2002 Fuel Cell Seminar

Fuel Cell Seminar
Nov 18-21, Palm Springs, CA

The Fuel Cell Seminar has been held every two years* since 1978. Until recently, it’s been essentially a scientific forum. The 2000 event (in Portland OR) saw a major change into a full blown trade show. That trend continued this time, with 50% larger attendance (3000) and many more than twice the number of exhibitors (125). The event is very international, with huge contingents from Europe and Asia. For the first time, simultaneous translation in Japanese was provided. (*From now on, they’re going annual–the next one will be in Miami, Nov ’03.)

The mood this time, however, was distinctly different. Recall that January 2000 started with a runaway boom in stock prices and excitement over fuel cells. By November, that surge was still strong, and the event had the feel of a celebration. In contrast, this year the mood was almost grim, or at least very subdued. Beyond the effects of the wider economic doldrums, the reality has set in that cost and performance of fuel cell technology just aren’t there yet. Fuel cells are still years from being ready for a meaningful ramp-up in commercial market penetration. Investment bankers and venture capitalists, who were very much a presence in 2000, were few and far between this time.

A great many of the exhibitors were suppliers to the industry, offering membranes, catalysts, pumps and valves, test equipment, etc. Thus the comment that people were there to sell to each other, not to sell fuel cells to real customers. (The only customers appear to be governments–see below.) It is possible to spin this positively–companies like 3-M and Agilent wouldn’t be bothered if they didn’t see a big opportunity down the road. The large attendance could be viewed in the same light. The saying goes that it’s a matter of when, not if [that fuel cells will be a practical reality on a large commercial scale].

Keynote Address
S. David Freeman was blunt (as usual) in his keynote address–fuel cells have not achieved financial viability; the fuel cell car is a huge publicity stunt–not yet a practical reality; and distributed generation (via fuel cells) doesn’t have the political appeal that renewable energy enjoys. He urged the industry to pay more attention to the question of fuels for fuel cells, and suggested that it’s in everyone’s interest to deploy hydrogen burning IC engines, to build up the hydrogen infrastructure independent of and in parallel with fuel cell development.

Four keynote lectures followed:
– DOE Fossil Energy Fuel Cell Program (Victor Der for George Rudins)
FE spends $250 million/year for stationary fuel cell RD&D, mostly on SECA and FC-Hybrids. SECA is the initiative whose goal is $400/kw planar solid oxide fuel cell. Contracts have been awarded to four industry teams to pursue various technical strategies.

– Stationary Perspective (Jerry Leitman, Fuel Cell Energy)
Stationary plants are commercially available today, and offer dramatic efficiency and emissions improvements over engines and combined cycle plants.

– Transportation Perspective (Andrew Schell, for Ferdinand Panik, DaimlerChrysler)
Fuel cells in transportation are a necessity to gain the “freedoms” (i.e. of choice, from emissions, from oil dependence, etc). Applications will ramp up over the next 7 years to become truly commercial. New fuel insfrastructures must be deployed. (In January, DOE replaced the PNGV with FreedomCAR, concentrating on hydrogen and fuel cells

– Portable Perspective (Laryy DuBois, SRI)
There is no Moore’s Law for batteries. The price paid per kw is high compared with large scale power, creating an opportunity for fuel cells. Drivers include longer runtime, fast recharge, unlimited recharge, etc. A dozen companies at least plan to be selling products sometime in the next 3 years. Concentration is on direct methanol or PEM, with at least one SOFC to run on butane. The competition isn’t standing still, with advances in batteries and ultracaps, as well as work on nano-heat engines and RF scavenging. (I have a pdf of this presentation-2MB)

– Fuel Perspective (Don Huberts, Shell Hydrogen)
Stationary, Transportation and Portable each have different requirements for refueling infrastructure, and no single answer will suffice. There needs to be a mix of technologies, primary energy sources, and delivery means.

Program Overviews
A series of presentations outlined programs and budgets deveoted to fuel cell developments funded by the European Commission, Germany, Japan, and the US (DOE). Strong long term commitments were evident, with expressed goals of meeting Kyoto requirements and reducing oil dependence through hydrogen and fuel cells. $100s of millions are budgeted. Notably, they all talk in terms of gradual progress up the adoption curve, with the bulk of activity over the next 6-10 years in demos and projects.

In addition to over 230 poster papers, parallel sessions included presentations on PEM R&D, SOFC, Commercialization and Demonstrations, Fuel Processing and DMFC/Portable. Many of the papers were highly technical and specialized, while others were little more than general overviews for companies and programs (some bordering on infommercials).

