitious environmental goals, and as
such models are extended offshore, such benefits will only
grow.
For offshore application, current wind fluid dynamic
modeling will need to be extended to the simulation of water
and wave motion so that turbines can be designed accordingly
and operate reliably. Advances in the development of energy
storage technologies that could store wind energy and release
it to the electric grid when demanded would help the state
offer similar benefits to other regions in the Nation. New York
has made a great stride forward in this regard by spearheading
a battery energy storage technology consortium that will
capitalize on the state's existing technical and industrial
capabilities and advance New York's clean energy and storage
technology industries.
The predominant turbine design in use in the United States
is not suited for application offshore. It is widely accepted
that turbines for offshore use will be larger, on the order of
two to four times the scale now in use for land-based turbines.
To migrate to such scale and develop a turbine designed
specifically for the offshore operating environment will
require a bold effort in engineering, prototyping, testing and
manufacturing.
In closing, NYSERDA, as a user of wind technology to
satisfy New York climate goals, and as a science-based research
organization focused on the development and commercialization
of clean energy technologies, strongly encourages the Committee
to consider substantially increasing federal funding for wind
technology research and development.
I thank you again for the opportunity to share our views on
this important subject. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saintcross follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Saintcross
Good afternoon, my name is John Saintcross. I am the Program
Manager, Energy and Environmental Markets at the New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). In this position, I am
responsible for the centralized procurement of renewable resources
under the Renewable Portfolio Standard in New York and the auction/sale
of allowances under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and Clean
Air Interstate Rule Program. There is the potential in my program area
for launching a new Advanced Renewable Energy Program aimed at building
a pipeline of diverse, promising renewable energy technologies that
will enable achievement of New York State's long-term climate
protection objectives. The legislation we are discussing today is
highly relevant to the types of activities such a program might
support.
The Energy and Environmental Markets Program is one of four program
areas managed under NYSERDA's Clean Energy Research and Market
Development organization. Some other program activities relevant to
today's discussion include an environmental evaluation and monitoring
program engaged with the industry in the objective measurement and
analysis of the impacts on wildlife from wind energy and competing
power generating resources, a clean energy technology manufacturing
incentive program that supports manufacturing process development,
product manufacturing, and ongoing product innovation, and the
development of a new university/industry research collaborative to
expand New York State capabilities in the clean energy sector. With
respect to this later initiative, our initial focus will be split
between the development of financially sustainable test centers in New
York that will provide testing services for photovoltaics and small
wind turbines during product development, final system testing for
certification purposes and the creation of a battery storage consortium
that will capitalize on the state's existing technical and industrial
capabilities to advance New York's clean energy and storage technology
industries. Because a trained workforce is essential to ensure New York
has the capacity to implement and sustain the state's renewable energy
initiatives, NYSERDA, in partnership with other State agencies, is
developing a network of renewable energy training facilities across the
state that will better prepare the state's workforce to analyze,
design, sell, install, service, and maintain renewable energy
technologies and systems. Currently, one institution of higher learning
is offering curricula specific to wind turbine technology and similar
programs are under development at another six facilities.
NYSERDA is a public benefit corporation created in 1975 through the
reconstitution of the New York State Atomic and Space Development
Authority. NYSERDA's earliest efforts focused solely on research and
development with the goal of reducing the state's petroleum
consumption. Subsequent research and development projects focused on
topics including environmental effects of energy consumption,
development of renewable resources, and advancement of innovative
technologies. NYSERDA strives to facilitate change through the
widespread development and use of innovative technologies to improve
the state's energy, economic, and environmental well-being. NYSERDA's
workforce reflects its public service orientation, placing a premium on
objective analysis and collaboration, as well as reaching out to
solicit multiple perspectives and share information. NYSERDA is
committed to public service, striving to be a model of efficiency and
effectiveness, while remaining flexible and responsive to its
customers' needs.
NYSERDA's programs and services provide a vehicle for the State of
New York to work collaboratively with businesses, academia, industry,
the Federal Government, environmental community, public interest
groups, and energy market participants. Through these collaborations,
NYSERDA seeks to develop a diversified energy supply portfolio, improve
energy market mechanisms, and facilitate the introduction and adoption
of advanced energy and environmental technologies.
The NYSERDA annual budget of approximately $600,000,000 is funded
through multiple sources. NYSERDA currently administers the System
Benefits Charge (SBC) from a small surcharge on an electricity
customers' utility bill that is allocated toward energy-efficiency
programs, research and development initiatives and other energy
programs. Funding for the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) is also a
critical part of what we do to lessen our heavy dependence on fossil
fuels and reduce harmful air emissions.
NYSERDA commends the Committee for taking up the issue of wind
technology development, performance and improvement through applied and
transformational research and demonstration. Recent passage in the
House of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) and the
recent movement of Senate bill S. 433 out of the Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources signal an increasing awareness that
national energy policy is approaching a crossroads. A strong federal
commitment to renewable energy, energy efficiency and other climate
protection strategies could become common practice. NYSERDA recognizes
the significance of this legislation and respects the debate ensuing
over how the Nation should best migrate toward a cleaner future.
NYSERDA is here before you today to speak to the promise of wind
energy and related technology challenges from two perspectives; the
first, as a user of the technology to satisfy State policy goals and
second, as an entity committed to the pursuit of technological
advancement and maturity for clean energy resources. NYSERDA, as the
administrator of the New York Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)
program on behalf of the New York State Public Service Commission, acts
as a user of the technology. In this role, NYSERDA centrally procures,
on a competitive basis, the economic and environmental improvements
associated with the generation of electric energy from qualified
renewable resources, such as wind power. The current program goal
established in 2004 is to increase the percentage of renewable electric
energy sold to New York consumers to at least 25 percent by 2013.
However, Governor Paterson's 2009 State-of-the-State message to the New
York State Legislature pledged to meet 45 percent of New York's
electricity needs through expanded energy efficiency and clean
renewable energy goals by 2015, the most ambitious clean energy program
in the Nation. As part of this initiative, the Governor requested that
the Public Service Commission consider increasing the percentage of
renewable electric energy sold in New York to 30 percent by 2015.
NYSERDA has conducted three procurements for large scale, grid-
connected generation under the RPS program. Of the state's installed
wind generation of 1,275 megawatts, approximately 1,100 megawatts are
being delivered to consumers through RPS program contracts with
NYSERDA. Currently, there are over 8,000 megawatts of wind capacity
awaiting interconnection agreements with the New York Independent
System Operator. Interestingly, according to the Department of Energy
(DOE) Study, 20% Wind Energy by 2030, New York's contribution to the
national goal would translate into 1,000 to 5,000 megawatts of
installed wind capacity in the state by 2030. Clearly, New York's goals
are quite ambitious, as the state has already installed over a quarter
of the maximum expected by the study. The RPS program has been in
effect for only a few years and to meet State goals, additional
installed wind capacity is highly probable. Administration of that
segment of the RPS program aimed at supporting smaller distributed
renewable technologies such as small wind, photovoltaics and farm waste
digester gas-to-electric resources, all located behind the retail
meter, is expected to result in about 30 MW of installed photovoltaic
capacity alone. In total, by the end of 2009 the state is expected to
have satisfied 30 percent of its renewable energy targets and expects
to realize direct economic benefits approaching two billion dollars
over the lifetime of the affected technologies. Wind energy represents
over 90 percent of the energy associated with program activity to date
and the State of New York is counting on wind project performance and
reliability to satisfy statewide program goals. Noting recent activity
in the House and in the Senate with respect to a federal renewable
energy standard, it becomes clear that New York will not be alone in
its reliance on increased performance and reliability of wind
technology.
The progress this technology has made in the last decade should be
recognized. However, any vision that has wind power playing a more
prominent role in the Nation's energy mix must include a plan for
increased support that would encompass applied wind research,
development and demonstration to ensure continued improvement in
technology performance and reliability.
NYSERDA, in administering the RPS program pays only for performance
that translates into energy delivered and no funds are expended if
energy is not produced. However, there is no comfort in under-
performance. Lagging performance translates into deferred progress in
meeting New York State environmental and energy security goals and
potentially reduced consumer confidence in the technology. While New
York has seen its success as described earlier in this testimony,
progress toward renewable energy goals has been deferred as well. If it
were not for under-performance by one large wind farm, New York would
be at 32 percent of its RPS targets rather than at 30 percent. I would
like to say unambiguously why this particular project under-performed
but it is difficult to identify the root cause for less than expected
production. NYSERDA is generally aware that the industry is earnestly
working to understand completely why overall capacity factors have
lagged expectations. In competitive energy markets such as that
employed in New York where generators of all types vie to sell their
energy to end-users, information on turbine failure or under-
performance in general is considered sensitive. This complicates the
process of learning of the specific challenges the turbine(s) may be
facing and targeting research accordingly. In the case of newer wind
projects, component failures are covered by warranty guarantees, and
only the manufacturer has knowledge of root causes during the warranty
period.
For the past couple of years, the industry has debated the
underlying reasons for under-performance and as the hearing charter
makes clear, the American Wind Energy Association has identified gaps
in research that could prevent the Nation from realizing the value from
its abundant wind resources. While experience with the technology is
limited in New York because of the early stage of deployment under the
RPS program, NYSERDA is no stranger to these issues. Similar questions
regarding historical performance and technological evolution were
discussed by stakeholders in a DOE-sponsored wind technology program
budget meeting in 2008 in which NYSERDA participated. Similar issues
surfaced again in a recent symposium in New York where researchers
presented views on industry trends, experiences and challenges.
Let me offer the following observations in regard to several
challenges faced by the industry, based on NYSERDA experience and
engagement with industry and university researchers. European
experience shows that the mean time to failure for key turbine
components such as gear boxes, main bearings, generators and rotor
blades can be less than 10 years for a technology that was designed to
have a life of 20 years. NYSERDA learned of a replacement of gear boxes
for one make of turbines in New York after less than two years of
operation. In addition, experience with off-shore technology in Europe
indicates that computational modeling of wind flow at project
boundaries and within turbine fields could be better refined as actual
experience often departs from that which was predicted. Such refinement
will be essential to improving turbine design because inaccurate
estimation of turbine component loading will keep the industry from
achieving cost and performance goals and hinder the design of new and
larger turbine components. While the industry strives to increase
turbine size and energy capture, the costs of land-transport of turbine
components may become prohibitive. In-situ (on-site) fabrication of
turbine towers and rotor blades may need to be considered as components
grow larger. In-situ fabrication could require the development of new
blade materials and blade fabrication processes that are robust enough
for less-clean and uncontrolled site environmental conditions.
Increased energy capture will translate in the need for longer blades
and redesigned blade structures to manage greater stresses. Added
stress on blades must be accommodated by the drive trains. Design
validation of larger turbines will require new testing equipment. For
instance, the magnitude of torque that must be applied to these large
drive trains for testing is among the largest for any rotating piece of
equipment. To meet operating and maintenance cost reduction goals, the
industry will need to develop and deploy advanced condition monitoring
devices to signal impending failure/performance degradation so
maintenance can be performed on a preventive basis, rather than in
reaction to unscheduled turbine outages. Increased reliance on the
technology will place greater pressure on the turbine component supply
chain. Increasing the number of component suppliers is desirable over
the long-term but the pace of development must be managed in order to
preclude degradation in materials and fabrication process quality.
These are just a few of the challenges that should keep the industry,
universities, laboratories and organizations, such as NYSERDA, busy.
NYSERDA believes these challenges are manageable and not unlike
challenges other technologies face. The evolution from scientific
research and analysis progressing toward product and material
development, product demonstration and validation, analysis of
commercial feasibility and ultimately to operating practices and codes,
remains a continuum of integrated activities. It is along this
continuum where NYSERDA makes its home. As an organization that for
over three decades has committed itself to objective research and
development, NYSERDA is committed to working with the private sector,
institutions of higher learning and the Federal Government to
characterize challenges along this continuum and collaborating where
appropriate to overcome them.
By example, with respect to wind energy technology, NYSERDA
supported early large and small turbine project demonstrations starting
in the late 1990s, and developed early stage wind resource estimation/
site prospecting programs. These NYSERDA funded activities leveraged
private capital to foster the development of a pipeline of wind
projects and developable site areas. NYSERDA assisted one firm in the
development of state-of-the-art wind resource estimation models,
resulting in the commercial release of a web-based resource estimation
service for wind developers that is now in wide use. NYSERDA is now
working with this same commercial enterprise to develop a diagnostic
software tool for wind plant operators. This tool will be able to
manipulate the significant quantity of environmental and operating data
associated with a turbine and signal potential component problems in
advance of failure, thereby triggering the execution of preventive
measures by plant operators. NYSERDA is currently partnered with other
public and private sector organizations in a collaborative that will
explore the development of an off-shore ocean wind project in New York.
As a member of the collaborative, NYSERDA is currently providing
technical services to the membership as they engage with parties
interested in developing such a project. NYSERDA expects to work with
collaborative members and private sector interests to identify
challenges to project development and costs that could benefit from
research and development activities that NYSERDA and other parties
would fund. Such research could benefit greatly from co-funding from an
increased federal wind technology budget as proposed in the legislation
``Wind Energy Research and Development Act of 2009'' being considered
by the Committee.
With respect to a federal vision for renewable energy and the hope
of decreasing the pace of climate change, and for states such as New
York, that share that vision, NYSERDA cannot state emphatically enough
that greater emphasis on wind research and development is essential.
Increased federal support for collaborative research between the
private sector, laboratories, universities and public benefit
organizations such as NYSERDA, could not come at a more critical time.
If the promise of wind energy is to be realized over the long-run in
pursuit of aggressive climate goals, solutions to the technology
challenges we speak of today must also be aggressively pursued.
NYSERDA, in administering the New York RPS, will respect the
interests of private power producers and equipment suppliers to manage
the technology and satisfy the due-diligence requirements of the
investment community. However, to the extent the technology is called
upon to produce a far greater share of the Nation's energy, there is
risk it may not deliver completely on the promise without further
investment in research and development including field demonstration.
New York is unique in that the application for wind technology will
be on two frontiers: land-based and off-shore, either in the Great
Lakes or the ocean. NYSERDA believes in a research agenda that
addresses needs on both of these frontiers yet expresses a need to
increase the focus of our collective energies toward off-shore
development.
New York could benefit from this new legislation and the funding
associated therewith in many ways, but I will only speak to several in
this testimony. As stated earlier, New York is already home to nearly
1,300 megawatts of land-based wind capacity that is situated some
distance from load centers. Energy production is not coincident with
demands in the large load centers in New York. To make progress towards
its renewable goals, New York will likely see a significant increase in
similar land-based development over the next five years. Advances in
the development of energy storage technologies, that could store wind
generated energy and release it to the electric grid when demanded,
would help the state and offer similar benefits to other regions in the
Nation.
Advances in diagnostic tools are necessary to allow operators to
proactively respond to problems and reduce unscheduled outages. Wind
projects in New York are situated on complex terrain, and the current
state of resource modeling as such relates to turbine micro-siting,
plant layout and turbine structural loading could stand improvement.
In addition to renewed interest in advancing the state of wind
technology for on-shore turbines, New York believes that the focus of
wind research should shift to turbines situated in the ocean or the
Great Lakes that share its border. Such a shift in direction will bring
new challenges. It has become generally recognized that computational
modeling of wind resources and fluid flow within turbine arrays must
become more sophisticated. Offshore wind array performance is very
sensitive to atmospheric boundary layer stability, which tends to vary
temporally at a given site. Current array models need to be improved as
they do not adequately represent these stability effects. Better models
are needed to predict the impact of turbulence inside the wind plant.
Accurate characterization of atmospheric behavior and more accurate
wake models will be essential to understand and design turbines to
withstand wind plant turbulence. To the extent these advanced
computational capabilities result in turbines being sited more
appropriately and, once installed, operating more efficiently and
reliably, the costs to consumers in New York and across the Nation will
decrease. Improvements in this regard will benefit both on and off-
shore turbine applications.
The challenges of measuring and verifying the wind resource in
expansive offshore tracts is great. Conventional practices in Europe
involve the installation of a fixed meteorological mast with a pier-
type foundation driven into the seabed. Such structures cost at least
several million dollars to install, with costs a function of water
depth and maximum wave height. Across large project areas, more than
one tower may be needed to document the spatial resolution of the
resource. Alternatives to fixed towers include the use of surface-based
remote sensing technologies such as LIDAR, which can be mounted on stub
masts or possibly on spar buoys, and floating towers that are
relatively stable because they are tethered to the seabed. These
alternatives show great promise but require further field testing and
validation before being widely accepted as ``bankable'' data monitoring
approaches by developers, investors, and lenders.
The predominant turbine design in use in the United States is not
suited for application off-shore. It is widely accepted that turbines
for off-shore use will be larger on the order of two to four times the
scale now in use for land-based turbines. There is strong interest in
using such turbines in the Great Plains as well. Public opposition or
sensitivity to the physical scale and increased aerodynamic sound from
larger blade rotation may pose less of a problem when siting in places
in the midsection of the country where population density is not great.
Migrating to such scale for on-shore application and designing a
turbine specifically suited for the off-shore operating environment
will require a bold effort in engineering, prototyping, testing and
manufacturing.
New York could benefit from these and other research activities
described in the work of the American Wind Energy Association Offshore
Wind Working Group that is attached for reference.\1\ For off-shore
development to move forward and performance of land-based turbines to
be improved, NYSERDA believes that State-funded research in this arena
needs to be significantly leveraged with federal funding that is of
material scale and duration as proposed in the legislation before the
Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Research and Development Needs for Offshore Wind, R&D
Subcommittee, Offshore Wind Working Group, American Wind Energy
Association, April 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In closing, NYSERDA, as a user of wind technology to satisfy New
York climate goals and as a science-based, research organization
focused on the development and commercialization of clean energy
technologies, strongly encourages the Committees to consider
substantially increasing federal funding for wind technology research
and development. NYSERDA has a history of collaborating with the
Department of Energy, its laboratories, institutions of higher learning
and the private sector on research, and would welcome the opportunity
to continue this relationship in support of achieving ambitious but
necessary climate change and energy independence goals.
Research and Development Needs for Offshore Wind
American Wind Energy Association
Offshore Wind Working Group
April 3, 2009
R&D Subcommittee Chairman:
Willett Kempton--U. of Delaware, [email protected]
Subcommittee Members:
Peter Mandelstam--Bluewater Wind
Michael Mercurio--Island Wind Power
Walt Musial--National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Greg Watson--Massachusetts Technology Collaborative
John Ulliman--American Superconductor
Susan Stewart--Penn State
Subcommittee Advisors:
Ed Demeo--Renewable Energy Consulting Services, Inc.
Soren Peterson--Rambol Engineering
Steve Lockard--TPI Composites
J. Charles Smith--Utility Wind Integration Group
Introduction
Rationale: This report summarizes the findings from the Offshore Wind
Working Group (OWWG) Subcommittee on Research and Development (R&D).
The largest and most energy-intensive area of the United States, the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic coastal states, is far from large
terrestrial wind resources such as the Great Plains. Fast growing
population centers in the southeastern U.S. are also much farther from
terrestrial wind resources than to potential offshore wind resources.
The Gulf and West coasts similarly have large loads closer to the ocean
than to large terrestrial wind resources. To reach 20 percent wind
integration, as laid out in the Department of Energy's 20% Wind Energy
by 2030 report, the offshore wind potential of the U.S. coasts will be
important. Several projects along the East and Gulf coasts are already
designed and moving through the permitting process. Nevertheless,
levelized cost of electricity (LCE) is still higher than market in many
areas. The R&D proposed here is designed to lower LCE, thereby leading
to more widespread implementation--making the achievement of 20 percent
wind integration more widespread regionally and not concentrated
primarily in the heartland.
