Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public PolicyThe National Academies

September 10, 2012

DOE’s Energy Innovation HubsOrigins, characteristics, reflections

Dr. Patricia M. DehmerDeputy Director for Science Programs

Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energyhttp://www.science.energy.gov/sc-2/presentations-and-testimony/

DOE and its predecessors

2

1942-1946 Manhattan Project, War Department Army Corps of Engineers– Wartime weapons development– Foundations of first DOE multi-purpose national labs

1946-1974 Atomic Energy Commission created by the 1946 Atomic Energy Act (P.L. 79-585)

– Research in basic nuclear processes, nuclear reactor technologies, use of nuclear materials for variety of purposes

– Establishment of 9 of the 10 DOE/SC national labs

1974-1977 Energy Research and Development Administration, a new energy R&D agency motivated by Arab oil embargo and created by (P.L. 93-438)

– Research expands to include solar, fossil, geothermal, synthetic fuels, transmission, conservation, etc.

1977-present Department of Energy (P.L. 95-91)– Separation of management oversight of weapons and non-weapons labs and

separation of basic and applied research– DOE/SC labs undergo transition to “open” labs with 1000s of visitors/users

annually

The DOE Portfolio TodayArea map of the FY 2013 budget request to Congress ($27.2B)

3

Fuels from Sunlight (2010) Batteries and Energy

Storage (2012)

Energy Efficient Buildings (2010)

Critical Materials (2012) Modeling and Simulation of Nuclear Reactors (2010)

Research sponsors

4

Fuels from Sunlight (2010) Batteries and Energy Storage (2012)

3 Bioenergy Research Centers (2007)

46 Energy Frontier Research Centers (2009)

Energy Efficient Buildings (2010)

Critical Materials (2012)

Modeling and Simulation of Nuclear Reactors (2010)

Bioenergy Research Centers (BRCs)

Before the Hubs came the BRCs

5

The National Academies played an important role in defining the BRCs:

– Rising Above the Gathering Storm (2005) Recommended major increases in federal spending for basic physical sciences and also prompted discussions on new modes for organizing, funding, and managing DOE-supported research.

– Review of the Department of Energy’s Genomics: GTL Program (2006) Did not support the SC Biological and Environmental Research (BER) facilities plan to construct (sequentially) and operate four separate centers for biosciences. Instead recommended the establishment of “vertically integrated” centers, each focused on a specific mission area, beginning with bioenergy.

Steven Chu, then Director of LBNL, was part of the “Gathering Storm” panel; he specifically emphasized the need for more active research management, advocating “Bell Labs” model.

Bioenergy Research Centers—Precursors to the Hubs

6

BER, through workshops, developed a roadmap for bioenergy research:– Science breakthroughs were needed to overcome

barriers to cost-effective cellulosic biofuels –incremental improvements in existing technologies were insufficient.

Broader context:– Energy: Near-doubling of gasoline prices between

2000 and 2006 and dependence on foreign petroleum stimulated renewed interest in alternative energy.

– Climate: Concern about climate change was growing.

– Policy: Administration at the time favored “scientific/ technological” approaches rather than “policy” approaches to curbing carbon emissions.

Other Influences Suggesting a New Approach, c. 2006

7

Based on the NRC reports and the BER workshops, SC proposed two BRCs at $25M/year each for an initial 5 years.

Multidisciplinary and multi-institutional; partnering encouraged Basic research is goal-oriented—new knowledge to support cost-

effective production of cellulosic biofuels Researchers work in an integrated, coordinated team under

strong management Management has flexibility to shift research directions as needed Why $25M? Large enough to do the job; small enough to resist

fragmentation. About the size of a biotech startup.

Three* BRCs competitively selected and launched Sept. 2007.