Reflecting on the general state of the industry, governments appear to be the main customers for fuel cell companies, along with the big carmakers who are doing demos, partnerships, and their own development programs (GM was curiously quiet at this event). Otherwise, it just seems to be a swarm of similar sounding programs, and it’s nearly impossible to see any real differentiation that would indicate a possible eventual winner.

This is especially true in PEM, and also to some extent in SOFC. Fuel Cell Energy, of course, is the only US molten carbonate company, and they are just introducing a new and improved series of models into their 12 MW order backlog. They are “commercial”, but price remains an issue, as well as perceived technical risk on the part of buyers (the US Navy does seem to be keen on them for shipboard use). Meanwhile, companies like Plug and Nuvera have quietly stopped talking about residential.

As the long slow march of this technology continues, maybe the traditional approaches are just too difficult. Almost everyone seems to be pursuing the same old stacks with bolts around the edge, and the same handful of reformer technologies. Meanwhile, a number of “stealth” developments are underway, out of the spotlight, by people who are thinking different. They may just come along with novel new approaches that break through the age-old dilemmas of cost, manufacturability, and performance. One is almost tempted to think that if something is being presented at conferences, it’s not cutting edge, and it’s not the answer. (And it’s a safe bet that companies that do make presentations are probably not telling us about their really good stuff.)

Here is an example of such a possible “end-run”: Microcell Corp had a booth showing a very different configuration for a fuel cell system. Very few details were given, but they did tell me their cost goal is less than $100/kw. The cells are long thin hollow tubes (less than 1 mm in diameter) whose wall consists of the anode, electrolyte, and cathode, and which can be made by extrusion. The cells can be arrayed in bundles in a tube and header configuration, and high power densities are predicted. The company is in the 2nd year of a 3 year ATP grant, with cofunding investment by Pepco.

Ceramic Fuel Cell Ltd, of Australia, presented its new all ceramic SOFC stack technology which looks very promising. Temperature cycling is the big issue for SOFC’s and their latest set of innovations have resulted in a simple rugged design.

References and Publications:

Abstracts of the 2002 Fuel Cell Seminar–the book is 2 ” thick; also on a CD, available for purchase ($55 and $30, respectively). Contact:
Catherine Porterfield

European Integrated Hydrogen Project
White paper: “European Transport Policy for 2010 : time to decide ”

New releases (at the seminar):
2002 Annual Progress Report, H2, FC and Infrastructure Technologies Programs, 400 page book, or CD. Also online at

The new 6th edition of the DOE Fuel Cell Handbook (Oct 2002) was handed out at the Seminar. This comprehensive textbook (450 pages) can be ordered on CD at

Overview of Portable Power
The German company Smart Fuel Cell is among the many contenders in portable power, and appear to be making good progress towards commercialization. They were listed among Scientific American’s 50 Business Leaders (Dec issue)

They cite this helpful overview of the market on their website:

[web tips]
— The NETL website has its fuel cell materials under the Strategic Center for Natural Gas. Look under “End-Use” to find fuel cells.

— The DOD has a website which details a major residential PEM demo program, as well as the Army’s Fuel Cell Test & Evaluation Center (FCTEC), operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC) in Johnstown, PA

By coincidence, this article appeared right after the Seminar

More Rationalization Of Fuel-Cell Companies Expected
By Lynne Olver, Dow Jones Newswires — Nov 25, 2002

VANCOUVER — The fuel-cell industry is entering an “important phase” in which more corporate consolidation can be expected, according to Pierre Rivard, president and chief executive of Hydrogenics Corp. (HYGS). Rivard said the PC and telecom industries tend to have a few dominant players, and he expects a similar pattern in the fuel-cell business over the next three years.

“It’s typical that, post-consolidation, you might see two, three, perhaps four emerging, larger-sized companies and to me that’s very healthy,” Rivard told Dow Jones.

. . . . The article goes on to describe Plug Power’s acquisition of H Power, and Global Thermoelectric’s interest in finding a buyer or major partner for its SOFC business.,,BT_CO_20021125_005129-search,00.html?collection=autowire%2F30day&vql_string=olver%3Cin%3E%28article%2Dbody%29

Staged Combustion with Nitrogen-Enriched Air (SCNEA)

Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL) recently announced they’re developing a unique combustion method that results in lower power plant pollutant emissions, without efficiency penalties, by combining staged-combustion with nitrogen-enriched air.

The SCNEA combustion method burns fuels in two or more stages, where the fuel is combusted fuel-rich with nitrogen-enriched air in the first stage, and the fuel remaining after the first stage is combusted in the remaining stage(s) with air or nitrogen-enriched air. This method substantially reduces the oxidant and pollutant loading in the effluent gas and is applicable to many types of combustion equipment including: boilers, burners, turbines, internal combustion engines and many types of fuel including coal, oil and natural gas.

Results to date are from computer models. The next stage (Phase 1), to be completed in October ’02, is to do a small scale-pilot program involving experimental measurements at a bench scale (10-50 kw) to confirm predictions. Thereafter, Phase 2 will be conducted using commercial boilers and burners with an industry partner.

Provisional patents have been filed for the coal applications, and are in the process of filing on others.

To date, the work has been funded internally by the lab, and they are seeking additional funds (e.g. DOE, industry matching, etc.) to continue. LLNL is in the process of forming a consortium that includes the EPA, DOE, utilities, suppliers to the industry (e.g. boiler and burner manufacturers), engineering design firms, and suppliers of nitrogen enriched air. They are actively encouraging participation from industry.

Here is the abstract of a recent 8-page unpublished white paper prepared by LLNL. (I can send the pdf on request).

“A new primary control process for stationary combustion processes is predicted to significantly reduce NOx emissions, reduce corrosion in equipment, and enhance energy efficiency. This combustion method combines the technologies of stage-combustion with nitrogen-enriched air for the oxidant stream in one or more of the combustion stages, and is termed Staged Combustion with Nitrogen-Enriched Air (SCNEA). … SCNEA can replace or enhance currently employed NOx control technologies, such as low-NOx burners, overfire, reburning, and advanced flue gas treatment. SCNEA offers the ability to achieve NOx emission levels lower than levels attained using secondary control methods (e.g. SCR and SNCR) without the use of a catalyst.”

[another excerpt]
“SCNEA utilizes two stages. The first combustion stage is operated fuel-rich so that enough fuel remains for a second combustion stage. Nitrogen-enriched air is used as the oxidant stream in the first combustion stage, which allows precise control of the combustion temperature while producing effluent gases that have a very low oxidant and pollutant loading. The fuel remaining after the first combustion stage (along with the other effluent gases) is mixed with a stoichiometric amount of air and burned in the second stage. The temperature of the second combustion stage is maintained at or below the temperature of the first combustion stage by: (1) controlling the amount of fuel remaining after the first combustion stage (the equivalence ratio of the first combustion stage), (2) using nitrogen-enriched air as the oxidant stream for the second stage, and/or (3) controlling the minimum temperature between the two combustion stages.
NOx levels are significantly lower (1.40×10-2 lb NOx/MBTU) than either of the other single stage methods. Oxidant levels are also significantly reduced (3.30×10-2 lb O2/MBTU, and 6.45×10-6 lb O/MBTU). These advantages are coupled with an improvement in the amount of heat released per scf, i.e. 75.2 BTU/scf. ”

For more information, contact:
Kevin O’Brien, New Business Development
LLNL, Livermore, CA

Technology Transfer Opportunities – Livermore National Laboratory

by Edward Beardsworth
Nov 1994


This report details findings about technology and technology transfer opportunities at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) that might be of strategic interest to electric utilities. It is based on several visits to LLNL in 1993 as part of a project for PSI Energy, which had the additional goal to establish relationships that would enable PSI to monitor developments and gain access on an ongoing basis.

Noting the tremendous scope of research underway in the research facilities of the U.S. government, and a very strong impetus on the government’s part to foster commercial partnering with industry and applications of the technology it has developed, PSI Energy supported this project to become familiar with the content and process of those programs, and to seek out opportunities for collaboration, demonstration or other forms of participation that will further the business objectives of PSI. PSI has agreed to make these results available to the participants in UFTO.

Detailed listings of LLNL people, technologies and programmatic capabilities (of relevance to utilities) were assembled in the course of the project, and are included. LLNL’s matrix organization is not easily understood, though we did begin to get a sense of it, and certainly identified the key people and groups to deal with. It was a matter of hearing similar accounts a number of times from a number of people, before one began to have confidence that an accurate picture was forming.

LLNL has a large body of work that is relevant to utilities, including storage and power conditioning (batteries and capacitors), toxics remediation, NOx reduction, modeling, hydrogen storage, sensors, materials (catalysts, coatings, insulators, thermoelectrics), etc.

Armed with a brief statement of PSI’s technical and business interests (and an understanding of generic industry interests), it was possible to sift very quickly through a large body of program information at LLNL, mostly through conversation with key contact individuals, and identify areas meriting further study. Additional information was requested for projects of particular interest.

On a practical note, it was interesting to discover that a degree of advance preparation is involved even in the practical matters of learning where facilities are located and the procedures for gaining entry (no minor matter in LLNL’s case, since it still operates as a secret weapons lab). After an actual visit, one can approach a facility with far greater ease and familiarity. Like putting names to faces, there is no substitute for seeing things for oneself.

Method of Approach
LLNL personnel repeatedly suggested that progress would be quicker with a list PSI’s specific needs/problems. LLNL could then do its own internal scan of technology resources to find a match. This certainly is a useful approach, however PSI had an additional broader mission in mind. The broader objective included a general familiarization with LLNL’s programs and the start of a fruitful ongoing set of (personal) relationships. Over time, as PSI becomes a known commodity to LLNL, one would expect LLNL to bring new opportunities to PSI’s attention.

Both the “specific needs” approach and a general awareness approach were used. The two overlap, each supporting the other. As interactions continue, each organization gains increasing awareness of the other’s methods, resources, needs and capabilities (“culture”), leading to a stronger potential for a mutually beneficial business relationship. (General Motor’s experience bears this out. See separate writeup.) No “deal” can be made without personal contact at some point, and conversation is the process by which that happens. In any case, when both parties are motivated to “do something”, the process moves with remarkably efficiency, as was the case in this study.

In particular, the “general awareness” mode identified a LLNL technology of potential interest to PSI that is just at a stage where utility interest was being sought (flywheels). In the “specific problem” mode, an unexpected match was identified between a need of PSI to find uses for glass microspheres from flyash, and LLNL’s work on hydrogen storage (itself a spin off from inertial fusion research).

To accomplish the “general awareness” goal, there is no real substitute for personal contact, visits and probing into the various programs and perceptions at a complex organization like LLNL. Published materials are likely to be out of date and certainly will not provide any of the nuance or subtlety of understanding that could eventually lead to an actual working relationship or “deal”.

The various search databases and services can only help to identify contacts for a particular, rather well-defined, question or problem. Even then, however, it is noted in a couple of test cases that neither the National Technology Transfer Center (NTTC) or the Federal Labaratory Consortium (FLC) identified LLNL’s activity in a particular area.

Business Arrangements
Livermore, as with all the federal labs, are feeling strong pressure to show results in technology transfer, to get their technology out into the marketplace and help the U.S. economy. Likewise, they are very concerned with the survival of their programs, and are anxious to obtain additional outside resources. So, while money is a concern, the motivation is not the same as a business profit motive. The primary goal is to get things used, so society benefits.

While there is a long list of mechanisms for industry-laboratory collaboration, including exchange programs, licenses, and cost-sharing, nearly all new agreements are being prepared under the provisions of CRADAs. The business arrangements possible under a CRADA are very flexible, and can accomplish most if not all of kinds of objectives. Importantly, it is only under CRADA (and directly funded “work-for-others”) that the industrial partner can gain a measure of protection for intellectual property (for up to 5 years) while gaining benefit from the government’s technical capabilities.

CRADAs can be approved more quickly if they do not involve new (i.e. unplanned) expenditure by the lab program. Generally, the concept is a 50-50 split, with each party’s contribution provided by funding, intellectual property rights, technology know-how, use of facilities, man-hours, etc. The only restriction is that government money cannot flow to the industrial partner.

Federal Policies and Programs in Flux
Federal efforts in this arena are very much in flux and the subject of considerable debate and political controversy. The future of the major labs is by no means clear or assured. A new study “Defense Conversion, Redirecting R&D” [Office of Technology Assessment May 1993] cites the continuing difficulties of intellectual property, liability, US only use, funding, and bureaucracy that bedevil the “CRADA” negotiation process, against a backdrop of major debate on the appropriate government role in fostering competitiveness and economic growth (in the context of the end of the cold war and all it implies for defense R&D). Such periods of uncertainty and transition often present big opportunities to those willing to jump in and see what can be done.

General Observations

• TECH TRANSFER is much easier to approach with specific needs/problems!!!!
The message from everyone contacted at LLNL (also a dominant theme from General Motors’ experience) is that a potential industrial partner is best served by coming forward with a statement of its own needs, problems, and goals, and a characterization of its own interests, abilities, and resources. Lab people will then get you together with the right contacts.

• Utilities could have high leverage/influence on LLNL’s ability to get the attention and funding from DOE/Fossil Energy. As a defense lab, LLNL tends not to be regarded as an likely player in fossil work, and is often prohibited by law from responding to DOE solicitations. If PSI sees work of interest at LLNL, its opinion alone would carry considerable weight.

• “TT is a contact sport” Ultimately, deals will be made between individuals, who have to first find each other. The Lab’s objectives are funding and commercial utilization, so they want real business deals to happen.

• The scale of material, technology, personnel and organizational complexity of LLNL is staggering. Over 10,000 people work there. [Note what it takes for a utility to keep up-to-date and tapped in to EPRI]

• Noteworthy that in LLNL’s case, the bulk of the core program is for weapons, isotope separation or magnetic and inertial fusion. Only a relatively small portion is “applied”. Tremendous spin-off potential, however.

• There are tremendous time lags in all aspects of the the TT process, from making first contact to signing a deal.
– Telephone tag and people’s travel schedules mean that initial contacts can take weeks to establish, and meetings can be difficult to arrange. If LLNL perceives a real opportunity, then they are likely to respond more promptly, but they seem very open and accommodating as a general rule.
– At least 4 sets of lawyers get involved in putting a deal together — DOE , U Calif, LLNL and the industrial partner. Sometimes DOE regional office at odds with headquarters. Policy subject to varying interpretations. Policies also evolving.
– DOE budget cycles delay, limit resources available for matching funds.

• If companies approach LLNL, LLNL can respond 1 on 1. If LLNL seeks partners, they must make good faith effort to make opportunity available to any/all companies in the industry.

• LLNL’s internal organization is in constant flux–responding to very real threat of extinction by trying lots of new things. New faces appear, new programs–a moving target to try to know who’s who. Roles and missions of people and offices are changing over time. There appears to be some friction between some of the new “marketers” and some technical people, although most people seem to appreciate the seriousness of the need for LLNL to change in order to survive.

• Information systems, publications, conferences and trade shows are good as hunting grounds, but the Federal R&D resource is immense. Again, having a specific need/topic/problem/question is very helpful.

• Although there is a long list of “mechanisms” for tech transfer with the labs, ranging from cost-sharing and exchange programs to licensing and “work-for-others”, most new agreements are being written as CRADAs (cooperative R&D agreements). This is the only mechanism that affords the industrial partner a degree of protection for intellectual property.

Specific LLNL Technologies Identified

[“Ref Oppty’s ” refers to LLNL publication “Opportunities for Partnership” Technology Profiles — one page write-ups on selected items.]

Zn-Air — [like Al-Air which was commercialized from LLNL work in 70’s (Alu-Power, NJ)]
Cheaper cycle, due to low temp reduction process. Instant refueling. Very little environmental impact of discard.

Flywheel –1, 5, 25 KWH versions. very high specific energy (100-150 kwh/kg) and high power. Conceivably could compete with Pb-Acid in $/kwh. A demo is being built at LLNL. Can tailor design for applications from railroads to UPS (uninterruptible powr supply). Better than SMES. Utility application — interest being pursued by an equipment mfg.

Li-Ion — improvement over Sony/AT&T technology (Reversible intercalation of Li in carbon anode) using foam technology get 1-1/2 times current 80-100 wh/kg. High cycle life. Utilizes aerogel carbon foam technology (see aerogels below).


Windpower: NDE for blade mfg; windflow modeling for siting and dispatch; flywheel storage.

Solar: advanced solar rankine cycle (MHD) very speculative

Thermoelectric Materials. Thermoelectric power generation and cooling has always been limited to very specialized applications, due to low efficiency and high cost. Very recent theoretical work (paper to be published soon) indicates the possiblity of a new class of devices based on new materials and very thin multi layers, with dramatically enhanced figures of merit that would make them competitive. At the stage of basic R&D, first application of interest is cooling of electric vehicles. LNLL has a relationship with MITand a company that is developing solid state replacements for alternators on truck diesels(which use waste exhaust heat).
Contact is Joseph Farmer 423-6574 or Jeff Wadsworth

Storage Reservoir Characterization — acoustic and seismic imaging techniques from work in geothermal applicable to CAES or gas storage? Contact is Alan Burnham. (The principal investigator is Paul Kasameyer, Earth Sciences.)

Hydrogen/fuel cells: LLNL concentrating on vehicle storage–composite materials for tanks; cryogenic carbon adsorption and glass microspheres.
Contact is Glenn Rambach 423-6208
– 10-12 years ago, they needed “perfect” glass microspheres for inertial laser fusion (fill with deuterium or tritium — tiny H-bombs when blasted with lasers). Commercial ones too irregular–sorted thru and found that only 1 in 10**13 that were good enough. (Note one of the commercial processes involves flyash in a turbulent flame.) They developed a way to make perfect ones. Now seeking to scale up the manufacturing process, to use spheres for bulk storage of H2.
– They’re in discussions with a vendor interested in a near term commercial application.
– Need to scaleup mfg. by factor of 10**12 — already accomplished 10**6.
– Still may be able to use commercial/imperfect spheres–sorting process to pick out the ones that are good enough.
– Reference: Robert Teitel, BNL Report # 51439, May 81 “Microcavity H2 Storage, Final Progress Report”. Also, there is an LLNL report on properties, manufacture and use.
– LLNL has best capability in the world to study structure/characteristics of microspheres.

Economic Modeling: Genlzd Equilibrium modeling (3rd generation) network/market model; (relaxation of Lagrange coefficients.) Want opportunity to use methods to meet a utility’s needs. (Tom Edmunds and Alan Lamont)

– National market model –policy applications — market clearing/capacity additions — with accurate detailed charactization of technologies, linked in a network model.
– Distributed Utility (DU) they contributed to PG&E DU report — their approach apparently was not adopted. They feel confident their approach would be useful to utility planners–based on idea of value/market clearing prices determining what is built and when.
– For EIA/DOE — Emission trading and natural gas models.
– META•NET is beta software “language/platform” for this kind of modeling — user’s manual provided.
– Suggest LLNL’s has special competence in sensors, data mgt, control/response moment-to-moment, that would be important in operation of DU.


Thin-layer — < 4 µ layer dielectric – very rugged, high voltage, very high power for pulse applications and high voltage power conditioning. 0.6 wh/kg. With other materials,can go to megavolts! [ref 9-13 Opptys] This is one application of very thin film multilayer manufacturing technology.

Aerogel — (see aerogel discussion) 10**4 better! up to 40 Farads/gm,
high energy 5-10 wh/kg , power 2-20 kw/kg (contact is Jim Kaschmetter, Physics)
Uses carbon aerogel foam in thin layer as electrode in liquid electrolyte. Extremely large surface area and double layer capacitor effect. Carbon aerogel manufacture appears to be closer to practicality, as it doesn’t require non-critical extraction. Very low cost. Opens up possibilities for very low energy desalination via capacitive deionization.
[Update: Jim Kaschmetter left LLNL to form Polystor, a spinoff startup company that is commercializing this technology.]

Materials (general): Contact Alan Burnham or Jeff Wadsworth
Ceramics–non-brittle “plastic”, moldable and fracture resistant.
Blast resistant laminates
Anti-corrosion coatings; modeling of coating properties

Granular Flow Modeling
Over last 10-15 years, developed new class of modeling capability applying molecular dynamics to macroscopic materials. Otis Walton is a world expert. Lots of interest from chemical mfg, and some discussions re coal handling (need better inroads with coal/utilities).
(Potentially applicable to ground source heat pump work.)

Combustion Modeling (Charles Westbrook) work for IC engines, use of refinery gas.
Works very closely with Sandia/Livermore’s combustion group. He does chemical kinetics, toxics, Clean Air Act, etc. They do more numerical work, and have a major coal program.
– Big CRADA with auto makers, Cummins & other engine makers, Sandia and Los Alamos for modeling to reduce HC and NO emissions from engines. (Separate from post combustion NOx project).
– Haven’t had much contact with utilities–have gone to auto, oil, mfg industries first.
Putting together concept for consortium with oil companies for a “Clean Air Act Center”
– Ultra low NOX nat. gas burner subcontract to UC Irvine/Calif Instittute for Energy Efficiency.
– GRI project similar/related
– Also for GRI — Burner Engineering Research Lab at Sandia

NOx reduction: — pulsed plasma and hydrocarbon catalysis — (Henrik Wallman) CRADA with diesel mfg. -Cummins– (advantages over ammonia and urea injection) [ref 3-11 Opptys & handout] Interested in developing power plant application.

Methane-to-methanol in conjunction with power generation: (A. Burnham) once thru system for conversion, with the effluent used for power generation. Avoids expense of multi-pass and separations to utilize all the methane. Conversion takes place via pulse plasma (Henrik Wallman), or “bio-mimetic” catalysts (Bruce Watkins).

Electochemical [ref 9-3] measure contaminants in waste streams, monitor corrosion

Fiber Optic [ref 9-7]

… “frozen smoke” lowest density solid — many remarkable properties and potential applications. very high surface area 300-1000 sq meters/gm, lowest thermal conductivity of any material. Supercritical extraction of solvents leave open-cell structures of Silicon, Carbon-based or metal oxide materials. Fabrication not cheap yet. [ref 6-5 Opptys]
Supercapacitors ( see above)
Metal Oxide catalysts [ref 6-17 Opptys]
Insulation (can be made from agar–seaweed!)
Natural Gas storage
new electrodes for fuel cells

Environment: (contact is Jesse Yow) [additional details available in “Environmental Technology Program Annual Report FY91 — UCRL-LR-105199-99]

In-Situ Remediation:

Sensors: — New class of fiber optic sensors down in a drill hole detect concentrations 1:10**6 (benzene => gasoline) and 1:10**9 (TCE). Dramatic reduction in cost to characterize/monitor an underground site in almost real time.

Underground Imaging: — Electromagnetic techniques using RF or DC current–can get 3-d images of pollutant plumes, or of the burn front of in situ coal gasification.

Spill Cleanup — Electric resistance heating and steam injection used to drive volatile compounds out of the earth, reducing time scale from 10’s -100’s of years to 10’s of months.
(Ground heating may be applicable to ground source heat pump work.)

Radiolytic Decomposition of toxic Materials (Steve Matthews)
Use of E beams, x-rays and ultraviolet ionizing radiation to break down organic materials into harmless or less toxic materials. Can be applied to vapor or liquid phase, in remediation applications or process streams.

Global Emissions / Atmospheric Release Modeling — LLNL was called upon for analysis of Chernobyl, the Kuwaiti Oil Fires, etc. Can handle accident/leak situations on any scale.

LLNL Organization

LLNL has a complex matrix organizational structure, consisting of “directorates”, or “programs” and “divisions”. The general pattern is for technical personnel to belong administratively in discipline-based divisions (physics, chemistry & material science, engineering, etc.). Most project work is organized in the programs, to which personnel are assigned and bill time, etc. There are many exceptions, however. Some projects are administered in the divisions, and a number of people “wear several hats”, reporting to different groups within LLNL at the same time. Organization charts are of little help. Key contact personnel can provide guidance about who to talk to on any given subject, though it does pay to get more than one perspective on program content and direction.

A recent reorganization is reflected in the attached organization charts.

LLNL Personnel Contacted/Identified: (general phone # 510-422-1100)

Alan Burnham 422-7304, Program Leader, Energy Technologies. is our main point of contact. He is in EMATT, in the Energy Division(see below).

Alan Bennett, 423-3330, Director, Industrial Partnerships and Commercialization.
New to LLNL inDec ’92, to handle “institutional marketing”, and to develop new business for the lab as defense/ weapons budgets shrink. [Promoted 11/94 to new position in charge of tech transfer overall.]

Technology Transfer Initiative Program (TTIP):
(This group of about 30 people has seen its role transition from initiator to production administrator. Where previously they were trying to promote tech transfer and make the connections between Lab staff and industry, they now find themselves with more than enough proposals, and responsible to oversee negotiations and contracting–more of a classic intellectual property/licensing “production” operation. They also coordinate trade show participation and visits to the lab by outsiders.)

(vacant) 423-1341, Director
Dave C. Conrad 422-7839 Acting Director. Came in Feb. 93 from weapons program to set up business procedures; took over when former director Gib Marguth left to go to Sandia Livermore.
Ann Freudendahl 422-7299

“TACTs” Technical Area Coordination Team —
This designation relates specifically to the $140 million DOE Technology Transfer Initiative, and is comprised of technical staff members secunded to review proposals and to meet with reps from other labs to do overall rankings.

Alan Burnham Energy 422-7304
Bill Robson Environment 423-7261 [Laser/Environment Program]
Jeff Wadsworth Chemistry & Materials Sci 423-2184 [Ass’t Asoc. Director]
Bart Gledhill Biotech
Mike Fluss Microelectronics

Their are also TACTs assigned for the new special DOE AMTEX program with the textile industry. (See discussion about Industry Partner Programs.)

Anthony K. (Tony) Chargin 422-5196, head of EMATT (Energy, Manufacturing and Transportation Technologies), a new program established late ’92 bridging the Energy and Engineering Directorates, now reporting directly to the Energy Division.

Alan Burnham, 422-7304, Program Leader, Energy Technologies. Point of contact for energy supply and storage. Also a member of TACT. Most of the work is in oil & gas production, espec oil shale and petroleum geology. Physical Chemist — 1/4 time doing technical work. He is also LLNL’s point of contact with Morgantown Energy Technology Center (METC), which handles DOE coal gasif. work.

Jeff Richardson, 423-5187, formerly in Chemistry & Materials Sci., is now Program Leader in EMATT for Materials Manufacturabilit
Dick Post, 422-9853, developer of Flywheel (electromechanical battery)
Henrik Wallman, 423-1522, Staff Scientist, Fossil Fuels. Has work going on in hydrocarbon catalysis and pulsed plasma — NOx reduction. Also proposing partial oxidation of methane coupled to power generation,

Tom Edmunds 422-5156 System Sciences, Engineering Research Div.
Alan Lamont 423-2575
Genlzd Equilibrium modeling (3rd generation) network/market model
Charles Westbrook 422-4108 , Physics Department, Combustion Modeling
Works very closely with Sandia/Livermore’s combustion group. He does chemical kinetics, toxics, Clean Air Act, etc. They do more numerical work, and have a major coal program.
(Sandia/Livermore Combustion Program: Don Hardesty 510-294-2321.)
Glenn Rambach 423-6208, Hydrogen/fuel cells: LLNL concentrating on vehicle storage–composite mat’ls for tanks; cryogenic carbon adsorption and glass microspheres. Also some new concepts in materials for fuel cell electrodes and electrolytes.

Chemistry & Materials Science
Jeff Wadsworth, Chemistry & Materials Sci 423-2184 [Assoc. Director] Joined LLNL in ’92 from Lockheed (metallurgy)

Jean H. dePruneda, 422-1339, [Division Leader, Chem. Sciences Div.] does internal and external networking for tech transfer–point of contact. Aerogels for catalysts, supercapacitors, insulation.

Lucy Hair, 423-7823, Point of contact for aerogel catalysts
Troy Barbee 423-7796, Point of contact for thin layer supercapacitors
Bruce Watkins Methane –> methanol conversion, biomimetic —
synthesize materials to mimic enzyme/proteins — with GRI

Steve Mayer 422-7702, Electrochemist working on Li-ion battery. (Reversible intercalation of Li in carbon anode. Rick Pekala is materials person 422-0152) He is on DOE Utility storage group. Sees utility applications for supercapacitors for Power conditioning, motor starting, etc.
These two people are also the developers of the aerogel supercapacitor.

Laser Program
Ralph Jacobs 424-4545, Director, New Technology Initiatives, Laser Program, (also microelectronics) Focused on laser isotope separation, advanced chemical processing
Bill Robson 423-7261 Environment TACT, industry partnering for Environ Protection Program,
Don Prosnitz 422-7504 contact for emission monitoring
Booth Myers 422-7537 Sr. Scientist, Isotope enrichment (gadolinium for LWR control rods), waste processing/incinerator replacement
Steve Matthews 423-3052, Environmental Protection Dept / E-Beam, LLNL’s own site remediation, and some research. (This group is not in the Laser Program).

Physics and Space Sciences Directorate
Steve Hadley 423-2424 (Assistant Assoc Director for Tech Transfer) Point of contact for Industry partnering. Joined LLNL 11/92 from Aerospace industry. Notes that Physics at LLNL is focused heavily in weapons/SDI related work and basic research. Can also look in other departments (lasers, chem & materials) for items that one might expect to see under physics.

Environmental Programs Directorate (created in a recent reorganization, combining several related functions from other areas. Acting Director is Jay Davis.)
Jesse Yow 422-3521 Deals with wide range of environmental technologies, especially in-situ monitoring and remediation.

Information Source Contacts / Technical Information Services:

Public relations. General # is 422-4599
Marybeth Acuff 423-4432 knowledgable contact.
Loren Devor, Technical Info. Dept. (liaison to Directors Office) 422-0855
She handles corporate publications/ mailing lists;
Energy & Technology Review (monthly magazine), and the 5 yr. Institutional Plan

Research Library (for internal lab use–but individuals seem willing to help over the phone)
Circulation Desk /general # 422-5277 — Betty Herrick is Ass’t Group Leader
– There’s an on line database avail to employees and contractors only of their card catalog/holdings, also to the entire U.C. system (Univ. Calif)
– New LLNL reports list published monthly is for internal use only.
Howard Lentzner 422-5838 — Research Librarian (chemist by training)
– They can help outsiders for pay–complicated administratively. Can help gratis on quick items. Better to get copies of lab reports thru NTIS or directly from the researcher.
– Everything is in DOE databases, on Dialog and other services.