Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 89
Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase One): A First Look Forward G Report of the Panel on Benefits of Sequestration R&D The report presented in this appendix is the product of an expert panel convened by the NRC’s Committee on Prospective Benefits of DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy R&D Programs. The charge to the panel was to complete the preliminary prospective benefits matrix using the guidance from the committee described in Chapter 2 and Appendix E. The panel had considerable flexibility in determining how to fulfill this charge. This appendix summarizes the panel’s findings on the methodology and process. Although a member of the committee chaired the panel, the full committee did not participate in the work of the panel. Rather, the committee reviewed the findings of all three of the panels formed for the purposes of this study1 as the empirical basis for developing the methodology and process that the committee recommends in Chapters 3 and 4 of its full report. As a result, the committee’s recommendations may not reflect the specific suggestions or findings of an individual panel. The committee wishes to emphasize the following points: The three panels did not apply the methodology recommended in Chapters 3 and 4. The committee’s recommended methodology will be applied in Phase Two of this project. The panel reports were developed for the sole purpose of developing the methodology. As a result, the panel reports are not complete or systematic evaluations of program benefits and should not be interpreted as such. OBJECTIVES OF STUDY The Committee on Prospective Benefits of DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy R&D Programs has proposed a method to estimate projected benefits of DOE R&D programs. In order to evaluate the applicability of this approach for program assessment, the committee recommended applying the method to three DOE programs: lighting, carbon sequestration, and fuel cells. The NRC appointed panels consisting of outside experts in each of these research areas to apply the committee’s method in assessing the risks and benefits in each of the programs. The Panel on Benefits of Sequestration R&D is composed of experts in the area of carbon sequestration and program assessment (see the section “Panel Member Biographical Information,” below). The primary objective of the sequestration panel was to use the committee’s prospective benefits method for program evaluation as a starting point and to identify an approach that could be used to evaluate the DOE Carbon Sequestration Program. Although the panel evaluated the Carbon Sequestration Program, its efforts were focused more on testing the proposed prospective benefits methodology than on conducting a detailed evaluation of the program. SUMMARY OF DOE SEQUESTRATION PROGRAM AND BUDGET The DOE established the Carbon Sequestration Program in 1997. The program seeks to identify and develop sequestration technologies that could be applied to achieving reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The sequestration program includes several focus areas: capture of carbon dioxide (CO2) from utility and industry point sources and the atmosphere; CO2 storage in geologic formations, terrestrial eco- 1 The reports of the other two panels—the Panel on Benefits of Lighting R&D and the Panel on Benefits of Fuel Cell R&D—appear as Appendixes F and H, respectively.
OCR for page 90
Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase One): A First Look Forward systems, and oceans; technologies to track the fate of CO2 in storage; and CO2 conversion to either fuels or benign solids through biological or chemical means (DOE, 2004). In 1999, DOE began formulating a carbon sequestration technology roadmap and overall program plan that incorporated input from a diverse set of stakeholders, including academia, industry, and other federal agencies. DOE issued a final report on carbon sequestration R&D, which set out the technology roadmap, identifying a framework of R&D through demonstration that would allow carbon sequestration to play a significant role in reducing carbon emissions if that objective became a national priority (DOE, 1999). DOE has updated and reissued the Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap and Program Plan twice since its initial release (DOE, 2003c, 2004). The Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap and Program Plan concentrates in three areas: core R&D, infrastructure development, and program management. The first of these, core R&D, is the laboratory and pilot-plant work and fieldwork aimed at developing new technologies and new systems for greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation. It includes CO2 capture, sequestration and storage, monitoring, mitigation and verification, breakthrough concepts, and non-CO2 GHG control. The second area of concentration, infrastructure development, establishes the basis for future carbon sequestration deployments. Seven regional carbon sequestration partnerships, which are composed of state agencies, universities, and private companies, have been established to identify CO2 sources and potential sinks in their regions and to begin to develop the infrastructure and a framework for future deployment of sequestration technologies. Table G-1 presents DOE’s top-level roadmap for core R&D and infrastructure development. The third area of concentration, program management, sets out the Carbon Sequestration Program’s approach to R&D management of industry, including government partnerships, cost sharing, education and outreach, environmental activities, and resource requirements. DOE has projected that, for the years 2006 through 2010, funding of approximately $55 million per year is required to achieve the program goals. Actual and requested funding for the Carbon Sequestration Program for the period 1997 through 2005 is shown in Table G-2, together with the expected budget amounts for 2006 through 2010. In the panel’s view, funding to date has not kept pace with the budget requirements that DOE has projected to be necessary for achieving the program goals. The DOE Carbon Sequestration Program does not contain all of the elements necessary to bring new concepts to a point at which they could be considered for industrial or utility deployment. Large investments are necessary to provide demonstrations at size sufficient for deployment by the industry. Some of these resources could be provided by other DOE programs that are focused on new-concept demonstration. However, these programs were not part of the assessment by this panel. DESCRIPTION OF A METHOD FOR CALCULATING EXPECTED BENEFITS Overview of the Panel’s