Process followed: In 2007, the OWWG created a document to outline the
R&D needs of the offshore wind industry in the United States. The
overall OWWG put forward suggestions for needed R&D and the
Subcommittee additionally solicited suggestions from industry experts
on offshore wind. The list was reviewed by the entire OWWG, resulting
in edits and revisions. The Subcommittee and experts then rank ordered
this list and combined related topics. The R&D efforts below ranked in
the top half by priority and are roughly listed in priority order. The
lower-ranked half is not reported here. Higher ranks were given each
R&D suggestion that:
1. Is essential to begin and develop the offshore wind
industry (note: the U.S. today has zero offshore turbines
installed)
2. Will lead to new turbines, other components, or
installation methods that are better, cheaper or more reliable,
or bring such components to market more quickly
3. Will lead to lower levelized cost of energy
4. Is uniquely required by offshore wind energy
5. Would lead to commercial development, possibly by multiple
firms
6. Will help the U.S. Federal Government, states, or
communities make better decisions or reduce uncertainties
regarding offshore wind
7. Begins long-term research that needs to be started now
8. Is unlikely to be done by companies on their own
9. Provides diversity--the entire list includes at least one
of each of the following:
shallow water
transitional depth (25-60m depth)
deep water (> 60m)
10. Affects large resource areas
Some of these R&D areas are described in more detail in ``A
Framework for Offshore Wind Energy Development in the United States''
by the Offshore Wind Collaborative in Massachusetts, and we have drawn
from that document for some R&D recommendations.
In March 2009, the same subcommittee was re-convened to update the
list of R&D needs, and to estimate approximate budget and scheduling
for the highest-ranked items on the list. In the fall of 2008, a team
of over 80 AWEA members and advisors from industry, government and
academic institutions identified $201 million as the DOE funding level
that will be necessary to support the research and development and
related programs needed to provide at least 20 percent of America's
electricity from wind by 2030. This funding level includes $108 million
for Wind Turbine Technology (components, reliability and offshore
applications), with $15 million annually allocated specifically for
offshore wind. In light of these cost allocations, the OWWG has created
cost estimates for each of the following action items under a ``blue
sky'' scenario.
Research and Development Priorities
The following R&D areas appear in the rank order developed by the
Committee. R&D areas that were ranked at the halfway point or below are
not shown.
1. Fundamental design evaluation for 5-10 MW offshore machines
The currently predominant turbine design has been optimized for
land applications. Optimization for offshore removes or alters many
design parameters. There is a need to develop a basic analysis of
fundamentally different designs. For example, one of many possible
outcomes could be that a viable 5-10 MW offshore machine might be two-
bladed, downwind, mostly-passive yaw with a lattice tower. First phase
of this effort would be extensive engineering analysis of fundamentally
different design configurations, with publicly-owned intellectual
property. Second phase begins prototyping, possibly with public-private
partnerships and leading to commercial products. Note that there has
not yet been a public commitment from any U.S. manufacturer for serial
production of offshore-class turbines. The first development projects
already in the pipeline will probably use marinized versions of land
designs and draw on European experience. But for designs as described
in this section, manufacturers may need support and/or incentives to
begin the development of optimized ocean turbines.
1a. Highly experienced design teams should be commissioned to implement
new design requirements that take into account relaxed constraints in
the offshore environment, such as noise and esthetics. A first-cut
design study should be done, including multi-turbine grids, downwind,
two bladed rotors, passive yaw, high speed rotors, direct drive
systems, etc., with competition between at least two design teams. This
effort should produce guidance for subsequently building several
fundamentally different prototypes by private firms, or public-private
partnerships.
Optimized offshore turbines will likely favor larger sizes than are
available today. New size-enabling technologies will be required to
push wind turbines to the 5-10 MW size. These technologies include
lightweight composite materials and composite manufacturing,
lightweight drive trains, modular highly reliable direct drive
generators, hybrid space frame towers and integrated gearboxes. Ultra-
large turbines also present new opportunities that are not practical in
smaller sizes. For example, control systems and sensors that monitor
and diagnose turbine status and health do not grow in cost as turbine
size increases, so larger turbines will enable a higher level of
controls and condition-monitoring intelligence. Research is needed on
control methods using innovative sensor and data processing
technologies to mitigate turbine subsystem loads, to improve energy
capture and to improve integration into the electric grid. New rotor
technologies will include advanced materials, improved aero and
structural design, active controls, passive controls, and higher tip
speeds. Methods to enlarge the wind turbine rotor to increase the
energy capture in ways that do not increase structural loads, cost, or
electrical power equipment should be employed. Concepts such as active
extendable rotors, bend twist coupled blades or more active control
surfaces may become practical. Structural loads due to turbulence can
be limited by using both passive and active controls on the longer
blades. However, since gravity loads grow with the blade length cubed,
one must seek technologies that offer higher material performance as
blades grow. New materials and manufacturing processes are used to
simultaneously reduce total blade weight for 10 MW turbine blades.
Blade designers will have to consider the extremes of marine moisture
and corrosion and the incidence of storm conditions unlike those
encountered on shore, including extreme tropical weather in the
Southeast and Gulf and ice in the Great Lakes. In addition to these
problems, the higher humidity levels offshore create added problems
associated with icing in higher latitudes.
1b. Potentially a separate project would be development of floating
wind turbines. These are necessary to large offshore wind exploitation
on the West Coast. The development of optimized floating wind turbine
systems will require additional innovation to reduce the weight of
turbine and tower components as a large portion of the buoyancy
structure exists to support the dead weight aloft. The exact
relationship in this weight advantage needs to be analyzed through
further studies and will be dependent on the specific platform
architecture. This may be achieved through high-speed rotors,
lightweight drive trains, composite towers or substructures using
lightweight aggregates.
1c. A parallel open design competition should be set up, open to
university student teams or others with design expertise but not
employed in wind manufacturing. This effort would facilitate interest
and some expertise among American institutions of higher learning, and
among newly graduating engineers, and could possibly be synergistic
with 1a and 1b in generating ``out of the box'' design concepts. It
would be judged by volunteer professional engineers with wind
expertise, possibly at the site of a national wind conference. The
program would include five one-year competitions, each judged and with
prizes awarded--budget would be $400,000/year for five years.
Budget and Scheduling
Design and development is a long-term effort and should be broken
down into multiple phases and technology pathways. For turbines and
fixed-platform, bottom-mounted tower designs, we envision an initial
phase for a public private partnership with industry that allows
designs, components, or full systems to be developed at varying levels
of funding. First year funding is $10 million but ramps to a $20
million/year program with expectation of 10 year duration and 50
percent cost sharing on all major hardware development.
Floating projects would be done the same way but the hardware phase
should not start until conceptual designs have been proven on desktop
studies with full dynamic modeling, so that designs have been fully
validated prior to co-funding prototype builds. The first stage would
be a conceptual design competition for approximately $10 million (about
10 awards) and would lead to the selection of the five best designs,
which would then submit a detailed design. The next step would be a
demonstration project building phase beginning in about three years.
2. Large Scale National Offshore Wind Testing Facilities
A major R&D priority is the need for a large scale national
offshore wind testing facility. This would presumably be done with DOE,
working in cooperation with multiple turbine manufacturers. This would
provide testing facilities for the new larger offshore-class machines,
which are too large for existing U.S. facilities. There are two
components to this facility, component testing and site testing.
2a. Large offshore turbines will require test facilities for components
such as blades, drive trains and generators. Currently no facilities
exist in the U.S. where one can test a 5 MW size blade and none exist
anywhere that can perform the necessary testing for a 10 MW wind
turbine blade. Gearbox and generator testing are also essential to
developing low-maintenance components. Testing is essential to
reliability improvements and, in turn, is critical to long-term cost
effectiveness. DOE estimated in 2002 that at least $24 million is
needed to construct component test facilities.
2b. The site testing would allow DOE and manufacturers to understand
the requirements for offshore wind. This could serve as a site for
pilot projects at sea to demonstrate fundamental turbine and
substructure technologies, to measure the true MET Ocean environment
and to reveal issues relating to permitting and potential environmental
impacts. New initiatives could be conducted in the public domain to
maximize benefits to a wide industry base, including potential new
entries from the offshore oil and gas industry. The output should yield
critical design methods and codes, uniform standards for structural
reliability, design specification guidelines, industry accepted safety
margins, and valuable data to validate design models, codes and
assumptions. This could be a North American testing facility with
Canadian partnership to share resources and data for a more cost
effective approach. The DOE should begin scoping the costs and
requirements of such a site and solicit feedback from industry.
Budget and Scheduling
Funding is needed for 2a--large component test facilities for
blades, gearbox and generators. This is a near-term effort that could
start fairly quickly. The test facility could be one site, or blades in
one site and gearbox/generator in another. Total cost could be $25
million to $50 million, for 10 MW component facilities. For 2b, an in-
ocean testing facility should be scoped. It may make sense for federal
lab management of a few turbines, used for generic testing and
development of standards. Due to mobilization cost of offshore
installations as well as O&M costs, in-site installations would likely
be shared with commercial developments and/or turbine manufacturers.
3. Offshore Design Computer Codes and Methods
The development of accurate offshore computer codes to predict the
dynamic forces and motions acting on turbines deployed at sea is
essential before the next generation of turbines can reliably be
designed. One of the immediate challenges common to all support
structure designs is the ability to predict loads and resulting dynamic
responses of the coupled wind turbine and support structure when
subjected to combined stochastic wave and wind loading. The offshore
oil industry must consider only the wave loading when extrapolating to
predict extreme events, but offshore wind turbine designers must
consider wind and wave load spectrums simultaneously.
Hydrodynamic effects need to be included with analysis tools that
incorporate combined wave loading models for regular and irregular
waves. Time domain wave loading theories, including free surface memory
effects, are used to relate simulated ambient wave elevation records to
loads on the platform. The complexity of the task to develop accurate
offshore modeling tools will increase with the degree of flexibility
and coupling of the turbine and substructure. Usually, greater
substructure flexibility results in greater responses and motions to
wave and wind loading. Perhaps the most important and least understood
analysis task is the determination of the extreme load generated by
these two different dominant stochastic load environments. Only
recently has research begun on developing this type of extreme load
extrapolation technique.
Additional offshore loads arise from impact of floating debris and
ice and from marine growth buildup on the substructure. Offshore
turbine structural analysis must also account for the dynamic coupling
between the translational (surge, sway, and heave) and rotational
(roll, pitch, and yaw) platform motions and turbine motions, as well as
the dynamic characterization of mooring lines for compliant floating
systems.
Budget and Scheduling
This requires a sustained effort to get validated models and design
tools. Historically a 10-year effort or more requiring a sustained
group of 10 modelers at about $3 million/year.
4. Cost Effective Offshore Wind Foundations
A large cost fraction for offshore wind systems resides in the
foundations and substructures. Taking into account installation costs,
long-term maintenance, coupled turbine loads and weight, as well as the
cost of the substructure itself, the optimal turbine/substructure
system needs to be established. Due to the wide range of variables this
effort will require extensive trade-off studies and a much better
understanding of what the existing and long-term offshore
infrastructure can deliver. Before considering deeper waters, an
earlier goal should be to develop primary support structures that can
be deployed out to nominal depths of 50 meters. A qualified engineering
team should evaluate prototyped designs such as those being used at the
Beatrice site, determine the feasibility and cost to do this in the
U.S., and make recommendations for what alternative designs should be
considered, if any. For example, new drop-in foundation designs that
avoid costly offshore vessel dependence and work at sea may provide
better alternatives to the current options. Fixed bottom systems
comprising rigid lightweight substructures, automated mass-production
fabrication facilities and integrated mooring/piling deployments
systems that minimize dependence on large sea vessels should be
developed as a possible low-cost option.
This effort should be extended to deeper waters at a slightly lower
priority. Several designs should be evaluated for bottom-mounted
turbines to 100 meter depth and floating foundations beyond 100 meters
of water. Floating systems require anchors to maintain position and
stability. The anchor systems available in the oil and gas industry are
expensive and have not been optimized for mass production or for wind
energy. For floating systems, platforms that do not depend on mooring
line tension as their primary means for achieving stability would
benefit from the development of new low-cost drag embedment type
anchors or vertical load anchors (VLA). Deployable gravity anchors show
promise for all platform types because of their simplicity. Finally,
better models of scour processes are needed in conjunction with
improved design methods for scour protection.
Budget and Scheduling
imilar design team approach as for recommendations 1a and 1b
above--we recommend design team awards for industry professional,
possibly drawing on industry experts in offshore foundations (oil and
gas construction). These teams would innovate on what they know and
demonstrate new foundation technologies designed for wind. One or two
phases with a total cost of $60 million (four-year effort at $15
million/year at 50/50 cost share) leading to new commercial
foundations.
5. Marine Grid, Power Conditioning, and Infrastructure Development
To reach the Nation's 20 percent wind goal, we will need large
turbine arrays, e.g., over 100 turbines installed in a single array.
These are being planned both in large land installations, for example
in the Great Plains, and for offshore wind. But for such arrays, the
current distribution of power conditioning may not be optimum. Also,
improved marine power transmission cables are needed.
5a. Currently, each turbine must independently provide all electrical
components and controls needed for grid synchronization and power
conditioning. For an array of hundreds of turbines, it may be more
economical to redesign both generator and power conditioning, and to
centralize much of the power conditioning on clusters or trunks of
turbines, or for the whole array. The individual machine might have
minimal power conditioning. As one of several examples, each turbine
might only produce variable-voltage, constant current DC for a series
DC bus along each row of turbines. The centralized power electronics
would synchronize to grid phase, frequency and voltage. For remote
sites, the centralized array power conditioning might not even produce
AC; it might produce high-voltage DC to feed a HVDC power line, and let
the load side of the HVDC transmission produce AC and do the grid
matching.
5b. For large scale offshore deployment of multiple projects, there
will be substantial advantages in developing large capacity submarine
power cables and associated converter stations. This effort might begin
as technology neutral, including a diversity of approaches including
high-voltage direct current (HVDC) with thyristor valves in the
converter stations, smaller HVDC using IGBT valves, and superconducting
cables for example. These would be used to connect to large
installations further offshore and to interconnect multiple offshore
wind farms, e.g., along the East Coast. Currently there are no U.S.-
made marine-certified cables for offshore wind. The goal is to develop
high capacity, high efficiency and cost-effective marine cables.
Budget and schedule
5a should identify two teams with high-voltage, high-current, power
electronics expertise to develop alternatives to power conditioning in
each turbine. This would take $2 million/year for years 1-3 for design,
review and evaluation. Then develop prototypes of power conditioning
(not entire turbine), cost-shared with industry at $20 million/year for
years 4-6. Item 5b will require $10-15 million/year.
6. Certification and Standards Development
Research funding is needed to build confidence that adequate safety
is being provided without excessive caution that will raise costs
unnecessarily. The Minerals Management Service (MMS) has been
authorized to set the standards for structural safety for all offshore
wind turbine structures. We have a common goal to create safe
structures. The wind industry and MMS should work together to build a
reasonable regulatory system and a set of offshore standards that will
promote the safety needed to instill investor confidence without
hindering deployment.
Budget and Scheduling
Research funding should be an ongoing effort to be sustained at $1
million/year. Include supporting research to address analysis required
to understand structural reliability issues working with the Minerals
Management Service.
7. Improved data on the offshore wind resource and development
constraints
7a. Conduct a survey of the continental shelf physical resources using
existing data bases in the near-term. Using existing data from multiple
sources, locate and quantify the practical wind resource of the U.S.
Continental Shelf to 100 meter depth. Combine direct oceanic wind data,
geological and bathymetric data, existing tower designs, and easily-
accessible conflicting uses that appear on navigation charts. This
would yield total areas of viable resource and breakdown by state. This
could guide private developers, national and regional planning,
technology development and State-level policies such as State Renewable
Portfolio Standards. For wind, document both strength and auto-
correlations across sites in order to determine the value of offshore
interconnections; this could identify areas that would, if connected,
reduce intermittency and potential opportunities for marine
interconnections. This is a near-term project that should be started
immediately. Early priority should be given to the East Coast.
7b. Survey the outer continental shelf using GIS land-use overlays to
characterize marine use activities, ocean ecology, and other parameters
relevant to offshore wind development. This activity should be
conducted in close cooperation with each state's local and regional
stakeholders. These studies need to take into account a wide range of
environmental and land/sea use issues in advance of wind development
prospectors; including sensitive ecosystems, avian flyways, aviation
fly zones, shipping channels, military zones, fisheries, existing
easements, and other competing uses. Because this high level data is
not intended for siting decisions, site-level studies will still be
necessary for individual projects. Also, point conflicts such as
historical shipwrecks may be better left to developer site-level
surveys. Early priority should be given to the U.S. east coast.
7c. Install a series of meteorological towers of 100m height, along
coastal areas believed to have good resources, based on 7a and 7b. On-
site, hub height met towers would both improve the characterization of
the ocean meteorological environment and provide some of the due
diligence data needed by investors, thus shortening the site study and
development cycle. Due to the cost of mobilization, a series of towers
installed, for example, by a consortium, would be far cheaper than
installation of single towers at a time by developers. These platforms
could also be used for other instruments, such as bird radar, SODAR or
LIDAR, which require either greater height or stationary platforms,
rather than buoys. Organizational effort here emphasizes federal agency
staff and university experts to establish and maintain public data
access, maintain facilities and build expertise.
7d. Measurements and models are needed to characterize the nature of
wind and waves since offshore wind turbine designs depend on accurate
understanding of the physical ocean environment. This must be done at
different geographic locations since offshore structural design
requirements will be based on site specific data. The series of
meteorological towers described in 7c would provide additional needed
measurement components, if they were strategically dispersed to 6-7
locations that would include representative measurements to classify
the impacts of warm weather climates (e.g., lightning, hurricanes, warm
water conditions, etc.) as well as cold weather climates (e.g., icing
in the Great Lakes, perhaps in cooperation with Canada). A European
Union effort is underway to improve meteorological predictions of wind
power output. By joining this effort, greater gains could be made per
unit cost, while insuring that resulting methods and models are
applicable to North America.
Budget and Scheduling
Item 7a is very high priority and can proceed immediately without
waiting for item 7b, 7c or 7d. The cost would be $2 million/year for
five years. Use university experts or environmental firms with track
records on ocean-specific wind analysis, expertise on using existing
data and models, and proven ability communicate in a form usable to
State policy-makers (e.g., how many MW are practical in this state).
Use known teams and existing data so as to get practical actionable
results soon, with later refinement by items 7b, 7c and 7d.
Item 7b might be able to leverage Interior or National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) funds.
Item 7c would require $120 million over two years to deploy 30
towers, each 100 meters with multiple instruments. Also, $5 million/
year over five years for a team bridging National Buoy Data Center
(NBDC) and university and federal ocean meteorology experts. This team
would initially specify tower locations, archive and provide open data
access (NBDC) and maintain instruments and calibration (NDBC). Then the
team will perform and publish strategic analysis (ocean meteorology
experts) and, once the towers are in place, publish data use guidelines
usable by private developers and by State and federal energy planners
(energy policy experts).
Item 7d would draw on the met towers in 7c and thus, the additional
funds for meteorological characterization would be $1 million/year over
five years.
