Update on UFTO Operation Update

See earlier note attached below. Thanks to the many of you who responded.

We are making progress.

OAK RIDGE — tentatively scheduled for sometime Apr 1-3.
Need to know — WILL YOU COME??

NIST — looking for a date in May

ARGONNE — we’d hoped to go to ANL in March, however they’re gearing up for an initiative to approach utilities, and will be better prepared for us if we wait until June. I’ll keep you posted.
(note to Cubs fans–see how things work out?)

Subject: UFTO Operation Update
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:41:54 -0800
From: Ed Beardsworth

| ** UFTO ** Edward Beardsworth ** Consultant
| 951 Lincoln Ave. tel 650-328-5670
| Palo Alto CA 94301-3041 fax 650-328-5675

At our June meeting in SF last year, there was a strong consensus behind the idea to revisit some of the Labs that we first went to several years ago. I’ve already gone to Sandia, and am beginning to put the plans in place for other Labs.

A number of you expressed an interest in accompanying me on such trips, so this note is to find out how many of you are likely to come.

The format will depend on how many of you attend, and what your interests will be. I would go ahead for meetings on Day 1, and then be prepared for your arrival that evening. Day 2 would be tours, presentations and meetings for the group. You certainly could expect a good overview of relevant programs at each Lab, and a chance to meet some of the management and key investigators.

I’ve contacted Oak Ridge, Argonne, and NIST, to start the process of finding possible dates. My goal is to accomplish all three visits by the mid July, though we may let one slide to the Fall.

(To review our materials for each of these labs, go to the website/ members only/ “advanced” search, and put the lab name in “Source”…For NIST use “institute”. Also, note new “reports and workshops” section.)

It’s very important to have good estimates for this. Please REPLY, by cob Tues Jan 27. Thank you.

A. ____ NIST (Wash DC)
____ Oak Ridge (Tenn.)
____ Argonne (Chicago)

_1_ Almost certain we will send someone, schedules permitting
_2_ A distinct possibility
_3_ Almost certainly won’t send anyone

B. Comments or suggestions on:
TIMING? (good, bad dates–preferred days of week, etc.)
Other comments?

C. ____ UFTO Members Meeting?
When? Where? (Combine with a Lab visit? Another event?)

Sandia Help Implementing Solar

Sandia to Help Utilities Implement Solar Energy

Sandia has received funding to work with utilities interested in teaming with the solar industry to install solar systems in their territory. The team will provide technical expertise to the utility in selecting technologies and, if warranted, work with industry partners to improve their systems. This may result in partnerships (such as CRADAs) with some utilities and industry members.

Sandia staff are currently lining up utilities to visit for exploratory meetings. For more information (and to be among the first companies to take advantage of this),

David Menicucci, 505-844-3077,

For background on Sandia’s renewable programs, their web site is at:

The goal is to help energy users consider and properly implement renewable energy technologies, as part of an educational outreach and technology transfer service on behalf of the Department of Energy’s investment in development, commercialization, and deployment of renewable energy technologies. This effort is designed to complement, not compete with, the technical services available through the US industry.

Sandia’s Renewable Energy Team is a cross-technology group of engineers with a primary focus on solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, and biomass systems. They can provide: 1) An on-site assessment of energy needs applicable to renewable energy systems, 2) Help in renewable energy program planning and implementation, 3) Help in deciding whether renewable energy can work in certain applications, 4) Expert advice in choosing renewable energy systems, 5) Calculations about the projected energy and economic performance of a renewable energy system, 6) Advice during design and procurement, construction, operation of the system, and operations monitoring, 7) Analysis, testing, and evaluation of systems, and 8) Training in renewable energy systems.

Energy Storage Assoc. Meeting

Energy Storage Association (ESA) Fall Meeting
“The Value of Energy Storage in a Restructured Utility Market”
Sacramento, CA
November 18 -19, 1997

((An UFTO Note on Nov 10 gave the original agenda for this meeting.))

*** –> SPECIAL OFFER <– ***

This one time, the ESA is offering to send a free copy of the full proceedings to prospective members, together with their membership solicitation package. Membership in ESA is a good way to stay in touch with developments in utility storage, and a year’s company membership is only $1500.