*Administration increased the number from 2 to 3

Initiation of the BRCs

8

Bioenergy Research Centers Investment Map

9

325 peer-reviewed publications and 119 items of intellectual property (invention disclosures, licenses, patent filings, and patents)

Improvements in plant feedstocks, methods of deconstructing lignocellulose, and microbial synthesis of fuels, including “drop-in” green hydrocarbon substitutes for gasoline, diesel, and precursor to jet fuel – also many new basic insights and new “enabling technologies” for biology

BRCs continue basic research and have begun to move technologies toward commercial scale-up, using, among other means, the DOE/EERE-funded Advanced Biofuel Process Demonstration Unit at LBNL.

BRC OutputsFirst four years

10

Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs)

After the BRCs, but still before the Hubs,

came the EFRCs

11

“Basic Research Needs” + “Grand Challenges for Science and the Imagination”

Basic Research Needs to Assure a Secure Energy Future, 2002

Directing Matter and Energy: Five Challenges for Science and the Imagination, 2007

Synthesize, atom by atom, new forms of matter with tailored properties Synthesize man-made nanoscale objects with capabilities rivaling those of

living things Control the quantum behavior of electrons in materials Control emergent properties that arise from the complex correlations of

atomic and electronic constituents Control matter very far away from equilibrium

12

46 EFRCs in 35 States launched in fall 2009 $155M/yr ($100M/yr from BES;

$55M/yr from Recovery Act) ~850 senior investigators and

~2,000 students, postdoctoral fellows,and technical staff at ~115 institutions

>250 scientific advisory board members from 13 countries and >40 companies

Impact to date (~2.5 years) >2,000 peer-reviewed papers including

more than 60 publications in Science and Nature. > 40 patents applications and nearly 50

additional patent/invention disclosures by 28 of the EFRCs.

at least 9 start-up companies with EFRC contributions

http://science.energy.gov/bes/efrc/

Energy Frontier Research CentersBlending use-inspired research and grand challenge research

13

Energy Innovation Hubs (Hubs)

And then came the Hubs

14

Energy Innovation Hubs

15

A signature initiative of Secretary Chu, Energy Innovation Hubs address research challenges that have proved the most resistant to solution by conventional R&D management structures.

Selection of topics:  Problems represent a significant grand challenge; advances are likely to have an

impact on energy production or use and on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Although individual investigators or small groups may have studied the problems for decades, solutions have not been forthcoming. A large-scale coordinated, multidisciplinary, systems-level approach is needed to accelerate the pace of discovery and innovation and to realize efficiency, manufacturability, deployment, and utilization of new technologies.

a lead institution with strong scientific leadership; a central location; if geographically distributed, state-of-the-art telepresence

technology to enable long distance collaboration; a strong organization and management plan to effect goals.

Failure mode: over constrained via budget atomization Failure mode: mini-funding agency

Hubs Management Philosophy

The Hub Funding Opportunity Announcements, available on FedConnect, contain detailed descriptions of the Hub management philosophy and selection criteria.

16

FY 2010 DOE congressional budget request sought $280M in funding for eight new Hubs ($35M each):

– Fuels from Sunlight (SC)– Modeling and Simulation of Nuclear Reactors (NE)– Energy Efficient Buildings (EERE)– Batteries and Energy Storage (SC)– Solar Electricity (photovoltaics and concentrated solar power)

(EERE)– Grid Materials, Devices, and Systems (OE)– Extreme Materials for Nuclear Energy Systems (NE)– Carbon Capture and Storage (FE)

Three Hubs were funded at $24M each

Energy Innovation Hubs, FY 2010

Red = not funded

Green = funded in FY 2010

17

FY 2011 the DOE congressional budget request sought $107M in funding for four Hubs (one new):

– Fuels from Sunlight (SC)– Modeling and Simulation of Nuclear Reactors (NE)– Energy Efficient Buildings (EERE)– Batteries and Energy Storage (SC)

FY 2012 the DOE congressional budget request sought $146Min funding for six Hubs (three new)

– Fuels from Sunlight (SC)– Modeling and Simulation of Nuclear Reactors (NE)– Energy Efficient Buildings (EERE)– Batteries and Energy Storage (SC)– Critical Materials (EERE)– Smart Grid Technology and Systems (OE)

Energy Innovation Hubs, FY 2011 and FY 2012

Red = not funded

Green = newly funded in FY 2012

Black = existing in FY 2010

These five Hubs define the current program

18

Budget slice for BRCs, EFRCs, Hubs

19

Research and Facilities in the Office of Science

Research

Facility Operations

Facility Construction

Major Items of Equipment(includes ITER)

All Other Funding = $5B

Support for 25,000 Ph.D.s, grad students, undergrads, engineers, and support staff

The world’s largest collection of scientific user facilities with over 26,500 users /yr

Bioenergy Research CentersEnergy Frontier Research CentersEnergy Innovation Hubs

20

The three operating Hubs

21

Fuels from Sunlight Hub Awarded to the Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis Location: Pasadena and Berkeley, California Caltech lead, LBNL co-lead 5 core partners: SLAC, UC Berkeley, UC Santa Barbara, UC Irvine,

and UC San Diego

Nuclear Modeling and Simulation Hub Awarded to the Consortium for Advanced Simulation of LWRs Location: Oak Ridge, Tennessee ORNL lead 8 core partners: INL, LANL, Sandia, EPRI, Westinghouse, TVA, MIT,

NC State, Michigan

Energy Efficient Buildings Hub/Regional Innovation Cluster Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Penn State lead, sited at the Philadelphia Navy Yard 21 core partners $5.2 million in additional funds from EDA, SBA, and NIST

The Three Existing Hubs

22

Fuels from Sunlight Hub

JCAP Mission: JCAP's mission is to develop a manufacturable solar-fuels generator, made of earth abundant elements, that will use only sunlight, water, and carbon as inputs and robustly produce fuel from the sun ten times more efficiently that current crops.

23

xxxxxxx

24

JCAP Research Themes

25

26

Advanced modeling and simulation capabilities to create a usable environment for predictive simulation of light water reactors.

The Hub will incorporate science-based models, state-of-the-art numerical methods, modern computational science and engineering practices, and validation against data from operating pressurized water reactors (PWRs).

It will couple state-of-the-art fuel performance, neutronics, thermal-hydraulics, and structural models with existing tools for systems and safety analysis and will be designed for implementation on both today’s leadership-class computers and the advanced architecture platforms now under development by DOE.

The Nuclear Energy Modeling and Simulation Hub is Building a Virtual Reactor

27NE Energy Innovation Hub

• Flexible coupling of physics components

• Toolkit of components– Not a single

executable– Both legacy

and new capability– Both proprietary

and distributable

• Attention to usability• Rigorous software

processes• Fundamental focus

on V&V and UQ

• Development guided by relevant challenge problems

• Broad applicability

• Scalable from high-end workstation to existing and future HPC platforms

– Diversity of models, approximations, algorithms

– Architecture-aware implementations

• Flexible coupling of physics components

• Toolkit of components– Not a single

executable– Both legacy

and new capability– Both proprietary

and distributable

• Attention to usability• Rigorous software

processes• Fundamental focus

on V&V and UQ

• Development guided by relevant challenge problems

• Broad applicability

• Scalable from high-end workstation to existing and future HPC platforms

– Diversity of models, approximations, algorithms

– Architecture-aware implementations

Chemistry(crud formation,

corrosion)

Mesh Motion/Quality

Improvement

Multi-resolutionGeometry

Multi-mesh Management

Fuel Performance (thermo-mechanics, materials models)

Neutronics(diffusion, transport)

Reactor System

Thermal Hydraulics

(thermal fluids)Structural Mechanics

MultiphysicsIntegrator

Chemistry(crud formation,

corrosion)

Mesh Motion/Quality

Improvement

Multi-resolutionGeometry

Multi-mesh Management

Fuel Performance (thermo-mechanics, materials models)

Neutronics(diffusion, transport)

Reactor System

Thermal Hydraulics

(thermal fluids)Structural Mechanics

MultiphysicsIntegrator

The Virtual Reactor

28NE Energy Innovation Hub

Addresses Specific Safety and Operational Issues

For Existing TVA Owned Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR)

• Sequoya 1 & 2• Watts Bar

Energy Efficient Building Hub Objectives

29

Develop and deploy to the building industry a state-of-the-art modeling platform to integrate design, construction, commissioning, and operation

Demonstrate the market viability of integrating energy saving technologies for whole building solutions at the Navy Yard and elsewhere in the region

Identify policies that accelerate market adoption of energy efficient retrofits of commercial buildings and support policy makers in the development of such policies in the Greater Philadelphia region

Inform, train, and educate people who design, own, construct, maintain, or occupy buildings about proven energy saving strategies and technologies

Help launch ventures with new and existing companies that will exploit market opportunities for providing whole building energy saving solutions

• 22 initial performers Research universities DOE laboratories Industrial firms Economic development agencies Community and technical colleges

• Not a closed consortium

EEB Hub Performers:

The Pennsylvania State UniversityBayer MaterialScienceBen Franklin Technology Partners of SE PACarnegie Mellon UniversityCollegiate ConsortiumDelaware Valley Industrial Resource CenterDrexel UniversityIBM CorporationLawrence Livermore National LaboratoryLutron Electronics, Inc.Morgan State UniversityNew Jersey Institute of TechnologyPhiladelphia Industrial Development CorporationPPG IndustriesPrinceton UniversityPurdue UniversityRutgers UniversityUnited Technologies CorporationUniversity of PennsylvaniaUniversity of PittsburghVirginia TechWharton Small Business Development Center

Energy Efficient Buildings Hub

30

31

DOE– $122 million

Economic Development Administration

– $5 million

NIST– $1.5 million

Small Business Administration– $1.3 million

Commonwealth of PA– $30 million

Dual E-RIC Mission

Reduced energy use in buildingsRegional economic development

Energy-Regional Innovation Cluster (E-RIC)

32

The Navy Yard

Redevelopment project of regional and national significance

Test bed for research and demonstration– Independent unregulated micro-grid– Building energy efficiency – Distributed power production and management

270 Buildings– Early 19th Century to the present– Most occupied and some awaiting redevelopment,– Mix of industrial, commercial and government uses

Clean Energy Campus– Mid-Atlantic Clean Energy Applications Center– Northern Mid-Atlantic Solar Training Center– GridSTAR Smart Grid Training Center– Build America Residential Retrofit Center– Energy Efficient Buildings Hub

BRCs, EFRCs, and Hubs have received considerable attention from the scientific community, the administration, Congress, and the press.

BRCs, EFRCs, and Hubs draw their researchers from the base of single-investigator and small-group awards, many of which are funded by DOE.

BRCs and EFRCs received favorable external peer reviews; show very good productivity; and show evidence that they may indeed accelerate innovation. Hubs will undergo similar evaluation, likely at about the midpoint of their 5-year award.

The three Hubs established to date are quite different from one another—multiple experiments are evolving simultaneously.

Reflections

33

Backup

34

Bioenergy Research Centers (2007)Energy Frontier Research Centers (2009)

Energy innovation Hubs (2010)

35

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires cost sharing of 20% for applied research and development and 50% for demonstration and deployment activities, unless waived or modified by the Secretary of Energy.

R&D = “basic research,” “applied research,” and “development” as defined in OMB circular A-11

D&D = “demonstration and deployment” (not defined by OMB)

The Hubs cost sharing policy is:1. A 20% cost share requirement for R&D activities within the Hub performed by any for-

profit entity, with the cost share amount based on the portion of the R&D budget executed by that entity, not on the total project cost.

2. A reduction of the required cost sharing for D&D activities performed by non-Federal entities from 50% to 20%. The cost share amount will be based on the budget for Hub D&D activities performed by the non-Federal entity.

3. An elimination of all cost sharing for basic research, applied research, and development activities within the Hub performed by non-Federal entities except for for-profit entities, as described in (1).

Hubs Cost Sharing Policy

36

Office of Science Organization

FY2013 Req. $5,001M

$456M

$1,799M

$625M

$398M

$776M

$527M

$15M

$202M

$84M S&S$118M SLI

Kountouris

37