8. Offshore Wind Farm Arrays
Offshore wind array performance is very sensitive to atmospheric
boundary layer stability which tends to vary temporally at a given
site. Current array models do not adequately represent these stability
effects and need improvement. Better models are needed to predict the
impact of turbulence inside the wind plant. Accurate characterization
of the atmospheric boundary layer behavior and more accurate wake
models will be essential to understand and design turbines to withstand
wind plant turbulence. Since turbulence causes wear and tear on the
turbines, as the industry grows it will be a high priority to be able
to quantify the degree of turbine generated turbulence under a wide
range of conditions and to develop tools to design wind plants that
minimize turbulence at the source.
The configuration and spacing of wind turbines within an array has
been shown to a have a marked effect on power production from the
aggregate wind plant as well as for each individual turbine. Typical
offshore wind farms lose 10 percent of their energy to array effects.
Improvements in array layout may allow some recovery. Uncertainties in
power production represent a large risk factor for offshore
development. Today's wake codes attempt to model performance but
empirical data show inadequate representation of individual turbine
output. Large cost reduction opportunities exist in improving wind farm
performance models.
The impact of one wind plant on another is likely to be a larger
problem than for land-based systems because the open ocean contains
continuous tracks of unobstructed windy territory. Wind plants
introduce downstream turbulence that regenerates over some distance but
analytical models to predict optimum spacing between arrays are very
immature. Wind plants installed upstream must take into account their
effect on downstream wind plants in terms of energy capture predictions
as well as structural loads due to modifications of the wind
characteristics. The understanding and managing of ``wind rights'' and
set backs will be important.
Budget and Schedule
This effort will require a sustained team of 3-4 people over a
five-year effort at $1.5 million/year.
9. Potential Effect of Offshore Wind Development on Coastal Tourism
Tourism and recreation-related development is one of the major
factors shaping development patterns in coastal zones and can affect
coastal lands, near-shore waters and beaches. The coastal zone is a
limited resource being used by many different stakeholders, including
local residents, foreign and domestic tourists, and industry. Data from
the U.S. Census Bureau indicate of those who were surveyed in 2003,
over fifty million had visited a beach within the past twelve months.
Although it is often alleged that an offshore wind farm in the United
States will have a specified effect on tourism, the impacts (negative
or positive), if any exist, have not been empirically studied. A survey
should thus be conducted to collect data on beach-goer selection
trends, beach-goer preferences, and demographics to examine the link
between beach selection and the presence of offshore wind farms.
Budget and Schedule
Initial prospective surveys in six states with near-term
development plans will cost $400,000 over two years. Coastal tourism
data combined with on-beach surveys at two development sites, before,
during construction and two years after project completion, will cost
$1 million/year over four years.
10. Advanced Deployment and Maintenance Strategies
The largest components of higher offshore LCE cost is the higher
cost of construction and maintenance in offshore environments,
including installation and logistics. A database of offshore equipment
and cost is needed so that costs can be accurately represented and cost
reduction efforts can be assessed. Lifting systems should be developed
that will enable the use of alternative towers, turbines and rotors to
reduce or eliminate the need for specialized heavy-lift ships. For
example, the development of a streamline system for installation to
float out turbine and towers assembled in dry dock to a project area
would reduce cost and cost over-runs due to bad weather conditions.
European wind farms have incurred up to 30 percent cost overruns
because of bad weather on some projects.
The reliability of wind turbines must be improved for offshore
systems. Fewer repairs would further eliminate the need for expensive
vessels. New offshore strategies must be developed that minimize work
done at sea. It is essential that new turbine designs, starting with
the preliminary concepts, rigorously place a higher premium on
reliability and in-situ repair methods. Materials must be selected for
durability and environmental tolerance. The design basis must be
continuously refined to minimize uncertainty in the offshore design
load envelope. There must be an emphasis on the avoidance of large
maintenance events that require the deployment of expensive and
specialized equipment. Much of this should be done at the design stage
through ruggedized components, improved quality control and inspection,
and increased testing at all stages of development. Offshore machines
must be proven on land first before they are deployed in numbers and
the industry must establish guidelines to determine when a machine is
ready for deployment at sea.
Potential developments of new manufacturing processes and
improvements of existing processes that will reduce labor, reduce
material usage, and improve part quality, is an area of great potential
for offshore cost reductions. Offshore installations may allow for
manufacturing and assembly to occur in close proximity to well
developed industrial facilities as well as the offshore site. The use
of large barges for transport then allows the full turbine to be
transported from the manufacturing and assembly facility to the final
point of installation.
To further reduce offshore maintenance, coatings that would last
the life of the project for the primary structure, tower and blades
should be developed. Materials to protect secondary structures
(platforms, j-tubes, etc.) should also be developed. Current European
offshore wind shows that deposits of insects and salt spray, and
pitting, cost two to three percent of electrical output. New methods
for cleaning, and/or recoating blades at sea should be developed and
tested.
Budget and schedule
The R&D Subcommittee does not have a firm basis for estimating the
cost of this effort. We estimate $5 million for vessel-based research
and $5 million for O&M focused research, the latter would be cost-
shared with industry.
11. Integration of large offshore power into Eastern grid
Because the offshore wind resource of the coastal Eastern states is
estimated to be substantially greater than the load of these states,
practical use of this resource will require advances in the integration
of large fluctuating resources into the grid. A comprehensive set of
integration options might include at least the following two.
11a. Transmission strategies for coastal areas need to be understood,
and may be different from mid-continental areas. For example,
transmission inland may be used to absorb power when offshore wind
power exceeds 100 percent of load in coastal electric systems. Another
strategy is to build transmission along the coast, offshore (like the
European so-called SuperGrid); this would connect offshore wind
facilities and use meteorological diversity to level output
fluctuations.
11b. Devices and methods for management of wind fluctuations should be
tested and modeled. These include planning of greater loads during
winter when the offshore wind resource is greatest (e.g., electric heat
displacing combustion furnaces in buildings), management of centralized
storage and active management of storage inherent in loads (e.g., heat
storage added to building heating systems). Two methods for storage
include centralized purpose-built electrical storage, and use of plug-
in vehicles for electrical storage during excess wind and release
during insufficient wind.
Budget and schedule
11a. This effort would require $2 million/year for a three-year
transmission study, including use of existing Eastern grid, and
alternative designs for offshore Atlantic connector.
11b. This effort would require $2 million/year for four years and
would include two parallel efforts: first, field experiments using
managed loads, storage heaters, and plug-in vehicles to level wind
output; second, a modeling effort combining site storage techniques,
centralized storage, and transmission.
12. Avian and Marine Ecology Research
Extensive avian research has been conducted in European wind farms
without finding a major problem associated with mortality due to wind
turbine collisions. However, concerns still exist and European
experience is insufficient to fully demonstrate the impact of wind
turbines on birds in the United States.
12a. Prospectively and area-wide, a single ornithological study should
be conducted over the entire Eastern United States flyway. More
detailed research should focus on areas most suitable for wind energy
deployment.
Many species of fish and other marine life are more abundant in
shallow waters favored also by current offshore wind projects. These
species may include both resident and migratory seabirds (including
gulls, terns, gannets, cormorants, storm-petrels, shearwaters and
others) which come to these banks for food year round. Because the U.S.
continental shelf is less shallow than in Europe, there may be a
greater concentration of marine life in these shallow areas than
similar areas in Europe. The feeding ecology of seabirds and other
water fowl needs to be studied on offshore banks and over submerged
ledges.
12b. Before and after construction studies should be conducted at early
wind farms in the United States with public disclosure of the findings.
Estimating post construction mortality of birds at terrestrial projects
is a matter of physically searching the area around turbines and
correcting for misses and scavenging. Offshore, new remote sensing
methods to detect bird strikes need to be designed and field tested.
Careful studies are needed to determine the effects of offshore
turbines on various avian species, building on extensive work conducted
in Europe and in the U.S. onshore wind turbine market.
Budget and Schedule
For the prospective area-wide study mentioned in 12a, the cost is
estimated by extrapolation from a New Jersey comprehensive study,
underway in 2009, extrapolated by area to cover Virginia through Maine
out to 30 nautical miles. On this basis, flyway survey cost over two
seasons would be $132 million--however, a more refined cost estimate is
needed. 12b. This effort requires two site studies (pre- and post-
construction) managed by federal agencies and not by developer, with
results publicly available. $7 million per study, synchronized to
timing of early two developments in diverse ecological zones.
13. Recommended methods for evaluating costs and benefits of projects
During both the Long Island offshore wind process and the Delaware
power purchase agreement process, there was considerable debate over
the cost and benefit analyses of each project. Development of
recommended criteria and methods for evaluating the costs and benefits
of offshore wind projects, including guidelines for evaluating direct,
indirect and induced job impacts, would help to eliminate debate on
this issue. These criteria and methods could optionally be used by
states, developers, or non-governmental groups to evaluate specific
offshore wind proposals.
Budget and Schedule
This effort would require $400,000 over two years.
Biography for John Saintcross
John Saintcross is the Program Manager, Energy and Environmental
Markets at the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority
(NYSERDA) where he is currently responsible for managing the
centralized procurement of renewable resources under the Renewable
Portfolio Standard in New York and the auctions/sales of allowances
under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and Clean Air Interstate
Rule programs. Mr. Saintcross is a member of the New York State nuclear
assessment and evaluation team responsible for conducting evaluations
of physical reactor plant conditions and plant personnel responses to
unusual or emergency reactor and other plant system events. Before
assuming these current responsibilities at NYSERDA, Mr. Saintcross
managed various renewable technology product development and deployment
activities including those associated with the development of green
power markets. Prior to joining NYSERDA, Mr. Saintcross was the
Director of Resource Portfolio Management for Green Mountain Power
Corporation, where his responsibilities included the development of
renewable and distributed power technologies, integrated generation and
demand planning, and power contracting, delivery and trading. At Green
Mountain Power, Mr. Saintcross lead the effort, working with the
Electric Power Research Institute and the Department of Energy to
develop one of the Nation's first utility owned wind projects for the
testing of large-scale, pre-commercial turbines located in Searsburg,
Vermont. Before entering the energy business, he was employed by
Westinghouse working in the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program where he
was responsible for component specification, manufacturing and ship-
board maintenance. Mr. Saintcross has testified numerous times on
utility planning matters as well as co-authored and collaborated on
various papers and studies. He was a founding member of the Utility
Wind Interest Group and a past member of the National Wind Coordinating
Committee. Mr. Saintcross received his B.S. in Nuclear Engineering from
the State University of New York at Buffalo in 1977.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Saintcross. Dr. Swift.
STATEMENT OF DR. ANDREW SWIFT, DIRECTOR, WIND SCIENCE AND
ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER, TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY
Dr. Swift. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
the Members of the Committee for inviting me. It is an honor to
testify before this committee. As Congressman Neugebauer
mentioned, I am a faculty member in Civil Engineering and
Director of the Wind Science and Engineering Research Center at
Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas, and the Center has
been in existence for almost 40 years. I have been doing wind
research for about 30 years myself, and Texas ranks first in
wind power installed capacity, and in Lubbock, we are at the
geographic epicenter of that development in Texas, and of
course, it expands through the southern Great Plains region.
Wind is the fastest-growing source of bulk electric power
in both the US and the world, and it is a clean, domestic
renewable source of energy, and it uses no water. Most thermal
power plants use a lot of water, and I know there have been
some Committee hearings here before this committee talking
about the relationship between energy and water. That is an
important fact I think as we look about the dispersion of wind
through the Great Plains where water can be scarce.
Mr. Lockard gave a good review of the Department of
Energy's 20 Percent by 2030 Report, and we are at about 28
gigawatts of installed capacity. That report calls for 300
gigawatts of needed capacity, and also it talks about not only
the need for transmission but also the need for reduced cost
and improved performance and reliability of wind turbines and
about workforce. I would like to use my last few minutes here
to comment on these.
On the research for turbine reliability and performance,
there are really two areas, and I compliment Congressman Tonko
and his bill for distinguishing between those two. One is
individual turbine research, which needs to be done in order to
improve components. They talk about improved rotors, improved
generators, improved blades. There is a lot of work that can be
done in those various areas. These will combine together to
provide individual turbine performance enhancement.
The second area is the development part of the bill really
addresses the array effects of wind turbines. One of the issues
for research is that as these turbines are put into large wind
farms, the downwind turbines, the ones that are in the second,
third and fourth row typically don't perform as well as those
in the front row. And this is an issue because researchers and
folks at the labs, et cetera, our students cannot get access to
these turbines because they are all privately held and
privately owned. So there is a huge need for public access to
wind farms in order to begin to look at these wake effects and
array effects.
When we talk about the $200 million that has been proposed
per year, that is a lot of money. It is a healthy increase, but
it is a needed increase. It brings wind on a parity I think
with some of the other research areas. Solar has been pretty
close to that range for a number of years. If one were to look
at that as an investment, take an investment approach, the 2030
report by DOE calls for about 15 gigawatts per year in order to
reach that goal.\1\ If one takes that 15 gigawatts and applies
a one percent performance improvement, that is all, just one
percent to that 15 gigawatts due to this research and then
takes that over the life of the wind farm, net present value of
that is about $300 million given the current cost and with some
assumptions. I have those calculations available if anyone is
interested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Capacity per year to be installed in order to reach the 20
percent by 2030 goal. Clarified by Dr. Swift.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is that the leverage of those dollars is
significant, and that is because of the huge amount of energy
produced from these large wind farms and the value of that
energy.
I would like to take my last minute to talk about workforce
needs. In the DOE 2030 report, they talk about 180,000 direct
jobs are going to be needed. We have had some economists at
Texas Tech take a look at these numbers, and we estimate that
about 20,000 to 25,000 of those jobs will be professional jobs
which will require some kind of university education. The rest
will require a two-year degree in maintenance and oversight of
these wind farms, and that effort is going on as I say mostly
at the two-year schools. At the University, as Congressman
Neugebauer pointed out, we have the only Ph.D. program in wind
science and engineering, something we are proud of, but if we
are going to have this kind of development, we need programs
across this country. Texas Tech is not going to lead this
development all by itself. A number of universities are
stepping up, but in order to make this happen, we need to get
faculty involved, and research dollars bring faculty, the
faculty bring the graduate students, the graduate students then
innovate, bring new ideas back, new programs are installed, and
then that forms the basis for the workforce needs for this
industry.
I see that my time is up. I again appreciate very much the
opportunity to be here. I am happy to take questions a little
bit later. My written testimony gives more details. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Swift follows:]
Prepared Statement of Andrew Swift
Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee. My name is Andrew Swift and I appreciate this opportunity to
provide testimony on the importance of wind energy research.
Background:
I am a faculty member in Civil Engineering at Texas Tech University
in Lubbock, Texas, and have been engaged in wind energy research and
education at the university level since the late 1970s. I presently
serve as the Director of the Wind Science and Engineering Research
Center at Texas Tech University which has conducted wind-related
research and education since 1970, and offers the only multi-
disciplinary Ph.D. degree program in Wind Science and Engineering in
the Nation.
The University is located on the High Plains of West Texas and is
at the geographic epicenter of thousands of Megawatts and billions of
dollars of large, utility scale wind turbine development in the
southern Great Plains region--to include eastern New Mexico, southern
Colorado, western Oklahoma and the Panhandle of Texas. The wind
resources are excellent and the people of the region are familiar with
the wind, windmills historically used for water pumping, and
integrating energy production from the land (typically oil and gas)
with ranching and agriculture. Texas is ranked first in the Nation in
wind power installed capacity.
Wind Energy Overview and Barriers to Development:
Over the past decade, wind power has been the fastest growing
source of new bulk electrical power generation in the U.S. and the
world. Wind energy is a clean, domestic and renewable source of
electrical energy. Additionally, unlike thermal power plants which use
large amounts of water for cooling, wind energy generation uses no
water--an important fact in the Great Plains wind corridor where water
resources are severely strained. Current U.S. wind power capacity is
approximately 28 gigawatts, generating sufficient electrical energy to
power approximately 10 million U.S. households--a small fraction of
current U.S. electrical energy consumption. Robust growth is expected
to continue, with the U.S. DOE projecting that wind energy could
provide 20 percent of the total U.S. electrical energy needs by the
year 2030.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``20% Wind Energy by 2030,'' USDOE, www.20percentwind.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. DOE report, completed in spring 2008, outlined the costs,
benefits and barriers to successfully developing the 300 GW of
installed wind power capacity, more than ten times the current
capacity, needed to meet the 20 percent goal. The report has been
generally well received by the wind energy community and most are
supportive of the 20 percent target. In outlining barriers to attaining
the goal, the need for expanded electric transmission resources to move
wind-generated electrical energy from high wind resource areas to load
centers was emphasized. However, the report also points to the critical
need for additional research and development to reduce capital costs,
increase performance and reliability and reduce environmental impacts
of wind turbine power generation as compared to the current state of
the technology. The report also points to the need for accelerated wind
energy workforce development to meet industry needs. Let me focus on
four points:
1. Wind Turbine and Wind Farm Turbine Research Needs:
Decreased capital cost, improved performance and improved
reliability of both individual wind turbines and entire wind
farm multiple turbine arrays will require significant
investments of research and development funds. These are
actually two separate research thrusts and the proposed ``Wind
Energy Research and Development Act of 2009'' addresses these
two programmatic needs.
The first will require improvements in individual wind
turbine technology such as improved generators, gear boxes and
drive trains, improved rotor designs and controls technology,
and advanced components and materials. Investment and emphasis
on individual component areas will combine to improve the
entire wind turbine.
The second research thrust will also require significant
investment but must address system level, multiple wind turbine
array issues and must be approached in a different manner.
Access to wind farm data is currently very difficult to obtain
due to the private nature of wind farm ownership. Wind inflow
characterization, wake turbulence and wind turbine array
response measurements are very much needed to address current
unexplained decreases in performance and reliability. Answers
to these system and array questions will require public funding
of research and a very different approach than the component
research. It is important that the research data and results be
in the public domain, benefiting the entire U.S. wind industry
thereby assuring the adoption of best practices throughout the
industry, reducing negative impacts, improving reliability and
performance and providing energy at the lowest cost from the
Nation's wind turbines and wind farms.\2\ The AWEA Action Plan
Report\3\ provides excellent detail of the required research
thrust areas and should be a template for implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Texas Tech University has proposed a National Wind Resource
Center and publicly funded wind farm on university land near Amarillo,
Texas for the purpose of obtaining operational wind farm data. That
project is under consideration in the FY 2010 Federal Budget process.
\3\ ``Action Plan to Achieve 20% Wind Energy by 2030,'' American
Wind Energy Association, Research and Development Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Wind Power Forecasting Research:
Since wind is an intermittent source of power generation,
integration studies of wind with the electric grid system and
the proposed ``smart grid'' are needed. Full integration of
wind resources will require area-wide load balancing and
dispatch and will rely heavily on high fidelity wind and wind
power forecasting so that power is delivered reliably and all
resources are utilized to their potential.
This will require the atmospheric science community to
approach forecasting of wind on a variety of temporal and
spatial scales and with an accuracy not usually associated with
weather forecasting. The solution will require a synergistic
approach to research and development and a strong partnership
between the atmospheric science community and wind power
generation community. These research topics are not listed in
the current bill, but should be considered for inclusion in the
program.