Approach The committee’s proposed benefits methodology requires an estimation of the expected economic, environmental, and national security benefits in three global economic/environmental scenarios. In order to perform this evaluation, the sequestration panel divided itself into two subpanels—a benefits assessment subpanel and a probability assessment subpanel. The results of these two subpanels were combined into a probability tree that was used to calculate expected benefits. The full sequestration panel reviewed these methodologies and specified probabilities for use in the probability tree analysis. Scenarios Considered by the Sequestration Panel The committee identified three scenarios in which program benefits should be evaluated: (1) the Reference Case, based on Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts for energy costs and energy supply and demand in the United States as reported in the Annual Energy Outlook 2004 (EIA, 2004), (2) the High Oil and Gas Prices scenario, and (3) the Carbon Constrained scenario. The sequestration panel reviewed these three scenarios and concluded that the DOE Carbon Sequestration Program would have benefits only in the Carbon Constrained scenario. The Carbon Constrained scenario considered by this panel matched that used by DOE in its own evaluation of the Carbon Sequestration Program. The Carbon Constrained scenario assumes that the goals of the Bush administration’s Global Climate Change Initiative are met. The objective of this initiative is to decrease the greenhouse gas intensity to 18 percent below the 2002 level by 2012. “Greenhouse gas intensity is the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic output. The President’s goal seeks to lower our rate of emission from an estimated 183 metric tons per million dollars of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2002, to 151 metric tons per million dollars of GDP in 2012” (White House, 2002). Following DOE, the sequestration panel assumed that the electric power generation sector will have achieved an 18 percent reduction in emissions by 2012. This translates into a reduction to 600 million tons of carbon equivalent per year by 2012 for the power generation sector. Also following DOE, the sequestration committee assumed that the emissions would be held constant at 2012 levels thereafter. In addition to the three global scenarios identified by the NRC committee, the proposed benefits methodology invites program evaluators to identify one or more additional “op-
OCR for page 91
Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase One): A First Look Forward TABLE G-1 Top-Level Carbon Sequestration Roadmap Goals Pathways Metrics for Success 2007 2012 CO2 Capture Lower the capital cost and energy penalty associated with capturing CO2 from large point sources. Membranes Advanced scrubbers CO2 Hydrates Oxy-fuel combustion 50% reduction in cost of avoided CO2 emissions from power plants compared to 2002 technology (based on pilot-scale performance). Develop at least two capture technologies that each result in less than a 10% increase in cost of energy services. Sequestration/Storage Improve understanding of factors affecting CO2 storage permanence and capacity in geologic formations, terrestrial ecosystems and possibly the deep oceans. Develop field practices to optimize CO2 storage. Hydrocarbon bearing geologic formations Saline formations Tree plantings, silvicultural practices, and soil reclamation Increased ocean uptake Field tests provide improved understanding of the factors affecting permanence and capacity in a broad range of CO2 storage reservoirs. Demonstrate ability to predict CO2 storage capacity with +/− 30% accuracy. Demonstrate enhanced CO2 trapping at pre-commercial scale. Monitoring, Mitigation, & Verification Develop technologies and methodologies to accurately measure the amount of CO2 stored in terrestrial ecosystems and geologic formations. Develop the capability to address any leaks of the stored CO2 from various repositories. Advanced soil carbon measurement Remote sensing of above-ground CO2 storage and leaks Detection and measurement of CO2 in geologic formations Fate and transport models for CO2 in geologic formations Demonstrate advanced CO2 measurement and detection technologies at sequestration field tests and commercial deployments. MM&V protocols that enable 95% of stored CO2 to be credited as net emissions reduction. MM&V represents no more than 10% of the total sequestration system cost. Breakthrough Concepts Develop revolutionary approaches to CO2 capture and storage that have the potential to address the level of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions consistent with long-term atmospheric stabilization. Advanced CO2 capture Advanced subsurface technologies Advanced geochemical sequestration Novel niches Laboratory scale results from 1-2 of the current breakthrough concepts show promise to reach the goal of a 10% or less increase in the cost of energy, and are advanced to the pilot scale. Technology from the program’s portfolio revolutionizes the possibilities for CO2 capture, storage, or conversion. Non-CO2 GHGs Develop technologies to mitigate fugitive methane from energy systems. Minemouth ventilation Landfill gas recovery Effective deployment of cost-effective methane capture systems. Commercial deployment of at least two technologies from the R&D program. Infrastructure Development Develop the infrastructure required for wide-scale deployment of sequestration concepts tailored to opportunities within specific regions of the United States and involve citizens, companies, and governments from those areas. Sequestration atlases Project implementation plans Regulatory compliance Outreach and education Phase I Regional Partnerships have developed action plans and completed regional atlases. Phase II partnerships begin pursing action plans and validation of sequestration concepts. Phase II Regional Partnerships start to become self-sustaining and begin actively pursuing sequestration deployments. SOURCE: DOE, 2004. tion” scenarios in which to calculate and report expected benefits. This panel discussed the possibility of also considering a scenario in which the carbon emission constraints are even more severe, but it opted for the single scenario described above. In the panel’s view, the Carbon Constrained scenario was quite challenging, since it assumes that any power generation increase after 2012 must come from a zero-emissions facility. A zero-emissions facility represents a facility with very high levels of emission control—greater than 90 to 99 percent removal—depending on the emission type, for conventional criteria pollutants such as NOx, SO2, and particulate matter as well as for CO2 emissions.
