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

Fuel Cell Information Sources

The industry pays a lot of attention to Fuel Cells and there are many sources of information, so UFTO doesn’t attempt to cover this huge topic except for unusual or less visible developments.

If you didn’t go to the big meeting in Palm Springs last Fall, you can purchase a copy of the of the 1998 Fuel Cell Seminar Abstract book for $45 (includes U.S. shipping & handling), or if you prefer in CD ROM format for $20 (includes U.S. postage & handling). For international orders please contact us for shipping information.

Mail check to:
Fuel Cell Seminar
2000 L Street, NW. Suite 710
Washington, DC 20036

For credit card orders call (202) 973-8671. Please allow-2-3 weeks for delivery. Quantities are limited. (


Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Letter
(monthly newsletter, $230/year — recommended)

Here is a list of websites on fuel cells, courtesy of Charles Berry, KeySpan Energy (Brooklyn Union), our newest UFTO member ( Many of these sites also have lists of site links.


Fuel Cell Developer List

Brooklyn Union

International Fuel Cells

ONSI Corporation


Dais Corporation

DCH Technology

Dept. of Defense

Dept. of Energy **

(** Has proceedings of the annual Joint DOE/EPRI/GRI Workshops on Fuel Cell Technology. The writeup for the May ’98 meeting in San Francisco is still in preparation by EPRI. The ’99 meeting will be in Chicago, July 27-29.)

Energy Research Corp.

Electric Power Research Institute

Epyx Corporation

Equitable Gas

Gas Research Institute

General Motors

Fuel Cell Commercialization Group

Fuel Cells 2000

A.D. Little

Air Products

American Hydrogen Association

Analytic Power Corp.

Ansaldo CLC


Avista Labs

ElectroChem, Inc.

Energy Partners

Fuel Cell File


H Power Corp.

Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Letter

Hydrogen Burner Technology


Hydrogen InfoNet

Humboldt State University


M-C Power

NASA Lewis Safety Manual

Natural Resource Defense Council

Northeast Utilities


National Fuel Cell Research Center

National Hydrogen Association

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

(St. Vincent’s demonstration is covered in Report 97-3)

Argonne National Labs

Oak Ridge National Labs

Plug Power, LLC

Philadelphia Inquirer

Proton Energy Systems

Sacramento Municipal Utility District

Sandia National Labs

Small-scale Fuel Cell Commercialization Group

South Coast Air Quality Management District

Stanford University

US Fuel Cell Council


Warsitz Enterprises, Inc.

Borderland Sciences


*Following reports available:

Task 3: Investigate Current Uses of Fuel Cells in the DOD, issued June 2, 1997, provides a detailed overview of fuel cell technology, fuel cell manufacturers, and key support organizations. In addition, the report summarizes current DOD fuel cell applications and installations under the Fiscal Year 1993 (FY93) and FY94 DOD fuel cell programs.

Task 4: DOD-Unique Applications, issued June 20, 1997, identifies fuel cell applications not currently pursued by the DOD, including premium power, direct current (DC) power, and hydrogen source applications.

Task 5: DOD Guidebook for Evaluating Fuel Cell Technology, issued October 10, 1997, identifies fuel cell technology, guides users through the process to determine potential fuel cell applications, and allows an approach for an economic analysis of fuel cells.


Multi-Agency Radiation Site Survey and Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)

An old friend of mine works at the NRC, and mentioned this draft report that he’d been involved in. Note the principal websites cited at EPA and NRC for additional information.


Multi-Agency Radiation Site Survey and Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)

MARSSIM will provide guidance for planning, conducting, evaluating and documenting environmental radiological surveys for demonstrating compliance with dose-based regulations.

Office of Radiation & Indoor Air
Radiation Protection Division
Cleanup Regulation HomePage

Radiation Site Cleanup Regulation HomePage

Welcome to the EPA Radiation Site Cleanup Rule HomePage.

The Office of Radiation and Indoor Air is developing standards for cleaning up radioactively contaminated sites. This HomePage provides related documents and information that have been made available to the public during the course of the standards development process.

The HomePage also includes other documents and information that apply to radiation site cleanups. For example, the HomePage includes information on the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM), a multi-agency survey and compliance demonstration document.

This HomePage will be updated periodically as the rule development process continues.


The following link has a comprehensive list of EPA Radiation Site Cleanup Rule and MARSSIM files available for viewing and downloading.

Multi-Agency Radiation Site Survey and Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)

MARSSIM will provide guidance for planning, conducting, evaluating and documenting environmental radiological surveys for demonstrating compliance with dose-based regulations. The MARSSIM, when finalized, will be a multi-agency consensus information document. MARSSIM has been developed collaboratively over the past three years by four Federal agencies having authority for control of radioactive material; DoD, DOE, EPA, and NRC. The draft manual is being prepared by a multi-agency technical working group composed of representatives from DoD, DOE, EPA, and NRC.

DOE Environmental Remediation — Innovative Technology Summary Reports — “Green Books”

Subject: UFTO Note – DOE Environmental Remediation — Innovative Technology Summary Reports — “Green Books”
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997
From: Ed Beardsworth

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

DOE Environmental Remediation — Innovative Technology Summary Reports — “Green Books”

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
Office of Environmental Management (EM)
Office of Science and Technology (OST)

Innovative Technology Summary Reports present information about remediation technologies that OST has demonstrated in the DOE complex. The information includes technology summaries and information on performance, applicability, cost, regulatory issues, and lessons learned during the demonstrations.

Officially known as Innovative Technology Summary Reports and nicknamed the “green books,” these 10- to 20-page reports cover one DOE-developed technology per book. OST began publishing the reports in April 1995. To date, 13 technologies demonstrated by OST have been the topic of a DOE green book (see list below). More titles are in preparation. In particular, the DD&D (decommissioning) Large Scale Demonstration Project results will be published as part of this series.

The purpose is to provide a quick reference that will enable technology users to determine if an innovative technology is appropriate for their sites.

To make the reports useful across federal departments, OST collaborated with the EPA and DOD to determine the information they would contain. (EPA and DOD produce similar documents about technologies they have developed and demonstrated.) Each report contains the same seven sections: summary, technology descriptions, performance, technology application and alternatives, cost, regulatory/policy issues, and lessons learned. Demonstration site characteristics and references are included as appendices.

These reports are a way for vendors to submit technologies for acceptance into the DOE EM site clean-up realm. The format was revised to standardize and simplify the general requirements for those that wish to bring an existing technology to DOE for use on a contaminated site. With a Green Book in hand, a vendor can ease into the procurement process. Without it, they may have difficulty getting site managers to consider using their technology.

Copies of these reports are available free of charge from DOE/EM’s Center for Environmental Management Information, 1-800-736-3282.
Some titles can be found through NTIS.

The publication of this series is managed by
Diana Krop, DOE-EM, 301-903-7918,
They can also provide copies free of charge.