To request the package and proceedings of the November meeting, contact (please tell them UFTO sent you):

TEL: (301) 951-3223
FAX: (301) 951-3235

E-MAIL: John Hurwitch, Executive Director,


(more details on request–and in the Proceedings)

–> Overview of the Market:
The goal of ESA and the DOE Utility Storage program is to build market volume for storage systems. Utilities are proving to be a very tough market for battery storage, despite a strong benefit/cost story. One hypothesis is that the benefits are scattered among different stakeholders (even within a utility), with no single part being big enough by itself. Nobody is in a position to put it together, and restructuring is making the situation even worse, as the walls go up inside utilities. Also, utilities say they have no money, and want the first cost to be very low, regardless of life-cycle considerations. Meanwhile, big needs are looming, especially on transmission systems, but nobody seems to own the problem or is in a position to make the investment.

Vendors are offering turnkey systems for various applications and markets, but there are very few orders, and those are mostly for very special situations, e.g. in Alaska (remarkable success stories). Vendors are getting very discouraged, and may be close to throwing in the towel.

Is the problem with the Technology? Marketing? Or do utilities “just not get it?” Or, are the proponents wrong in their view that storage is an idea whose time is overdue, and that it’s largely a matter of “education”? In 1996, DOE and Sandia visited with over two dozen utilities to try to understand the industry’s views on storage. Results were recently published: “Report on the Energy Storage Systems Program Executive Meetings Project” SAND 97-2700, November 97. However, more dialogue with the utility industry is still needed, to get to the bottom of these questions.

The ESA has proposed a flagship project called “Storage 2000,” as a joint program with DOE to stimulate and accelerate development, with a goal of 200 MW of project commitments by the year 2000. Applications are to include renewable, distributed, generation/transmission (ancillary services), and customer systems.

–> Energy Storage in the UK
The closer storage is to the customer, the better. Anthony Price, of National Power, UK, compared batteries to warehouses for “just in time” distribution, where it’s well known that you put storage only in one place in the system, close to the customer. He showed an analysis of the bulk market hourly price over time. Even with big differences between on and off peak wholesale prices, you can’t win by buying off-peak and selling on-peak. Not only are there roundtrip (storage) losses, but you’re also fighting the spread (sell at the bid price, buy at ask). What you’d be selling is capacity, and there’s currently an excess.

The farther down the distribution chain you are, more distribution costs are built into the price of goods, so storage has more value. However, whoever owns the storage controls that value. “If the customer owns the storage, then the rates are wrong”.

–> Uninterruptible Power and Power Quality
While utility storage isn’t moving, UPS and P/Q applications are a very strong market (a lesson there somewhere?). There are still issues, however. Though vendors have products, there’s often insufficient understanding of what a “disturbance” really is. For example, they may design for a 3 phase symmetrical fault, which rarely occurs. Phase shifts and waveforms need particular attention. Too often, products need to be redesigned in the field.

There are several interesting systems using steel flywheels: – International Computer Power — steel flywheel in a 100 kVA motor genset to provide ridethrough, successfully demonstrated for two years at a Hewlett Packard site, dramatically reducing diesel backup starts. – Holic Power Protection — 100’s installed worldwide. Diesel generator and flywheel combination where the flywheel dynamically adjusts itself to maintain constant generator speed. 1250 kVA unit runs about $1.1 million. Without the diesel, it can provide short term ride through. – Active Power, Austin TX, has been issuing press releases lately. Modular pancake unit provides 400kW for 5 sec, for short discharge P/Q applications.

In “new” technology (composite) flywheels, Beacon Power presented their plug-replacement for batteries in UPS systems. The 1 kW, 2kWh unit goes directly on the DC bus. Beacon is a joint venture between SatCon and Duquesne. They expect to be in production by the end of ’98, with beta tests in mid year.
–> Renewables and Storage
Solar and Wind energy systems need storage, particularly in remote/village power applications. The opportunities are huge, particularly to supply the 2 billion people in the world with no electricity, and to displace diesel fuel consumption. A number of programs are trying to come up with reliable modular integrated systems (hybrids with diesel, solar or wind, and batteries). Batteries are often blamed as the weak link in renewable energy systems (right along with inverters), but the blame may be misplaced–often the wrong type of battery is installed by local people.

The President’s “Million Solar Roof” initiative is beginning to be felt, though this may not necessarily imply much use of storage. SMUD has a huge commitment to renewables, and are just now beginning to consider the potential benefits of storage in that context.