3. Research Funding as a Technology Investment:
The proposed research program, the ``Wind Energy Research
and Development Act of 2009'' addresses the points made above
and represents a significant, and much needed, increase in wind
energy related research funding at the proposed level of $200
million per year through 2014. The amount is reasonable when
compared with other federal energy research programs or when
viewed as an investment in technology advancement. Assuming
growth rates in wind capacity from the 20 percent wind energy
by 2030 report of approximately 15 gigawatts per year, each one
percent increase in performance due to technology improvement
will represent approximately $300 million net present value of
revenue over the life of the turbines installed that year--a 50
percent increase over the proposed annual federal investment.
4. Education and Workforce Development:
The DOE 2030 report estimates a wind energy workforce of
180,000 direct jobs at full capacity. Estimates by Texas Tech
University economics faculty and Wind Science and Engineering
staff estimate that approximately 20 to 25,000 of these will be
professional jobs requiring a university education. Significant
wind energy programs at universities require active and
knowledgeable faculty and strong student enrollment. It is very
important that universities partner in real and synergistic
ways with industry and DOE laboratory personnel in these
research programs. Not only do the faculty and student
researchers bring new ideas and innovation to the research
agenda, they bring the connections back to the university for
new programs in wind energy and opportunities for students.
Wind energy is strongly multi-disciplinary and faculty and
students are needed to support this industry not only in
engineering for new turbine designs and development, but also
in atmospheric science for wind and power forecasting and
resource assessment, in ecology to study and minimize wildlife
impacts, in project management and financial analysis, in
agriculture and economics to integrate the technology with
agriculture interests throughout the central U.S. wind
corridor, and so forth. Inclusion of strong university,
industry and government research and education funding and
partnerships are crucial to effective wind energy workforce
development in support of this industry.
This is an exciting time to work in wind power. I believe if
research and education investments are made on the scale proposed and
comparable with support of other sources of electrical power that this
industry can provide 20 percent of the Nation's electrical energy by
2030--providing a clean, affordable and domestic source of renewable
power to the citizens of our nation.
Biography for Andrew Swift
Dr. Andrew Swift is presently a Professor of Civil Engineering and
Director of the Wind Science and Engineering Research Center at Texas
Tech University. His previous employment included more than 20 years as
a professor of Mechanical Engineering at U.T. El Paso, the last seven
of which were spent as Dean of the College of Engineering. He completed
his engineering graduate work obtaining a Doctor of Science degree at
Washington University in St. Louis where he began conducting research
in wind turbine engineering with a focus on the dynamics and
aerodynamics of wind turbine rotors. Dr. Swift has worked in wind
energy research for over 25 years, has over one hundred published
articles and book chapters in the area of wind turbine engineering and
renewable energy, and in 1995, he received the American Wind Energy
Society Academic Award for continuing contributions to wind energy
technology as a teacher, researcher, and author.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Swift. Mr. Zweibel.
STATEMENT OF MR. KEN ZWEIBEL, PROFESSOR OF ENERGY; DIRECTOR,
GEORGE WASHINGTON SOLAR INSTITUTE, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Mr. Zweibel. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
distinguished Members for having me.
We are pressed by climate change and energy price
escalation challenges. In response, we are quite likely to
deploy many billions, even trillions of dollars worth of
renewables, including solar. This is the path Europe and Japan
appear to be on, and of all the future paths, it seems to me
the most likely for us. In my opinion, it is by far the most
sustainable, sensible, even most affordable.
We should assure that our deployment expectations of these
trillions of dollars are supported by technological progress to
keep our cost to a minimum. This is especially true of solar,
where current costs are higher than other renewables, but
potential for cost reductions are faster and greater and the
payoff is greatest, because solar is the largest and most
widely available energy source on the planet, much larger than
fossil fuels. In fact, I suggest a combined deployment of solar
and my respected wind colleagues and electric transportation
will address our problems successfully. If we can solve our
energy problems with solar and wind and electric
transportation, they will be solved for a long time to come.
If we do not try to connect our solar technology
development in government with our deployment expectations, we
will be doing ourselves a disservice, paying more and perhaps
much more than we should for the same electricity.
In addition, we have the responsibility to maximize our
domestic competitiveness since solar can provide a huge harvest
of jobs. Our suite of solar technologies is exceptionally rich
and with the proper support should reach cost levels
appropriate for deployment sufficient to stabilize energy
prices and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That means we do
not need any breakthroughs. We have all the technology we need
to be able to meet the greenhouse gas and energy price
stabilization.
We are in danger of losing technical leadership in these
technologies if we hesitate to support them, misled by claims
about nascent, futuristic technologies with poor risk profiles.
I worked 25 years on solar PV technology development and
had the good fortune to be involved with a small DOE program of
$5 to $15 million during that period. The Thin Film PV
Partnership and its precursors nurtured several second-
generation PV technologies from bench-top to multi-billion
dollar annual sales. Two key U.S. companies, UniSolar here to
my left and First Solar were substantial participants in this
program. Both are now world leaders in PV. In fact, First Solar
was the second-largest manufacturer of PV modules in the world
last year. When the numbers come in this year, they may be the
largest with over a billion watts of module sales and $2
billion dollars in revenue. This is a notable success in a
world dominated by foreign, even Chinese competitors that tout
low-cost labor as their competitive advantage. In this case,
technology is our competitive advantage, and we would like to
keep it that way.
We can learn some lessons from the history of First Solar
which was intimately involved with the funding for the
Department of Energy during their period of nurturing since
1989.
I want to make a point about commitment to excellent
technologies. Solar Cells, Inc., First Solar's precursor
company, was not the first to work in their chosen technology.
Before it, Kodak, Ametek, Photon Power, Coors, Matsushita, and
BP Solar worked on it and gave up. During that whole time,
several universities, including Stanford and Southern Methodist
University, were also participating. We at NREL started in
about 1985. We stuck with their technology during corporate ups
and downs because we had a technical roadmap based on three
critical criteria: PV module cost, performance and reliability.
These same criteria are mostly the criteria we all use in
everyday matters, cost, performance and reliability. They are
pretty much universal.
We were not lost in the technological woods, assuming
everything equally worthy of support or jumping from one hot
new idea to another. We knew what we needed in the way of
manufacturing cost, in the way of output and in the way of
reliability for a 30-year life. Knowing where we were going
allowed us to stick with technologies through thick and thin
and to drop those that demonstrated an inability to get there
with reasonable risk and cost. We exercised technically
knowledgeable judgment, and we got to our goals.
Today, First Solar has surpassed all our metrics, and they
are now the lowest cost producer of solar PV electricity in the
world. They have become a huge spur to progress in solar energy
because they are the new benchmark against which everyone is
measured. We are fortunate, because without this competition,
prices will be dropping instead of being static, the way they
were before their reaching first tier, becoming a first-tier
supplier.
Let me thank Ohio Representative Marcy Kaptur for being a
champion----
Chairman Baird. Mr. Zweibel, you have reached about five
minutes, so I hate to cut you short, but I am going to ask you
to conclude your remarks shortly.
Mr. Zweibel. All right. Who as part of this development
during this whole period.
Technical roadmaps are not magic. They have well-known
pitfalls like being too narrowly defined, not allowing enough
out-of-the-box thinking and being parochial. But they are also
wonderful in assuring us research focus and highlighting pinch
points. Used wisely, they can be a major step forward. Put
differently, without them we are in danger of wandering in the
woods, from one hot excitement to another, or treating every
proposal as of equal value. Adoption of a technical roadmap
should be done sensitively----
Chairman Baird. Mr. Zweibel, I am going to ask you to
conclude at this point.
Mr. Zweibel.--with openness to frequent revision. Thank you
very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Zweibel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ken Zweibel
We are pressed by climate change and energy price escalation
challenges. In response, we are quite likely to deploy many billions,
even trillions of dollars worth of renewables, including solar. This is
the path Europe and Japan appear to be on, and of all the future paths,
it seems to me the most likely for us. In my opinion, it is by far the
most sustainable, sensible, even most affordable.
We should assure that our deployment expectations of these
trillions of dollars are supported by technological progress to keep
our cost to a minimum. This is especially true of solar, where current
costs are higher than other renewables, but potential cost reductions
are faster and greater--and the payoff is greatest, because solar is
the largest and most widely available energy source on the planet. Much
larger than fossil fuels. In fact, I suggest a combined deployment of
solar, wind, and electric transport will best address our problems. If
we can solve our energy problems with solar and wind and electric
transportation, they will be solved for a long time.
If we do not try to connect our solar technology development in
government with our deployment expectations, we will be doing ourselves
a disservice, paying more and perhaps much more than we would otherwise
for the same solar electricity. In addition, we have a responsibility
to maximize our domestic competitiveness in solar, since solar can
provide a huge harvest of jobs. Our suite of solar technologies is
exceptionally rich, and with the proper support should reach cost
levels appropriate for deployment sufficient to stabilize energy prices
and reduce GHG emissions. We are in danger of losing technical
leadership in these technologies if we hesitate to support them, misled
by claims about nascent, futuristic technologies with poor risk
profiles.
I worked twenty-five years on solar PV technology development and
had the good fortune to be involved with a small DOE program of $5-$15M
per year for those 25 years. The Thin Film PV Partnership and its
precursors nurtured several second generation PV technologies from
bench-top to multi-billion dollar annual sales. Two key U.S. companies,
UniSolar and First Solar, were substantial participants. Both are now
world leaders in PV technology, and in fact, First Solar was the second
largest manufacturer of PV modules in the world last year. When the
numbers come in for this year, they may be the largest, at over one
billion watts of annual module production and two billion dollars in
sales. This is a notable success in a world dominated by foreign, even
Chinese competitors that tout low-cost labor as their competitive
advantage. In this case, technology is our country's advantage
developed with U.S. Government investment, and we would like to keep it
that way.
We can learn some lessons from the history of the development of
First Solar, which was intimately involved with the activities and
funding of the Department of Energy's PV Program and the National
Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, CO, from its inception in 1989 as Solar
Cells Inc.
I want to make a point about commitment to excellent technologies.
Solar Cells Inc. was not the first company to work in its chosen
technology, a thin film semiconductor named cadmium telluride. Before
and while they did so, Kodak, Ametek, Photon Power, Coors, Matsushita,
and BP Solar worked on it and gave up. During that whole time, several
university groups also worked on CdTe, especially Stanford under
Professor Richard Bube and Southern Methodist University with Professor
Ting Chu, perhaps the most important contributor in this field. We at
NREL formalized an internal program about 1985. We stuck with thin film
cadmium telluride despite the corporate ups and downs. Why? Because we
had a technical roadmap based on three critical criteria: PV module
cost, performance, and reliability. We were not bureaucratic babes lost
in the technological woods, assuming everything equally worthy of
support or jumping from one hot new idea to another. We knew what we
needed in the way of manufacturing cost--about $100 per square meter of
module area; in terms of performance--about 100 W of solar electricity
from the same square meter; and reliability--less than one percent and
preferably 0.5 percent degradation of output per year, leading to over
30-year outdoor life. Knowing where we were going allowed us to stick
with technologies through thick and thin, and to drop those that
demonstrated an inability to ever get there with reasonable risk and
cost. We exercised technically knowledgeable judgment, and we got to
our goals. Today, a company we nurtured, First Solar, has surpassed all
our metrics, and they are now the lowest cost producer of solar PV
electricity in the world. They have become a huge spur to progress in
solar, because they are the new benchmark against which everyone is
measured. We are fortunate, because without this stark competition,
prices might be static, or even increasing, as they did before the
advent of First Solar as a first-tier supplier.
Let me thank Ohio Representative Marcy Kaptur for being a champion
throughout this period; the University of Toledo for incubating Solar
Cells Inc.; NREL, DOE and EERE for sticking with it; and the Walton
family for buying Solar Cells Inc. in 2001 and getting it through the
expensive (quarter billion) and technically challenging `valley of
death' to commercial success.
Technical roadmaps are not magic. They have well-known pitfalls
like being too narrowly defined; not allowing for enough `out of the
box' thinking; and being parochial. But they are also wonderful in
assuring research focus and highlighting pinch points. Used wisely,
they can be a major step forward. Put differently, without them we are
in danger of wandering in the woods, from one hot ``nano'' excitement
to another, or treating every proposal as equally valid. Adoption of a
technical roadmap should be done sensitively, with openness to frequent
revision,. The best programs have good guidelines of cost, performance
and reliability; and creative, knowledgeable managers who appreciate
both focus and change. Yes, we want it all, not just one extreme or the
other--not ``wild-eyed creativity'' or ``nose to the grindstone
dullness.'' We want it all. We need both focus and sensitivity to
change, and with good oversight, should lead to it.
Would requiring a deployment-related technical roadmap impose
imbalance on our solar effort in the government? I do not believe so.
Observing today's federal solar funding, we have made strides in
creating a program that does blue-sky research on all sorts of
potential technologies at Basic Energy Sciences in DOE. With the ARPA-E
program, we have opened the doors to cross-cutting ideas that assemble
pieces from different disciplines into something not well-supported
before. Now we are suggesting that our federal program at EERE be
focused technologically in support of our deployment expectations to
solve climate change and energy price challenges. I applaud efforts
that support these kinds of activities.
In closing, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for inviting me
to participate.
Biography for Ken Zweibel
Ken Zweibel has almost 30 years experience in solar photovoltaics.
He was at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (Golden, CO) much of
that time and the program leader for the Thin Film PV Partnership
Program until 2006. The Thin Film Partnership worked with most U.S.
participants in thin film PV (companies, universities, scientists) and
is often credited with being important to the success of thin film PV
in the U.S. Corporate participants in the Partnership included First
Solar, UniSolar, Global Solar, Shell Solar, BP Solar, and numerous
others.
Zweibel subsequently co-founded and became President of a thin film
CdTe PV start-up, PrimeStar Solar, a majority share of which was
purchased by General Electric. Zweibel became the founding Director of
The George Washington University Solar Institute at its formation in
2008.
Zweibel is frequently published and known worldwide in solar
energy. He has written two books on PV and co-authored a Scientific
American article (January 2008) on solar energy as a solution to
climate change and energy problems.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Zweibel. I apologize for
that. Ms. Bacon.
STATEMENT OF MS. NANCY M. BACON, SENIOR ADVISOR, UNITED SOLAR
OVONIC AND ENERGY CONVERSION DEVICES, INC.
Ms. Bacon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and all the
distinguished Members of the Committee. I very much appreciate
being here. It is an honor.
I am Nancy Bacon, of course, Senior Advisor of a company in
Michigan which is Energy Conversion Devices.
Our largest business unit is United Solar Ovonic. It is a
global leader in manufacturing thin film photovoltaics that
convert sunlight into clean, renewable energy. As you can see
from this small sample that I have, our products are
significantly different from the other, conventional products.
They are typically 18 feet long and 14 inches wide. They
contain no glass which makes them flexible, durable, and
extremely lightweight, perfect for PV rooftop installations. In
fact, our products were chosen for the largest photovoltaic
array in the world on a rooftop in Spain with General Motors. I
have given a handout to the staff earlier, and you will see
that pictured on page 6.
To make our United Solar laminates, we employ about 2,000
people, most of them in Michigan. Since 2006, United Solar has
increased its Michigan employment base four-fold. We operate
two plants in Auburn Hills, Michigan, two in Greenville,
Michigan, and we are continuing to expand and we are
constructing a fifth plant in Battle Creek. We are one of the
few U.S. producers of solar cells and modules.
We have a history of innovation. We pioneered the use of
roll-to-roll processing for depositing solar cells on one and a
half mile long substrates.
We are very interested in the roadmap process, and we very
much applaud the Committee's commitment to solar energy and
support the DOE's solar photovoltaic programs. We also believe
that strengthening the government-industry partnership to
develop a robust solar-powered roadmap or solar vision to guide
the U.S. research, development, demonstration, and commercial
application would be of great value.
Such a program properly funded would address the national
priorities effectively of addressing climate change, enhance
U.S. competitiveness, and energy security.
We are competing against countries, not companies. Bell
Labs invented photovoltaics 54 years ago. Less than a decade
ago we had 40 percent of the world's PV manufacturing here in
the United States. Today it is only about eight percent. We
need to put the Nation's scientific, engineering and innovation
talents to work to bring down the cost of solar power and
revitalize our manufacturing base.
Other countries have visionary policies in making
investments that are creating thousands of jobs, and we need to
do that as well. Widespread use of solar PV can benefit the
climate, the economy and our security.
While addressing the supply side I think is critical, we
also need as a nation to address the demand side. In
particular, we believe that the government should lead by
example and install PV roofs on federal buildings and encourage
states to do the same.
Before offering some specific suggestions, I would like to
highlight some of the benefits of using solar photovoltaic for
distributed generation to put some of my recommendations into
context.
Solar rooftops are an ideal place to generate electricity.
As this committee well knows, distributed generation simply
refers to the generation of electricity at the point of
consumption rather than at a remote location. Outlined in my
written testimony, the benefits of distributed generation are
numerous and they include better land utilization, reduced
strain on our antiquated electrical grid, no transmission or
distribution losses, less reliance on foreign oil and a drop in
carbon dioxide production. That is five significant benefits in
one.
If you think about it, rooftops are an idea place to
install photovoltaics. They have no other purpose but to keep
the building dry inside.
My written testimony outlines my recommendations, and I
would like to highlight a few today. A solar vision roadmap
should be properly funded to assure the U.S. industry achieves
grid parity and the U.S. is competitive with other countries.
All costs should be considered in the development of the
roadmap in establishing priorities. As with the DOE's
successful Solar America Initiative, focus should be on the
lowest cost per kilowatt hour taking into consideration the
installed cost per system and the amount of electricity
generated in real-world conditions. Benefits of distributed
generation should also be taken into account, i.e., no land, no
transmission and distribution losses, et cetera, and we should
also take into account the benefits of solar during peak times.
Health benefits and energy security benefits are also
important. If we fund a vigorous program to develop advanced
manufacturing technology, I believe this will be critical for
the United States to help revitalize its manufacturing base and
regain leadership in this important field. And this funding
should be given priority as well.
Finally, I think that the taxpayers' investment should be
protected with provisions to ensure technology developed with
taxpayers' money is implemented here in the United States.
Chairman Baird. Ms. Bacon, I am going to ask you to reach
your conclusion shortly.
Ms. Bacon. I certainly will. Thank you. The last
recommendation I have is really with regard to the demand side.
The Federal Government spends $6 billion annually on
electricity. I think they should lead by example, and they
should be putting a procurement program in place that would
change the way we create electricity, just the way we changed
the way with the government funding, the way we communicate
with the Internet. I think it is critical to success that we
move ahead with these programs, and a timely implementation and
deployment can help us regain our leadership once again.
Chairman Baird. I will ask you to conclude at that point,
and we will have time for questions.
Ms. Bacon. Thank you so much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bacon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nancy M. Bacon
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Inglis and distinguished Members of
the Committee and staff, thank you for the opportunity to testify
today. I am a Board Member of the Solar Energy Industries Association
(SEIA), and a Senior Advisor for United Solar Ovonic and its Parent,
Energy Conversion Devices (``ECD''), a publicly traded manufacturer of
thin-film solar laminates based in Rochester Hills, Michigan--near
Detroit.
ECD's largest business unit is its wholly owned subsidiary, United
Solar Ovonic. United Solar is a global leader in manufacturing thin-
film solar photovoltaic (PV) laminates that convert sunlight into
clean, renewable electricity under the UNI-SOLAR brand name.