OCR for page 92
Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase One): A First Look Forward TABLE G-2 Actual, Requested, and Expected Funding, by Year, for Carbon Sequestration R&D ($ million) 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Budget authority 1.0 1.5 5.8 8.9 18.4 32.2 39.1 40.3 49.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 NOTE: Actual funding for years 1997 through 2004; requested funding for 2005; funding is assumed to be level for 2006 through 2010. SOURCE: Compiled from Department of Energy Congressional Budget Request Statistical Table, by Appropriation, FY 1998, FY 1999, FY 2000, FY 2001, FY 2002, FY 2003, FY 2004, and FY 2005. Benefits Calculation Method The primary task of the benefits assessment subpanel was to develop a method for calculating the economic benefits of the DOE Carbon Sequestration Program. The method developed by the subpanel was designed to meet three objectives: simplicity, applicability to the DOE sequestration program examined here, and potential applicability to other R&D programs that will be examined by other NRC panels. The method assumes that demand for some product (or service) is independent of production cost, so that the net benefit of an innovation that lowers the cost of supplying the product is calculated by multiplying the cost reduction per unit of product by the total number of units of product supplied. The method assumes that the elasticity of demand is negligible, as would be the case when demand is fixed by regulation. In assessing the DOE sequestration program, the subpanel focused on the cost of obtaining reductions in CO2 emissions from the electricity generation plants. As the Carbon Constrained scenario implies, emission reductions would be mandated. As applied to the Carbon Sequestration Program, the benefits calculation considers three time series: (1) the amount by which emissions are reduced; (2) the cost of low-CO2-emissions electricity supplied by the new emission control concepts, assuming that the DOE R&D program succeeds; and (3) the cost of low-CO2-emissions electricity supplied by the least-cost alternative technology, assuming no DOE R&D (Figure G-1). The cost savings in any year is given by the product of the amount of low-emissions electricity produced and the difference between costs with and without DOE R&D. The total benefits are simply the net present value (NPV) of the annual benefits stream. This approach used by the sequestration panel differs from DOE’s approach in terms of the measure of benefits as well as the model used. DOE calculates benefits by considering the change in the price that consumers pay for electricity and for natural gas. These benefits are calculated as quantity consumed times the price paid. In the DOE’s 2003 benefits calculations, the total savings from natural gas price reductions is very large and of the same magnitude as the benefits from a reduction in electricity costs. However, DOE’s benefits calculation is not consistent with the committee’s definition of economic benefits (NRC, 2001; see also Chapter 3 of this report). The sequestration panel believes that reductions in the cost of producing low-emissions electricity represent true net economic benefits that may somehow be split between consumers and producers of electricity. The change in the price that the consumer pays for electricity need not reflect the total benefit. However, the sequestration panel does not believe that natural gas price reductions represent a true net benefit: Reduced natural gas prices benefit consumers of natural gas, but these benefits are exactly offset by losses to the producers of natural gas. This treatment of indirect effects is in accordance with the NRC guidelines (NRC, 2001) and widely accepted principles of cost-benefit analysis. The subpanel recognizes, however, FIGURE G-1 Schematic illustration of benefits calculation.
OCR for page 93
Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase One): A First Look Forward that a successful sequestration program may lead to reduced imports of natural gas. The subpanel believes that these benefits are worth mentioning, although it did not attempt to quantify their magnitude as they are believed to be small compared with the direct effects of reduced costs of producing electricity. Calibrating the Benefits Model The assumptions used in this simple benefits model were initially chosen to match the assumptions that DOE uses to calculate benefits. DOE evaluates benefits using the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS), and, as mentioned earlier, DOE considered the same Carbon Constrained scenario that the panel used. The starting point of the panel’s benefits calculation is an estimate of the reduction in tons of carbon-equivalent emissions needed to meet the targets of the Carbon Constrained scenario. This was calculated by looking at the difference between emissions in the DOE’s NEMS results for the Carbon Constrained scenario and subtracting the emissions expected as EIA’s reference case, as documented in Annual Energy Outlook 2004 (EIA, 2004). As would be expected, these emissions reductions match the requirements imposed by the carbon constraint. The next step was to estimate the amount of electric power production that needs to be generated from zero-emissions power plants in order to achieve these emissions reductions. The panel assumed that these reductions would be achieved by replacing coal-fired power plants with low-emissions plants and determined the required demand for low-emissions generation using DOE’s estimate of the emissions intensity of coal power generation plants, in kilograms (kg) of CO2 per kilowatt-hour (kWh). The resulting required supply of low-CO2 emissions is shown as the bottom curve in Figure G-2. The next key step in the simplified benefits calculation was to estimate the cost of generating electric power from a zero- to low-CO2-emissions facility in two possible futures: with a successful DOE R&D program and without the DOE program. The latter cost can result from any facility that generates low emissions and from technology generated by any other third party worldwide. The difference between these numbers is the benefit, in cents per kilowatt-hour, for the R&D program. DOE provided the assumptions about capital costs, operations and maintenance, and plant efficiency that it used in its NEMS-based analysis from 2012 to 2025. The panel extrapolated the assumptions slightly (assuming constant growth) beyond this time frame for the simple benefits calculations. The panel decided to limit the benefit claims by imposing a 15-year rule, which assumed that any benefit assumed to be provided by the DOE research would have been matched by non-DOE research 15 years later; this serves to truncate the benefit stream around 2027. The panel focused on costs and efficiencies for integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plants with sequestration capability, with and without the enhancements provided FIGURE G-2 Cost and amount of zero-emissions electricity based on simplified calculations roughly matching DOE’s assumptions.
