Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase Two) (2007) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
2 Results of Applying the Methodology
2 Results of Applying the Methodology
Pages 14-39
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 14... ...
The • FE programs and activities: overall benefit of the DOE R&D program is given as the -- Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) ; difference between the expected benefits with DOE support -- Carbon Sequestration; and and the expected benefits without DOE support.
|
From page 15... ...
that 2. Several of the expert panels concluded that the prob have been specified by the committee, namely, a base case ability of meeting the technical goals of a DOE program on EIA scenario, a high oil/gas price scenario, and a carbon constrained scenario.
|
From page 16... ...
• Figure 2-3, natural gas exploration and production, • The methodology estimates public benefits in three pages 23-28, areas -- economic, environmental, and energy security. While • Figure 2-4, distributed energy resources, pages 29-31, these three types of benefits reflect DOE's strategic goals • Figure 2-5, light-duty hybrid vehicles, pages 32-36, and • Figure 2-6, Industrial Technologies Program––Chemi 2NEMS determines capacity additions in its electricity market module cals, pages 37-39.
|
From page 17... ...
Key Complementary/Interdependent DOE Programs: Turbine programs, carbon sequestration Global Scenariob AEO Reference Case High Oil and Gas Prices Technical Risks Technical success was defined by the cost and efficiency of future IGCC plants. The panel identified four levels of technical success: $1,400/kW and 39% efficiency; $1,265/kW and 42% efficiency; $1,135/kW and 45% efficiency; $1,040/kW and 48 percent efficiency.
|
From page 18... ...
. The impact of natural gas prices and carbon regulations is addressed by the three global scenarios.
|
From page 19... ...
RESULTS OF APPLYING THE METHODOLOGY Technical Success: DOE Funding? Plant Availability Cost and Performance Ninety % 50% Very high success: $1040/kW; 48% eff Eighty -five % 25% 10% Eighty % 25% Ninety % 50% High success: Eighty-five % $1135/kW; 45% eff 25% 40% Eighty % 25% Yes Ninety % 65% Moderate success: $1265/kW; 42% eff Eighty -five % 20% 45% Eighty % 15% Ninety % Low success: 75% $1400/kW; 39% eff Eighty -five % 15% 5% Eighty % 10% Ninety % Very high success: 30% $1040/kW; 48% eff Eighty-five % 40% 0% Eighty % 30% Ninety % 30% High success: Eighty -five % $1135/kW; 45% eff 40% 10% Eighty % 30% No Ninety % 55% Moderate success: $1265/kW; 42% eff Eighty-five % 25% 40% Eighty % 20% Ninety % Low success: 65% $1400/kW; 39% eff Eighty -five % 20% 50% Eighty % 15% 2-1c.eps FIGURE 2-1 Continued
|
From page 20... ...
Funding: $66 million Expected cost to completion: program costs through 2020 are expected to be $875 million Key Complementary/Interdependent DOE Programs: IGCC Global Scenarioa Carbon Constrained $100/ton Carbon Tax $300/ton Carbon Tax Technical Risks Estimated as the probability of achieving specified impacts on the cost of electricity for IGCC plants with sequestration compared with those same plants without sequestration. Average of the panel assessments for the increase in cost of electricity (COE)
|
From page 21... ...
associated with the capture and storage of carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants, specifically from advanced IGCC plants. Market risks.
|
From page 22... ...
Cost of Electricity with Carbon Capture and Storage DOE Funding? Sequestration Risk 2012 2017 2022 0-10% Increase 0-10% Increase 0-10% Increase Storage allowed 10-20% Increase 10-20% Increase 10-20% Increase Yes Storage not allowed 20-30% Increase 20-30% Increase 20-30% Increase >30% Increase >30% Increase >30% Increase 0-10% Increase 0-10% Increase 0-10% Increase Storage allowed FIGURE 2-2 Continued 10-20% Increase 10-20% Increase 10-20% Increase No Storage not allowed 20-30% Increase 20-30% Increase 20-30% Increase >30% Increase >30% Increase >30% Increase 2-2c.eps
|
From page 23... ...
Funding: Program closeout Global Scenario AEO Reference Case High Oil and Gas Prices Carbon Constrained Technical Risks Technical risks were evaluated at the subprogram level and were defined as the likelihood of achieving specific increases in economically recoverable resources (ERR) by 2015 as a result of DOE's R&D program.
|
From page 24... ...