Because of their unique properties (flexibility, durability, light
weight), UNI-SOLAR laminates are ideal for rooftop and other building-
integrated applications. While we sell products for many applications,
most of our solar laminates are installed on rooftops. In fact, our
products were used to build the world's largest rooftop solar
photovoltaic installation: a 12 Megawatt solar array on the roof of an
automobile production plant in Zaragoza, Spain. UNI-SOLAR also powers
some of the largest installations here in the United States, including
a two megawatt installation on the roof of a supermarket distribution
center in Southern California.
To make our UNI-SOLAR laminates, we employ more than 2,000 people,
with most of those employed in Michigan. We operate two manufacturing
facilities in Auburn Hills, Michigan, two manufacturing facilities in
Greenville, Michigan--a town in desperate need of jobs after the
Electrolux manufacturing plant shut down and we are constructing a
fifth plant in Battle Creek Michigan. We are one of the few U.S.
manufacturers of solar cells and modules.
Our global research and development efforts are also headquartered
in Troy, Michigan. Since 2006, United Solar has increased its Michigan
employee base four-fold. In fact, according to the Energy Information
Administration (EIA), Michigan is the second largest producer of solar
cells and modules among all 50 states,\1\ primarily because of us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Energy Information Administration: Shipments of Photovoltaic
Cell and Modules by Origin, 2006 and 2007; http://www.eia.doe.gov/
cneaf/solar.renewables/page/solarreport/table3---5.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We applaud the Subcommittee's commitment to solar energy and
support of the Department of Energy's (DOE) solar research program. We
also believe that a government/industry partnership to develop a Solar
Power roadmap/Solar Vision to guide the U.S. research, development,
demonstration and commercial application efforts would be of great
value. Such a program, properly funded would address the national
priorities of effectively addressing climate change, enhance U.S.
competitiveness and energy security, revitalize our manufacturing base
and create ``green collar'' jobs by investing in programs that decrease
our dependence on foreign oil and address global climate change.
A great example of government/industry partnership is DOE's Solar
America Initiative (SAI) program. Unlike previous programs that
emphasized only on certain aspects of system cost, SAI focuses on
achievement of c/kWh to reach grid parity. Many industries are
participating in this program that has already led to significant cost
reduction. We have developed new technology under this program that,
when introduced in our manufacturing, will accelerate our progress to
achieve grid parity.
We are interested in participating in further development in
roadmapping process for solar electricity and believe that larger
investment and coordination are important for accelerating the
widespread adoption of solar energy production. We are competing
against countries not companies. Bell labs invented photovoltaics 54
years ago, less than a decade ago we had 40 percent of the worlds PV
manufacturing capacity here in the U.S., but today it is only about
eight percent.
We need to put the Nation's engineering, scientific and innovation
talents to work to bring down the cost of solar power and revitalize
our manufacturing base. But as I will discuss in more detail later, we
also need to create a robust market here at home for our products.
Today we at United Solar export 80 percent of our products.
Other countries with visionary policies and investments are
creating thousands of green jobs. Germany is the largest PV market in
the world. Its programs and policies have lead to huge numbers of new
jobs both on the manufacturing side and on deployment side, creating
jobs for not only companies that manufacture PV cells and modules but
also for electricians, roofers, balance of systems providers who
install the PV modules. Today Germany, home of BMW and Mercedes has
more people employed in renewable energy than in the automotive
business.
A roadmap and federal support is an excellent vehicle to help
achieve the Subcommittees and the Administrations goals. We believe we
can play an important role in making this happen, but no solar company
is large enough to bear the financial burden of doing research all
along the supply chain in an efficient manner. There are areas where
collaboration makes sense and we and others in the industry support
working with academia, national labs and each other.
DOE in coordination with other agencies of the Federal Government
and Industry can play an important role as a neutral party that can
facilitate communication and support along the research, development
and commercialization path to reduce the costs of solar systems and
help advance solar photovoltaic technology and processes to make
domestically manufactured solar systems accessible and affordable
across the country.
While addressing the supply side is critical; we also need as a
nation to address the demand side. In particular, we believe the
government should lead by example and install PV on roofs of federal
buildings and encourage states to do the same. Before offering some
specific suggestions, I would like to highlight the benefits of using
solar photovoltaic technology for distributed generation to put some of
my recommendations in context.
Distributed Generation from Solar Photovoltaics
Stated simply, distributed generation is when electricity is
generated at the point of use.
Today, nearly all of our electricity comes from big, centralized
power plants--mostly coal, natural gas and nuclear plants--that depend
on an inefficient electricity grid to get power to users.
These centralized power plants are generally located in isolated
areas away from densely populated areas, which means that the power
must be transmitted over great distances to population centers where it
is consumed. This additional infrastructure, known generally as our
electrical grid, is antiquated, inefficient, and entirely inadequate to
support our growing national demand for energy. One study estimated
that six to eight percent of the electricity generated in power plants
is lost through today's transmission and distribution system.\2\ Many
renewable power plants are also located far from population centers.
Many utility-scale solar plants are located in sparsely populated
desert regions, where land is cheap. Wind farms are obviously built in
windy areas, or even offshore. These large-scale solar and wind fields
also take up vast acreage. In other words, much of the renewable energy
generated today is actually piped right back into the same electrical
grid, and subject to the same inefficiencies, limitations and delivery
costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ABB Inc.: Energy Efficiency in the Power Grid, 2007; http://
www04.abb.com/global/seitp/seitp202.nsf/
c71c66c1f02e6575c125711f004660e6/64cee3203250d1b7c12572c8003b2b48/
$FILE/Energy%20efficiency%20in%20the%20power%20grid.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distributed Generation solves the infrastructure problem because
the power is produced at the point of consumption and solar
photovoltaic technology is the cleanest and best suited means of
democratizing power production. For most buildings, the roof has no
other purpose than to cover what lies beneath it. Solar material is
infinitely scalable and has the advantage of producing most of its
power when electricity from the grid is in highest demand and most
expensive, saving solar energy users' money.
The benefits of distributed generation are numerous, and the
Federal Government can harness these benefits by purchasing PV systems
directly or via power purchase agreements and installing thousands of
rooftop solar systems on government facilities, businesses and homes
across the country. A large-scale rooftop solar distributed generation
program will help our nation become more energy efficient, less
dependent on foreign fuels, reduce the emissions of CO2
thereby improving our environment, and create hundreds of thousands of
new ``green jobs'' here at home.
Commercial property owners are already harnessing the benefits of
solar PV for Distributed Generation. In fact, commercial property
owners purchased roughly half of all domestic solar cell and module
shipments in 2007.\3\ Commercial property owners understand the value
of real estate, and were early supporters of rooftop solar
installations since they could maximize the financial return of
existing buildings while also saving money on their electricity bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Energy Information Administration: Domestic Shipments of
Photovoltaic Cells and Modules by Market Sector, End Use and Type, 2006
and 2007; http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/
solarreport/table3-7.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits of Using Solar for Distributed Generation
Is available immediately. Traditional power plants
take years, even decades, to secure approval, design and
construct. Solar rooftop installations can be designed and
installed in a matter of months, or even less for smaller
systems. And the solar industry in the United States already
has enough production capacity to meet existing domestic
demand, as well as any new government procurement programs. We
are also in a position to accelerate our expansion plans if the
government adopts a robust procurement plan for solar rooftop
installations.
Creates new ``green'' jobs across the country.
Production and installation of solar energy systems creates
more high-quality jobs than investment in any other energy
technology.\4\ According to SEIA, ten megawatts of PV capacity
(enough to power 1,500 homes) creates as many as 140
manufacturing jobs, 100 installation jobs, and three ongoing
operation and maintenance jobs. These jobs will re-employ
workers in hard-hit industries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Apollo Alliance and Urban Habitat, ``Community Jobs in the
Green Economy,'' 2007.
A federal program to install solar power on millions
of rooftops would create hundreds of thousands of new jobs in
the design, production and installation of solar PV systems.
Distributed power is produced locally, so the design and
installation jobs are created here in the USA. This job
creation will immediately stimulate the economy, and will
create sustainable ``green collar'' jobs for the industries of
the twenty-first century and establish the United States as a
leader in this sector. That is why it is important for you to
insist on U.S. manufacturing for all federal PV solutions. With
a requirement of U.S. manufacturing for federal procurement of
solar systems, high-quality jobs can be retained and created
not only for PV manufacturers like our company, United Solar ,
but also for electricians, installers, other balance of systems
manufacturers as well as for constructing manufacturing
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
facilities and building PV manufacturing equipment.
Reduces CO2 emissions. Solar energy is
clean, renewable, and free. The more electricity we generate
from solar power, the less we need to burn fossil fuels like
coal, oil or natural gas. Solar power is acknowledged as one of
the leading technologies to quickly begin carbon mitigation.
According to SEIA, one megawatt of PV will displace 1,200 tons
of CO2 from traditional electricity generation each
year it is in service, and modern solar PV systems typically
last 20-25 years.
Optimizes land utilization. Densely populated areas
face the challenge of needing more power generation, while also
facing high land values. Rooftop solar arrays do not use land
that may have higher and better uses, but instead take
advantage of unused space to produce power right where it is
most needed.
Reduces strain on antiquated electrical grid. The
average output period of a solar system over the course of a
normal day matches the average U.S. daily demand cycle.
Therefore, distributed solar power can help relieve the strain
on the existing electricity grid when demand is highest.
Saves capital by avoiding infrastructure
construction. As this Committee well knows, the existing
transmission and distribution system for our nation's
electrical grid is at the breaking point. Distributed
Generation reduces the need for additional transmission lines,
since the power is consumed at the point of production.
Additionally, any leftover power can be sold back into the
local community. And since rooftop solar generation takes
advantage of otherwise unused space, there is no wasted land.
Provides strategic backup in case of grid
interruption. One of the benefits of distributed generation is
to have a source of back-up power in case of outages. Solar
systems have a limitless fuel source (the sun), which means
they can be configured to extend the uptime of any facility
that loses its supply of grid electricity.
Improved Air Quality. Because rooftop PV systems
produce the most power when demand is highest, they reduce the
need to turn on additional electric power plants, which are
usually the dirty peaker plants that acerbate air pollution on
hot summer days.
No Water Consumption. Distributed solar systems do
not require any fresh water for electricity generation, an
especially important issue where solar resources are greatest,
the American Southwest.
What the Federal Government Should Do
Research, development, analysis and demonstration
Properly fund the programs to achieve grid parity.
Ensure that all costs are considered in the
development of a solar roadmap and recommending priorities.
Focus should be on lowest cost per kilowatt
hour taking into consideration the installed cost of
the system per watt and amount of electricity generated
per year. Focus should be on performance of PV under
real life conditions, not on efficiency measured in the
laboratory.
In comparing costs with convention power
plants benefits of solar during peak demand should be
taken into account.
Energy payback, i.e., the time required to
produce the energy required to manufacture the products
should be taken into consideration in evaluating
technologies and costs.
Consideration should be given to land use,
need for new transmission and distribution (T&D)
infrastructure, and T&D losses from centralized
facilities vs. distributed generation.
Cost of disposal of PV products should also
be studied including evaluation of the costs of
disposal of toxic materials.
Health benefits and security benefits should
also be taken into consideration.
Funding priorities and demonstration.
Continuation of programs like SAI with focus
on c/kWh should be a priority.
Funding of a robust initiative to develop
advanced manufacturing technology will be critical for
the U.S. to help revitalize the U.S. manufacturing base
and regain the U.S. leadership in this important field.
The programs should focus on development of
new technologies such as thin-films rather than
established crystalline based technologies.
Consider demonstrations greater than two MW
and projects that demonstrate roof top solar when
possible--to demonstrate advantages of no land use, no
T&D losses, immediately available--no long permitting
required, greater energy security and cyber security
benefits.
Funding should also be provided for pilot
manufacturing plants to demonstrate new manufacturing
technologies.
Demonstrations funded with tax payer funding
must use PV modules manufactured here in the U.S.
Provisions should be considered that would
insure technology that is developed with tax payer
money is implemented here in the U.S., i.e., production
plants employing advanced manufacturing technology
funded by tax payers should be located in the U.S.
Timing
The programs should be aggressive and interim
targets should be established.
Competitiveness
Incentives and programs should be bench
marked with incentives, programs, job creation and
competitiveness of other countries.
Interagency coordination
Critical to the success of the programs will
be interagency coordination in both development and
deployment.
Deployment
The Federal Government is the country's largest single consumer of
electricity, spending over $6 billion annually. Therefore, in addition
to having the regulatory authority to make the U.S. solar industry the
envy of the world, the Federal Government also has the unique
opportunity to lead by example. Federal support of rooftop solar
photovoltaics will significantly advance the Nation's commitment to
renewable energy, and can be executed rapidly enough to have a
significant positive near-term impact on our struggling economy. Below
are the suggested priorities that we believe the government should
enact.
Install rooftop solar systems on federal buildings.
The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) owns and manages
8,600 buildings in 2,200 communities across the country.\5\ The
Departments of Energy and Defense have already taken the
initiative by installing solar systems on rooftops. By
enhancing and expanding the government's commitment to rooftop
solar into a robust, multi-year procurement program, the
government can dramatically advance the entire U.S. solar
photovoltaic industry. The results of this kind of national
procurement program via direct purchase or power purchase
agreements would include significant job creation, reduced
manufacturing costs for solar systems through economies of
scale, and the development of a vibrant installation industry
in areas of the country where it does not yet thrive, as well
as the national economic and strategic goal of reduced reliance
on foreign fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ General Services Administration, Properties Overview; http://
www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/
contentView.do?contentType=GSA-OVERVIEW&contentId=8513
Integrate the government effort. Regardless of where
the money is put in the budget, the Nation needs to take
advantage of the needs and enthusiasm of the Department of
Defense (DOD) to increase solar power use. The DOD owns more
buildings than the rest of the government. Many are large
buildings. Imagine every military aircraft hangar in the
Sunbelt covered with solar systems. DOD has an aggressive
energy program for its installations and is very interested in
photovoltaic power production. However, the DOD effort needs to
be coordinated with other government efforts. DOD facilities
would be a great place to start. They could produce power, as
well as allow utility companies to benefit from free or low-
cost roof space in exchange for long-term power purchase
agreements giving DOD predictable power bills. This would make
these precious facilities even more valuable and treasured by
their communities. Instead of individual projects, a large-
scale integrated effort with DOD facilities could quickly
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
transform the whole industry.
Encourage the use of domestically manufactured
components. In addition to creating new jobs in the design and
installation of systems, the government should support a ``Made
in the USA'' plan to encourage solar cell and module component
manufacturers to build new factories here and hire U.S.
workers. With a robust PV government procurement program that
includes a ``Made in the USA'' requirement we and others in the
industry will accelerate plans to meet the increasing demand
for solar PV products. Continued development of solar PV
technology in the U.S. will make our industry the world leader.
Provide additional incentives for rooftop and
building-integrated solar installations. France, Italy and
Spain are trying to encourage rooftop solar installations
today. They have created enormous interest in rooftop solar by
offering higher incentives for rooftop and building-integrated
installations over ground-mount installations. These countries
understand that rooftop systems do not require land, nor do
they suffer from transmission and distribution losses. Adopting
similar incentive programs would multiply the effectiveness of
the solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC) that took effect at the
beginning of the year.
Encourage flexible rules. More forward looking
analysis is needed to optimize both the best technology and the
best use of rooftops. Rules on contracting, land use, and
entering into long-term power purchase agreements need
overhauling to generate the needed flexibility, and financial
returns, to motivate power companies and government facilities
into cooperative action. The evolving market needs more
flexible rules. Payback periods, for example, will be better
when conventional power prices rise and PV system costs
continue to decline.
Provide funding for states and local governments. All
levels of government should be encouraged to install solar
photovoltaic systems on the rooftops of their buildings.
Offices, schools, universities, courthouses, and hospitals are
excellent sites for clean, made in the USA, rooftop solar PV
systems.
Implement programs on a timely basis. We need to insure that
programs that are adopted are implemented in an expeditious
fashion. ARRA included a number of provisions that would be
very beneficial to the solar industry and achievement of the
Administrations goals, but regrettably most of the programs
have not yet been implemented.
We applaud the Committee for its commitment to lead the green
revolution. I hope my testimony today has been helpful, and I would be
happy to answer any questions you may have. I look forward to
continuing to work with the Committee and its staff on ensuring that
the U.S. is once again a world leader in solar photovoltaics, while
also reviving our economy and putting our fellow Americans back to
work. Thank You.
Biography for Nancy M. Bacon
Nancy Bacon works as a consultant to Energy Conversion Devices
(ECD) and United Solar Ovonic, principally in government affairs and
government relations as well as business development. She is active in
policy development to advance clean energy technologies particularly
photovoltaics. Ms. Bacon represents ECD and United Solar on the boards
of the Energy and Environmental Study Institute (EESI), the Solar
Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and the United States Industry
Coalition (USIC) and she is also an Advisor to University of Michigan
Erb Institute.
After 32 years at ECD, in April 1, 2008, Ms. Bacon retired and has
been working part time as a consultant to ECD and United Solar. Ms
Bacon was Senior Vice President of ECD and a member of the Board of
Directors of United Solar Ovonic where her responsibilities included
government relations, business development including finance and
business and strategic planning regarding commercialization of ECD
technologies. In 1997, Ms. Bacon was recognized by Crain's Detroit
Business as one of Detroit's Most Influential Women. Ms. Bacon has a
B.S. in Accounting and is a certified public accountant (CPA). Prior to
joining ECD, she was a manager at Deloitte & Touche.
Discussion
Chairman Baird. Thank you. I apologize to the witnesses. It
is always difficult. You have tremendous expertise, and with a
large panel we always have to try to keep it within time, but
thank you very much.
I will recognize myself for five minutes, and then we will
proceed in alternating order. I want to recognize Mr.
Rohrabacher and Mr. Diaz-Balart for joining us. Thank you,
gentlemen, for your participation.
The Economic Impacts of Energy Policy Changes
I am so sorry to hear this testimony about the tremendous
job loss being created by this industry. We recently passed a
comprehensive energy bill, as you know, and one of the
criticisms of it is that it will be catastrophic from an
employment and an economic perspective. That is not what I have
been hearing from the testimony today. Would any of you like to
comment on that briefly? Mr. Lockard, you had some impressive
statistics, and if others wish to comment, I would welcome
that.
Mr. Lockard. Yeah, I think 2008 represented a terrific year
for the wind industry in the United States with tremendous
growth, 8,500 megawatts job creation. 2009 is not going to
reflect that same growth by the way, so just so that stat is
clear. Other things like a Federal Renewable Electricity
Standard (RES) will send a much stronger, consistent long-term
signal that is an important piece of this in order for
companies like ours and others to build more plants, create
more jobs, and create sustainable long-term jobs, not just the
boom cycles that we have had up until now.
So while there is a lot of enthusiasm and tremendous
opportunity, our job isn't done here, and I think there are
several key issues, key opportunities including a federal RES.
A strong consistent signal would help drive that even stronger.
Chairman Baird. Thank you. Others wish to comment on that
economic development, job potential?
Ms. Bacon. Yes. I would like to very much. We actually have
increased our employment in Michigan four-fold since 2006, and
we are making excellent progress and that is going very well.
The problem is that now, with the recession and with a number
of the problems with regard to the finance institutions, things
are slowing. So in our Battle Creek plant that is under
construction, we have put a hold on some of the equipment until
things turn around. From a point of view where we are as a
nation, we export 80 percent of our products, and as I talked
about the General Motors facility that is 12 megawatt, the
largest in the world, we created jobs in Michigan by
manufacturing the solar laminates but we created more jobs over
in Spain with the installers and the electricians and the
construction folks. So I think some of these things to look at
the supply side will be very important here and to move these
programs along timely will be also very important. Thank you.