OCR for page 94
Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase One): A First Look Forward by DOE R&D. In this simplified model, the focus was on the total cost (including capital charges) of providing supply without modeling the capital stock turnover or detailed regional variations in transmission or fuel costs. This estimate may exaggerate the benefits of sequestration, because it assumes that carbon capture and sequestration technologies represent the lowest-cost supply of zero-emissions electricity even in the absence of DOE’s R&D. In fact, however, renewable energy or nuclear power may be the lowest-cost source of low-emissions electricity under that set of assumptions. The results are summarized in the upper curves in Figure G-2. The total discounted benefits for the DOE R&D program computed using this method are approximately $120 billion; here, as recommended by the committee, the panel discounted using a rate of 3 percent. The total undiscounted benefits are estimated to be approximately $203 billion. This result may be roughly compared with DOE’s own estimate of approximately $207 billion in undiscounted benefits as reported in their 2003 benefits document (NETL, 2004, p. 73). DOE’s estimate reflects $127 billion in benefits stemming from reductions in the price of electricity to consumers and $80 billion in the reduced price of natural gas. As discussed earlier, the panel’s analysis focused exclusively on reductions in the cost of producing electricity rather than on the price paid by consumers for electricity and it does not reflect indirect benefits of natural gas price savings. Thus, although the totals are quite similar, the two figures need not be directly comparable. Nevertheless, the rough-order-of-magnitude agreement between the methods suggests that the panel’s simplified method of estimating benefits is able to roughly duplicate the NEMS results while allowing the possibility of easily calculating benefits with alternative assumptions. Probability Assessment The probability subpanel was assigned the task of developing a method to assess the probabilities of success for the Carbon Sequestration Program that could be integrated with the simplified method in order to calculate the expected benefits for that program. The subpanel developed a questionnaire to be used by each panelist to estimate the technical and market probabilities at the project level. The results were then discussed in a group setting to allow the panelists to refine their judgment. A probability tree analysis was then used to assess the impact that the total program would have on the cost of electricity supply. Project-Level Probability Assessment The DOE Carbon Sequestration Program has two critical goals: successful completion of the R&D program by 2012 and commercial deployment. The overall goal of the program is to provide low-emissions coal-burning technology with less than a 10 percent increase in the cost of energy services (see Table G-1). The subpanel’s questionnaire asked panelists to estimate the probability of successful completion of the individual projects in the program. The subpanel recognized that the success of the individual projects would not necessarily imply that the overall program goal would be met. Therefore, the subpanel performed a separate assessment to develop the probabilities for the overall program. While it was not possible to roll up the individual-project probabilities to obtain a probability for the entire program, the evaluation of project probabilities provided background information, helping the panel make judgments about the entire program. It was also recognized that the base program budget was not adequate to carry any of the projects to commercial deployment without further scale-up and demonstration projects. Therefore, it was necessary to assume that appropriate additional funding for scale-up and demonstration projects would be forthcoming or would be provided in parallel DOE programs to carry successful projects to the commercial stage. At the program level, there are at least two relevant probabilities: that of meeting program goals and that of market acceptance. However, for simplicity, these were merged into one overall probability of success. The questionnaire asked for a probability of success of the overall DOE program. A final probability was requested for the success of attaining program goals by year. To assist in estimating the probabilities, the following background information was provided to the panelists. The cost of capturing and compressing CO2 by itself increases the cost of electricity on a greenhouse-gas-avoided basis (which compensates for the CO2 generated from the energy required for running the CO2 removal processes) by 47 to 87 percent, depending on the method of generation of electricity (Table G-3). The cost of transportation of CO2 is relatively small ($0.5 per tonne of CO2 per 100 km) for large projects near a storage site. The cost of CO2 storage (with no by-product credits) on a greenhouse-gas-avoided basis is between $3 and $6 per tonne of CO2, depending on the storage site used (e.g., depleted gas or oil wells, aquifer, or ocean) (Herzog and Golumb, 2004). The cost for CO2 storage could be offset in enhanced oil or coal-bed methane recovery processes. Since the goal of the DOE program is to sequester greenhouse gases from fossil fuel conversion plants, the panel assumed that the only fossil fuel available in the long term is coal. Capture and compression of carbon dioxide alone increases electricity costs by about 2 cents per kWh (Table G-3). The panel assumed that the subsequent transportation and storage of carbon dioxide could result in up to another 2 cents per kWh depending on the distance that the carbon dioxide is moved and the storage technology used. The result is that electricity costs are increased by up to 4 cents per kWh using current technology. Since the goal of having commercially ready and demon-
OCR for page 95
Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase One): A First Look Forward TABLE G-3 Cost of Electricity With and Without Capture and Compression Type of Power Plant Basea (¢/kWh) With Capture and Compressiona (¢/kWh) Increase in Cost of Electricity (%) NGCC 3.28 4.95 51 IGCC 4.58 6.74 47 PC 4.25 7.96 87 NOTES: ¢/kWh = cents per kilowatt-hour; NGCC = natural gas combined cycle; IGCC = integrated gasification combined cycle; and PC = pulverized coal. aMidpoint estimates. SOURCE: Herzog and Golumb (2004). strated technology by 2012 seems optimistic, the panel elected also to consider an extended goal of 2017. The goal of only a 10 percent increase in the cost of electricity is also an extreme stretch goal, so the panel decided to investigate a range of cost variables and looked at four cost increases (Table G-4). The sequestration panelists were sent a questionnaire for assessing the probability of successful completion of the individual projects. Panelists received the descriptions provided by DOE for its 12 carbon-capture projects and the 24 sequestration projects; project descriptions