Energy security benefits also accrue from reduced natural gas imports because of enhanced domestic gas production. Although it was difficult to evaluate environmental benefits, they would also likely accrue because the use of natural gas is relatively clean compared to other fossil fuels.
|
From page 25... ...
RESULTS OF APPLYING THE METHODOLOGY Technical Success: Market Success: Increase in ERR made technically possible by Fraction of potential DOE's research in stripper market that adopts the DOE Funding? new technologies well technologies in 2015 Single estimate for each level of technical success 7 Tcf 13%, 23%, 23% 50%, 65%, 67% 4 Tcf 57%, 68%, 68% 37%, 40%, 44% Yes 2 Tcf 48%, 37%, 33% 56%, 63%, 67% No increase 3%, 0%, 0% NA No No increase: outcomes are defined as increases in ERR due to DOE's R&D program Existing Fields FIGURE 2-3 Continued
|
From page 26... ...
PROSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF APPLIED ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AT DOE (PHASE TWO) Decrease in Drilling Increase in ERR Costs for due to Decreased Unconventional Gas in DOE Funding?
|
From page 27... ...
RESULTS OF APPLYING THE METHODOLOGY Technical Success: Increase in ERR in 2015 due to advances in diagnostics and DOE imaging from DOE's program Funding? 10 Tcf 4%, 9%, 8% 6 Tcf 30%, 39%, 39% Yes 2 Tcf 56%, 45%, 44% No increase 9%, 8%, 9% No No increase: outcomes are defined as increases in ERR due to DOE's R&D program Advanced Diagnostics 2-3e.eps FIGURE 2-3 Continued
|
From page 28... ...
program in 2015 can be realized 15 Tcf 61%, 66%, 69% 5%, 10%, 8% 10 Tcf 61%, 83%, 83% 30%, 34%, 43% Yes 5 Tcf 73%, 84%, 84% 44%, 45%, 43% No increase NA 20%, 11%, 13% No No increase: outcomes are defined as increases in ERR due to DOE's R&D program Deep Trek 2-3f.eps FIGURE 2-3 Continued
|
From page 29... ...
Funding: $20.5 million Expected Cost to Completion: $205 million through 2015 Industry and Foreign Government Funding: 30% to 50% cost share Key Complementary/Interdependent DOE Programs: industrial gas turbines, microturbines, advanced reciprocation engines, and related materials and sensors, all within the DER program Global Scenario AEO Reference High Oil and Gas Electricity Constraineda Case Prices Carbon Constrained Technical risks identified as uncertainty in the ability to reach the 4-year-or-less payback Technical Risks target identified by DOE (for a 70+% efficient system)
|
From page 30... ...
Technical risks. The panel estimated the highest likelihood of technical success in the Electricity Constrained scenario and the lowest in the High Oil and Gas Prices scenario (as higher natural gas prices will make it more difficult for CHP technologies to achieve a shorter payback)
|
From page 31... ...
RESULTS OF APPLYING THE METHODOLOGY Technical Success: Years to customer payback for 70+% efficient Market Market Success: system based on Segment/ DOE Funding? Market adoption rate Type R&D completed in 2008 High: 50% new/5% existing 4 or less Moderate: 25% new/2.5% existing Low: 10% new/1% existing High Locally high elec prices 5 to 7 Moderate Low High 8 or more Moderate Low Yes High 4 or less Moderate Low High Locally low elec prices 5 to 7 Moderate Low High 8 or more Moderate Low High 4 or less Moderate Low High Locally high elec prices 5 to 7 Moderate Low High 8 or more Moderate Low No High 4 or less Moderate Low High Locally low elec prices 5 to 7 Moderate Low High 8 or more Moderate Low 2-4c.eps FIGURE 2-4 Continued
|
From page 32... ...
Expected economic Economic benefits are calculated as the reduction in the expected consumer benefits expenditures for vehicles and fuel from 2006 to 2050 attributable to the DOE program. In the Low HEV market In the Low HEV market In the Low HEV market condition: condition: condition: $5.9 billion at 3% $27.5 billion at 3% $7.3 billion at 3% $3.7 billion at 7% $15.7 billion at 7% $4.7 billion at 7% In the High HEV market In the High HEV market In the High HEV market condition: condition: condition: $7.2 billion at 3% $28.2 billion at 3% $8.5 billion at 3% $4.2 billion at 7% $15.9 billion at 7% $5 billion at 7% Environmental Environmental benefits are calculated as the reduction in total carbon emissions from benefits vehicles from 2006 to 2050 that can be attributed to the DOE program.
|
From page 33... ...