Chairman Baird. Ms. Bacon, I appreciate that. You will be
pleased to know that the Chairman of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee has made it a passionate pursuit to
install solar and other technologies on many federal buildings.
Ms. Bacon. I understand that, and I actually testified in
that committee as well, and we were delighted to get a lot of
things in the bill. The problem is that it hasn't come out of
the bill into the bank, and everybody is waiting for it.
Chairman Baird. Point well said.
Ms. Bacon. We think that with some of the programs that are
going on with this committee, too, urgency is really important
for the sustainability of this job growth as well. Thank you.
Technology Offshoring
Chairman Baird. The next line of questioning I would like
to pursue relates to an article in this month's Harvard
Business Review.\2\ To all my colleagues, I would really
commend this article. It is in Harvard Business Review, and it
discusses what happens when U.S. core, fundamental research
technology gets shifted overseas and we fall off that supply
and engineering train. It is directly relevant to your work and
traces back from everything from the transistor to battery
technology, et cetera, and I think it has got the potential. We
are seeing it already in renewable energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Appendix: Additional Material for the Record. ``Restoring
American Competitiveness,'' by Gary P. Pisano and Willy C. Shih.
Included with permission of the Harvard Business Review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And so the question is, how can we not see that happen
here? One of the points this article made was as domestic
manufactures allowed battery technology for cell phones to go
overseas, that seemed like so what, they can do it okay, but
now as we want batteries for automobiles, we don't have the
technology, the know-how, the manufacturing capacity here. They
have it overseas. How can we avoid that? And I will be asking
that in this committee for probably many, many months to come
with different, similar panels. How do we avoid that in the
area of renewable energies?
Ms. Bacon. Well, I can take a crack at that as well. It is
a little controversial, but as a taxpayer, I feel that if my
money goes into investment into developing research and
development, advanced technologies and so on, when my
government buys products, I would like to see a preference for
U.S. industry. And I also think advance manufacturing
technology, which is critical to revitalizing our manufacturing
base here in the United States with regard to photovoltaics,
the dollars that go there, we should see that those plants are
put here.
And the other side of it is creating the demand side again.
I mean, that makes a difference. Germany is the largest market
in the world for photovoltaics. They have less sun than we have
in Michigan. And they employ more people in renewable energy
now than they do in the automotive industry. And think of it.
It is the home of the Mercedes and the VW and so on, and that
is because of their policies, both on the supply and on the
demand side with this. And I think those kind of policies will
make all the difference in the world so we don't see this go
the way of the VCR.
Chairman Baird. I will be providing a copy of that article
to my colleagues. It is a profoundly interesting article and
educational for all of us.
I will recognize--I would like to hear more on this, but I
am going to recognize Mr. Inglis for five minutes.
Solar Roof Installation
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Bacon, it is very
exciting to hear about the opportunity on the roofs for
distributed electricity generation. Why are people doing that
now? Is that cost-effective for them or are they leading
because of commitment to the environment or stewardship or
what? I mean because in a lot of places, the economics don't
exactly work, is that right?
Ms. Bacon. Well, actually, you can put photovoltaics on the
roof as economically as you can in many solar farms, and you
don't have the land use, you don't have the transmission
distribution which is like six to eight percent. You don't have
to wait for the SmartGrid, the Integrated Grid. There are all
those advantages with it.
But solar in general, the reason we are all here, is we are
not to grid parity yet. We really think it is the future. There
is going to be a--there was a DOE study that just came out that
they think that solar could be 50 percent building-integrated
photovoltaics, and the next time you go into an airport, just
look at all those roofs that you could put solar on. They can
be done in any size. But the problem in industry in general is
we are not to grid parity, hence we need the stimulus, whether
it is procurement via direct payment or power purchase
agreements or the ITC which has been enacted now and other
things. And as we bring the volume up, we will bring down the
cost. And it is just like anything else. I mean, high
technology and low volume is high cost. We are working to grid
parity, and we think with the government's help and the DOE's
help and across all agencies including DOD, we can bring down
to be grid parity. In the right location, we are already
competitive. But these are 20-, 25-year lives, and to find out
really competitive, you need your crystal ball to figure out
what is the electricity going to be five years from now, 10
years from now.
You will appreciate that I had President Bush come out to
see us. He calls me Solar Woman, but I asked him the same
thing. He asked me about the competitiveness, and I asked him,
I said, what do you think the price of electricity is going to
be in five years, 10 years, 15 years? And he gave me one of
those blank stares, and Karl Rove and Allen Hubbard were there,
and I said, well, maybe these guys know. He said, ah, they
don't know anything.
But I ask you, what is the price of electricity going to be
five years from now, 10 years from now, 15 years from now?
Photovoltaic arrays on your roof will last you 25 years.
Mr. Inglis. Yes, very exciting, too. So I guess the
customers that you have got today have obviously made
calculations that indicate that they are banking on the price
off the grid being considerably higher than it is today.
Therefore, they make the economic decision or they make some
sort of other considerations going into their decision and
buying your product?
Ms. Bacon. Most of them are much tougher than that. most of
them want to have the price today at the same price as the
grid, and then there will be an escalation. A lot of the
industry right now is being done with power purchase agreements
where somebody else buys the power, buys the photovoltaic, like
a financier. He takes all the ITC, accelerated depreciation, et
cetera, and then he has a 20-, 25-year power purchase
agreement. General Motors is a good example. We have a one
megawatt installation in California. Their initial price
started out at 12 cents a kilowatt hour, and it escalates each
year a certain percentage. They are banking on what that is
going to be, but that initial price was pretty close to what
the parity price was at that point in time. But the only reason
that worked was because of the incentives, ITC and some of the
other incentives with it.
Mr. Inglis. Does that mean you are basically selling to
people with big roofs? It needs to be a pretty big roof at this
point?
Ms. Bacon. No. It can be done at any size. What we have
done as a company--we are a small company. We have 2,000 people
and we are, you know, a Michigan-based company. We typically
have tried to sell very large arrays just because it is easier
to sell than going to each household which maybe wants 2,500 KW
or something small. It is a lot easier to sell a megawatt or a
12 megawatt array. But we will be coming out with, at the end
of this year, a program for small households, and they can also
end up being cost-effective in the long term. And I believe in
the long term. I am old enough. The reason I am Senior Advisor,
I am old. My mom had a telephone in her house that was owned by
AT&T. You know, why not have photovoltaics on our roof that is
owned by the local utility and they could manage it and they
could take care of it and it wouldn't take any space up? You
generate the electricity right where you need it.
So there is a lot of innovation here, both from the basic
materials, the product design, the manufacturing, and even the
financing and marketing mechanisms, and that is why I applaud
some of the things that people are looking at in this Solar
Vision and Roadmap. It is not just looking at efficiencies to
have technical papers, it is looking at the whole program to be
cost effective and to really have the energy security, climate
and the economic benefits we are all looking forward to happen.
Mr. Inglis. That is great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Inglis. Mr. Tonko.
Offshore Wind Power
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For our wind experts on
the panel, it becomes more and more apparent that offshore wind
holds great potential, not just for the wind portion of our
energy supplies but really expanding the opportunities for
renewables in general. Can you cite what sort of efficiencies
might be achieved, what sort of focus might become critical
with R&D investment in the offshore component?
Mr. Lockard. Yeah, first off, on the 20 Percent by 2030
Report, 300 gigawatts would be the total installed base for
wind by 2030. 54 of the 300 is considered to be offshore, so
something like 18, 20 percent of the total 20 percent number
would be offshore. It was also viewed to be a bit later in the
22-year cycle. So the problems today are cost, siting-related,
similar to land-based but probably magnified in terms of the
cost problem and the siting problem. There is probably more of
an opportunity in offshore for innovation to drive a
breakthrough change, where as the land-based product it seems
is pretty much dialed in. The improvements are cost,
performance reliability but probably not breakthrough. I think
the breakthrough opportunities may extend themselves even
better in the offshore side, so again, our funding the $217
million request, 15 of that was related to offshore specific
technology. Other pools as well would go toward offshore. I
think our group is growing in the view that offshore should
represent, can represent, a significant part of the wind
future, particularly New England and the Gulf Coast, and it
should be important source of innovation.
Mr. Tonko. Mr. Saintcross, in your testimony you talked
about the difficulty and the expense of installing a
meteorological mast with a pier-type foundation driven into the
seabed. You know, how crucial is it that we discover a more
efficient alternative for that portion of wind to work?
Mr. Saintcross. First, you are going to need to put many
towers up if you are going to try to see the kind of offshore
development that folks are talking about. A meteorological
tower now runs about $4 million to $6 million to site it and
physically install it. And then you have to hope that it is
going to operate for a certain number of--maybe two years or
whatever. And you need a lot of those. You are not going to
typically go to a 400 or 500 megawatt project size with one
tower because you won't be able to adequately characterize all
the atmospheric conditions. You are going to want to have that
turbine operating. That becomes very costly for the developing
community to take on. I think New Jersey has put some of its
own money on the table to do that. I know that in New York we
are considering that as a program element going down the road,
but if you are going to look at $4 million to $6 million per
tower, you know, you probably should be looking at, as the
Europeans are, different forms of measurement, LIDAR and SODAR,
different technologies that heretofore haven't been widely
accepted or bankable by the lending community and the financial
community. So developers won't use that.
So the kind of research we are talking about today would go
toward that, making that technology bankable to the extent we
can reduce the cost of that technology. Then we can deploy more
of it, and we can better characterize the resource which then
will allow us to understand better what these turbines are
going to be operating in, what that environment is like.
Because you have to learn about how they will operate from the
perspective of generating energy, the actual energy you want,
as well as their lifetime. Can they survive those conditions
such as dynamic loading that the resources will impart on
blades and other components?
But those are very, very critical pieces that are necessary
if you are really going to see an offshore vision because that
is a very, very high-cost, high-risk enterprise for a developer
to come in and take on. Those are the kinds of things that the
Federal Government leveraging with State funding like NYSERDA's
funding I think is a better space for us to play in.
Mr. Tonko. Great. Anything else to add on that?
Dr. Swift. Yes, I echo everything that my colleagues said
here, and we have been looking at wind resource measurements in
the Gulf, and it is expensive. There is an opportunity, and I
am really repeating here, for new technologies. We have talked
about air-mounted technology to scan and look at resource, but
there is also the lifetime issue. The Gulf has a lot of
hurricanes. Great wind resource but the extreme events, a lot
of the people in our center do a lot of work on hurricane
research and investigation. People think the wind is just a
uniform front of wind. You know, the wind is the wind. It is
very complex. There is a lot of structure embedded, and we have
to understand these things better if we really want to make
these kinds of investments and make sure they can survive the
environment.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. Dr. Ehlers.
General Challenges With Wind and Solar
Mr. Ehlers. And as you can see from the testimony and the
comments, that once again Michigan has the best answer.
Just a few comments. First of all, simple is better in
general, and I appreciate the role of wind. I think it is a
very important component. I think we are very far along in wind
energy, but I think if you look at the grand scheme of things,
you have to decide that solar has potentially more advantages.
Now, I am really puzzled why our nation has always felt that
the way to get solar energy is to pave over Nevada or Arizona,
build a big facility, put the energy into the grid, and that
this is the way to go. I don't think it is. As Mr. Zweibel
mentioned, solar energy, it is very important to know, and I
don't recall the exact amount of energy hitting the earth per
day. Now you can give it to us later or give it to me later,
but I know it is an immense amount of energy from the Sun, hits
the Earth every day constantly. And a lot of people worry about
clouds. But solar energy can work through the clouds, too,
maybe not as efficiently but it will work.
But the difficulty with solar energy, there are two
problems. One, it is very diffuse, so it is all over the Earth.
It is not localized. And the second problem is that it is of
low quality which means it is low temperature. Now, you can get
rid of the low temperature problem by using solar panels
because you are converting the energy directly into electrical
energy, converting light energy directly into it. The diffuse
factor I think is best handled by making certain, and this is
my dream for this country, that every house within a few years
will have solar shingles instead of asphalt shingles. As soon
as we get the price down so they are comparable, that is just a
very common-sense thing to do. If energy is diffuse, then
collect it in a diffuse manner and stop worrying about paving
over Nevada to collect the solar energy.
I think this is the direction in which we have to go.
Whether or not we can conquer the cost problem, I don't know.
But I know as long as we are doing research and we keep trying,
we are likely to get there.
I think the single-biggest problem for both, however, is
the one Mr. Saintcross referred to earlier and that is a
storage problem. He referred to batteries. Batteries are very
problematic. They are expensive, they are heavy, they don't
last that long. Unless you can develop deep discharge, they are
not terribly efficient. So maybe batteries are the answer, but
we have an immense amount of research to do there if we are
going to use them. In Michigan we tried to solve it with pump
storage plants which has worked rather well, except that it
kills an excessive amount of fish. We have handled that, but it
is a good way to do it. But what I have said for 30 years, what
this world needs is a good, efficient means of storing
electrical energy. If you do that, both solar energy and wind
energy and other forms of energy become much more viable, and
that is where a lot of our research efforts should be.
I have pontificated, and now I am going to ask if there are
any responses, particularly negative responses. Mr. Saintcross.
Mr. Saintcross. I would concur with your characterization
for solar. We have a solar program in New York, and it is
diffused. We have a large residential program, but the market
is not really, in terms of funding, it is not a significant
duration or scale for us in New York to drive the kind of cost
reductions that we need. So we are providing about $3 a watt as
an incentive against the other federal and State tax credits to
bring that market to bear.
On storage, I did mention the battery storage. Most of the
work we are doing now is really in the transportation sector.
But if we look at the offshore picture and we look at things
like smart grid, we look at residential-based storage mediums
or even plug-in hybrid vehicles, again, they are still
batteries but I think we have some interesting ideas floating
around that we at NYSERDA are trying to engage on in batteries
and storage, working with the utilities to solve it, like
LIPA\3\ and ConEdison.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Long Island Power Authority
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I agree with you, so I think that storage is important.
I think in New York we have looked at storage into the larger
reservoirs in Hydro-Quebec. But that would require transmission
which in itself has its own set of issues that must be
addressed. Most of that is cost and perhaps political. But, you
know, we have reservoirs there. We can pond wind. But that will
take, you know, a multi-state effort and some, what I call,
old-fashioned, integrated planning which I spent a lot of years
doing in the utilities.
So I think that you are dead on when you make those
statements about storing this energy.
Mr. Ehlers. Let me just use the few seconds remaining to
thank the panel. I very much appreciate your testimony. You are
right on, you understand the issues. I wish more Americans
understood the issues, and I think if they did, we would be
putting a lot more effort into both wind and solar energy as
viable alternatives of the future. So thank you very much for
being here. I really appreciate it.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Ehlers' closing remarks demonstrate yet
again that great things do come from Michigan, Dr. Ehlers. Ms.
Giffords.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With all due respect
to Mr. Ehlers, my good friend who made his comment about the
home State of Michigan, I just wanted to do a shout-out to Mr.
Lockard for the State of Arizona and also Mr. Zweibel who wrote
the Solar Grand Plan which is about the State of Arizona and
the plan that we could produce. So those are fighting words. We
are very proud of the work that is coming out of my home state.
Also, Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a comment----
Mr. Ehlers. I will match you dollar for dollar.
Government's Role in Technology Deployment
Ms. Giffords. Okay. This is the first time I think in
really any committee that I have been in where the average age
of the audience is under the age of 30. So I want to thank all
of the people for coming here today. It really reflects the
future of our country and the interest that we have in
renewables, and what an excellent panel we have.
Earlier today I had a chance to meet with one of the
branches of the military, specifically talking about what the
plan is for renewables, and it is very, very exciting. I
noticed in the comments made by Ms. Bacon, actually I think in
the written testimony as well, that the Federal Government is
the largest consumer of electricity, around $6 billion, and of
course, the Department of Defense is the largest user of all
energy, not just electricity. And that is a concern.
Now, I know a lot of Members don't have time to actually
read everything that is in our packets, but it is really
important to look through what happened, the story of what
happened in the 1980s when the DOD became concerned about the
Japanese semiconductor industry and the manufacturers limiting
access. And with this concern, we worked together to create a
national roadmap for semiconductors.
And so my first question, which goes to Mr. Zweibel and
also Ms. Bacon, is if you can talk about this plan, you know,
basically briefly how it worked for the semiconductor industry,
but more important, whether or not that roadmap plan is a good
idea for solar and what that could possibly do for us.
Mr. Zweibel. I thank you very much. The idea of a roadmap
is to try to address the critical issues with the best of your
productive capabilities, and in the past I think we have had a
number of activities in solar energy that have been reaching
out in many different directions without necessarily a central
theme.
But we have reached the stage now where the central theme
is deployment on a scale to meet greenhouse gas emission issues
and energy stabilization. So we have a mission now that is very
clear, and we have a set of technologies that are excellent,
that are capable of meeting that mission.
So it is time for us to get serious about a technical plan,
a roadmap that can be capable of supporting those successful
goals. So whether or not it is semiconductor analog, it
basically needs to be a focused plan with clear goals of
successfully being able to reduce the cost of solar energy. I
want to take a moment to say that there has been tremendous
progress in the reduction of the cost of solar energy that
wasn't that obvious during a period of boom when prices were
rising, but in fact are becoming obvious now that the demand
worldwide is hurt by the financial recession. So the solar
energy prices at the system level are dropping and have dropped
in the last 12 months and in the next 12 months by about 30
percent from about a year ago. So the systems that used to be
going in at $5 to $6 a watt are now going in at $4 a watt, and
systems are being talked up at $3 a watt. There is a
substantial amount of progress technologically that was hidden.
We have the opportunity to take those $3- and $4-watt systems
today and bring them down to $2 a watt, and I might say that at
$2 to $3 a watt, those systems are going to be quite
competitive with say, for example, offshore wind, which is
another very large source of energy.
So I think we are that close to being able to use solar
energy for these big terawatt hours scale demands, and if I
might just add one word about paving over the desert, we have
put in one percent of our land area behind dams during a time
period when the rest of us weren't paying attention. As you
heard earlier, one-fourth percent would produce all of our
electricity in the United States if used for solar energy. For
dams, it produces only seven percent. So I guess we were more
liberal back then about putting in dams than we would like to
be now about putting in solar energy. So I suggest we can have
it all. We can have rooftops, we can also have large fields.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can we hear from Ms.
Bacon? I know my time is short.
Ms. Bacon. Yes. Thank you very much. And I think also I
would echo much of what Ken said as well. I think it is time
for a solar roadmap. I think it would be very critical to have
the right investment, the right coordination, and the right
direction for us to be able to move ahead, to be getting to
grid parity with photovoltaics without any subsidies. And that
is really what our goal is. As a company, we have a path that
we are working down. We would be very interested in working
with the U.S. Government, not just DOE but across applications.
You mentioned DOD and DOD being the largest user of electricity
I think in the world. As I mentioned, they could change the way
that we create electricity, just like they changed the way we
communicate with the Internet. It would have a massive impact
on the whole solar industry. And I think we need that roadmap.
We need to make sure that we are all working not just on the
cells and modules, but the whole system. And what is important
to people is the cost per kilowatt hour, and that is critical
and no one asks, you know, is your coal-fired plant or your
gas-fired plant 80 percent efficient or 60 percent efficient?