were not available for about 14 additional projects. Panelists familiar with the 14 additional projects were asked to fill out the ratings in spite of the missing descriptions and were asked to consider goals, funding levels, research quality, and management quality in making their assessments. They were asked not to rate projects outside their experience base and were told to assume that the appropriate funds (not part of the current projects) would be available for major demonstration projects. Some of the projects are enabling, such as pilot and field tests, and some are supporting, such as data collection, design, and economic analysis. Panelists were asked to provide probability assessments only on the enabling projects, of which there were 36. They also were asked to provide a short statement on the rationale for their ratings. The panel TABLE G-4 Range of Electricity Cost Increases Used by the Panel Cost Increase (%) Cost of Electricity (¢/kWh) 10 0.4 50 2.1 80 3.4 100+ 4.2+ NOTE: ¢/kWh = cents per kilowatt-hour. also provided similar assessments of the overall capture subprogram and the overall sequestration subprogram with and without the DOE R&D program. Assessments from the panel members were done independently, with results compiled by NRC staff. At the following meeting, the panelists discussed the results. Probability Tree Analysis of Overall Success While the panel members believed that it was impossible to simply aggregate the probabilities developed at the project level into probabilities for the overall success of the program, they also believed that, given this project-level information, they could assess probabilities for the overall level of success of the Carbon Sequestration Program using a probability tree (or decision tree) to capture probabilities for different points in time. In the probability tree analysis, panelists specified probabilities of achieving cost reductions equal to 0, 33, 67, or 100 percent of the DOE’s claimed benefit in 2012, 2017, and 2022. These percentage improvements could be translated into specific cost reductions (measured in cents per kilowatt-hour). The probability assessments for the 2017 cost reductions were conditional probability assessments that depended on the cost reduction in 2012, and the assessments for 2022 similarly depended on the 2017 results. Thus, 4 probabilities were to be assigned in 2012, 16 (4 × 4) in 2017, and 64 (4 × 16) in 2022. Each of the 64 paths through the tree consisted of a possible outcome. The probability tree format allowed panelists to Consider, in aggregate, many different technological outcomes; Estimate delays in bringing technologies on stream; Consider the logical maturation of technologies; and Exclude impossible events. While at first glance, the task of estimating 64 probabilities seemed daunting, many paths could be ruled out, because early probabilities were estimated to be zero. (The probability of any possible outcome in which any single probability is zero, is itself zero.) The panel also believed that breaking down the considerations into success levels in different time periods allowed estimations of separate elements that were more understandable than a single estimation of an overall probability of success level. Each panelist completed a questionnaire, and the final results were tabulated by year and by individual panelist. The results are discussed in the subsection below. The panel also recognized a separate form of risk associated with storage of sequestered CO2. Storage is unlikely to affect the cost items discussed above, but a relatively risk-free mode of storage must be assured before any of the technologies of capture can be deployed. The panel therefore decided to treat sequestration risk as a single probability that is to be multiplied by the results from the benefits subpanel.
OCR for page 96
Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase One): A First Look Forward A zero-sequestration probability means that there will be no (0 percent) reduction in electricity cost, owing to the lack of an effective mode of storage. The sequestration probability was also assigned using a questionnaire. Probability Tree Results and Expected Benefits Each path through the probability tree specifies a stream of cost improvements that can be valued using the simple benefits model described above. For example, one possible path through the probability tree would have 33 percent of the DOE’s target cost reductions achieved by 2012 and 67 percent by 2017, remaining at that level through 2022. These percentage improvements translate into the cost of zero-emissions electricity shown in Figure G-3. The panel also assumed that the benefits of the DOE current research would diminish after 2027, meaning that the benefits realized in the case “with DOE R&D” would be matched by improvements in the case “without DOE R&D” by this time. Using the simple benefits model, the benefit stream for this particular path or outcome is given as the difference between the costs with DOE R&D and the costs without DOE R&D, multiplied by the amount of zero-emissions electricity required to meet the carbon constraint. Discounting at 3 percent, this gives an NPV benefit of approximately $74 billion for this possible outcome. This can be compared with an NPV benefit of $120 billion in the scenario in which the DOE goals are met in full, on schedule. Figure G-3 represents one possible path through the probability tree and the corresponding stream of zero-emissions electricity costs. To calculate the expected future benefit, one must consider all possible paths through the probability tree, calculate the benefits in each such path, and weight the benefits in each path by the probability for that path’s occurrence. This can be done for each panelist individually or for the group as a whole. Figure G-4 summarizes the range of future costs expected by the panel members, showing DOE’s assumptions about costs with and without DOE research (as in Figures G-2 and G-3) and the expected (probability-weighted average) costs in 2012, 2017, and 2022 for each panelist. The figure also shows an expected sequence of costs that represents the average across the set of 10 panelists. The probability assessments revealed that none of the panelists expected DOE to fully meet its target cost reductions by 2012 (Figure G-4). In fact, no panelist assigned a positive probability to DOE’s achieving 100 percent of its target cost reduction in 2012. The panelists’ expected cost reductions for 2012 ranged from 0 to 43 percent of DOE’s target, with a panel average of 10 percent. Panelists expected DOE to make more progress toward its goals by 2017, with expected cost reductions ranging from 12 to 59 percent of DOE’s goals, with a panel average of 28 percent. The panel’s FIGURE G-3 Cost and amount of zero-emissions electricity for one possible path through the decision tree. It is assumed in this illustration that 33 percent of DOE’s target cost reductions will be achieved by 2012 and 67 percent by 2017, remaining at that level through 2022.