The first major project under Storage 2000 is to be the “Renewable Generation and Storage ” (RGS) project. Partners will be selected by formal solicitation process in 1998 for design, development and testing of a prototype integrated system with a PV array, inverter and storage, ready for customer use. International opportunities exist for “Remote Area Power Systems” or mini-grid systems. Funding is available, and local governments are motivated, e.g. in Latin America. The Solar Energy Industry Association has information. ( ).

–> Texas Energy Storage Technology Institute (ESTI)
This is a coordinated research program involving all the universities in Texas, funded in part by the Texas Energy Coordinating Council, a state agency. ESTI is doing work in capacitors, batteries, and particularly high performance flywheel systems for railroad applications. DOT and DARPA funding support the Advanced Locomotive Propulsion System, which includes a 3 MW Allied Signal gas turbo-alternator, and the University-developed 167 kwh flywheel for braking and acceleration. The idea is to provide an alternative to electrification of railroad right of way. ESTI wants to encourage synergies between stationary and mobile storage systems. Contact John Price, 512-471-4496, 512-232-1888 (direct),, http:/

–> Key Note Speaker

Separately, Pramod Kulkarni of the CEC outlined the priorities for storage in California, seen as a “strategic” area under the public benefit R&D program.

Energy Stg Assoc Meeting next week

We’ve just gotten late word of this meeting. Some of you are active in the ESA, but many are not. I will attend.

Energy Storage Association Fall Meeting
The Value of Energy Storage in a Restructured Utility Market
Sacramento, California
November 18 -19, 1997

Dear ESA Supporter:

Our upcoming Fall meeting in Sacramento is shaping up to be our most exciting to date. Our meeting location represents the seat of change for the largest transformation in the US electricity industry. It further represents a location for new opportunities in our emerging energy storage industry.

Our agenda includes presentations that will be informative for both new and long-standing members. Invited speakers will present the following:

– Emerging California Energy R&D Focus in 1998 Responsive to Assembly Bill 1890 (AB 1890)
– Green Power Markets in California
– International Renewable Energy Markets and the Need for Energy Storage
– Emerging New Energy Storage Products
– DOE/Sandia Solicitation for Renewable/Storage Projects
– Remote Areas Power Supplies International Project (RAPSI)
– Ongoing Program and Project Status
– New Products and Services from the ESA

The ESA continues to improve its products, structure, and organizational agenda. We are attracting new members, participating with DOE on common interests, and working with our board to define our agenda and strengthen our organization. Please consider board membership (contact Abbas Akhil, our nomination committee chairman) to help shape the future of our organization. At a minimum, please share your thoughts and ideas with our chairman, a board member, or myself.

Please contact our office if we can answer any questions regarding out upcoming meeting. I look forward to greeting you in Sacramento.


Jonathan W. Hurwitch
Executive Director


Energy Storage Association Fall Meeting 1997
Preliminary Agenda of Invited Speakers
Monday November 17
ESA Board Meeting 12:00 noon – 6:00 pm
Tuesday November 18

Feature Forum
Denise Zurn, Chairwoman 8:30 am – 10:45

Key Note Speaker
Dr. David A. Rohy, Vice Chairman, California Energy Commission
California’s Commitment to Maintaining Research and Development in a Restructured Electricity Market

Jan Hamrin, Director, Center for Resource Solutions
California Utility Restructuring and Emerging Green Power Solutions

Hank Zaininger, Power Technologies, Inc.
Independent System Operator Reliability Study

Peter Lowenthal, US Export Council for Renewable Energy/Solar
Energy Industries Association
International and Domestic Markets for Renewables/Storage (includes the latest on the Million Solar Roofs Initiative)

Anthony Price, National Power
Energy Storage in the Competitive Market in the UK

Don Osbourne, SMUD
Pioneer Program and Photovoltaic Manufacturing Initiative
Tuesday November 18

Technology Forum
Richard Schweinberg, Chairman 11:00 am – 12:30 pm

Mike Stern, Utility Power Group
UPG Renewable/Storage Projects

Mike Davis, Golden Genesis Company
Electricworks™ PV/Battery Village Power Systems

Doug Danley, Orion Power
Apex Power Systems

Gene Weaver, International Computer Power
Dynamic Energy Storage Systems

Technology Forum (continued) 1:45 pm – 3:00 pm

J. Roberts, S.F. Gyro Dynamics, Incorporated
Lee McLane, Precise Power Corporation
Brad Walter, Piller, Incorporated
Robert Hall, Holec, Incorporated
John Comstock, Power Systems and Controls
Stacy Uzick, Lucent Technologies