What the consumer cares about is, what is the cost--cents-for-
kilowatt hours? So we need to look at all of this.
We need I think a neutral party that can really look
through this, help us with the direction as a nation to be able
to do this. And we very much are in favor of it. We would love
to participate on it. We have had a wonderful, rewarding
relationship with the DOE and the DOD, but it has been small
and I think that it is time with the energy security benefits,
the climate benefits, the economic benefits, the health
benefits as I mentioned because of what we are dealing with in
terms of air pollution, aside from the climate change.
And you know, finally, when we talk about DOD, I have no
idea how much the DOD spends looking at all of those bad parts
of the world where we get fuel, but I think there is also
savings there. So a group that is looking at a solar roadmap at
a high level making sure they get the right technical and
economic and other experts together I think would make a major
difference in terms of moving these industries ahead,
particularly in solar, but obviously wind as well. Thank you.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. [Presiding] Thank you, Ms. Giffords. The
Chairman recognizes Mr. Neugebauer, please.
Increasing Efficiencies
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Swift, I want
to go back to something you said during your testimony. You
said something about, you know, it is important that when you
are looking at research, not only to look at the efficiency of
the turbines, the devices I guess it would be, but also to look
at the research of making sure that the wind farms and the
configurations and all of those things are equally as
important. Are there ways to pick up efficiencies and are there
things to learn from the farms as well?
Dr. Swift. Thank you. I really believe there is a need in
this country for at least one and probably several national
research wind farms in order to address this issue. I pointed
out these array effects. There are siting issues, there is
modeling that needs to be done. The tools that we have
available right now just do not give the optimum performance,
the optimum loads which relate into lifetime which relates into
dollars. And if we can address this issue, I gave that one
investment example. Just a one percent improvement in
performance is something like $300 million a year given the
rate that we are deploying these turbines.
At least one national wind farm where it would be publicly
accessible data. Researchers from across the country could do
this, and I say we probably need more than one because there
are different regions of the country where the wind is
different.
I will point out another thing, that this industry has
grown really in two ways. We have an atmospheric science
community, and we have a wind power community. There is an
opportunity for these two to come together and work in ways
that they haven't. And part of it is just history, atmospheric
science, you have a lot of scientists who look at boundary
layer issues. We really haven't established the communication
links between these, and I think this national research wind
farm could address some of these losses that this industry is
seeing.
And I might defer to Steve to comment on what he thinks
those losses are. I have heard numbers as high as 10 percent.
Chairman Baird. And I am going to interrupt you for one
second. I will give you back enough time, Mr. Neugebauer. What
we have right now is a motion to adjourn. What I would like to
do is keep the hearing going, but if Members want to go do the
vote and then come back, so if some Members want to go, we will
do it in sequence and then we can keep the hearing going. So I
think you will be up next on our side if you want. We have got
about 10 minutes to go, so Mr. Neugebauer, continue with your
questioning, Ms. Edwards, and then when others come back, we
will cycle back in. I apologize for the interruption but we
could do it that way. Mr. Neugebauer, please continue. I will
add some time to your clock.
Mr. Neugebauer. Mr. Lockard, did you want to expand on that
as well?
Mr. Lockard. Yeah, I don't have much to add specific to
Andy's point on the research farms. I do think broadening the
test platforms, be it test turbines or raise of turbines. We
have a new blade test facility that is funded now. We have a
new dynamometer that is being proposed and funded, all those
platforms. And the wind industry has been described to me as
kind of like the automotive industry in the 1940s. It is one
thing for us all to look at it and say $17 billion worth of
business in 2008, the job is done. And that is not the case. So
whether it is forecasting, other reliability conditions, the
things we are talking about are kind of bottoms-up, technical
experts, looking at the work saying we have got to ratchet this
industry up to be something that is really going to withstand
the test of time. And I would echo the comment across the whole
range of issues, forecasting and others.
Achieving Economic Viability
Mr. Neugebauer. I think one of the things that I heard many
of you say, and I think this is something that all of us
struggled with during the debate on energy, is you know, making
it a stand-alone viable industry without having to have
additional incentives where there are tax credits, other kinds
of--and so what does it take, for example, let us just take
wind, to get to a point on parity with say natural gas or coal
or nuclear because those are the technologies that are
available and usable today? I mean, are we closing that gap or
are we looking at long-term need to subsidize those
differences?
Mr. Lockard. Yeah, I guess a couple of comments. One is all
the electric energy technologies are subsidized today, so part
of this is I think it needs to be looked in that larger
context. But the 20 Percent by 2030 Report required a 10
percent reduction in costs, 15 percent improvement in
performance. If you combine those, you can think about we are
kind of 25 percent away from what might be necessary to be at
parity. That is not really far away, but that scale doesn't
necessarily drive cost. A lot of our costs, raw material costs
and otherwise in the industry, are going up. U.S. manufacturing
is more expensive. So there needs to be innovation to drive
this piece. More automation, more manufacturing technology,
innovation on the product side that can drive out cost and
continue to drive the engine that way.
Mr. Neugebauer. Ms. Bacon do you want to or Mr. Zweibel?
Mr. Zweibel. About solar, a couple of things. One of the
things is I usually compare solar and wind against other non-
CO2 sources. That helps to focus what the
externalities are about. In most cases, energy independence and
non-CO2 and both of them have it. So I don't usually
compare with coal unless it is sequestered.
All of us are attempting to bring down cost, and with the
history of cost reduction say in solar energy, we can be
confident that we are going to continue to bring the cost down
approximately 20 percent every doubling of worldwide
production. That has been the history. In fact, new
technologies that have come on have actually exceeded that rate
of cost reduction. So we have every intention of doing that.
But for technologies like wind and solar that don't use
fuel, they are not exposed to that fuel cost escalation issue
and so that moving target issue, and over the course of their
real lifetime, and I have heard that almost every plant that
was ever put in the United States to make electricity is still
in actual use because they get re-permitted, and over the
course of those long lifetimes, because solar and wind have no
fuel, their costs become very tiny once you have paid up the
capital costs. So actually, you can actually come to a
calculation that even at today's prices, they are cheaper than
using a fuel-based approach because eventually the total
investment is lower.
Ms. Bacon. Just to add to that, we do have a plan to get
down to grid parity without incentives, and that has got to be
our goal as an industry. And those gains can be made from a
number of things. One of the things we do is thin film. I mean,
it is literally, you know, a fraction of a thickness of a human
hair, so we are talking about very low material costs. We also
need to do work on higher efficiencies because the higher the
efficiency is, the better the cost is. We are working on that.
We manufacture in a roll-to-roll process, almost like you do
photographic film on one and a half mile long substrates. We
are working with some technology that is VHF, very high
frequency, to be able to speed up the process and still get
good quality solar cells.
So there are all of those things that help bring down the
cost. And by the way, a lot of these have been worked on with
DOE in the thin film partnership going back with Ken as well as
other things that we are doing, like Solar America initiative.
On the deployment side, then you have got all the things that
are in the balance of systems because you have got to look at
everything. Just the solar module or a laminate doesn't do you
any good. You have got to have the inverters and all the
electronics, a good way to install it and all the way through.
So that is what the roadmap can do. Because there is no one
company that has every piece of that supply chain----
Chairman Baird. Ms. Bacon, I am going to interrupt you
because I want to give Ms. Edwards a chance.
Ms. Bacon. No problem.
Chairman Baird. Mr. Neugebauer, give Ms. Edwards a chance
to ask questions and still possibly make the vote if she
chooses. We are down about five minutes.
Decentralizing the Transmission System
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I hope this is as
profound as it needs to be having interrupted you.
My question actually has to do with what consumers really
see. I mean, most people I know, when they flip on the light
switch, they don't ask where does my power come from? They
don't care. They just want it to be as cheap and affordable as
possible and for the lights to come on. And so I have a
question that relates to the question around transmission, you
know, the debate that is going on, you know, reported in
today's New York Times, the western states and the eastern
states and what is commercialized and how it is transmitting.
And I wonder why there isn't more discussion about
decentralizing the transmission system, localizing it so that
you have the potential, you know, to use maybe limited sources
of power generation that may be a mix of different things in a
community and produce, then transmit and store locally. But it
seems to me that all of our policy discussions involve this,
you know, intricate, nationwide, large-scale transmission
system that I think in the end is going to be far more
expensive than if we figured out another shot. And I just
wondered if I could hear your responses to that.
Ms. Bacon. Well, this sounds almost like it was a planted
question for me because I love----
Ms. Edwards. No, but good to meet you.
Ms. Bacon. I love distributed generation. It just makes
sense. We put photovoltaics on rooftops. Why not generate the
power right where you are going to use it? You don't have the
land, you don't have the infrastructure, you don't have the
transmission and distribution losses. Now, with solar, we are
blessed with being able to do that because the sun shines
everywhere, some places better than others. Wind, they have
specific areas where the wind is much better so it makes much
more sense to do wind farms and then transmit it. But I think
the more that we can do that, the better. And the other point
of this with regard to distributed generation, you don't have
to just put it on one rooftop. You can also have distributed
wind, if you will, or distributed solar that could handle a
community. And the other point of it is you can do it now, it
is immediate. I mean, in a matter of months, as opposed to
waiting for all the infrastructure investments and the
permitting and all these fights about it. I think in the long
term there is going to be a mix between centralized with
transmission and also the distributed generation.
Ms. Edwards. I think I will go vote, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Baird. Thank you. I will hold the fort. That is
why I did this, actually. I figured I would have free reign.
Permitting and Wildlife Issues
I stepped out for a moment. One of the issues that was
raised on the wind front had to do with permitting, and we have
got some wind facilities proposed in our area. And one of the
issues is regulatory agencies are telling us we just don't know
the answers to some of the questions because it is a new
technology, especially regarding the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) issues and migratory birds and things of that sort.
Where are we at in terms of learning what can be done to
reduce bird mortality? You know, I remember years ago when the
airlines discovered they can paint those little curlicues on
jet engines and scare away birds. Didn't work in the Hudson
River case, but apparently has been relatively successful.
What can we do? What is the state of the regulatory issues,
and how do we expedite the permitting to get this technology on
line?
Dr. Swift. I think there is a lot of recognition in the
industry from where I sit that these are issues that need to be
addressed. I think if you look at the 2030 roadmap, and as
Steve pointed out in his testimony that we want to reduce the
impacts of large-scale wind generation. There are some new
technologies. We are looking at radar for measuring wind.
Inflow to turbines is the thing I have been harping on this,
the array effect issue, but those same radar can also be looked
at to determine bats and birds and things. And some of the new
wind farms in the coastal area in Texas actually have bird
mitigation radar. As they see flocks of birds coming, they can
actually shut down the wind farm. I think there is a lot of
opportunity here as we go forward and work with the various
ecological communities with the power people, the wind turbine
people, et cetera. Good question.
Mr. Saintcross. I would like to add to--you know one of the
questions is the agencies responsible for dealing with
wildlife. They don't have baseline data. They didn't have it
onshore. In New York, we are doing post-construction monitoring
at wind projects to do all the scavenging reviews to find out--
mist netting for bats and so forth because our agency, the
Department of Environmental Conservation, really doesn't have
that information. They have general ideas where flyways are,
but they have not been characterized at that broad a scale
using a common set of accepted scientific principles.
Now, if we are going to go offshore, the scale grows even
larger. When we did our prospecting in New York for about 30
site areas, we paid for that. We co-funded that with the
private sector in the early--about 10 years ago. But offshore,
that is a big expense, and it is a brand new area for people.
Again, that is something that if we launch new advanced
renewable programs at an organization like NYSERDA, we would
probably look to do those kinds of resource characterizations
because they don't have that data. And industry, I think Dr.
Swift identified that you can use radar. You can operate your
facilities differently to address wildlife, but developers
don't want to offer that without being told they have to. So
the wildlife community has to be able to communicate. This is
what we think we are concerned with. But you need scientific
knowledge to do that.
Chairman Baird. And that would presumably----
Mr. Saintcross. And that is if----
Chairman Baird. The radar thing would presumably only work
for fairly large flocks of major migratory birds. It would be a
little tougher for a marbled murrelet which is the case in
our--I mean, they don't even know where they live. And so the
whole risk is, we don't know where these critters are, but they
are more or less in this neck of the woods and we are afraid to
chop them up with a wind turbine. And therefore----
Mr. Saintcross. I mean we are--excuse me.
Chairman Baird. No, go ahead.
Mr. Saintcross. We are getting better at it. With NEXRAD
data, you can actually see the flocks come up at night on the
radar. You can see where they move around, but then finding out
what those species are is the next level. And that next round,
we will just tell you, there is a large body of birds coming up
at nighttime, and then they will see where they settle down.
And you can plot that with technology. But you really don't
know what species they are.
Chairman Baird. Mr. Lockard and then I want to acknowledge
Mr. Diaz-Balart or I can't remember, whoever is next. Mr.
Bartlett will be next. Let me acknowledge Mr. Bartlett because
I have gone over my time. Mr. Bartlett.
More on Storage
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you. For a quarter of a century now, I
have had solar PV and for the last couple of years I have had a
sky stream, and I was amazed that the sky stream produces as
much electricity when the wind blows adequately as 32-60-watt
solar panels. So wind potential is real. But I am very happy
with the solar PV.
As Dr. Ehlers mentioned, the big challenge that faces us is
storage. As long as solar and wind are trifling percentages of
our total energy, storage doesn't matter. But we will one day
not have fossil fuels and so we will be producing our energy in
some alternative fashion. So storage is going to become very
important.
Pump storage, of course, is very efficient. Where you have
the topography differences, you can certainly do that. But
aside from that or just, you know, thousands, millions of
batteries in hybrid cars and so forth, I know of no silver
bullet for storage, and I wonder if we are moving as
aggressively on this storage front as we are on the solar PV
and the wind front.
There is of course a potential for wind that if you are
widely enough distributed that there may be enough wind blowing
somewhere if you have a net which could carry the electricity.
That is not true of solar, of course, because the sun shines
only in the daytime. Are you comfortable that we have adequate
research investment in storage and have we taken a really good
look at how self-sufficient we could be with wind without
storage, with a proper kind of a net or grid?
Mr. Lockard. Yeah, I think a really important question and
one that the AWEA R&D and governing group has wrestled with
quite a bit. The 20 Percent by 2030 Wind Report, by the way, is
interesting to me, although I am in support of cost-effective
storage technology development. One thing it showed was that 20
percent of our nation's electricity can come from wind without
storage, actually. We were surprised I think, some of us, to
see that outcome. And some of that has to do as you said with
the build out of transmission and broadening the market control
areas and the jurisdiction areas and whatnot for transmission.
So it is built out of transmission but also the planning and
management of the broader areas. And I think from our group's
perspective, cost-effective storage is something that is
interesting and should be worked on, not only for
transportation applications but for megawatt scale storage, and
maybe our wind goal then becomes 30 or 40 percent with cost-
effective storages opposed to 20.
Mr. Zweibel. I would like to say that we have the same kind
of paradigm in solar that we discovered that we could do an
awful lot of solar without straining the grid without storage.
But this doesn't mean we don't want storage because your vision
and our vision coincides, that we need to have some way to
store these intermittents for other times. And so a proper
storage research program in parallel with the aggressive
deployment of solar and wind I think is totally desirable. And
the good news is that it might be in the right timeframe. In
other words, even if it takes 20 years to develop the best new
kinds of storage will be ready--we won't need it all that much
before then, and we will be ready at that time for using it. So
I think those kind of research programs really need to be done
and should be done, and we definitely appreciate seeing you
guys do that. It should not be considered as a roadblock to
deployment of solar and wind because as the wind person said,
distributed wind and transmitted solar and distributed solar
can make up for an awful lot of that variation.
Ms. Bacon. Just to add to what the other speakers said, I
completely agree. Right now, storage is not a problem for
solar, except for off-grid applications, and the one nice thing
about solar is as it is shining during the day, it is producing
during electricity typically in the peak hours.
So most of our applications are grid-tied, and most of the
utilities in the evening do not have problems in terms of any
capacity problems whatsoever.
In the longer-term, we certainly do need to look at that.
One of the other things as you know, Congressman Bartlett, that
we have done is our company also invented the nickel metal
hydride battery, which is the battery of choice for today's
hybrid electric vehicles. Much work is being done with lithium
because the plug-in hybrids need higher capacity. We think we
can also improve the nickel metal hydride battery but when we
did studies of that as well, there can be a second life for
these batteries. After the car is done with them, after about
eight or nine years when they aren't of good enough capacity
for running a vehicle, they are still good enough to have a
second life with solar and other things. So I think again, some
of these programs could be looked at in a very holistic
approach as to how we can reuse some of these things. And I am
sure that is going on in a lot of places, sort of reuse and
recycle with it. But having said that, I think in the long-
term, we are going to have to deal with storage, and it is not
just battery storage. There are other mechanisms of storage. I
don't think the funding is sufficient now, but there are
choices that need to be made, and in our industry, it is not
holding our expansion up or our cost reductions. Thank you.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Bartlett. One of the major
contributions Dr. Bartlett makes is he is, probably more than
any other Member of Congress, ``off the grid'' in the sense
that he has implemented this technology in his own home and
provides very valuable insights on that, everything from solar
to photovoltaics to wind and his vehicles, et cetera. So the
solution to our energy problem is for us all to live more like
Roscoe Bartlett and we would quite sincerely would have a
significant cut in energy.
Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Bringing Down Costs to the Consumer
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this has
been a very interesting panel. Thank you for this.
I have some questions about storage because that seems to
be a big issue. I do want to--Ms. Bacon, you mentioned cost per
kilowatt hour, and that frankly is where the rubber meets the
road. Everything else is theory in the sense. And you mentioned
about how Germany I guess is number one in the world now in
solar. Is that correct? Do you know what their cost of kilowatt
hours? Have they been able to bring it down comparable to other
sources of more traditional, you know, old-fashioned energy?
Ms. Bacon. Well, they are bringing it down, but the reason
Germany has the biggest market in the world now is because of
the policies that they have.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Subsidies?
Ms. Bacon. Yes, they have a feed-in tariff which basically
agrees--for those of you that don't know, it will buy the power
created by the photovoltaic array at very high rates to make it
feasible to be able to pay everybody from the module
manufacturer to the installer to the owner to the integrator
and the finance----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Right. No, I understand that. But I mean,
since one of the things that we always hear about, and I heard
it today, is that obviously, when you have more of it, the
prices should go down because of technology, and yet in
Germany, that still is not to the point of where it is
competitive or is it? Where are we?
Ms. Bacon. It is not competitive with the grid yet.
Mr. Zweibel. Of course, Germany has about half the sunlight
that we have here, and since cost per kilowatt hour is
proportional to sunlight. So solar, both concentrated thermal
and PV is about 15 cents a kilowatt hour in the U.S. Southwest.
So it is getting closer to being cost effective, and that of
course, is the point which is that good technology development
can get you to cost effectiveness.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Well, that is obviously the key. If it is
going to be something that is widespread, it has to be
something that is competitive. But again, so how does it
compare to kilowatt hour on regular, old-fashioned technology?
Mr. Zweibel. As I said earlier, I generally use non-
CO2 to compare it because we are looking at----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Yeah, but I am just talking about right
now.
Mr. Zweibel. Right. So coal is a nickel a kilowatt hour to
eight cents a kilowatt hour. Natural gas is about 12 cents per
peak period. It is about nine cents for base load. And wind is
about eight cents a kilowatt hour onshore and about, in
Germany, 22 cents a kilowatt hour offshore.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Okay. So we still have a little ways to
go, but obviously you hope the technology----
Mr. Zweibel. Right.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And R&D which is something that I am a big
fan of is obviously key there because we are not there yet.
I spent my formative years living in Spain, and we have
seen some success stories and some dismal failures in Spain
with their energy policies. They are now actually facing even
some sporadic blackouts. Obviously doing very well as far as
their percentages of renewable energy, but they are having a
lot of issues with obviously the cost of energy, the level that
the government has to subsidize it, the problem that is created
for them there. Could you tell me some things that they have
done right and then some things that they--that we clearly need
to not replicate?
Mr. Zweibel. Spain made a big mistake in putting out a
tariff that was way too high, and that is not an unusual
mistake when programs are just starting because they don't know
where to put the number and they want to kick-start something.
So they got a huge influx of installed systems that basically
overwhelmed their system, and they got more than they wanted.
So then the second year they just cut back to zero, and then
that kicked everybody off of the system. So instead of starting
a domestic industry, they made everybody go boom to bust in
about a one and a half year cycle.
So it is good to tune your incentives to being the proper
size so that you don't have that kind of process. In fact, one
of the best things about these feed-in tariffs is that they go
down every year. So they incentivize the idea that you are
going to have to improve every year, and the kind of costs in
PV that have come down over the last 10 years because of this
have been unbelievable. They have been fabulous.
So I am very strongly in favor of the least cost to our
society, and that is why I am very much behind the idea of good
technology development and good incentive programs that come
down with time.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And with my 38 seconds, Mr. Chairman, if I
may, Ms. Bacon, you mentioned about, which is really exciting,
the fact that, you know, people being able to have solar panels
on their roofs. That I would imagine though is still very
dependent on storage capacity or the fact that they are still
on the grid and it would be a complementary type system. And
also, would it work in hurricane-prone areas like Florida where
we have very strict building codes for obvious reasons?
Ms. Bacon. Another planted question. We are Category IV
hurricane strength, and actually we are working with DOD
because you know they are thinking of moving a lot of people
down to Guam, and they have a lot of hurricanes there. And you
know, they are lightweight, they are rugged. Senator Levin had
to shoot bullets through it to show they still work. So they
are about .7 pounds per square foot compared to the competition
which is almost all glass-based, which is like five or six. So
yes, they are very rugged, and they can work with that. And you
were also correct that nearly all of our customers are tied to
the grid. So during the day, we will size this such that it
will provide all the daytime needs and they buy from the grid.
There are other cases that the customer wants size larger and
they have metering. The meter runs backwards, and they have
hardly any bill at all. We have also done----
Chairman Baird. Ms. Bacon, I want to make sure we give----
Ms. Bacon. Fair enough.
Chairman Baird.--Mr. Rohrabacher----
Ms. Bacon. Yes.
Chairman Baird.--an opportunity. Is that a version of
product placement, Mr. Diaz-Balart?
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This
has been a very fascinating hearing. I have been in and out but
I caught most of it. Let me just note for the record the
argument about climate change has been used several times here.
Those of us who think that global warming is the biggest hoax
that has ever been played on human kind do not necessarily
disagree with you about developing alternative energy
resources. I mean, those of us who note that it has gotten
colder for the last eight years and that CO2 in the
air is supposed to make it warmer, thus--anyway, we won't go
into that. But just so you will know that those of us who
reject that are committed to cleaner air and energy
independence, and what is being advocated today fits right into
that strategy. So let us look at this a little bit.
Net Metering
I would like to ask you about open or net metering and an
open grid and what is the relationship--what is the status
today? This is where you can put into the grid and get credit
for it and then have to pay for what you get out. Is that a
status today in the United States?
Ms. Bacon. Some of the wind colleagues might know better
than I do, but there are many places that have net metering.
There are a couple of ways they do it, and they are in the
states. So it is up to the state to do it.
In some cases the net metering where you can--and there are
various names, by the way, for this same concept--you can run
the meter backwards so that, you know, that is one aspect.
There is another way that they charge you in the evening, and
then in some cases they pay you the avoided cost which could be
two cents a kilowatt hour, which isn't so great. In some cases,
they charge you what they would normally have or they pay you,
if you will, at a higher rate.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Perhaps we should have some sort of a
national standard on that that would then encourage people to
utilize these alternative sources. And let me ask you about
your specific alternative, Ms. Bacon. How much electricity does
it produce?
Ms. Bacon. In terms of photovoltaics?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Ms. Bacon. You can do PV at any size. We have done some
things in Hawaii----
Mr. Rohrabacher. As compared to, let us say, a solar panel.
A panel of that. What produces more electricity?
Ms. Bacon. Well, they are both solar panels. So if you want
a one megawatt installation, you could do it with our
technology, or you could do it with the crystaline and glass
based. As I mentioned, we did a 12 megawatt system on a roof in
Spain. So they can be done of any size, and that is true with
any of us in the industry. So we have done some things in
houses for two kilowatts.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. How long does it last?
Ms. Bacon. We typically give warranties for 20 to 25 years.
It is a semiconductor, no moving parts. It is expected to last
longer.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So it might last 25 years. So solar
panels, I understand after about five years you have to replace
them?
Ms. Bacon. No. The solar panels--this is a different type
of solar panel. It is a thin film on a flexible substrate.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So solar panels are not--you don't have
to--whoever told me that is wrong.
Ms. Bacon. They are wrong. They are wrong.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Ms. Bacon. The crystaline and solar panels which have been
around for 54 years, they are also warranted in the 20, 25 year
range.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And is your product biodegradable at the
end of that?
Ms. Bacon. We don't use any toxic materials. I think the
stainless steel is probably going to last for a while.
Nuclear Power
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Now, the two--by the way, I believe
electrification of our society is going to be the answer, and I
think in the end, what you are advocating, which is trying to
focus on letting everybody contribute to the grid or take out
of the grid, is going to be the answer to giving people
incentives to producing the electricity that they are capable
of producing that will, based on the technology that we are
developing, I see that as the future of our country, including
automobiles, I might add.
However, with that, let me ask you about the production of
electricity through nuclear power, which nobody seems to have
talked about here today and which seems to be--some of the
environmentalists who are talking about global warming never
can get themselves to talk about nuclear energy as an
alternative. In terms of costs, are we talking about nuclear
power being more expensive than what solar power offers, today
or perhaps in the future, or less expensive?
Ms. Bacon. There are other, better experts than I am on
this, that is for sure, and probably the gentleman sitting
right next to you has a better flavor for this than anybody in
the room.
But there have been some studies out with nuclear power
that talks about as much as 30 cents per kilowatt hour. There
are some that are as low as six cents a kilowatt hour for new
plants that are put in, so one doesn't know. In my state,
Michigan, it is too bad Dr. Ehlers wasn't here when we put in
nuclear, it was three times the budget of what was anticipated.
Mr. Rohrabacher. One last thing. Chairman, indulge me in
one last question, and that is I have been told again--I was
mistold about the solar panels having to be replaced every five
years. That is clearly misinformation. But I was also told that
to produce the amount of electricity that you would get from a
nuclear power plant, it would take 5,000 windmills to generate
that same power.
Chairman Baird. I am going to ask for a brief answer to
this.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes. Is that off and what is the number of
windmills that you would have to build to produce the same
electricity as a nuclear power plant?
Mr. Lockard. He says go ahead, but I don't know what the
answer is.
Chairman Baird. That never stops us.
Mr. Lockard. Yeah, exactly. So I will keep going as well.
What I know is the average wind turbine today, 1.5 megawatt
turbine, for example, generates about enough electricity when
running for about 300 to 400 U.S. homes. One machine.
Mr. Rohrabacher. One windmill?
Mr. Lockard. One machine. These are huge--I would have
brought a product today, but it wouldn't have fit in this room.
They are huge machines. They are megawatt, utility-scale
machines. And part of those----
Chairman Baird. Straightforward math, 1.5 megawatt
multiplied by whatever.
Mr. Lockard. And the other point is just there is plenty of
wind resource, there is plenty of land. One of the issues that
was raised earlier related to siting, and I think we ran out of
time a little bit on some of the siting.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Wait a minute. How many of those big ones
that you are talking about would we have to have for one
nuclear power plant to replace it?
Mr. Saintcross. I think, you know, the scale of nuclear is
all over the board. There are big ones, there are small ones.
If you break it down to one megawatt level, a wind turbine will
produce about 30 percent of that one megawatt. A nuclear plant
for one megawatt may be at 90 percent, 95 percent. So that is
the difference, three times the energy from the nuclear fuel.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So you only need three of those big
turbines for one nuclear power plant?
Mr. Saintcross. I am just trying to break it down to a
megawatt level because the power plants change to a different
scale.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Mr. Saintcross. You know, in New York there is a 1,638
megawatt nuclear facility.
Chairman Baird. What I am going to do at this point----
Mr. Saintcross. So I am just showing you it is a three-to-
one type scale on a megawatt basis. You can think of it that
way, and it will make it a little simpler for you.
Chairman Baird. I am in favor of distributed nuclear power.
Mr. Bartlett, did you have a comment or a question? I recognize
the gentleman.
More on Net Metering
Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a
clarifying question on net metering. The digital meters, do
they run backwards the same way as the mechanical meters? If
they do, then you don't really need laws for net metering
because you would have to have a huge array to produce more
electricity than you use. So you don't need anybody's
permission to have a wind machine or solar on your house and
run your meter backwards. If you run it backwards more than
zero, then they may not pay you for that. In any event, they
can't stop you from running the meter backwards, I don't think.
Can they? So we don't really need net metering laws. All you
need to do is put it on your roof and be careful you don't
produce more electricity than you use, and you would have to
have a huge array to do that. Thank you.
Ms. Bacon. I will do that. I will get back to you on that.
Keeping Jobs and Products Domestic
Chairman Baird. We have had an excellent hearing. I
actually have just a couple of more brief questions. I don't'
know if colleagues would like a second round. I am going to ask
just one more follow up on a question I raised earlier, and I
will give other Members an opportunity if they want follow-up
questions as well. I had asked the question about export of
technologies earlier, and I want to follow up on that line.
Ms. Bacon, I am a personal supporter of buy America
provisions. As you know, there are profound trade implications
and in your particular business, given what you said earlier
about the amount you export versus import, that would be a
pretty interesting cost benefit question for you. About that
policy: On the wind side, my understanding is we did a lot,
i.e., we in the United States, did a lot of early work on wind
and a lot of that now has been exported. The main jobs coming
from wind in my District are longshore jobs. That is quite
true, importing blades and towers, et cetera. What can we do as
we move towards a green economy, cognizant of buy America but
also cognizant of also protectionism and WTO.\4\ What else can
we do to make sure that if we come up with newer technologies,
we don't end up importing that technology like we import so
many other things?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The World Trade Organization
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Lockard. Yes, I think wind for sure offers a unique
opportunity for domestic manufacturing. The physical product's
size--the blades are huge. They weigh 15,000, 20,000 pounds a
piece. The towers are difficult and expensive to transport. So
the trade-off is labor cost versus transportation cost and that
of incentives, if there are any. And the other truth is, we
don't like it, but Mexico is cheap. And so in the end of the
day, and these products are fairly labor intensive as it turns
out. So I think, what can we do? We talked a bit a while ago
about the renewable electricity standards, just some strong,
long-term fundamental policies that causes Boards of Directors
to make investments in the United States for long-term periods
of time. That is one. The other is just to help incentivize or
create more competitive U.S. manufacturing. There is a
technology angle to that. The plant we opened in Newton, Iowa,
there were State and local incentives that didn't match one-
for-one, matched maybe one-fourth-to-one of the investments we
made of our company. But it was still an adequate incentive to
cause us to not build that plant in Mexico and instead build
that plant in Newton, Iowa.
So I think a wind opportunity offers a unique opportunity
because of the transportation cost. The rest of it is on the
policy side.
Chairman Baird. The key point about that from the article
in the Harvard Business Review and elsewhere that I have read a
lot and spoken to people is we may think, oh, we are going to
develop the technology here, and we are going to just export
the manufacturing. Well, when you export the manufacturing, you
are exporting the seed corn for your technology because you
just have to interact on a daily basis with the manufacturing
to get the feel for how it works. So this myth that we are just
going to do all the smart stuff here and export the manual
labor outside, eventually the smart stuff is gone, too, and you
got nothing left. Is that a fair concern? Any other comments on
that before I recognize colleagues?
Mr. Zweibel. I would just say that we lost the market
leadership in these technologies, so they built the plants
elsewhere. Where they build them they often incentivize them.
In Germany they incentivize 50 percent of the capital costs.
They build them in Michigan, they incentivize them in Michigan.
The cost of transportation is an avoided cost in all these
cases, but we should take advantage of that. And in the case of
PV, it is not a high labor cost. So it is a technology we can
do here in the United States and be competitive. But I do think
that you are right. This is a national issue. It is not just an
issue for renewable energy, it is an issue for our country, and
it is much bigger than we are.
Chairman Baird. I hope to have some further hearings on
that topic. Dr. Swift, did you----
Dr. Swift. Yes, I just wanted to comment on the university
side of this. You know, as university programs depend on
research which was pointed out before, that brings programs,
that brings students, that brings technology innovation. Once
you have a trained workforce, companies are very interested and
will locate where that trained workforce is. So there is a huge
education piece that we need to remember, and that is directly
related to the research piece, at least at the university
level.
Chairman Baird. Excellent point, Doctor. Mr. Inglis
recognized for five minutes.
Grid Compatibility With Power Sources
Mr. Inglis. I think next week we are going to have hearings
on the grid, but the connection here to wind and solar as to
the grid is, as I understand it, there is some question about
the ability of the grid as it exists now to accept many, many
sources of electricity in a distributed system. Is that right?
I mean, is there a question about the ability of the grid to
accept all that power?
Mr. Zweibel. That is a key issue. After the cost, that is
the biggest challenge for all of us is to how to get beyond a
certain level of penetration without destabilizing the grid.
And so what you do there is a couple of things. First of all,
there is a natural tendency to want to deal with smarter grids
that can handle faster decision-making. So it is the SmartGrid
aspect that actually goes back to the person who is dispatching
and what the resources are that they are dispatching. The
second thing was mentioned earlier on wind and now is starting
to happen in solar and that is solar forecasting. So when you
can forecast the intermittency, you don't have the spinning
reserves spinning all the time waiting for that cloud to come
over or that cloud bank to come over. You only turn them on a
half hour before it comes over because you know well enough
when it is going to come over. And so there is a lot of work
being done on solar forecasting, very valuable.
So these things get us up toward those high levels of
penetration that we were talking about. Whether it is 20
percent, 25, 30, 15 percent, it is somewhere in that range that
you can do without storage. Once you get to that point, though,
you are going to start looking at storage and you are going to
start looking at distributive storage, you are going to start
looking at issues with transportation like using batteries for
plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles for some of that storage
so that you move into that next level where you solve those
grid-related problems. And as I said earlier, where I think the
good news is that, I think this is rare that we can do almost
as much solar and wind as we want for the next 10 to 15 years
and not really shoot ourselves in the foot on this while we are
doing the R&D to get the storage right.
So let us do them both. Let us try and chew gum and walk at
the same time.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Bartlett.
Storage Research Initiatives
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you. As you have noted, for the moment
at least, when your grid is high, you are using the grid as
your battery, and what you are doing is you are simply forcing
the electric producers to modify their production to be
consistent with your sporadic production. And for a long while,
what, probably 15 to 20 years we will be okay there. But it may
take that long or longer to develop alternative storage
technologies that we need to get going, and my perception is
that we aren't getting going.
I have the largest HuP-1 solar home size batteries that
they sell. These are lead acid batteries. Still, nothing
competes with lead acid batteries for storage per dollar. You
can't put them in a car because they are too heavy, but storage
per dollar, nothing competes with the lead acid. If you are
going to store huge amounts, you are still not going to do it
there because it just takes far too many. There are a lot of
creative technologies out there like pumping air pressure into
some big thing, like having a water tower with a membrane on
top and loading it up with steel which is seven times as heavy
as water and pumping that up until it gives you the effect of a
very high water column. I have noticed no broad areas of
solicitation that is asking for creative solutions to this
energy thing. Have I missed something.
Mr. Saintcross. I can comment with respect to New York
State. New York is installing a 20 megawatt flywheels system in
eastern New York State to store, to be able to address very
immediate perturbation in the system. We do have a lot of
interest for a compressed-air energy storage with some of the
utilities in Upstate. We have funded some high-level
feasibility analyses but we are really right now looking for
greenhouse gas initiatives programs. We are sitting on about
$127 million right now at NYSERDA. We have an operating plan
that we have not launched yet because the cap-and-trade program
in New York is under lawsuit right now. It is being challenged
legally. But the compressed air energy storage program is a
component of our advanced energy supply and delivery program,
as is the advanced renewables program. So we are definitely
intrigued with trying to do some of that work.
We have also done a lot of work on wind integration. We
think we can take 10 percent or 15 percent integration in New
York with wind and be just fine. We now do five-minute and 15-
minute forecasting. We have developed brand-new forecasting
systems so that our operators now on the grid are sort of
controlling the dispatch of wind resources, and we are also
instituting a new program to actually dispatch wind, where they
are actually providing price signals. When a system
perturbation occurs, they are asked to back down and curtail,
and they can make economic decisions. So I think that we are
getting far more sophisticated. I think we can trust we can
handle more wind on the system, but I think we are intrigued by
storage, and we are just at the cusp of moving forward with a
lot more work in that area in New York.
Mr. Bartlett. That is New York, but do we have a national,
aggressive program in developing storage technologies?
Mr. Zweibel. That is a wonderful idea that really should be
done, especially with the knowledge that we have time to be
creative and to do a really good job instead of kind of a cut-
and-paste kind of job. So I think that would be a great idea.
And it also suggests that it is probably going to happen with
wind first before it happens with solar because it is going to
be long time before we switch solar from the day to the night,
but it will be a pretty short time before we start switching
wind from night to day.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Bartlett, maybe we ought to consider
having a hearing on that very topic. I would be interested in
working with you.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you. Yes, I think that storage is one
of the big challenges here, and the quantity and quality of
energy and fossil fuels is just incredible. And when we are
forced, and we will--eventually we will have a world in which
we are not using fossil fuels. Geology will assure that. And
when that time comes, we are going to have to have some huge
storage capabilities or we are not going to be living the kind
of lifestyle we live now. And it may take quite a long time to
develop these, and so we need to get started. Thank you.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Swift.
Dr. Swift. I just wanted to comment and support the need
for a storage program. I served on a DOE wind review panel, and
there was a significant discussion really just to make the
point: most people in the wind community feel that it is kind
of the same consensus--we don't need it right now. We need to
use wind research dollars to address wind-specific issues.
Storage needs to be addressed somewhere else. So I would
support the idea very strongly for an independent hearing and
some real focus on storage itself. Thanks.
Chairman Baird. I would be happy to work with the
gentleman. As always, he has got I think a very important
insight there.
Any further comments or questions, Dr. Bartlett, before we
close?
Closing
With that, I want to thank the witnesses for a most
informative and interesting hearing. Thank you for your time,
and thanks for everyone else who attended today. The record
will remain open for two weeks for additional statement from
the Members and for answers to any follow-up questions the
Subcommittee may ask of the witnesses. With that, the witnesses
are excused. I thank my colleagues for their participation, and
the hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Additional Material for the Record