OCR for page 97
Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase One): A First Look Forward FIGURE G-4 The range of expected cost improvements predicted by the panel members. range for 2022 performance was 10 to 71 percent of DOE’s goals, with an average of 49 percent. These assessments also revealed that the panel includes one member with what might be considered an extremely negative view and two members with extremely positive views, whose expected costs were the highest and lowest in each period. These viewpoints were strongly held, and the panel did not attempt to come up with a single consensus forecast of future cost reductions. Instead, the panel agreed to disagree and to report results for individuals as well as the group’s average assessment. While the panel did not expect DOE’s goals to be met in full, partial attainment of these goals still leads to substantial savings in the cost of low-emissions electricity and substantial benefits. Translating the individual panelists’ assessments of cost reductions into expected benefits, one finds the range of expected benefits shown on the left axis of Figure G-5. As mentioned above, if 100 percent of DOE’s goals are achieved in each year, the NPV of the future benefits would be approximately $120 billion using the simple benefits model. The expected NPV benefits for the individual panelists ranged from $73 billion for the two most positive individuals down to $11 billion for the most negative individual. The expected NPV benefits for the other panelists averaged $43 billion. The right axis of Figure G-5 shows the expected benefits calculation taking into account the “sequestration risk,” which amounts to multiplying the “sequestration probability” for each panelist by the individual expected benefit for each panelist. The average “sequestration probability” was .820, with most panelists adopting a “default” probability of .800 and others having a probability ranging up to .975. The average expected NPV benefit taking into account this sequestration risk is $35 billion. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Prospective Benefits Matrix for Sequestration The expected economic benefits from the probability tree analysis and the simplified benefits calculation are inserted in the committee’s prospective benefits matrix, as shown in Figure G-6. As discussed earlier, this result is for the Carbon Constrained scenario; the panel did not believe that the technology developed by this research program would be deployed absent such a constraint. The panel assigned very low probabilities of achieving DOE’s goals in full in any year but still expected substantial benefits in later years. These results reflect the judgment of the panel that the cost reduction goals at the program level are overly optimistic,
OCR for page 98
Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase One): A First Look Forward FIGURE G-5 Panelists’ assessment of cost reductions translated into expected benefits with and without sequestration risk. considering the projects that DOE is currently supporting. In addition, the panel believed that additional funds would be required to take the bench-level and pilot-scale results from the various projects to a demonstration level at a plant scale of at least 100 MW capacity. DOE did not discuss the programs required for large-scale demonstration, which the panel felt would ultimately be required for successful deployment. It was therefore very difficult for the panel to reliably assess a probability of achieving the ultimate program goal. The panel assumed that if bench-level and pilot-scale results were promising, these demonstration programs would be funded and put in place. While the panel’s estimate of expected benefits of the sequestration program is much less than DOE’s estimates, the benefits are nonetheless substantial. Averaging across panelists, one finds an expected NPV program benefit of approximately $35 billion, compared with an estimated NPV of approximately $120 billion if DOE’s goals are met in full, on schedule. The difference is based on the panel’s belief that DOE’s goals would only be partly met and would require more time than is assumed by DOE. If one assumes that a carbon constraint is inevitable and that parallel demonstration programs (which could cost $2 billion to $4 billion) are also supported, the net benefit of the sequestration program is roughly 10 times the amount invested in the program. The committee’s prospective benefits matrix calls for information on environmental and national security benefits. The main benefit of the sequestration program is an economic benefit: If the government decides to curtail CO2 emissions, the sequestration program may provide cost-effective methods for achieving this goal. The panel notes, however, that the existence of this cost-saving technology may in itself allow the imposition of CO2 restrictions, thereby enabling the environmental benefits associated with the CO2 regulations. Security benefits may derive indirectly from this R&D: That is, a reduction in use of natural gas for electricity production could reduce the potential requirement for adding to the U.S. supply of gas through imports. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Panel’s Method The assessments of the projects’ probability were used as inputs to the panel for doing a subjective assessment of overall program success using a decision tree approach. The simplified benefits model provided a way to calculate benefits for a variety of possible outcomes in a transparent way. It would have been difficult to use the more complex NEMS model to evaluate so many different outcomes. However, the panel recognizes that the simplified benefits model does not fully consider the competition between alternative ways to achieve emissions reductions, and thus it may be less accurate than a more complex model such as NEMS, which models all available alternatives. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Three major issues complicated the panel’s assessment: (1) incomplete and/or inconsistently presented information on DOE projects, (2) the lack of a clear roadmap relating the project goals to the overall goal (in particular the lack of information about scale-up or demonstration plants), and (3) the difficulty in assessing benefits of the DOE program independently of parallel activities sponsored by other entities, including international initiatives. In this study, the panel had to make an intuitive leap from the limited information about individual projects when assessing probabilities for overall goals. If future evaluations are to be undertaken by expert panels, it would be helpful to have the DOE’s input material provided on a consistent basis on fact sheets at the project level. These fact sheets should also spell out the budget requirements for taking the projects to completion. A clear roadmap from the project level to the program goal would be helpful. This would require the identification of all of the steps from R&D to concept deployment and the resources
OCR for page 99
Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase One): A First Look Forward FIGURE G-6 Prospective benefits matrix for the Carbon Sequestration Program. needed to accomplish these steps. If other DOE programs are in place to take these steps, it would be most helpful to have them described and discussed for the panel. DOE Interactions The success of the type of evaluation needed in order to complete a prospective benefits evaluation depends on the quality and quantity of the information supplied by DOE. Two areas of interaction are critical to assessment of a program by an expert panel: (1) project and program definition and (2) benefits assessment through NEMS runs. The panel thought that its interactions with DOE regarding benefits calculations were excellent. The request for benefits information was handled expeditiously, and clarifying comments by DOE personnel were useful. As discussed above, the DOE fact sheets, which described the projects, were unsatisfactory for the panel evaluation, and the DOE roadmap did not provide a clear picture of the path from success on individual projects to the attainment of the Carbon Sequestration Program’s overall goals. Method This panel believes that the expert panel approach to evaluating DOE programs, which was recommended by the committee, could be successful in developing consistent results for decision makers on other DOE programs. The panel submits, however, that the evaluation process would be expedited if more information about benefits calculation and probability assessment methods could be provided to the panel at the beginning of its evaluation. While this panel ultimately used an aggregated probability assessment focusing on the overall success of the program, the panel believed that it was important also to consider the likelihood of success for individual projects and to consider whether or not the projects are in place that will result in the achievement of the program goals. Recommendations to the Committee Future panels should develop a template for a one-page fact sheet that is to be used by DOE programs at the project level. On this fact sheet, the total budget for bringing the individual project to its defined completion must be identified. A roadmap describing the projects and/or programs necessary to achieve the program goals should be provided and the costs of these programs should be estimated. The panel recommends that expert panels consider DOE programs at the project level and assign success probabilities for individual projects. This level of granularity is a com-
OCR for page 100
Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase One): A First Look Forward promise between overgeneralization and overspecialization. It is the only way to assess whether or not projects are under way to achieve a total program goal. Future panels should develop a questionnaire that allows each panel member to assess project probability consistently. Such a questionnaire would require that the relevant questions be clearly defined so that each panel member responds to the same question. This general questionnaire should be developed before the panel initiates its evaluation. It is important that all DOE programs use a consistent benefits calculation method, perhaps based on NEMS. This is necessary in order to benchmark the simplified benefits model for each program. DOE should be asked to be prepared to provide the NEMS results before a panel initiates the evaluation, and it should be prepared to do subsequent runs at the request of the panel. PANEL MEMBER BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION James Corman (chair) is an independent consultant and founder of Energy Alternatives Systems, an engineering consulting company. He retired as general manager of the Advanced Technology Department of General Electric’s (GE’s) Power Generation Business, where he was responsible for development of the next generation of power systems and technical interactions with GE’s international business associates. Dr. Corman was previously manager of the Advanced Projects Laboratory of GE Corporate Research and Development; there he led a diverse R&D program in activities ranging from basic technology to pilot-plant demonstration. Dr. Corman is a fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). He was a member of several National Research Council committees. He is chair of the Industrial Advisory Board for Mechanical Engineering at Pennsylvania State University. He has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Carnegie Mellon University. Charles Christopher is a project manager in the Exploration and Production Technology Group of British Petroleum (BP) Americas in Houston. He is an internationally recognized expert in improved oil recovery and greenhouse gas issues. He is the co-lead of the storage, monitoring, and verification team of the CO2 capture project, a $25 million joint industry project sponsored by eight energy companies and three governments. The purpose of the project is to identify and develop technologies to allow CO2 to be effectively and economically captured and stored in Earth’s subsurface. Dr. Christopher is also the subsurface technical liaison for BP to the Princeton carbon mitigation initiative and principal BP representative for the Weyburn Joint Industry Project, the Mt. Simon project, and the Frio CO2 Injection Demonstration. He helped organize several DOE-funded regional CO2 sequestration centers and is BP’s North American representative for greenhouse gas technology issues. Ramon L. Espino is currently research professor, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, where he has been on the faculty since 1999. Prior to joining the Department of Chemical Engineering, he was with ExxonMobil for 26 years. He held a number of research management positions in petroleum exploration and production, petroleum processes and products, alternative fuels, and petrochemicals. He has published about 20 technical articles and holds 9 patents. Dr. Espino’s research interests focus on heterogeneous catalysis and reaction engineering, electric power, and fuel cells. Another area of interest is the conversion of methane to clean liquid fuels and specifically the development of catalysts for the selective partial oxidation of methane to synthesis gas. Dr. Espino served on the NRC Committee on R&D Opportunities for Advanced Fossil-Fueled Energy Complexes, the Committee to Review DOE’s Vision 21 R&D Program, and the Committee on Novel Approaches to the Management of Greenhouse Gases. He received a B.S. degree in chemical engineering from Louisiana State University and an M.S. and an Sc.D. in chemical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. George M. Hidy is retired Alabama Industries Professor of Environmental Engineering at the University of Alabama, where he was also professor of environmental health science in the School of Public Health. From 1987 to 1994, he was technical vice president of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), where he managed the environmental division and was a member of the management council. From 1984 to 1987, he was