ESA Business and Products 3:15 pm – 4:45 pm

Board Summary / Board Elections – Phil Symons, ESA Chairman
ESA Business Plan ’98 – Jon Hurwitch, ESA Executive Director
ESA Products – Jon Hurwitch / Brian Highsmith, ESA Coordinator

ESA Dinner 6:00 pm – 8:00 pm

“Opportunities for Industry in the US Department of Energy /
Sandia National Laboratories Renewable Storage (RGS) Project”

Dr. Christine Platt, Program Manager, Energy Storage Systems, US Department of Energy
Mr. Paul Butler, Program Manager, Energy Storage Systems, Sandia National Laboratories

Wednesday November 19

Storage 2000: A Government/Industry Partnership to Break Market Barriers
Phil Symons / Jon Hurwitch, Moderators 8:30 am – 10:15am

Utilities – Richard Schweinberg / Denise Zurn
Manufacturers – Robert Flemming / George Hunt
Research – Paul Butler / Steve Eckroad

Market Analysis Forum 10:30 am – 12:00 pm

Dr. Jerome Cole, ILZRO
Remote Area Power Supplies International (RAPSI) Project

Abbas Akhil, Sandia National Laboratories
Metlakatla Alaska Workshop & EESAT International Conference

Pramod Kulkarni, California Electric Commission
Value of Storage in California

Shiva Swaminathan, SENTECH, Inc.
Assessment of Power Quality Opportunities for Storage in the US

Project Status Forum 1:30 pm – 4:30 pm

Jeff Corbett, Virginia Power
DOE Sponsored Transportable Battery Energy Storage System

Rao Thallam, Salt River Project
EPRI Sponsored Transportable Battery Energy Storage System

Don Sostrum , Power Engineers
Alaska/Golden Valley Railbelt Battery Energy Storage Project

George Hunt, GNB Technologies
Metlakatla Pioneer Battery Energy Storage System

Paula Taylor, Energetics, Inc.
Virtual Energy Storage and Generation Systems

Sam Edwards, Naval Surface Warfare Center
Status of Department of Defense Renewable/Storage Projects


Reservations and Accommodations:
Sheraton Rancho Cordova Hotel Sacramento
11211 Point East Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95742
1-800-851-2400 (in CA) or 1-800-325-3535 (outside CA)
*Please mention ESA when making hotel reservations.
Block cut-off date is Nov. 3, 1997

Please complete the attached form and return with appropriate fees by Nov. 10th to:

4733 Bethesda Avenue, Suite 608
Bethesda, MD 20814

Tel: (301) 951-3223 Fax: (301) 951-3235

** Check out our website at: **

Airport: Sacramento Metro Airport Attire: Business Casual
Shuttle: Super Shuttle, $12 each way. Optional Tours: Thurs. 11/20

US Department of Energy and Energy Storage Association to Host Renewable Generation Storage (RGS) and Storage 2000 (St2K) Dialogue at Fall ESA Meeting

Two sessions are planned at the Fall 1997 ESA meeting to further discuss government industry partnership projects and ideas to break market barriers for energy storage technologies. The first is a dinner to discuss the forthcoming RGS project and solicitation to be released by the DOE Energy Storage Systems Program in Spring 1997. The second is a panel session on the Storage 2000 initiative to discuss the concept and specific ideas on what this initiative could be.

What is Storage 2000? The initiative was proposed and endorsed by the ESA at its initial meeting in 1996 as a flagship project with its objective to stimulate and accelerate technology development for emerging markets (development of integrated technologies and the installation of energy storage into transmission, distribution, and customer service) for energy storage with a goal of 200 MW worth of project commitments by the end of 2000.

Storage 2000 was proposed as a joint US Department of Energy/industry initiative to deploy 200 MW of energy storage. The program was to emphasize supporting business venture development to develop and sustain the markets for these technologies as the US restructures its utility industry from a regulated to a competitive industry. The ESA proclaimed a need for this commercialization initiative to accelerate emerging markets by building volume, creating a manufacturing infrastructure, buying-down early risk into new markets, and validating the benefits of new applications. Applications for energy storage in this initiative would include:

Renewable energy/storage projects that would validate the benefits of grid-connected wind and/or photovoltaic systems

Customer service projects that will validate the use of energy storage to provide improved productivity through power quality, peak shaving, outage protection, and demand-side management premium services.

Since 1996, ESA members and staff have continued a dialogue with DOE to develop the political and programmatic concepts for Storage 2000. Creation of an Industry User’s Group for DOE has supported this effort. The programmatic plans put forth by DOE combined with the industry voice of the ESA has resulted in increased budget support for the DOE Energy Storage program. This increase includes support for the Storage 2000 concept and DOE is asking the “industry voice” of the ESA to make recommendations on the directions of this technology demonstration and validation initiative. The session at the ESA meeting is to define the mutual interests of both industry and government and move forward on a program that can open up commercial market opportunities for the technology.

What is RGS?
The Renewable Generation and Storage (RGS) project is being viewed as the first project under the Storage 2000 umbrella aimed at technology improvements to validate the benefits of integrated wind and/or photovoltaic systems. This multi-year project includes the design, development, and testing of a prototype integrated renewable/hybrid system consisting of a matched PV array, inverter, and energy storage system integrated and user-ready for the customer. DOE anticipates operating the prototype in stand-alone mode in a test bed located at customer sites. Partners will be selected through a formal solicitation process with contract(s) awarded late 1988. Preliminary input for the photovoltaics community was received at a session of the IEEE PV specialists Conference. DOE is urging your attendance and participation at the ESA meeting as they seek input from the energy storage community prior to the final release of the solicitation.

Plan to attend these sessions to express your opinions to DOE officials regarding the need, objectives, and plans for these projects. ESA your participation in these meetings to meet potential strategic partners and competitors for the upcoming solicitations and to further your efforts to commercialize energy storage into new and expanding markets.

___ Mr. ___ Ms. ___ Dr.
Last Name: First Name: Name for Badge:
City: State: Zip:
Telephone: Fax: E-mail
Date of Arrival: Date of Departure:
___ Meeting Registration…………….$250.00

NON-ESA Member
___ Meeting Registration…………….$1000.00
___ ESA Invited Speaker/Participant……$250.00
___ Sponsored Registration……………$250.00
Sponsor’s Name:
Optional Tours: ___ SMUD ___ Sacramento Airport

___ Energy Storage Dinner…………………….No charge
(Buffet Dinner and Speakers, Tuesday, 11/18/97)

*If you have any special needs (dietary, physical, etc.,) please
contact the ESA staff, at the number below, for assistance.
Will you be traveling with a guest/family? ___ yes ___ no
How Many? Guest Name(s):

Please return completed copy and fees by Nov. 10h to:
4733 Bethesda Avenue, Suite 608
Bethesda, MD 20814

* Acceptable forms of payment: Personal or Company Check, Money
Order, Cash. Sorry, No Credit Cards accepted.

TEL: (301) 951-3223
FAX: (301) 951-3235

NY Times article: The Private-Sector Life of a Government Lab

RECOMMENDED READING — On the front page of (8/23) Saturday’s NY Times business section, there was an extensive article on the relationships between DOE National Labs and private industry.

August 23, 1997 The Private-Sector Life of a Government Lab By CLAUDIA H. DEUTSCH

[G] oodyear Tire and Rubber Co. wanted to predict, without weeks of test drives, how its tires would perform under various conditions. So it went to the Energy Department’s Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, N.M., for help. “Their computer models show how a nuclear weapon will react to different conditions, so why shouldn’t they show how a tire will react?” said William Sharp, president of Goodyear’s global support operations.

A federal weapons laboratory might seem an unlikely partner for a tire maker, but with the Cold War over and military spending shrinking, Sandia is putting out the welcome mat to private industry. And U.S. corporations, which have emerged in this era after downsizing as far more willing to turn to outside sources, are lining up to tap into its technology storehouse.

They are using Sandia to develop new manufacturing processes, to run what-if simulations on new products, to solve environmental problems. In the process, they are helping Sandia move beyond its once single-minded focus on the arms race.

For example, a consortium of 17 casting and forging companies, recognizing that few young engineers were joining their industry, asked Sandia to help it simplify software so that employees who were not engineers could create and test new casting equipment. “None of us have the time or money to do this ourselves,” said Robert Kervick, chief executive of Komtek, a casting company in Worcester, Mass.

And Motorola asked Sandia to run reliability tests on computer chips without using the standard chemical cleaning agents — the chlorofluorocarbons that destroy the atmosphere’s ozone layer. “Customers feel more comfortable buying a product whose reliability is verified by a government lab,” said James Landers, a manager in Motorola’s Space and Systems Technology Group.

For Sandia, the money pouring in from its corporate partners helps keep many of its 7,642 employees — about 800 fewer than two years ago — gainfully employed. But the real winner, Sandia insists, is the U.S. economy. “National security starts with economic security, and that means helping our industries compete,” said Paul Robinson, Sandia’s president.

Sandia (pronounced san-DEE-uh) is not the only Energy Department lab sounding that theme. Although documents emerged last week indicating that some of the labs, including Sandia, are still hard at work on new or modified designs for nuclear arms, private-sector projects are nonetheless occupying an ever-larger share of their time.

Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, Lawrence Livermore — the heart, lung and brain of the Manhattan Project’s atomic bomb and its progeny — all have been accelerating their industrial endeavors since 1989. That was when Congress removed many of the legal impediments that had kept them from transferring intellectual property or licensing technologies to private industry.

Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island, N.Y., which is grappling with environmental problems caused by the leak of radioactive tritium from a research reactor’s storage tank, is looking to commercialize its medical and environmental technologies.

In the last eight years the labs have written more than 3,000 Cradas — the acronym for cooperative research and development agreements — that spell out who pays for what, and how the results can be used. Some call for companies to foot the entire bill in return for proprietary rights to anything that is developed.

But more typically, the labs chip in some cash, retain the rights to the resulting technology and give the corporations that contributed several years of free, exclusive use.

The federal labs, even when shrouded in secrecy, have always intermingled with industry. Many of them have been managed by private corporations — under contract to the Energy Department and its predecessors — for several decades. Sandia, for one, was run by AT&T for nearly 44 years and is now managed by Lockheed Martin.

But while all of the labs are devoting more time and resources to projects in the private sector, the effort seems most crucial at Sandia. Unlike Oak Ridge, which has always been a multipurpose energy lab, Sandia’s raison d’etre has always been the arms race.

And Sandia, which designs the non-nuclear components of nuclear weapons, also is responsible for stockpiling spare parts and for maintaining the existing supply of nuclear weapons. So, unlike Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos, which design and develop nuclear warheads, its duties have not lessened much with the end of the Cold War.

Even so, Sandia’s operating budget is slowly being whittled away. It was down almost $50 million this year, to about $1.28 billion, and Sandia expects it will drop to $1.1 billion in 1999. And a lot of those cuts have come out of the money available for use as matching funds for industrial projects.

In 1995, Sandia got about $100 million from the government for those purposes; it received $56 million last year and $20 million this year. Warren Siemens, Sandia’s director of technology partnerships, doubts it will rise above that again. “Apparently Congress has said, ‘Oops, this is corporate welfare,”‘ Siemens said.

So, while most of the laboratories are looking for ways to apply their existing technologies to corporate use, Sandia is the most willing to develop new processes for industry, with the hope that the companies will kick in most of the costs.

Right now, for example, Sandia is working with a consortium of electronics companies on a project to miniaturize certain types of semiconductor chips to handle 30 times more functions than they typically do now. It is collaborating with numerous manufacturers on ways to cast tools directly from powdered metals.

And it is encouraging industry to tap into its supercomputer — a machine that Sandia says is 300 times more powerful than Deep Blue, IBM’s chess-playing champion — not only to answer questions about products and processes but also to suggest what questions should be asked.

“We hold the record for speed of computing,” Siemens said. “We have great strength in microelectronics, and these are exactly the areas companies look to for help in making products more reliable.”

Progress in convincing industry to chip in has been slow. Five years ago, about $9 million of Sandia’s funds came from industry. Last year corporations provided $27 million. But Siemens thinks private funding will hit $35 million this year, and soar to $100 million by 2000.

And Sandia wants more from industry than simply money. Since it can no longer afford to hire many new researchers, it must rely on industry to keep abreast of new technologies.

Moreover, industrial projects often have implications for the military. “It’s a lot cheaper to maintain an Air Force whose planes need less rebuilding or repairing,” said Gernant Maurer, vice president of technology for Special Metals Corp., a maker of nickel-based superalloys that is part of a consortium working with Sandia to develop defect-free alloys for engine aircraft.

Similarly, weapons and satellites are loaded with semiconductor chips. “Our nation’s defense systems rely on semiconductors, and it would not be great if they had to buy all those chips from overseas,” said Chris Daverse, manager of national resources for Sematech Inc., a nonprofit research consortium of semiconductor makers and equipment suppliers, which has signed on for numerous projects to develop lower-cost production methods and contamination-free chips.