Most of the reports are also available on line in their entirety, at

Innovative Technology Summary Reports (abstracts below)

*Cone Penetrometer
*In Situ Enhanced Soil Mixing
*Pipe Explorer System
*Advanced Worker Protection System
*Lasagna Soil Remediation
*Dynamic Underground Stripping
*Frozen Soil Barrier Technology
*In Situ Bioremediation Using Horizontal Wells
*Resonant Sonic Drilling
*Six Phase Soil Heating
*In Situ Air Stripping Using Horizontal Wells
*Flameless Thermal Oxidation

*Cone Penetrometer
(DOE/EM–0309) — Cone penetrometer: Innovative technology summary report . USDOE Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC . Office of Program Analysis . Apr 1996 . 24p . DOE Contract NODATA . Sup.Doc.Num. E 1.99:DE96014782. NTIS Order Number DE96014782 . Source: OSTI (DOE and DOE contractors only); NTIS (Public Sales); GPO Dep. (Depository Libraries)

Cone penetrometer technology (CPT) provides cost-effective, real-time data for use in the characterization of the subsurface. Recent innovations in this baseline technology allow for improved access to the subsurface for environmental restoration applications. The technology has been improved by both industry and government agencies and is constantly advancing due to research efforts. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science and Technology (formerly Technology Development) has contributed significantly to these efforts. This report focuses on the advancements made in conjunction with DOE’s support but recognizes Department of Defense (DOD) and industry efforts.

*In Situ Enhanced Soil Mixing
(DOE/EM–0289) In situ enhanced soil mixing. Innovative technology summary report. USDOE Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, Washington, DC . Feb 1996. 25p. Sponsored by USDOE, Washington, DC . Source: OSTI; GPO Dep.

In Situ Enhanced Soil Mixing (ISESM) is a treatment technology that has been demonstrated and deployed to remediate soils contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The technology has been developed by industry and has been demonstrated with the assistance of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science and Technology and the Office of Environmental Restoration. The technology is particularly suited to shallow applications, above the water table, but can be used at greater depths. ISESM technologies demonstrated for this project include: (1) Soil mixing with vapor extraction combined with ambient air injection. [Contaminated soil is mixed with ambient air to vaporize volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The mixing auger is moved up and down to assist in removal of contaminated vapors. The vapors are collected in a shroud covering the treatment area and run through a treatment unit containing a carbon filter or a catalytic oxidation unit with a wet scrubber system and a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter.] (2) soil mixing with vapor extraction combined with hot air injection [This process is the same as the ambient air injection except that hot air or steam is injected.] (3) soil mixing with hydrogen peroxide injection [Contaminated soil is mixed with ambient air that contains a mist of diluted hydrogen peroxide (H{sub 2}O{sub 2}) solution. The H{sub 2}O{sub 2} solution chemically oxidizes the VOCs to carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) and water.] (4) soil mixing with grout injection for solidification/stabilization [Contaminated soil is mixed as a cement grout is injected under pressure to solidify and immobilize the contaminated soil in a concrete-like form.] The soils are mixed with a single-blade auger or with a combination of augers ranging in diameter from 3 to 12 feet.

*Pipe Explorer System
(DOE/EM-0306) — Pipe Explorer{sup {trademark}} system. Innovative technology summary report . Oak Ridge National Lab., TN . Apr 1996 . 20p . DOE Contract AC0584OR21400 . Sup.Doc.Num. E 1.99:DE96014788. NTIS Order Number DE96014788 . Source: OSTI (DOE and DOE contractors only); NTIS (Public Sales); GPO Dep. (Depository Libraries)

The Pipe Explorer{trademark} system, developed by Science and Engineering Associates, Inc. (SEA), under contract with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Morgantown Energy Technology Center, has been used to transport various characterizing sensors into piping systems that have been radiologically contaminated. DOE’s nuclear facility decommissioning program must characterize radiological contamination inside piping systems before the pipe can be recycled, remediated, or disposed. Historically, this has been attempted using hand-held survey instrumentation, surveying only the accessible exterior portions of pipe systems. Various measuring difficulties, and in some cases, the inability to measure threshold surface contamination values and worker exposure, and physical access constraints have limited the effectiveness of traditional survey approaches. The Pipe Explorer{trademark} system provides a viable alternative.

*Advanced Worker Protection System
Advanced Worker Protection System . Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN (United States) . Apr 1996 . 17p . DOE Contract AC0584OR21400 . Sup.Doc.Num. E 1.99:DE96014778. NTIS Order Number DE96014778 . Source: OSTI (DOE and DOE contractors only); NTIS (Public Sales); GPO Dep. (Depository Libraries)

The Advanced Worker Protection System (AWPS) is a liquid-air-based, self-contained breathing and cooling system with a duration of 2 hrs. AWPS employs a patented system developed by Oceaneering Space Systems (OSS), and was demonstrated at their facility in Houston, TX as well as at Kansas State University, Manhattan. The heart of the system is the life-support backpack that uses liquid air to provide cooling as well as breathing gas to the worker. The backpack is combined with advanced protective garments, an advanced liquid cooling garment (LCG), a respirator, and communications and support equipment. The prototype unit development and testing under Phase 1 has demonstrated that AWPS has the ability to meet performance criteria. These criteria were developed with an understanding of both the AWPS capabilities and the DOE decontamination and decommissioning (D and D) activities protection needs.

*Lasagna Soil Remediation
Lasagna{trademark} soil remediation . Science Applications International Corp., Gaithersburg, MD . Apr 1996 . 19p . DOE Contract AC0584OR21400 . Sup.Doc.Num. E 1.99:DE96014787. NTIS Order Number DE96014787 . Source: OSTI (DOE and DOE contractors only); NTIS (Public Sales); GPO Dep. (Depository Libraries)

Lasagna{trademark} is an integrated, in situ remediation technology being developed which remediates soils and soil pore water contaminated with soluble organic compounds. Lasagna{trademark} is especially suited to sites with low permeability soils where electroosmosis can move water faster and more uniformly than hydraulic methods, with very low power consumption. The process uses electrokinetics to move contaminants in soil pore water into treatment zones where the contaminants can be captured and decomposed. Initial focus is on trichloroethylene (TCE), a major contaminant at many DOE and industrial sites. Both vertical and horizontal configurations have been conceptualized, but fieldwork to date is more advanced for the vertical configuration. Major features of the technology are electrodes energized by direct current, which causes water and soluble contaminants to move into or through the treatment layers and also heats the soil; treatment zones containing reagents that decompose the soluble organic contaminants or adsorb contaminants for immobilization or subsequent removal and disposal; and a water management system that recycles the water that accumulates at the cathode (high pH) back to the anode (low pH) for acid-base neutralization. Alternatively, electrode polarity can be reversed periodically to reverse electroosmotic flow and neutralize pH

*Dynamic Underground Stripping
(DOE/EM–0271) Dynamic underground stripping. Innovative technology summary report. Stone and Webster Environmental Technology and Services, Boston, MA ; Lawrence Livermore National Lab., CA . Apr 1995. 30p. Sponsored by USDOE, Washington, DC . DOE Contract FG34-91RF00117. Order Number DE96003566. Source: OSTI; NTIS; INIS; GPO Dep.

Dynamic Underground Stripping (DUS) is a combination of technologies targeted to remediate soil and ground water contaminated with organic compounds. DUS is effective both above and below the water table and is especially well suited for sites with interbedded sand and clay layers. The main technologies comprising DUS are steam injection at the periphery of a contaminated area to heat permeable subsurface areas, vaporize volatile compounds bound to the soil, and drive contaminants to centrally located vacuum extraction wells; electrical heating of less permeable sediments to vaporize contaminants and drive them into the steam zone; and underground imaging such as Electrical Resistance Tomography to delineate heated areas to ensure total cleanup and process control. A full-scale demonstration was conducted on a gasoline spill site at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California from November 1992 through December 1993.

*Frozen Soil Barrier Technology
(DOE/EM–0273) Frozen soil barrier technology. Innovative technology summary report. Oak Ridge National Lab., TN . Apr 1995. 20p. Sponsored by USDOE, Washington, DC . Order Number DE96003568. Source: OSTI; NTIS; INIS; GPO Dep.

The technology of using refrigeration to freeze soils has been employed in large-scale engineering projects for a number of years. This technology bonds soils to give load-bearing strength during construction; to seal tunnels, mine shafts, and other subsurface structures against flooding from groundwater; and to stabilize soils during excavation. Examples of modern applications include several large subway, highway, and water supply tunnels. Ground freezing to form subsurface frozen soil barriers is an innovative technology designed to contain hazardous and radioactive contaminants in soils and groundwater. Frozen soil barriers that provide complete containment ({open_quotes}V{close_quotes}configuration) are formed by drilling and installing refrigerant piping (on 8-ft centers) horizontally at approximately 45{degrees} angles for sides and vertically for ends and then recirculating an environmentally safe refrigerant solution through the piping to freeze the soil porewater. Freeze plants are used to keep the containment structure at subfreezing temperatures. A full-scale containment structure was demonstrated from May 12 to October 10, 1994, at a nonhazardous site on SEG property on Gallaher Road, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

*In Situ Bioremediation Using Horizontal Wells
(DOE/EM–0270) In situ bioremediation using horizontal wells. Innovative technology summary report. Oak Ridge National Lab., TN . Apr 1995. 30p. Sponsored by USDOE, Washington, DC . Order Number DE96003565. Source: OSTI; NTIS; INIS; GPO Dep.

In Situ Bioremediation (ISB) is the term used in this report for Gaseous Nutrient Injection for In Situ Bioremediation. This process (ISB) involves injection of air and nutrients (sparging and biostimulation) into the ground water and vacuum extraction to remove Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) from the vadose zone concomitant with biodegradation of the VOCs. This process is effective for remediation of soils and ground water contaminated with VOCs both above and below the water table. A full-scale demonstration of ISB was conducted as part of the Savannah River Integrated Demonstration: VOCs in Soils and Ground Water at Nonarid Sites. This demonstration was performed at the Savannah River Site from February 1992 to April 1993.

*Resonant Sonic Drilling
(DOE/EM–0268-96003563) ResonantSonic drilling. Innovative technology summary report. Oak Ridge National Lab., TN ; Colorado Center for Environmental Management, Denver, CO . Apr 1995. 22p. Sponsored by USDOE, Washington, DC . DOE Contract FG34-91RF00117. Order Number DE96003563. Source: OSTI; NTIS; INIS; GPO Dep.

The technology of ResonantSonic drilling is described. This technique has been demonstrated and deployed as an innovative tool to access the subsurface for installation of monitoring and/or remediation wells and for collection of subsurface materials for environmental restoration applications. The technology uses no drilling fluids, is safe and can be used to drill slant holes.

*Six Phase Soil Heating
(DOE/EM–0272) Six phase soil heating. Innovative technology summary report. Stone and Webster Environmental Technology and Services, Boston, MA ; Lawrence Livermore National Lab., CA . Apr 1995. 25p. Sponsored by USDOE, Washington, DC . DOE Contract FG34-91RF00117. Order Number DE96003567. Source: OSTI; NTIS; INIS; GPO Dep.

Six Phase Soil Heating (SPSH) was developed to remediate soils contaminated with volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds. SPSH is designed to enhance the removal of contaminates from the subsurface during soil vapor extraction. The innovation combines an emerging technology, six-phase electric heating, with a baseline technology, soil vapor extraction, to produce a more efficient in situ remediation systems for difficult soil and/or contaminate applications. This document describes the technology and reports on field demonstrations conducted at Savannah River and the Hanford Reservation.

*In Situ Air Stripping Using Horizontal Wells
(DOE/EM–0269) In situ air stripping using horizontal wells. Innovative technology summary report. Stone and Webster Environmental Technology and Services, Boston, MA ; Lawrence Livermore National Lab., CA . Apr 1995. 30p. Sponsored by USDOE, Washington, DC . DOE Contract FG34-91RF00117. Order Number DE96003564. Source: OSTI; NTIS; INIS; GPO Dep.

In-situ air stripping employs horizontal wells to inject or sparge air into the ground water and vacuum extract VOC’S from vadose zone soils. The horizontal wells provide better access to the subsurface contamination, and the air sparging eliminates the need for surface ground water treatment systems and treats the subsurface in-situ. A full-scale demonstration was conducted at the Savannah River Plant in an area polluted with trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene. Results are described.

*Flameless Thermal Oxidation
(DOE/EM–0287) (DOE/EM–0287) Flameless thermal oxidation. Innovative technology summary report. USDOE Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, Washington, DC . Sep 1995. 19p. Sponsored by USDOE, Washington, DC . Order Number DE96009312. Source: OSTI; NTIS; INIS; GPO Dep.

The Flameless Thermal Oxidizer (FTO) is a commercial technology offered by Thermatrix, Inc. The FTO has been demonstrated to be an effective destructive technology for process and waste stream off-gas treatment of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and in the treatment of VOC and chlorinated volatile organic compounds (CVOCs) off-gases generated during site remediation using either baseline or innovative in situ environmental technologies. The FTO process efficiently converts VOCs and CVOCs to carbon dioxide, water, and hydrogen chloride. When FTO is coupled with a baseline technology, such as soil vapor extraction (SVE), an efficient in situ soil remediation system is produced. The innovation is in using a simple, reliable, scalable, and robust technology for the destruction of VOC and CVOC off-gases based on a design that generates a uniform thermal reaction zone that prevents flame propagation and efficiently oxidizes off-gases without forming products of incomplete combustion (PICs).

(DOE/EM–0288) SEAMIST{trademark}. Innovative technology summary report. USDOE Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, Washington, DC . Aug 1995. 23p. Sponsored by USDOE, Washington, DC . Source: OSTI; GPO Dep.

SEAMIST has been demonstrated and deployed as an innovative tool to better access the subsurface for characterization and monitoring of contaminants in both vertical and horizontal boreholes. The technology has been developed by industry with assistance from DOE’s Office of Technology Development to ensure it meets the needs of the environmental restoration market.

DOD Exploratory Battery Workshop

Subject: UFTO Note — DOD Exploratory Battery Workshop
Date: Thu, 01 May 1997
From: Ed Beardsworth

(This little known workshop has come to our attention, and may interest people who follow battery technology closely. It is a tri service DOD event, and covers early stage R&D at DOD labs and contractors, at a fairly technical level. It is open to outside attendees, on a limited-space available — basis. Anyone wanting to go should contact Ms. Meskin as indicated. Note the very low registration cost.)

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


June 30-July 3, 1997
Burlington, Vermont

The purpose of this workshop is to assess current DoD-sponsored battery 6.2 development programs in order to identify technology challenges and coordinate future efforts. This year the scope of the workshop has been broadened to include all high energy batteries with those of lithium chemistry receiving the major focus. Speakers will come from 6.2 efforts and will include both government and industrial participants.

This workshop is sponsored by Office of Naval Research and coordinated by the High Energy Battery R&D Group, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division and Advanced Technology & Research Corporation (ATR).


U.S. Army — Robert Hamlen, Ph.D; Sol Gilman, Ph.D.;
Harold Christopher, Ph.D.; Allan Goldberg
U.S. Navy — Carl Mueller, Ph.D.; Patricia Smith, Ph.D.
U.S. Air Force — Richard Marsh; Steve Vukson
DARPA — Lawrence Dubois, Ph.D.; Robert Nowak, Ph.D.

To maintain a technical workshop environment, attendance is limited, and advance registration is required.

Please send Registration Form (below) to:
Ms. Adrien Meskin, ATR, 15210 Dino Drive, Burtonsville, MD 20866-1172
or fax to Adrien at (301) 394-3916.

A packet of registration materials including hotel information, airport, and agenda will be sent upon receipt. The registration fee is $100.00. You have a choice of paying at the workshop or including a check with your registration form. Make checks payable to ATR/Battery Workshop.

The workshop will be held at the Hampton Inn-Burlington/Colchester. A block of rooms has been reserved for all participants at the Government per diem rate for both single and double rooms. For reservations call 1-800-HAMPTON and refer to reservation code 5th Battery Workshop.

For further information, contact Adrien at the following: email–; phone–(301) 989-2499; and fax (301)989-8000.










5th Workshop for Battery Exploratory Development
June 30-July 3, 1997
Burlington, Vermont

Monday, June 30
9:00-1:00 Registration
1:00 Opening Remarks Peter Keller, NSWC Carderock
1:05 Welcome James Barnes, NSWC Carderock
1:15 Introduction of Keynote Speaker
Stanley James, NSWC Carderock
1:20 Lithium and Lithium-ion Polymer Batteries: Status andOutlook
Bruno Scrosati, University La Sapienza


Organization and Battery Program

2:00 Navy — Carl Mueller, Patricia Smith, NSWC Carderock
2:40 Army — Robert Hamlen, CECOM; Sol Gilman, ARL
3:20 Break
3:30 Air Force — Richard Marsh, Wright Laboratory; Dan Radzykewycz,
Phillips Lab
4:10 DARPA — Robert Nowak, DARPA
4:40 Adjourn
6:30 Buffet Dinner

Tuesday, July 1

8:00 Registration
8:25 Opening Remarks Peter Keller, NSWC Carderock

Secondary Battery Technical Presentations

8:30 New Generation of Silver Zinc Batteries for Navy Vehicles
Roberto Serenyi, Yardney Technical Products, Inc.
8:55 Nickel/Metal Hydride Development
Air Force Nickel/Metal Hydride Battery Development
Steve Vukson, USAF Wright Laboratory
Bipolar Nickel/Metal Hydride Battery
Martin Klein, Electro Energy, Inc.
9:30 Rechargeable Lithium/Copper Chloride Battery Development
Fred Dampier, Lithium Energy Associates, Inc.
10:00 Break
10:15 Affordable Batteries for Undersea Vehicles (Lithium/Cobalt
Charles Kelly, Alliant Techsystems
10:45 Advanced Lithium Batteries for Underwater Vehicles
Synthesis of a High Energy Density Manganese Oxide Cathode
Alex Shiao, Maxpower, Inc.
Electrode Fabrications for High Energy Density and
High Rate Capability Rechargeable Lithium Systems
Kirakodu S. Nanjundaswamy, Eagle-Picher Industries Inc.
11:30 Particulate Sol-Gel Synthesis and Characterization of LiMO2
( M = Co, Ni, NixCo1-x ) Powders
Prashant Kumpta, Carnegie Mellon University
12:00 Lunch
2:00 Synthesis and Properties of Sol-Gel Derived Electrode
and Electrolyte Materials
Bruce Dunn, UCLA
2:30 Polymer Gel Electrolytes
Shyam Argade, Technochem Company
3:00 Break
3:15 Polymer Battery Technology Reinvestment Program
Recent Developments in the Ultralife Solid State SystemTMBattery
Edward Cuellar, Ultralife Batteries, Inc.
High Capacity Lithium Ion Solid Polymer Battery Development
Vincent Teofilo, Lockheed Martin Missles and Space
Flexible Manufacturing/Rapid Prototying of
Lithium Ion Polymer Batteries
David Roller, Alliant Techsystems
4:00 SAFT Li-ion Battery Development Program
N. Raman, SAFT America Inc.
4:45 Adjourn

Wednesday, July 2, 1997

8:00 Registration
8:25 Opening Remarks
Peter Keller, NSWC Carderock
8:30 Cathode Materials for Lithium Ion
William Smyrl, U of Minnesota
9:00 Cr (III)-modified LiMn2O4 Intercalation Materials for
Li Rechargeable Batteries
Rick Howard, Covalent Associates, Inc.
9:30 Low-cost, Lightweight Rechargeable Lithium Ion Batteries
Grant Ehrlich, Yardney Technical Products, Inc.
9:45 Low Temperature Electrolytes Formulated for Li-ion
Battery Applications
Yair Ein-Eli, Covalent Associates, Inc.
10:00 Break
10:15 Development of Large Li-ion Batteries for Aircraft
and Spacecraft Applications
Lynn Marcoux, BlueStar Advanced Technology Corporation
10:45 BB-X590 Battery Development for U.S. Army Applications
David Fouchard, Rayovac Corp.
11:15 Lithium-Ion 8 Ah Prismatic Cells for Navy UnderwaterApplications
Chris Castledine, Rayovac Corp.
11:45 Lunch
1:45 Ambient Temperature Rechargeable Lithium Ion BatteryTechnology
Thomas Reddy, Yardney Technical Products, Inc.
2:15 High Energy Lithium/Metal Disulfide Rechargeable Batteries
for Undersea Propulsion
Nicholas Papadakis, Northrup Grumman Corp.
2:45 Advanced Development Program for Lightweight
Rechargeable “AA” Zinc-Air Battery
Alexander Karpinski, Yardney Technical Products, Inc.
3:00 Break

Primary Battery Technical Presentations

3:10 Primary Battery Introduction
Peter Keller, NSWC Carderock
3:15 Power for Army Munitions
Allan Goldberg, ARL
3:30 Directions in Thermal Battery Research
John Erbacher, GRC International, Inc.
3:45 Development of a Thermal Battery with Novel Electrochemistry
Shyam Argade, Technochem Company
4:15 Development of High Rate Primary Zinc-Air Cylindrical Cells
Joseph Passaniti, Rayovac Corp.
4:30 Adjourn

Thursday, July 3, 1997

8:00 Registration
8:25 Opening Remarks
Peter Keller, NSWC Carderock
8:30 Development Status of Six Kilowatt Four Hour Sonobuoy Thermal
Nicholas Shuster, Northrop Grumman Corp.
9:00 Development of Lithium/Carbon Monofluoride Cells for Navy
Daniel Rohde, Rayovac Corp.
9:30 21st Century Land Warrior Li/MnO2 Pouch Battery
James Drass, Power Conversion, Inc.
10:00 Break
10:15 Advanced Primary Battery Development at BlueStar
Advanced Technology Corp
Lynn Marcoux, BlueStar Advanced Technology Corp
10:45 High Energy Density Ultrasafe LiMNO2, Pouch Cell
William Hoge, Ultralife Batteries, Inc.
11:15 Adjourn

Climate-Change, Fuel-Cell, Cost-Sharing, Grants

Subject: UFTO Note – Climate-Change, Fuel-Cell, Cost-Sharing, Grants
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 16:43:58 -0800
From: Ed Beardsworth

Hot off the wire, from Commerce Business Daily
(I fixed a lot of typos, and split it into paragraphs.)

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


Category: B–Special Studies and Analyses–Not R&D (PROCUREMENTS)

Date Published: December 30, 1996

Contact: US ARMY ARDEC, TACOM, AMSTA-AR-PCW-B, BLDG. 10, PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806 POC Christine Bernosky email=cbernos, Contract Specialist, 201-724-2754, Paul Milenkowic, Contracting Officer,201-724-5391 (Site Code W15BW9)

Synopsis: CLIMATE CHANGE FUEL CELL PROGRAM SOL 066&&&-9612-0012 The U.S. Army ARDEC is planning a cost sharing program in the form of multiple grants in support of the Climate Change Fuel Cell Program. This program involves using fuel cells in power plants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the efficient use of fossil fuels. In an effort to reduce pollutants to the environment, stimulate commercialization of stationary fuel cell power plants, and utilize fuel cells in unique mission needs for DOD, Congress has established a grant program to support fuel cell demonstration projects.

The Climate Change Fuel Cell Program consists of installing, operating, and demonstrating a fuel cell. Applicants can utilize DOD or non-DOD sites; however, DOD installations must partner with a private entity. Priority will be given to those applicants who use a DOD installation. Foreign participation is limited to those entities which will provide power to a DOD facility within their national borders.

The applicant cannot be a developer of fuel cell technology or a fuel cell manufacturer, and the applicant’s chosen fuel cell power plant(s) must be manufactured in the U.S. Applicants who have existing, installed fuel cells at the site or who have placed an order for one prior to 26 September 1994 are ineligible. The applicant must identify the intended use of each power plant. Power plants purchased as factory packaged shall be full power tested prior to installation. An applicant shall identify the site (specific name of DOD installation, hospital, university, etc.) and the intended use at the time of proposal submission. Prior to installation, the specific location at the site must be identified.

The applicant may transfer the power plant to a third party for installation and operation. Prior to installation, the applicant shall be responsible for supplying local National Environmental Policy Act-related information to DOD and for assuring that its power plant(s) is (are) installed and operated in accordance with all regulatory requirements. Applicants must use a fuel cell manufacturer who has at least 2 megawatts (MW)/year manufacturing capability to support the project. Projects must be greater than 100 kilowatts (kW) and are anticipated to be below 400kW. The period of performance is three years at which time the project shall operate at a rated power.

The applicant shall provide a project schedule with each proposal. Applicants will be required to submit a summary report of the power plant installation and operational history upon successful completion of one year of power plant operation. The report will be consistent with the format provided.

The federal contribution will be $1,000/kW and shall not exceed 1/3 of the total cost of the program, including unit cost, installation, an pre-commercial operation. If partnering with a DOD installation, the remainder of the costs shall be borne by the private partner and payment of the grant will be made to the private entity. There may be multiple grants to each applicant, although Th. Government reserves the right to limit the number of plants to an applicant to provide for customer and functional diversity. Payment of 80% of the grant shall be made upon demonstrating that the unit operates at the unit’s maximum power capacity for 8 hours for the purpose identified in the project proposal. The remaining payment of 20% of the grant shall be issued upon submission of the final demonstration report. The proposal period for the Climate Control Fuel Cell Program grant ends 1 May 1997.

This Broad Agency Announcement is available from the World WideWeb Electronic Commerce Home Page called the Procurement Network (ProcNet) available at the following Web address: “””. (I-361 SN015533)

Bulletin #20 – Tampa Meeting UFTO Topics

UFTO Bulletin #20

April 2, 1996

To: UFTO Members:

. . in this issue: . . . . . . . . .

Tampa Meeting UFTO Topics




– If you haven’t already, please fill out and return the attached form. Especially needed–your inputs for the UFTO MEMBERS MEETINGAGENDA.

2. WELCOME A NEW MEMBER: The Kansas Electric Utility Research Program (KEURP) joined UFTO this week. KEURP is made up of the electric utility companies in the state of Kansas.

3. “Mideast Oil Forever” is the title of an excellent article in the April 96 issue of Atlantic Monthly, but Joseph Romm and Charles Curtis of DOE. It takes on the current Congress’ s actions to cut renewable/sustainable energy research, pointing out that another major oil crisis is highly likely. Be sure your planning group knows about it. And maybe send it to your congressman? (I can provide copies if you have trouble getting the magazine.)

4. Also for planners (and yourselves), the Energy Analysis Program at L. Berkeley Labs has its new ’95 Annual Report available. Most of you should have received a letter from them, updating their mailing list and offering to send it. Call Karen Olson 510-486-5974.

5. Two new “UFTO TOPICS” reports are enclosed–one on “International” and another on “Buildings”. It only takes me a few minutes to do one of these, so don’t hesitate to ask.

Any more takers who want to try out the database? If you don’t want to get Filemaker Pro 3.0 (PC or Mac — it only costs about $150), I can create an “export” file of the data in any of several formats. Caution–spreadsheet formats usually limit the amount of text in a cell, so a lot of information would be lost. I have more details on this if you want it.


Tab-Separated text

Most applications

Comma-Separated Text **
BASIC programs, and Claris Impact
Spreadsheet programs, including Excel
Spreadsheet programs like VisiCalc
Lotus 1-2-3
Microsoft BASIC programs

(** likely to have a problem with commas in the data)


P.S. Anybody going to the Green Pricing Conf.? The SMES User’s Conf.?


CADDET (Centre for the Analysis and Dissemination of Demonstrated Energy Technologies) is an International Energy Agency (IEA) program focusing on promising new technologies that have been demonstrated in real-life conditions and where monitored technical and financial results are available. THE U.S. is one of 15 countries participating. Now there are two distinct parts of CADDET, Energy Efficiency and Renewables.

The Energy Efficiency part of the U.S. program is operated by Oak Ridge.
Contact: Marilyn Brown 423-576-8152
or Julia Kelley 423-574-6966
US web site:
Main site:

The Renewables part is operated in the U.S. by NREL.
Contact: David Warner 303-275-4373
US web site:
Main site:

They can provide brochures and free newsletter subscriptions.

There are two computerized databases called the CADDET Register, providing information on over 2,000 demonstrated energy technology projects. Newsletters are published quarterly, covering a specific technology and featuring international articles, news items and meetings notices. (Upcoming issues will cover advanced lighting and industrial controls. Recent topics included motors, heat pumps, and district heating/cooling.) There are more than 200 brochures on selected technologies, many of which describe U.S. technologies. A number of Analysis Reports provide in-depth assessments.

Alarm Filtering — “Frontline Solutions” is small startup company recently spun off from INEL to commercialize alarm processing methods developed at INEL called The Alarm Management Environment (TAME). It uses artificial intelligence techniques to filter (prioritize and reduce) alarms in process facilities such as power plants, electrical distribution and chemical processing facilities. The company offers the knowledge engineering necessary to extract plant specific expertise from operators and encode it into the software. The group published a paper describing the system at the American Power Conference (April 1995), and a DOS demo disk is available on request. Contact Michael Bray, Frontline Solutions, 208-529-2266,

New Factory America is a concept under development at the Kansas City Plant (a DOE manufacturing facility managed by Allied Signal) to create an integrated “toolbox” of software technologies that will give small to midsized manufacturers the same capabilities as the very large ones. The low cost software already exists in a pre-alpha test version, and can be demoed on a laptop. The software can receive complicated 3-D solid model data sets from the internet to respond to rquests for quotes. After the contract is awarded, the supplier can use the same software to communicate product definition directly to automated machinery (e.g. machine tool controller, plastic injection molding machine, or automated pick and place machines).

A plan for a “Virtual Enterprise Integration” includes the “Desktop Manufacturing System” with an “Information Based Manufacturing Instrastructure”. (This could be a good initiative for a local economic development program.) Contact Scott Wright, 816-997-2549.

Energy Efficient Lighting (DOE/GO-10095-056) is a brief 8 page technology overview published by the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Clearinghouse. Call 800-363-3732 for a free copy (ask for “FS-141”) and a list of their other publications.


• METC’s Web page is a very thorough source of information on fuel cells (not PEM) and other Fossil power programs.(

Mark Williams, Product Manager, Fuel Cells, DOE/METC, tel 304-285-4747; ( manages the DOE /Fossil fuel cell effort.

One useful item–a listing of upcoming conferences. For example:
– SOFC Course (ceramic ion membranes) London UK, July 1-3, ’96
– Fuel Cells in Transportation, Chicago, September 17-19, ’96. (call Intertech, 207-781-9800)
– 2nd European SOFC Forum, Oslo Norway, May 6-10, ’96
– GRI/EPRI Workshop, Tempe AZ, April 2-3, ’96. (Contractor’s conf. — invitation only)

• Also from METC — the Fuel Cells Forum is a free unmoderated email list for exchange of ideas and information about fuel cell technology. To subscribe:
– send an internet email message to:
– leave the SUBJECT line blank
– In the body of the message enter: subscribe fuelcells fname lastname

Results in a few email notes per week.

• Fuel Cell Advanced Turbine System (FCATS) is a new idea for generation in the >100 MW range, combining a fuel cell with an advanced turbine. The fuel cell is used as a topping cycle, in effect acting as a combustor whose 2000 °C exit temperature feeds into the turbine. METC held a workshop on this recently, and the proceedings will be available shortly. For more information, contact Mark Williams, Product Manager, Fuel Cells, DOE/METC, tel 304-285-4747;

• DOE Advanced Fuel-Cell Commercialization Working Group

Final Report DOE/ER-0643, and 0644, March ’95 (2 volumes-one is an executive summary).

The Office of Planning & Analysis/Energy Research, (ER — the part of DOE that does basic research), undertook a comprehensive review of the entire state of the art of fuel cell technology to identify gaps in the R&D programs. They assembled an expert panel from industry and the labs, and Dr. Sol Penner of UC San Diego prepared the final report.

For a copy, contact Don Freeman, DOE, Energy Research, 301-903-3156,

• Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Letter, published monthly by Peter Hoffman, of Rhinecliff NY, is in its 11th year. Subscription price is $195/year. Their web page shows the table of contents and one article from each issue ( 914-876-5988;

• The New Technology Demonstration Program in DOE Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) issued one of its Federal Technology Alerts on “Natural Gas Fuel Cells”, encouraging federal building managers to consider fuel cells as “an environmentally benign energy conservation technology ….sustainable …can help the bottom line” especially where the thermal energy can be utilized, where there are strict air-quality rules, and where reliability is important.

The Alerts are short, comprehensive, written for a non technical audience, explaining about new technologies that are ready for implementation and where they can be applied. Other titles in the series include: Liquid Refrigerant Pumping, Ground Source Heat Pumps for Commercial Applications; Residential Heat Pump Water Heating; Ozone Treatment of Cooling Water; Refrigerant Subcooling, and Polarized Refrigerant Oil Additives. More are in preparation. To receive copies, and to be put on the mailing list,

contact Karen Walker, PNNL (Wash. DC), 202-646-7794.


FUEL CELLS — Money Available

• METC — CLIMATE CHANGE FUEL CELL PROGRAM is soliciting applications for financial assistance grants from DOD for installing fuel cells. Offerers must be commited to purchase, install, operate and maintain fuel cell plant(s) with a combined capacity rated between 100 and 3,000 kW.

For awards through September 30, 1996, approximately $15,000,000 is available. Grant values will be $1,000/kW, provided that the grant shall not exceed a third of the total project costs (unit cost, delivery, installation, and one year of precommercial operation).

The Application/Information Package includes application forms to be submitted, the 1994 Conference Report language, and other information needed for preparation of applications. The Application/Information Package will be available on the Internet after March 27, 1996. If Internet access is not available, a 3.5” diskette in WordPerfect, version 5.2. may be requested from the contract specialist Diane Manilla by fax (304-285-4683) or telephone at (304-285-4086). The Package may also be obtained from DOE

Applications may be submitted at any time in the next year. Selections for the first round will be made by July 30, 1996, and awards made by September 30, 1996. The second round of selections and awards will be made after September 30, 1996, contingent upon availability of appropriated funds.

3/22/96 (approx) (Federal Register)


Contact: Gary Byram, Contract Specialist, 703-704-2960
Ana Kimberly, Contracting Officer, 703-704-2964.

R&D of technology to demonstrate small Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) Fuel Cell Power Sources. The Army currently has no standard refuelable power sources in this range and utilizes batteries. Power sources that are refuelable, with higher energy densities than rechargeable batteries will enhance military capabilities. The power sources sought are complete systems: including the fuel cell, fuel supply, controls, safety features, packaging, voltage regulator, automatic start/stop, refueling procdures, commercial operating manuals and other features so that the power sources may be used in technical demonstrations. Two categories of power source are desired. A low power demonstrator is desired that will produce 6 Volts, 50 watts, and 200 watt-hours. Target weight is 1 kg. A higher power demonstrator that will produce 28 Volts, 150 watts and 600 watt-hours is also sought. Target weight is 2.5 kg. The operational range of these demonstrators will be from 32-120 degrees farenheight and from 5-100 per cent realtive humidity. The systems produced under this solicitation will be utilized to demonstrate small PEM Fuel Systems in 4Q98. Contracts are expected to be 18 months in duration and produce a total of four units at each/either size. Proposals may address one or both sizes. It is anticipated that no more than two awards will be made under this solicitation. More awards may be made depending on the responses. Proposals must be submitted to US CECOM Aquisition Center, Ground Support Branch, AMSEL- AC-CC, 10109 Gridley Road, Suite 200, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5845 and must be received no later than 10 May 1996. Questions concerning this solicitation may be faxed to Richard Jacobs at 703-704-3794. Telephone calls will not be honored.


SERDP — Strategic Environmental Research & Development Program; Dept. of Defense

SERDP was established in 1990 to address defense-related environmental needs and to effect transfer of defense-related technologies to/from the private sector. It is a DOD research program planned and executed in full partnership with DOE and EPA, to work on the department’s highest priority mission-impacting environmental requirements. In 1993, these evolved to six key environmental “thrust areas:” Cleanup, Compliance, Conservation, Pollution Prevention, Renewables, and Global Environmental Change. With the recent budget cuts, however, from $160M/year to $60M/year, the last two are being wrapped up in 1996.

The program is managed by an Executive Director, who works in the Office of the Director, Defense Research and Engineering, DOD. There is a high level multi-agency Executive Working Group (DOD, DOE, EPA, others). Planning groups in each thrust area start with DOD’s high priority technology needs, and elicit proposals from any and all Federal agencies. Proposals must come from a Federal agency (or lab), but can and usually do involve partners from industry, small business or academia.

SERDP actively disseminates Program information through a newsletter (SERDP Information Bulletin), symposia and its own Internet site (, reporting on work done in federal Labs and in private companies. Actual tech transfer and intellectual property (e.g. licensing, cradas, etc.) are handled by the agency or lab where the project initiated. SERDP’s role is research, i.e., to reaching proof of scientific principle, and focusing on high priority, generic environmental problems experienced by more than one branch of the military.

SERDP results thus provide a selective compilation of the work of many agencies of government. They have begun to feature “Success Stories”, and have a list of all publications that have resulted since the inception of the program. There is also a Proceedings of their first annual Symposium, held in April ’95, and featuring a large number of presentations about specific environmental technologies.

Some examples: Non chemical paint stripping with high pressure water;

Encapsulation of hazardous metals in hydrophobic clay;

Advanced acoustic heat pump;

Next generation fire surpression;

Nontoxic anti fouling coatings.


Call for more information:

John Harrison, Executive Director
SERDP Program Office
901 N. Stuart St #303
Arlington, VA 22203
703-696-2114 fax


Travel Notes: Washington DC, Feb 26-29, 1996

1. Technology Partnering Conference

This 1 1/2 day event sponsored by McGraw-Hill’s Federal Technology Report., featured top management speakers from DOD, NASA, NIST, DOE and Congress, discussing the historical background and major new developments in the federal government’s role and approach to working with industry.

The bipartisan trend that had been developing for many years to increase links between federal labs and agencies and private industry was suddenly reversed by the new Republican Congress, as a part of its drive to reduce spending. Robert Walker, head of the House Science & Technology Committee (who is retiring the end of this year) attacks what he calls “corporate welfare”, but what others view as vital programs to put federal technology into the hands of industry so it can be successfully commercialized.

Congress has proposed to zero out the large and well-regarded multi-agency programs such as the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) run by NIST and the Technology Reinvestment Program (TRP) run by ARPA/DOD. The Clinton administration, however, is standing firm in its support, particularly for ATP. TRP will morph into the “Dual Use Applications Program”, explicitly focused on the needs of DOD, and under the Office of Defense Research and Engineering instead of ARPA.

The terminology is shifting from “technology transfer” to “Technology Partnering” and government agencies like DOE, NASA and DOD are to focus entirely on their own specific objectives. The rationale for partnering is that these agencies need industry to commercialize the technology they’ve developed, so they can then purchase and use it more cost effectively in the accomplishment of their own respective missions.

For example: DOD is the world’s largest customer for “low-rate production”, which says they have a strong interest in having industries that are highly capable at “agile manufacturing”, which coincidentally is the trend in the competitive world economy. Thus benefits flow both ways.

One of the risks of the budget cuts is that the Labs may become viewed as “unreliable” business partners if they have to curtail or reduce their funding of CRADAs, a reputation they’ve been struggling with some success to overcome.

One particularly interesting presentation was by John McTague, VP of Technical Affairs at Ford Motor Co. and advisor to DOE. He pointed out the well known behavior of large organizations to become bureaucratic and process/rulemaking oriented — when they lose track of what they’re supposed to be producing, or don’t have competitors. (Sound familiar?) DOE is attempting to reverse this trend, especially at the Labs, but old habits are hard to change, as are all the rules and procedures that have accumulated (many thanks to Congress).

As is often the case, networking during the breaks was particularly fruitful. Among other contacts, I’ll have more to report soon on a nifty new program between Dayton Power & Light and the Air Force’s Wright Lab to help DP&L’s major customers.

Also, thanks to a coincidental encounter, I arranged to meet later in the week with the DC office of the National Tech Transfer Center (NTTC), which has responsibility for tech transfer for the Ballistic Missle Defense Organization (BMDO), a separate DOD branch which has the huge technology repository of the entire SDI (Starwars) effort. They have taken a particular interest in reaching out to electric utilities, and UFTO may be in the right place at just the right time. More on this at a later date–please don’t tell anyone about it just yet.

I’ll be getting a copy of the conference proceedings, with all the papers and presentations. I’ll make additional information available to UFTO members on request.

2. DOE — Fossil Energy (FE) Patricia Godley, Assistant Secretary

The reorganization to a “lines-of-business” structure that has been in the works for over 2 years is to go into effect in April, if Congress approves. Cross-cutting teams will address advanced research, communications, and environment, health and safety.

I met with Victor Der (301-903-2700), who is proposed to head the “Power” business,and who is in very much a learning mode about the implications of utility industry restructuring for new fossil capacity additions and for potential changes in the Federal role in fossil energy more generally.

At the DOE level, as part of the ongoing effort to reinvent the agency, four strategic alignment areas have been defined: National Security (nuclear materials), Environment, Energy, and Administration. “Energy” is to be overseen by the “Energy Resources Board” headed by Kyle Simpson who reports to Charles Curtis, and including Fossil, Energy Efficiency, the Energy Information Administration, and with Energy Research represented on the Board.

The FE domestically is focused heavily on the commercialization of the Clean Coal technology, and internationally on helping to increase volumes and lower costs for “appropriate” technology to help US firms export. Fossil O&M is not addressed in the program , except as it underlies many of the development goals for new technology.

Fuel Cells continues to be a major program area.

Contacts are Charlie Pax (301-903-2832) or Ed Beyma (301-903-2828.)

FE is responsible for the high temperature technologies (PEM work is handled in the Office of Transportation Technologies), and the work is administered from Morgantown Energy Technology Center (METC). Mark Williams is the Product Manager for Fuel Cells (304-285-4747). (Incidentally, there are plans to merge the 3 FE Tech Centers into a single “Federal Energy Institute”. Details yet forthcoming.)

– Phosphoric Acid (PA): DOD is providing partial cost rebates for the installation of ONSI 200kw units. Lots of people are in line for it. Other PA players include H Power and Fuel Cell Corp. of America, which bought the Westinghouse design. This technology is getting users familar with fuel cells, with operational availability over 95%.

– PEM: Conventional wisdom is that the low temperature and relatively lower efficiency (using natural gas) makes this uncompetitive for stationary power generation (and cogenerations) applications, however it’s high current densities and the possibility of earlier mass production may throw that view into contention for smaller units.

– Molten Carbonate — DOE is supporting work by ERC and MC Power.

– Solid Oxide–DOE is supporting only the Westinghouse tubular design, and Southern California Edison is testing a 25 kw “logistic” unit for the DOD at its Fuel Cell Test Center (“logistic” means with diesel and jetfuel.) Westinghouse will do a 100kw unit with utilities in the Netherlands soon. DOE has no planar SO program (Congress “picked a winner”?), though several smaller firms are doing work on this.

– In conjunction with the IEEE Power Engineering Society, DOE is sponsoring a series of regional Fuel Cell Technology Forums. Proceedings available (May ’95, Boston; Nov ’95, Santa Clara CA; Nov ’96 Houston ) Local host utility involvement is welcomed. Contact Sam Biondo, (301-903-5910)

FE Communications is headed by Bob Porter (202)586-6503. FE published about 150 new “Fact Sheets” last year, and currently is updating and adding to them. These will all appear on FE’s Internet WWW page. Later this year, information will be added on all 600 active R&D projects, along with full text of technical reports.

There is also a “Fax-on-Demand” service (call 202-586-4300), and a less well-known “Fax-Out” service, which sends announcements and news on chosen topics to whoever is on the list.

3. DOE/EE — Office of Utility Technologies (OUT)

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE), headed by Assistant Secretary Christine Irvin, has four major program areas: Utility (OUT), Transportation (OTT), Building (OBT), and Industrial (OIT).

Karl Rabago left on March 1 as Deputy Assistant Secretary for OUT, and Allan Hoffman, his associate, is currently acting in that capacity.

Generally, OUT is downsizing and restructuring, essentially eliminating the “Office” layer of management (though some titles remain), and dealing with major budget cuts. Initiatives to reorganize and rationalize the division names and missions are no longer at the fore. The mood is one of considerable uncertainty. The divisions of OUT are Wind, Hydro & Ocean; Geothermal; Photovoltaics; Solar Thermal and Biomass Power; Utility Systems, and Advanced Utility Concepts.


Photovoltaics Division, Jim Rannels, 202-586-1721

There are some noteworthy developments in the solar PV.

– The Enron-Amoco-Solarex project in to build a 3+ MW solar PV plant in Hawaii is moving forward, with the building of a new factory in Virginia to make the cells.

– C-Star, Las Vegas NV, set up by DOE and the state of Nevada, and headed by Rose Mckinney-James, is reviewing 5 major bids to solar install projects at the Nevada Test Site. Plans call for as much as 500 MW of capacity of a number of diverse solar technologies.

– Cells and modules are getting cheaper all the time, with the current emphasis on new thin fim technology and mass production. Expect local home supply stores to be selling modules with integral inverters that can plug right into the household circuit, and slow or reverse the meter. Utilities better be planning how they’re going to respond.

– United Solar, Troy MI, will put PV roofing shingles on the market in about one year. These will be featured along with many other innovations in the Atlanta Energy Showcase House, to coincide with the Olympics. Oak Ridge has the lead — contact Pat Love at 423-576-7942.

– Also at the Olympics, Georgia Tech and Georgia Power are putting in a major installation of PV panels on a 100 ft. high stadium roof. Expect very high profile nationally and internationally, with TV camera views from the blimp. This might well result in a resurgence of interest and inquiries about solar which utilities should consider preparing for–and possibly taking advantage of. Utilities would do well to make a conscious decision about this, and not get caught off guard.

– The Utility PV Group (UPVG), with 86 utility members, is a formally constituted independent organization set up 4 years ago with DOE’s help at the request of a small group of utilities. It serves as a major forum for program development and interactions among utilities, PV developers and DOE. (Most but not all UFTO members are in UPVG. For $2000/year, it would seem a very cost-effective way to keep abreast of new developments.)

Utility Systems Division, Robert Brewer (202-586-2828)

This group handles T&D, EMF and district heating and cooling. Budget cuts have zeroed out the T&D program entirely, and with the new emphasis on renewables, they are looking for ways to contribute in that arena.

The work at Oak Ridge on “High-Phase Order” Transmission was completed and published — found to be a valid approach. A commercial demonstration has been operational in upstate NY since 1992. A 1.5 mile three phase circuit was converted to six-phase, and offered a 73% increase in line capacity.

Real Time control studies are continuing, in particular the wide-area measurement work at PNNL with BPA and WAPA. The idea is tovalidate power system computer models so they can be relied upon to operate the transmission system closer to the margin.

Oak Ridge has developed a new advanced Resonant Snubber Inverterwith considerably improved part load performance. (Inverter development had been focused on HVDC, but now the effort is shifted to lower voltages.) While part load performance is less of an issue in many applications, it can be quite significant in solar and electric vehicles, where the system operates at part load much of the time. Adjustable speed drives may also benefit from this technology.The ORNL inverter is 80% efficient at low speeds and 98% at high speeds, vs. more typical performance of 60-70% and 94%. The device is much smaller and should be cheaper than conventional inverters and have much reduced waveform distortion and interference. Jason Lai is the inventor of this “resonant snubber” inverter. Contact Frank Juan 423-576-8540.

Sandia has looked at inverters that have failed in use, and DOE is continuing to support the work at PNNL on the multi input inverter, which interestingly was first developed for MHD.

ORNL also has just completed a study of “Electric Power Ancillary Services” (e.g. voltage and frequency control, spinning reserve, reactive power, etc.), examining who will provide these services in a restructured industry and how they will be priced. Brendon Kirby and Eric Hirst have a new report published Feb ’96 (ORNL/CON-426. To request a copy call Ethel at 423-576-0071.)

Interestingly, the work on Distributed Utilities (DU) was never a line item in the DOE budget, and was done largely with internal lab directed funds at NREL and PNNL. DOE has traditionally emphasized generation and supply, and not the overall “system”.

In T&D asset management, DOE (and Oak Ridge) take the position that the industry (utilities, vendors, EPRI) have the responsibility for near term real-time Operations & Maintenance improvements and techniques, and that DOE should take the broader long-term view. We encountered this idea at ORNL some time back, and discussed their “understand the basic physics and chemistry first” approach vs. a more pragmatic phenomenological approach (i.e., look at field data and use AI technniques, etc.)

4. Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT)

Denise Swink, Deputy Assistant Secretary, 202-586-9232

OIT has a wide ranging series of programs to support the development of efficient industrial technologies and process systems, to help U.S. industrial productivity and competitiveness. OIT funds R&D at the national labs, universities and industry in bioprocessing, catalysis, separations (membranes), sensors, CFCC’s, combustion, materials, cogeneration, and solar industrial technology, and in processes for each of the industries listed below. This technical work forms the basis of a vigorous outreach through “partnering” programs. Utilities could be very effective in bringing these resources to the attention of their industrial customers. Contact Marsha Quinn, 202-586-2097, Director, Technology Access

– Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Clearinghouse: 1-800-DOE-EREC

– Internet: http://www.eren.doe/industry/

– To receive the quarterly newsletter “Benefits and Breakthroughs”, contact Nicki Malenfant, NREL, 303-275-3632. The first (Summer ’95) issue gives a good overview of programs.

– “Impacts” (October ’95 ) catalogs what is available from the results of OIT funded projects, and there are also a new series of product sheets called “Bottom Line”.

Industries of the Future Program focuses on seven industries where technology can yield the biggest returns: Petroleum refining, chemicals, pulp and paper, steel, aluminum, foundries and glass. It brings together the technical resources of all the national labs in what is called a “virtual lab” concept, and works with those industries to develop “vision” statements, and establishes plans to solve their important problems and opportunities.

Contacts: Kurt Sisson, Acting Director 202-586-0139

Bruce Cranford, Chemicals 202-586 -9496 Tom Foust, Pulp & Paper 202-586 -0198
Douglas Kaempf, Metal Casting 202-586 -5264 Susanne Leonard, Glass 202-586-6108
Matt McMonigle, Aluminum 202-586 -2082 Dan Wiley, Refineries 202-586 -2099

The Motor Challenge Program has enrolled over a thousand industrial partners, who get easy access to product and system information and technical resources, such as fact sheets, “Motor Master” software, conferences and technical assistance.

Contact Paul Scheiling, 202-586-7234, or call the Hotline 1-800-631-3832.

Climate Wise helps U.S. industry partners reduce emissions while increasing profitability. This is a voluntary program paralleling the Climate Challenge program which many utilities participate. Members agree to come up with plans to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Firms like AT&T, Coors, DuPont, GM, and Weyerhauser have already signed up. Regional workshops have led to the formation of local area groups. Some funding may be available for smaller companies. Contact Marsha Quinn, 202-586-2097.

NICE3 (National Industrial Competiveness through Energy, Environment and Economics) awards grants to teams of state agencies and local industry to support demonstration of technologies that reduce energy consumption and pollution.

Contact Alan Schroeder, 202-586-1641

Industrial Assessment Centers (formerly Energy Analysis and Diagnostic Centers) at 30 universities around the country provide free audits and waste assessment services to small and medium industrial companies. This program has been in place for nearly 20 years, providing experience for engineering students as well. Recently ten IAC-State Office partnerships were awarded to encourage local industrial community links.

Contact Chuck Glaser, 202-586-1298 or Rolf Butters, 202-586-0984

International Development helps with the DOE trade missions, and is involved in work with China, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Mexico and the Ukraine, to introduce appropriate and more efficient industrial technologies into these fast growing economies as their energy demands expand. Contact Peter Salmon-Cox, 202-586-2380