president of the Desert Research Institute of the University of Nevada. Dr. Hidy has held a variety of other scientific positions in universities and industry and has made significant contributions to research on the environmental impacts of energy use, including atmospheric diffusion and mass transfer, aerosol dynamics, and chemistry. He is the author of many articles and books on these and related topics. Dr. Hidy received a B.S. in chemistry and chemical engineering from Columbia University, an M.S.E. in chemical engineering from Princeton University, and a D.Eng. in chemical engineering from the Johns Hopkins University. W.S. Winston Ho (NAE) is a university scholar professor in the Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at the Ohio State University. His research interests include molecular-based membrane separations, fuel cell and fuel processing and membranes, transport phenomena in membranes, and separations based on chemical reactions. Dr. Ho is a member of the National Academy of Engineering. He holds a B.S. from National Taiwan University and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. David Keith is the Canada Research Chair in Energy and the Environment, Department of Chemical and Petroleum
OCR for page 101
Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase One): A First Look Forward Engineering and Department of Economics at the University of Calgary. Dr. Keith works near the interface between climate science, energy technology, and public policy. Much of his policy work is focused on the capture and storage of CO2; it includes the following: services as lead author and chair of a crosscutting group for the special report of the International Panel on Climate Change on CO2 storage; membership on NRC committees; overview articles in Science, Nature, and Scientific American; invited presentations for the National Academies, industry, academia, and major environmental organizations; and interviews on National Public Radio, CNN, and CBC TV and radio and in various print media. Dr. Keith’s broader climate- and energy-related research addresses the economics and climatic impacts of large-scale wind power, the use of hydrogen as a transportation fuel, and the technology and implications of geoengineering. Dr. Keith worked at the National Center for Atmospheric Research before joining Prof. James Anderson’s group at Harvard, where he served as lead scientist for a new Fourier-transform spectrometer with high radiometric accuracy that flies on the National Aeronautical and Space Administration’s ER-2 high-altitude aircraft. He has a B.Sc. in physics from the University of Toronto and a Ph.D. in experimental physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Larry W. Lake (NAE) is a professional engineer in Texas and the W.A. “Monty” Moncrief Centennial Endowed Chair for the Department of Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering at the University of Texas-Austin, where he has served on the faculty since 1978. He has 5 years of industrial experience and has authored a book and more than 50 technical articles and reports. His research interests are in the areas of enhanced oil recovery, geochemical flow processes, and petrophysics, all of which involve numerical simulation in one form or another and flow through permeable media. In addition, Dr. Lake has been most involved in finding ways to quantitatively model geologically realistic reservoir properties—primarily permeability—with the goal of improving the ability to predict hydrocarbon recovery. This work has led to efforts that seek to merge sedimentary concepts with the discipline of geostatistics. Dr. Lake holds a Ph.D. in chemical engineering from Rice University and was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 1997. Michael E.Q. Pilson is professor emeritus of oceanography at the University of Rhode Island, where he was director of the Marine Ecosystems Research Laboratory for 20 years. His current research interests include the chemistry of seawater, the biochemistry and physiology of marine organisms, and nutrient cycling. He is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Sigma Xi, the American Geophysical Union, the American Society of Mammalogists, the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography, and the Oceanography Society. Dr. Pilson has published extensively, including one textbook (An Introduction to the Chemistry of the Sea). He received a B.Sc. in chemistry-biology from Bishop’s University in Canada, an M.Sc. in agricultural biochemistry from McGill University, Canada; and a Ph.D. in marine biology from the University of California, San Diego. John J. Wise (NAE) is retired vice president of research, Mobil Research and Development Corporation. He has also been vice president, Research and Engineering Planning, manager of process and products R&D, manager of exploration and production R&D, director of the Mobil Solar Energy Corporation, and director of the Mobil Foundation. He was on the board of directors of the Industrial Research Institute and was active in the World Petroleum Conference. He was co-chair of the Auto/Oil Air Quality Improvement Research Program. Dr. Wise was co-chair of the NRC Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology. He has served on a number of NRC committees, among them the Committee on Transportation and a Sustainable Environment; the Committee on Science and Technology for Countering Terrorism; Panel on Energy Facilities, Cities, and Fixed Infrastructure; and the Committee on Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards. He served on the previous NRC Committee on Benefits of DOE R&D on Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy. Dr. Wise has expertise in petroleum exploration and production; petroleum products, including the effects of fuels and engines on emissions; petroleum refining; synthetic fuels manufacture; and R&D management. He received a B.S. in chemical engineering from Tufts University and a Ph.D. in chemistry from MIT. John M. Wootten is retired vice president for environment and technology, at Peabody Energy. He spent most of his professional career with Peabody Holding Company, Inc., the largest producer and marketer of coal in the United States. His positions at Peabody and its subsidiaries have included that of director of environmental services, director of research and technology, vice president for engineering and operations services, and president of Coal Services Corporation (COALSERV). His areas of expertise include the environmental and combustion aspects of coal utilization, clean coal technologies, and environmental control technologies for coal combustion. He has served on a number of NRC committees, including the Committee on R&D Opportunities for Advanced Fossil-Fueled Energy Complexes and the Committee to Review DOE’s Vision 21 R&D Program. He received a B.S. in mechanical engineering from the University of Missouri-Columbia and an M.S. in civil engineering (environmental and sanitary engineering curriculum) from the University of Missouri-Rolla.
Representative terms from entire chapter: