Condition Based Maint. Technology Workshop

Subject: UFTO Note – Condition Based Maint. Technology Workshop
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997
From: Ed Beardsworth

| ** UFTO ** Edward Beardsworth ** Consultant
| 951 Lincoln Ave. tel 415-328-5670
| Palo Alto CA 94301-3041 fax 415-328-5675

Condition Based Maint.Technology Workshop
July 29 & 30, 1997
Oak Ridge National Labs
(The notice attached below went out late, so the June 1 deadline is not in effect. However, anyone interested should contact these folks ASAP.)

The Best Manuf. Practices (BMP) program is a major effort by the U.S. Navy. Here is the UFTO database entry about it, from Aug. 1995:
Best Manufacturing Practices (BMP)
Started by the Navy. They’ve taken survey teams into nearly 70 major companies, and prepared a highly detailed assessment of their processes, identifying any “best” practices they find. They just published a report on Sandia National Lab, so we can get another perspective about SNL. They have reports on all of the places they’ve studied, and a program of regional workshops, a free online database, and other kinds of outreach. Something for your industrial reps, or anyone involved in benchmarking or quality. I’d bet BMP would love to survey a utility.
CONTACT: 800-789-4267

Condition Based Maintenance (CBM) Technology Workshop—

The Best Manufacturing Practices Center of Excellence (BMPCOE) and The Oak Ridge Centers for Manufacturing Technology (ORCMT) proudly announce their plans to hold a workshop on Condition Based Maintenance (CBM) Technology on July 29 & 30, 1997 at the renowned Oak Ridge National Laboratories. The purpose of this workshop is to attract the leading CBM experts in the United States to create a definitive CBM guidelines document outlining the state-of-the-art in CBM technology.

Suggested Topics of Discussion:

* Perceptions of maintenance
* Definition of Predictive Maintenance (PM) and CBM
* Defining the economic advantages of CBM
* Current Best Practices (Military and Industrial)
* Sensor technology and development
* Modeling, identification and prediction of faults and failures
* Signal acquisition and processing technologies
* Integration and packaging (i.e., diagnostics-on-a-chip concepts)
* Establishing objectives and milestones for this CMB effort

The CBM workshop will consist of two full days at the Oak Ridge facility and will begin with a tour of the latest CBM technology available at the Centers for Manufacturing Technology. A day and a half will then be dedicated to truly defining CBM and its applicability throughout the U.S. Industrial Base. The proceedings will be made available via the internet, video and in hard copy format. A final guidelines and application strategies document will be published within twelve months of this first workshop meeting.

Attached is a CBM Expert Profile form that could be your entry to participation in this important event. Our objectives dictate that we must request a considerable commitment from the best and brightest CBM experts available for this effort. Therefore, you must be able to:

* meet three to four additional times during the twelve following months;
* write and review abstracts for the CBM Guidelines Document, as required;
* share personal CBM knowlege and experiences with other attendees at the meetings, and electronically over the CBM web site.

In return, you can expect to:
* meet fellow nationally recognized experts in the CBM field;
* have an opportunity to network with others on the latest CBM technology;
* become recognized as a national CBM expert for your contributions to the final CBM Best Practices and Implementation Strategies Guidelines Document;
* be secure in the knowledge that you have helped to advance the capability of the U.S. Industrial Base in the area of Condition Based Maintenance.

Attendance at the CBM workshop is by invitation only, and participation will be limited to 25-30 people. Therefore, please don’t delay. Fill out the attached CBM Expert Profile form and respond immediately for consideration. You don’t want to miss an event that may well be hailed as one of the defining moments in CBM technology.

4321 Hartwick Road, #400
College Park, MD 20740
800-789-4267 Fax 301-403-8180

Full Name:_________________________________________

Please tell us about your experience in the areas of condition based, predictive, reactive and preventive maintenance. In particular we are interested in any experience that you may have in technologies addressing the following areas:

* Sensing the condition of systems as a function of time
* Identification of precursors of component failure
* Taking action based upon the resulting information

On a separate piece of paper please outline your experience, giving number of years experience in each area and briefly outlining the various processes and applications in which you were involved.

Please fax your response to Chip Turner @ 301-403-8180, or E-mail to before June 1, 1997.

Pena Speech at EEI

Subject: UFTO Note – Pena Speech at EEI
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 14:34:19 -0700
From: Ed Beardsworth <>

| ** UFTO ** Edward Beardsworth ** Consultant
| 951 Lincoln Ave. tel 415-328-5670
| Palo Alto CA 94301-3041 fax 415-328-5675

Prepared Remarks by Federico Peña, Secretary of Energy at the Edison Electric Institute
Philadelphia, PA
Monday, June 9, 1997

This speech, which outlines a number of issues pertaining to restructuring, was just posted to the DOE web site. I have a full copy if anyone would prefer an email copy.

Business Models

Subject: UFTO Paper — Business Models
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997
From: Ed Beardsworth <>

This is a new version of an earlier paper. I submitted it to PUF, but they want specific examples. At our meeting in SF next week (details to follow), perhaps we can use these ideas as a springboard for discussion.

In the meantime, comments welcome. (Anyone want to co-author the next attempt to get it into PUF?)

Ed B

| ** UFTO ** Edward Beardsworth ** Consultant
| 951 Lincoln Ave. tel 415-328-5670
| Palo Alto CA 94301-3041 fax 415-328-5675

Business Models for New Technology in Utilities (draft)

Edward Beardsworth, Consultant


Many electric utilities are struggling with how best to conceptualize and implement a “technology strategy” as the industry undergoes major change. How can resources put into R&D and new technology ventures be “driven to the bottom line”?

Too often, utilities suffer from an “action gap” between learning about a new technology and taking steps to do something with it. This gap arises out of lack of resources (time, money and people); lack of clear direction from upper management; risk avoidance (rather than risk management) culture; and perhaps most symptomatic, lack of a framework and process for deciding what’s worth doing and how to do it. There should be an explicit decision process for choosing R&D projects, with criteria that everyone understands. As part of that process, a clear delineation of business models could go a long way towards helping know what to look and plan for.

Company Direction and Strategy
To know what projects to do, and what kinds of information and opportunities to seek, one has to know “what business you’re in”, and thereby what kinds of projects are interesting. (A word of caution — too often the absence of an explicit statement of corporate strategic direction is used as an excuse not to do anything. Strategic planning is a never ending iterative process, and new technology endeavors play two roles. They provide input to the strategy, and they help implement it. The advice, therefore, is to go ahead and “do something” and see where it takes you, while at the same time you work on formalizing and refining the plan.)

It’s important to keep in mind that any new venture is a learning process. At each stage, you learn a little bit more, and decide how and whether to continue. At the outset, you simply won’t know how things will work out. This is often a major barrier to pursuit of new technology in utilities, which tend to want guarantees for each endeavor, rather than taking a portfolio risk approach.

Business Models
Most companies have at least an implicit feel for what kinds of technologies to look for, and how to start getting involved. But how is a new opportunity to be handled? What are the ways it could be organized and funded? What are the desired outcomes? How will anyone know when or if it succeeded?

It may help for companies to examine past and present experience–case studies of projects, deals and undertakings that illustrate the “business models” they’ve already used. (Note that a model may not have been explicitly formulated, nonetheless it’s always there implicitly.)

The business model is a brief generic “story” about how an initiative might develop over time, from idea and inception, to full implementation, to the “bottom line.” How will it contribute to the company’s objectives? How will it be funded? How will it be positioned and managed? And most important, what are the points when decisions will be made to kill it or continue it? (This is at the heart of risk management, as distinct from risk avoidance.) Any proposal needs to tell a “story”, and life will be easier if there’s a shared understanding of what kinds of stories make sense for the company.

Here is a set of generic “business models” for the different kinds of situations that arise. Of course, any particular project is likely to involve aspects of more than one of these models.

“#2 Pencil” — This is the conservative extreme. The company has no strategic interest in the technology, except to buy a mature product from a supplier, and therefore no role in the development beyond telling the vendor about preferences. This category is too easy to use as an excuse for inaction, for there are many gray areas where incremental changes and improvements could lead to benefits and business opportunities.

“First User” — The company needs something that isn’t on the market. Works on ad-hoc basis with developers to push it along, helping to shape it to the company’s specific needs. Recognizes that the company won’t be the only user/buyer. In fact, the product won’t ever be available to the company unless there’s a larger market for a vendor to sell to. Counts on being the first to use it, and first to get it fully implemented on the system, gaining benefits and a time advantage over other utilities. May or may not get royalties or other financial participation.

“Market Competitor” — This one is new to utilities. Companies in competitive industries build competitive advantage for themselves by developing or obtaining proprietary technology that will not become commercially available to other companies. Gone will be the assumption that a vendor will be able to sell it to you, too. Instead, the “energy company” that controls it will use it to take away market share.

“In House Inventor” — Develop an invention by an employee in the company, taking it as far along as it makes sense to do, then put it into one of the other business models. Only a very few utilities have programs to explicitly encourage employee invention.

“Joint Venture” / “Piece of the Action” — A more formal version of “First User”. Structured business deal with another company or companies. Countless variations, i.e. marketing and distribution rights, royalty payments, equity participation, etc. as the quid pro quo for whatever resources the company puts in (anything from time and materials, to use of a facility, to intellectual property, to cash).

“New Line of Business” — A group in the company to develop a product or service, generating a new and different source of revenue.

“Spin Off” — Start up a new company to do whatever it is–manufacturer, deliver a service, etc. On the regulated or unregulated side.

“Seat at the Table” — for more advanced concepts that could wreak major change, it pays to pay for an inside look, and to be able to monitor progress, to know when and if to get more deeply involved. Equity investment or development cofunding is often a good way to “choose a horse and place a bet”.

“Good Citizen/Nice Guy” — Supporting economic development and industrial (and commercial) competitiveness in the sales territory, by finding and brokering solutions to the needs and problems of local firms. Enlightened self-interest, and sometimes can result in a business opportunity, and often but not always increased sales (e.g. electrotechnology).

Other models for involvement in new technology might include:
– Using them to transform the way we do business, e.g. best practices, TQM, RCM, life-cycle management, etc. The tools and techniques for these new approaches are “technologies” in their own right, and often involve the use of technology (e.g. information systems, sensors, analysis software, etc.)
– Contributing to the global common good, e.g. climate. A few utilities have gone public with significant commitments to the environment, and technology fixes are a going to play a major part in the implementation of those strategies.
– Watchful waiting– a less vigorous version of “seat at the table”, involves actively keeping an eye on the literature, attending conferences, etc. Joining a user’s or industry group or advisory committee is often a cost effective way to keep informed. (Designate subject-area experts?)

There is an extensive body of knowledge for managing portfolios of new technology ventures. Usually, measures of “way-out-ness” (risk) and potential impact (reward) are central to such analyses, but that doesn’t show how to position a project in business terms, so it can move forward after the development phase is completed. It’s an issue that must be addressed at the start.

The taxonomy of Business Models offered here may serve as a tool that can help utilities explore how they want to handle various kinds of projects, perhaps as part of their overall corporate game plan for new technology.

Space Solar Power, A Fresh Look

Subject: UFTO Note – Space Solar Power, A Fresh Look
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 21:58:39 -0700
From: Ed Beardsworth <>

| ** UFTO ** Edward Beardsworth ** Consultant
| 951 Lincoln Ave. tel 415-328-5670
| Palo Alto CA 94301-3041 fax 415-328-5675

Space Solar Power, A Fresh Look

In 1968, Peter Glaser of AD Little put forth a concept to put solar power stations in earth orbit and beam power to ground stations using microwaves. After extensive study in the 1970’s by NASA and DOE, the idea was found infeasible for many reasons, especially the costs to put payloads into orbit and the a design approach that involved massive amounts of equipment and people in space, i.e. many large geostationary space stations. Even if the approach could could have claimed overall cost effectiveness, the huge upfront capital investment (with no incremental revenues along the way) would have prevented it from going forward.

NASA has just completed a new review entitled “Space Solar Power, A Fresh Look at the Feasibility of Generating Solar Power in Space for Use on Earth”. April 4, 1997. SAIC-97/1005. The NASA/HQ Advanced Concepts Office directed the 18 month study, which assessed newer concepts that might have the potential to enable affordable production of energy in space for use on Earth.

The NASA team characterizes the work as *very preliminary*, but is optimistic that technologies and systems approaches have emerged in the last 20 years that make the potential for space solar power far more feasible than traditionally believed, perhaps as soon as 10-15 years from now.

**They want involvement and participation by the utility industry in the next phases.**

For more information, or to request a copy of the report, contact:

John Mankins, Advanced Projects Office, NASA Headquarters.

A good summary also appears in the May 1997 issue of Aerospace America, published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). (I have a copy.)

(The following summary was prepared by UFTO, based on material contained in the report)

“Space Solar Power, A Fresh Look at the Feasibility of Generating Solar Power in Space for Use on Earth”. April 4, 1997. SAIC-97/1005.

With the original SSP from the 70’s, as a “reference concept”, the new study looks at new concepts, architectures, and techologies that have been identified or developed since that time. These include modular designs, advanced materials, automated assembly and deployment (in orbit), and new orbital configurations. Most interesting are ideas that produce incremental returns for incremental investment (e.g., small self-deploying launch packages).

Six concept architectures were defined and studied in detail,, based on many ideas identified through exhaustive brainstorming and elicitation of ideas at “Interchange Meetings”

The study’s findings include:
1. Markets — the global need for power will increase dramatically, with advances in the developing countries, and more and more concerns about global climate. SPP could play a significant role.

2. System Architecture — New concepts involving modularity, non-geo stationary configurations, small launch vehicles make a major difference in the cost outlook, and in possible approaches to financing.

3. System Cost — High efficiency PV arrays achieving 500 watts or more per kg could be sufficient for economic viability, but low cost space transportation (less than $200 per pound to low earth orbit) is the most important factor.

4. Public Acceptance — The study is refreshingly forthright in discussing the challenges that safety claims will face, though they are convinced that health and safety risks are negligble.

5. Other Applications — The technology will have a better chance if it can also be applied in other applications. In particular, a lot of work was done under SDI to develop concepts for beaming power to satellites and aircraft. NASA could use the same techniques to power space craft.

***One especially intriguing idea is to use satellites to relay power from place to place on the earth, much as telecommunications are handled. The implications would be truly staggering, with power deliverable from anywhere to anywhere.***

6. Critical Technologies
— Space Transportation: Needto have modular launch packages of 20,000 kg or less, to be able to use general purpose launch systems currently under development for a wide array of projected space industries (NASA Reusable Launch Vehicle and Advanced Space Transportation Program). Payload costs must approach $100-200 per pound.
— Wireless Power Transmission: a new generation of solid state devices might enable the use of a higher microwave frequency. Existing klystron technology may be initially cheaper but would not offer improved packaging and beam steering capabilities. Trade offs need to be carefully examined.
— Energy Storage: Storage (on board or on Earth) was not considered in this study, but might be needed to have the ability to deliver uninterrupted quality power.
— Solar Conversion: Terrestial PV has made dramatic gains in the last 20 years, and their space counterparts must be developed (radiation hardening in particular).
— Guidance, Navigation, and Control: Advanced concepts proposed in the study are potentially less cumbersome than conventional (gyro-thruster) techniques.
— On Board Power Transmission and Thermal control: The ability to use high voltage high temperature superconductors is critical (to move power from the PV array to the RF beam system).
— Telecommunications/Data Processing/Autonomy/Command and Control: Systems must have a high degree of operational autonomy. Staffing levels must be low. New data system architectures may be required, involving a high degree of distributed computing power.
— Structure: Very light weight tension-stabilized structures will be used, instead of the trusses and braces of the original space station approach.

——-Upcoming Events——————

Space Power Systems for Humanity Conference,
August 24-28, 1997, Montreal

Space Technology & Applications International Forum, (Staif-98)
January 25-29, 1998, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

EPRI-DOE-EPA Combined Utility Air Pollutant Control Symposium

Subject: UFTO Note — EPRI-DOE-EPA Combined Utility Air Pollutant Control Symposium
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997
From: Ed Beardsworth

| ** UFTO ** Edward Beardsworth ** Consultant
| 951 Lincoln Ave. tel 415-328-5670
| Palo Alto CA 94301-3041 fax 415-328-5675

EPRI-DOE-EPA Combined Utility Air Pollutant Control Symposium
August 25-29, 1997
Washington Hilton & Towers, Washington, DC.

This first-ever “Mega” Symposium will combine the SO 2 Control Symposium, the Joint Symposium on Stationary Combustion NO x Control, and the Particulate/Air Toxins Control Symposium into a single, week-long event. Cosponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), with assistance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), this multi-pollutant conference will continue the tradition of its predecessor meetings of showcasing the latest developments and operational experience with state-of-the-art methods for reducing NO x , SO 2 , and particulate/air toxics emissions from fossil-fueled boilers. Sessions will also be devoted to Continuous Emissions Monitors.

You can get the details on the Internet at
(This is an Acrobat Reader file,which if you don’t have can be downloaded at
A text version is reproduced below.

Registration fee for the full symposium is $600 ($650 after 8/3).
For a single topic is $350 ($400 after 8/3).
For information call Lori Adams, EPRI Sr. Conference Coordinator,