The reduced gasoline consumption leads directly to benefits: economic benefits from reduced consumer expenditures for gasoline, environmental benefits from reduced carbon dioxide and other emissions, and security benefits from reduced demand for oil. To quantify benefits, the panel constructed 145 different possible technical outcomes, each consisting of a unique combination of technical success levels of the three R&D areas it evaluated.
|
From page 34... ...
2010 2020 High High success: at 100%, 100%, 100% DOE "goal" levels Moderate 0%, 0%, 0% 11%, 10%, 9% Low 0%, 0%, 0% High Moderate success: Meet DOE perf goals, 57%, 64%, 63% Yes cost of $28/kW Moderate 43%, 36%, 37% 40%, 42%, 38% Low 0%, 0%, 0% High Low success: 32%, 34%, 32% 10% improvement Moderate 43%, 47%, 49% 49%, 48%, 53% Low 25%, 19%, 19% High 100%, 100%, 100% High success Moderate 10%, 10%, 9% 0%, 0%, 0% Low 0%, 0%, 0% High 48%, 57%, 56% No Moderate Moderate success 52%, 43%, 44% 38%, 39%, 35% Low 0%, 0%, 0% High 28%, 31%, 30% Low success Moderate 53%, 52%, 56% 46%, 49%, 51% Low 26%, 19%, 19% FIGURE 2-52-5c.eps Continued
|
From page 35... ...
RESULTS OF APPLYING THE METHODOLOGY Lightweighting Technical Success: Weight reduction Relative cost of DOE achievable based on lighter-weight Funding? R&D completed in 2012 vehicles 2% cost increase 50% lighter than 21%, 22%, 22% 1997 vehicles 10% cost increase 36%, 35%, 35% 0%, 4%, 2% More than 10% increase 43%, 43%, 43% 2% cost increase 25% lighter than 39%, 40%, 40% Yes 10% cost increase 1997 vehicles 41%, 49%, 40% 54%, 53%, 53% More than 10% increase 7%, 7%, 7% 2% cost increase 10% lighter than 70%, 72%, 71% 1997 vehicles 10% cost increase 30%, 28%, 29% 59%, 48%, 58% More than 10% increase 0%, 0%, 0% 2% cost increase 50% lighter than 19%, 20%, 20% 10% cost increase 1997 vehicles 0%, 3%, 1% 35%, 34%, 34% More than 10% increase 47%, 47%, 47% 2% cost increase 25% lighter than 33%, 35%, 34% No 1997 vehicles 10% cost increase 38%, 45%, 37% 52%, 51%, 51% More than 10% increase 15%, 14%, 15% 2% cost increase 10% lighter than 66%, 68%, 67% 1997 vehicles 10% cost increase 63%, 52%, 62% 33%, 31%, 32% More than 10% increase 1%, 1%, 1% 2-5d.eps FIGURE 2-5 Continued
|
From page 36... ...
completed in 2010 emission control 1% penalty 40%, 44%, 43% 45% efficiency 18%, 24%, 22% 3% penalty 60%, 56%, 57% Yes 1% penalty 41%, 48%, 43% 42% efficiency 82%, 76%, 78% 3% penalty 59%, 52%, 57% 1% penalty 34%, 38%, 37% 45% efficiency 12%, 17%, 15% 3% penalty 66%, 62%, 63% No 1% penalty 35%, 44%, 39% 42% efficiency 88%, 83%, 85% 3% penalty 65%, 56%, 61% 2-5e.eps FIGURE 2-5 Continued
|
From page 37... ...
metric tons Security Benefits The same quantity of energy savings, and therefore the same security benefits, will be achieved under all three scenarios. Anticipated security benefits are the reduction in oil and natural gas consumption from 2006 through 2030: Natural gas: 89 (0-330)
|
From page 38... ...
Benefits estimation. The economic, environmental, and security benefits of the Chemical Industrial Technologies Program derive directly from the energy savings realizable from the projects.
|
From page 39... ...
RESULTS OF APPLYING THE METHODOLOGY Technical and Market Incremental Benefit of Success Level of R&D DOE Funding Portfolio DOE Funding? High $1,905 million .25 Estimated reduction in Yes Moderate energy consumption $240 million and emissions .5 Low $0 million .25 High $0 (Incremental benefit of DOE program is incorporated No Moderate directly in the calculation)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.