Sandia’s new reliance on industry comes at an opportune time. Companies have grown more comfortable with the idea of outsourcing all kinds of tasks, so letting outsiders work on their research is not as radical as it would have been in the do-it-yourself ’80s. Moreover, many have formed strategic alliances with suppliers and competitors, which has made them less averse to sharing their technologies with others.

“The thinking is, it is better to get half the rights to a product that is first to market, than all the rights to one that comes in late,” said Mary Good, a former undersecretary of commerce who helped set up a project for the auto industry and several national laboratories to develop a fuel-efficient car.

If repeat business is a sign of satisfaction, the corporations that have tried it clearly believe they have gotten their money’s worth. Goodyear, which has completed four cooperative projects in which it used computer modeling to predict how different tread designs and materials would perform, just signed on for its fifth Sandia project. It is aimed at analyzing and improving rubber processing technology.

A deal between Delphi Saginaw Steering Systems, an arm of General Motors Corp., and Sandia to develop better finishing processes for auto parts has metamorphosed into a Detroit-wide project to develop electronic controls for industrial heating and hardening processes.

“We’ll save tens of millions just by eliminating destructive testing,” said James Farago, Delphi’s supervisor of controls engineering. “And we’re going to get better insights into the materials we use.”
Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company

Battery Market Studies from Sandia

Battery Market Studies from Sandia
Aug 14, 1997

Sandia has issued two new reports on markets for batteries:

“Photovoltaic Battery and Charge Controller Market and Applications Survey”, Hammond, Turpin,, SAND96-2900, December 1996

Surveys were conducted with PV system integrators, battery makers, and PV charge controller makers, to a) quantify the market for batteries shipped (in 1995), b) quantify market segments by type and application, c) characterize controllers used in PV systems, d) characterize operating environments for storage components in PV systems, and e) estimate the market in the year 2000.

In 1995, worldwide shipments for PV batteries totalled $300 million, with a U.S. accounting for just over 10%. In either case, system integrators account for no more than 14% of batteries sold for PV.

“Battery Energy Storage Market Feasibility Study”, Akhil and Kraft, SAND97-1275/1 and SAND97-1275/2, July 1997. (The first, 1275/1, is a short version of 25 pages. The second, 1275/2, is the long version, with about 200 pages, which will be available sometime in September.)

The purpose of this study was to quantify the energy storage market for utility applications by surveys of electricity providers, battery storage system vendors, and others. Specifically, goals were a) to gather perceptions in the battery energy storage (BES) and utility industries on desired features and comparison with other storage options; b) to estimate BES markets through the year 2010; and c) to provide Sandia and DOE with inputs to the Energy Storage System Program effort.

Reports can be obtained through NTIS or directly from Sandia. Send requests to Imelda Francis, 505-844-7362, fax 505-844-6972, or:

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.

Robotic Hot Inspection and Repair of Waterwall Tubing

Subject: UFTO Notes — Robotic Hot Inspection and Repair of Waterwall Tubing
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997
From: Ed Beardsworth

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

Robotic Hot Inspection and Repair of Waterwall Tubing

Entech Design, a Texas company with several successful products for bottom ash handling and mapping, has a put together a proposal to develop a new robotic pipe-crawler system to inspect and repair waterwall tubing in fossil power plants.

Inspection — While NDE techniques are well known, they are not used as frequently as might be indicated because of the high cost of currently available procedures. The proposed system will provide a rapid and cost-effective means to get comprehensive tube condition data, making it possible to predict failures and to schedule preventive repairs during scheduled outages. The company believes that over 30% of forced outages could be eliminated.

Repair and Replacement — Robotic technology is highly developed in other industries, and capabilities exist to manipulate, cut and weld tubes. Performing these tasks with heat-tolerant robotic systems would significantly reduce boiler cool-down time, by as much as ten hours. Over all outage times would be reduced and scaffolding costs would be eliminated.

The company has a detailed plan involving collaboration with Sandia National Lab (one of the leading robotics R&D groups in the U.S.), and a leading provider of robotic equipment. The system would use available off-the-shelf components.

They’re looking for an electric utility partner to provide development capital and program guidance, and to participate in the ownership of the service company that will employ the technology.

Randy Minnis
Entech Design, Inc.
Denton TX