[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
INNOVATION IN SOLAR FUELS,
ELECTRICITY STORAGE,
AND ADVANCED MATERIALS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
June 15, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-82
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-879 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., ZOE LOFGREN, California
Wisconsin DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
STEVE KNIGHT, California PAUL TONKO, New York
BRIAN BABIN, Texas MARK TAKANO, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas BILL FOSTER, Illinois
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
GARY PALMER, Alabama
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
DARIN LaHOOD, Illinois
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. RANDY K. WEBER, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
STEPHAN KNIGHT, California ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
June 15, 2016
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Randy K. Weber, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 4
Written Statement............................................ 6
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Alan Grayson, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 11
Written Statement............................................ 13
Witnesses:
Dr. Nate Lewis, Professor, California Institute of Technology
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 18
Dr. Daniel Scherson, Professor, Case Western Reserve
UniversityI23Oral Statement 33
Written Statement............................................ 35
Dr. Collin Broholm, Professor, Johns Hopkins University
Oral Statement............................................... 43
Written Statement............................................ 45
Dr. Daniel Hallinan Jr., Assistant Professor, Florida A&M
University--Florida State University College of Engineering
Oral Statement............................................... 86
Written Statement............................................ 88
Discussion....................................................... 96
Appendix I: Additional Material for the Record
Statement submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 116
INNOVATION IN SOLAR FUELS,
ELECTRICITY STORAGE,
AND ADVANCED MATERIALS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 2016
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Randy
Weber [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. The Subcommittee on Energy will come to
order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Subcommittee at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``Innovation in Solar
Fuels, Electricity Storage, and Advanced Materials.'' I
recognize myself for an opening statement.
Good morning. Today, we will hear from a panel of experts
on the status of America's basic research portfolio, which
provides the foundation for development of solar fuels,
electricity storage, and quantum computing systems. Hearings
like today help remind us of the Science Committee's core
focus: the basic research that provides the foundation of
technology through breakthroughs.
We're going to discuss the science behind potentially
groundbreaking technology today. But before America ever sees
the deployment of a commercial solar fuel system or we move to
quantum computing, a lot of discovery science must be
accomplished. For the solar fuel process, also known as
artificial photosynthesis, new materials and catalysts will
need to be developed through research. If this research yields
the right materials, scientists could create a system that
could consolidate solar power and energy storage into one
cohesive process. This would potentially remove the
intermittency of solar energy and make it a reliable power
source for chemical fuels production. That is a game-changer.
In the field of electricity storage research, there is a
lot of excitement--or as I like to say there's electricity in
the air--about more efficient batteries that could operate for
longer durations under decreased charge times. But not enough
people are asking just how could we design a battery system
that moves more electrons at the atomic level, a key aspect
to--excuse me--drastically increasing the efficiency or power
of a battery. This transformational approach, known as
multivalent ion intercalation, will use foundational study of
electrochemistry to build a better battery from the ground up.
And then finally, there is quantum computing, which relies
on a thorough understanding of quantum mechanics, a challenging
concept that is a longer discussion for a different hearing.
For today, I hope we can discuss how a quantum computing system
could change the way computers operate. In order to achieve
this kind of revolutionary improvement in computing, we're
going to need foundational knowledge in the materials needed to
build those systems also known as quantum materials.
I look forward to hearing from Dr. Broholm--have I got that
right, Doctor----
Dr. Broholm. Yes.
Chairman Weber. --in his research--your research in that
field.
Today, we hear a lot of enthusiasm for solar power,
batteries, and high-performance computing technology, yet few
innovators are talking about how these technologies could be
transformed at the fundamental level. In Congress, we have to
take the long-term view and be patient, making smart
investments in research that can lead to the next big
discovery.
When it comes to providing strong support for basic
research, this Science Committee won't get any major accolades
or headlines today. But someday, someday, when the next
disruptive technology changes our economy for the better, I
firmly believe that discovery science will play that central
role.
DOE must prioritize basic research over grants for
technology that is ready for commercial deployment. When the
government steps in to push today's technology in the energy
market, it's actually competing against private investors and
it uses limited resources to do so. But when the government
supports basic research and development, everyone has the
opportunity to access the fundamental knowledge that can lead
to the development of future energy technologies.
I want to thank our accomplished panel of witnesses for
testifying today, and I look forward to a productive discussion
about the DOE basic energy research portfolio.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Weber follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. I now recognize the Ranking Member.
Mr. Grayson. Sorry, would the Committee Chair like to
precede me? Would the Committee Chair like to precede me?
Chairman Smith. I'd be happy to. I thank the gentleman. And
let me thank the Chairman as well.
Today, we will examine American innovation in solar fuels,
electricity storage, and advanced materials. The Department of
Energy's Office of Science is the nation's lead federal agency
for basic research in the physical sciences. This type of
fundamental research allows scientists to make groundbreaking
discoveries about everything from our universe to the smallest
particle. It has led to transformative breakthroughs in energy
science that will allow the private sector to develop
innovative energy technologies.
Today's hearing will provide a status update on the
Department's basic research in solar chemistry, energy storage,
and advanced materials. Electricity storage is one of the next
frontiers in energy research and development. Innovation in
batteries could help bring affordable renewable energy to the
market without costly subsidies or mandates.
By investing in the basic scientific research that will
underpin and lead to new advanced battery technology, we can
enable utilities and others to store and deliver power produced
elsewhere. This will allow us to take advantage of energy from
the diverse natural resources available across the country.
Another high-reward application of energy basic research is
solar fuels, also known as artificial photosynthesis. Through
the study of chemistry and materials science, researchers are
developing systems that can use energy from sunlight to yield a
range of chemical fuels.
Our last topic for today's hearing is advanced materials
research. By examining substances at the atomic level,
researchers can develop materials with the exact qualities
necessary for an application, like thickness, strength, or heat
resistance. These new materials could provide the capability
for quantum computing systems that will fundamentally change
the way we move and process data.
Basic scientific research like the work funded by DOE's
Office of Science requires a long-term commitment. While this
groundbreaking science can eventually support the development
of new advanced energy technologies by the private sector,
Congress must ensure limited federal dollars are spent wisely
and efficiently. Federal research and development can build the
foundation for the next major scientific breakthrough.
As we shape the future of the Department of Energy, our
priority must be basic energy science and research that only
the federal government has the resources and mission to pursue.
This will enable the private sector, driven by the profit
motive, to develop and move groundbreaking technology to the
market across the energy spectrum, create jobs, and grow our
economy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the Ranking Member
for letting me precede him as well.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentleman.
Now, the Ranking Member is recognized for a five minute
opening statement.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Chairman Weber. Thank you, Chairman
Smith, for holding this hearing, and thank you to the witnesses
for providing your testimony today.
The Basic Energy Sciences program in the Department of
Energy's Office of Science supports fundamental research in
materials science, physics, chemistry, and engineering with an
emphasis on energy applications. BES is the largest program in
the Office of Science, and it's home to several state-of-the-
art facilities that provide world-class capabilities to the
scientific community. BES is home to five of the world's
Advanced Light Sources, to unique neutron scattering
facilities, and five nanoscale research centers.
All these BES facilities are considered user facilities
meaning that they provide broad access not only to scientific
government inquiry but also to university researchers and
private industry. That being said, please do not try neutron
scattering at home.
Each year, over 14,000 scientists use these facilities, and
the demand for access to facilities can exceed the time
available. In many cases, the high demand for these facilities
requires weightless and extensive efforts to fit as many
interested users into the schedule as possible.
The vast array of research and diverse collection of
scientists that take advantage of these facilities make them
fertile ground for scientific collaboration and also innovation
cutting across scientific specialties. The knowledge gained
through research supported by BES underpins the applied energy
research supported by other DOE programs and by the private
sector. Innovation and materials science, chemical analysis,
geological imagery, and electrochemistry can have far-reaching
impacts on renewable energy, energy efficiency, battery
storage, and nuclear power to name just a few subjects.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses as to how they
put benefited from federal support that we provided to build
these user facilities, as well as other resources provided by
BES. I'd particularly like to welcome Dr. Hallinan from Florida
A&M and Florida State University's College of Engineering to
today's hearing. His research has the potential to achieve
considerable gains in battery storage, which would help the
renewable energy sector play an even larger role in our economy
in the coming years.
Solving renewable energy's day-versus-night challenge could
allow for a faster transition to a low-carbon energy future for
the United States and the world. Also, it would be good if you
can make the sun shine at night, but that's probably outside
the scope of your research.
Dr. Hallinan, as we will hear, has relied upon the Advanced
Light Source and the Advanced Photon Source facilities to
advance his work by testing new solid polymers that can be used
as battery electrolytes. His work is an excellent example of
what we can accomplish if we fund the vital research and
facilities of the Office of Science amply.
Last week, the Basic Energy Science Advisory Committee
released a new report on the prioritization of upgrades to the
major BES facilities. One of the witnesses here today may have
been directly involved in developing this report. I hope we can
consider revisiting this topic in the near future with a closer
look at the facility upgrades that are currently under
consideration. These proposed upgrades represent major
government investments and thus major opportunities.
Prioritizing and funding the research that's being highlighted
today should certainly be a bipartisan issue and one in which
we should make considerable progress on by working together.
With that, I yield the balance of my time. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grayson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. And I thank the gentleman. Again, I thank
you for letting the Ranking--I mean, for our full Committee
Chair go first.
Let me introduce our witnesses today. Our first witness
today is Dr. Nathan Lewis, Professor at the California
Institute of Technology. Dr. Lewis is an inorganic materials
chemist who is a globally recognized authority in artificial
photosynthesis. Perhaps he's the one that needs to make the
space in the night. Dr. Lewis received his Ph.D. in chemistry
from MIT.
Our second witness today is Dr. Daniel Scherson, Professor
at Case Western Reserve University. Dr. Scherson received his
Ph.D. in chemistry from the University of California Davis.
Our next witness today is Dr. Collin Broholm. Am I saying
that correctly, Doctor?
Dr. Broholm. Yes.
Chairman Weber. Yes. A Professor at Johns Hopkins
University, Dr. Broholm received his Ph.D. from the University
of Copenhagen.
And I will now yield to the Ranking Member to introduce our
final witness.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you. Dr. Daniel Hallinan is
unaccountably only Assistant Professor--I don't get that at
all; you should be a full professor--in the College of
Engineering at Florida A&M and Florida State University. As an
independent investigator, he researches the use of solid
polymers as electrolyte membranes in batteries, which have the
potential to offer a safer, longer-lasting battery.
During his career, he has utilized both the Advanced Photon
Source at Argonne National Lab and the Advanced Light Source at
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. His current research allows him
to visit the Advanced Photon Source with his students regularly
to explore the fundamental makeup of the materials that they're
testing and from time to time actually insert the students into
the photon source and light them up. No, no, that's not what he
does. Never mind that.
Dr. Hallinan has degrees in chemical engineering and
philosophy from Lafayette College and a Ph.D. in chemical
engineering from Drexel University. His passion for science and
innovative research has certainly been an inspiration to his
students, and his work is a perfect example of our conversation
today about supporting basic energy sciences and why it is so
important. Thank you for testifying.
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Mr. Grayson.
I now recognize Dr. Lewis for five minutes to present his
testimony. Dr. Lewis?
TESTIMONY OF DR. NATE LEWIS, PROFESSOR,
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Dr. Lewis. Chairman Smith, Chairman Weber, Ranking Member
Grayson, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you very much for
the opportunity to discuss this very exciting and timely
research area of artificial photosynthesis, which is the direct
production of fuels from sunlight.
Artificial photosynthesis has the potential indeed to be a
game-changing energy technology, cost-effectively producing
fuels that are compatible with our existing infrastructure, and
providing us with both energy and environmental security.
Artificial photosynthesis is inspired by plants except that
it can be over 10 times more efficient than natural
photosynthesis, avoiding the need to trade food for fuel and
producing a fuel unlike lignocellulose that we can directly
used to power our vehicles, to potentially make ammonia for
fertilizer to feed people around the world, and for other uses
that they may develop.
Solar fuels production would also solve massive grid-scale
energy storage so when the sun doesn't shine at night, we can
still provide power to whenever people need it and carbon-
neutral transportation fuels, which are both critical gaps at
present that research is needed to obtain a full carbon-neutral
energy system.
Artificial photosynthesis does not look like a leaf, nor
does it look like a solar panel. Instead, imagine a high-
performance fabric that could be rolled out like artificial
turf, supply that with sunlight, water, and perhaps other
feedstocks from the air like nitrogen or carbon dioxide, and
produce a fuel that gets wicked out into drainage pipes and
collected for use. It's that simple in principle.
Many approaches to solar fuels are being pursued. Some are
taking biological molecules like the green pigment chlorophylls
and using them coupled to manmade catalysts. Others use all
inorganic materials like semiconductors at the nanoscale and
couple them to catalysts like ones used in fuel cells. Still
others use metal complexes as dyes and couple them to molecular
catalysts.
Laboratories like mine at Caltech have already demonstrated
functional solar fuels systems through advances in nanoscience
that have enabled us to fabricate nanofibers of semiconductors
that can absorb light and couple them to catalysts all in a
piece of plastic. So we know this is possible, but we need to
continue to innovate and perform fundamental research to make
it practical.
A full system of solar fuels needs five components, two
materials to absorb sunlight, one to capture the blue part of
the rainbow, the other to capture the red part of the rainbow
to make it very efficient. We need two catalysts, one to
oxidize water from the air to provide electrons to make the
reduced catalyst make the fuel that we want to harvest. We also
need a membrane to separate those products to ensure that the
system is safe and doesn't explode.
We actually have all of those pieces. What we don't have is
all of those pieces all working together seamlessly in one
system where they all are stable and mutually compatible.
Research opportunities include the use of high-performance
computation to design new catalysts, to design new
semiconductors, and to do modeling and simulation to help us
understand how to make the system work as a whole, not just the
pieces.
Many approaches are useful, and many fuels could be
produced. We might produce a liquid fuel directly. We might
produce a gaseous fuel and then convert it to a liquid fuel. We
might think about a solar refinery the way we have an oil
refinery where in comes our solar crude and then we convert it
to various fuels as the output using the stained chemical
processes that we use today.
In closing, I also would like to make two points. One is
that many other countries now have burgeoning efforts in solar
fuels. There are large efforts starting in Korea, Japan, China,
Sweden, Germany, and the EU. We should beneficially leverage
those efforts. We're well-positioned to do that given our
historical leadership in solar fuels in the United States.
The second point is that solar fuels is an intellectual
challenge that stimulates our young scientists, our graduate
students, our postdocs involving nanoscience, material science,
and fundamental research and energy broadly to give us better
options for energy technologies than the ones that we have now.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Lewis follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Dr. Lewis.
Dr. Scherson, you're recognized for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. DANIEL SCHERSON, PROFESSOR,
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Scherson. Thank you.
Chairman Smith, Chairman Weber, Ranking Member Grayson, and
Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to
testify in today's hearing on innovation in solar fuels,
electricity storage----
Chairman Weber. Dr. Scherson, is your mike on? And put your
mike----
Dr. Scherson. My apologies, sir.
Chairman Weber. There you go, right in front of you.
Dr. Scherson. All right. Could I start again?
Chairman Smith, Chairman Weber, Ranking Member Grayson, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify in today's hearing on innovation in solar fuels,
electricity storage, and advanced materials. My name is Daniel
Scherson, and I'm the Frank Hovorka Professor of Chemistry and
Director of the Ernest B. Yeager Center for Electrochemical
Sciences at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio,
and until a few days ago, President of the Electrochemical
Society.
Electrochemistry, a 2-century-old discipline, has reemerged
in recent years as key to achieve sustainability and improve
human welfare. The scientific and technological domain of
electrochemistry is very wide, extending from the corrosive
effects of the weather on the safety and integrity of our
bridges and roads, to the management of diabetes and
Parkinson's disease, and to the fabrication of three-
dimensional circuitry of ever-smaller and more complex
architecture. In addition, electrochemistry is becoming central
to the way in which we generate, store, and manage electricity
derived from such intermittent energy sources as the sun and
wind.
Among the most ubiquitous electrochemical devices ever
invented are batteries. Mostly hidden from sight, batteries
convert chemicals into electrical energy used to power cell
phones and portable electronics, which are critical to the way
we communicate and store information, as well as electrical
vehicles, which are expected to mitigate the dangers posed by
the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
I have been asked to focus my attention this morning on
aspects of electrochemistry that relate to energy storage,
which are expected to greatly impact not only the
transportation sector but also the management and optimization
of the electrical grid, which combined account for 2/3 of all
the energy used in the United States. Scientific and
technological advances in this area will bring about a
reduction in operating costs, spur economic growth, and create
new jobs and promote U.S. innovation in the global marketplace.
The advent of ever more powerful computers and advanced
theoretical methods have made it possible to predict with
increased accuracy the behavior not only of materials but also
of interfaces. The latter play a key role in the chemical
industry where there is a strong pressure to develop effective
catalysts to increase yields and lower energy demands. This is
also true in the area of electrocatalysis, which is critical to
the optimization of electrolyzers and fuel cells, yet another
class of electrochemical energy conversion devices.
In the area of transportation, any new developments aimed
at augmenting reliability, safety, and comfort must be made
without compromising performance. Today, batteries for electric
cars cannot match already-established standards for range per
tank of gasoline-powered vehicles. In simple terms, the energy
a battery can store depends on the charge capacity and its
voltage. So whereas the energy is dictated by thermodynamics,
the power batteries can deliver is given by the current times
the voltage.
To illustrate, lithium-ion batteries rely on only a single
electron per atom of electrode material to store energy and
deliver power. One obvious solution to increase the energy is
then to double or, better yet, triple the number of electrons
per atom of storage material without decreasing its voltage.
Although the viability of such a concept has been demonstrated
for the case of magnesium, a divalent metal, using a purely
empirical approach, its performance is still below that
required for meeting the demands of the largest markets.
Theoretical work at the Joint Center for Electrochemical
Storage Research, JCESR, DOE's energy hub led by Argonne
National Laboratory, has unveiled new yet-to-be synthesized
materials that display promising characteristics. Results have
shown that the primary bottleneck resides in the mobility of
divalent magnesium ion within the host lattice, which is
greatly enhancing materials where the ions sit in energetically
and unfavorable sites as compared to the sites along the path
of migration. Such design rules have been validated in the
laboratory for known materials, and arrangements have been made
with partners, laboratories to synthesize these new promising
materials.
Equally important is the search of new organic electrolytes
exhibiting large voltage windows of stability, including ionic
solvation. From an overall perspective, the problems that
remain to be resolved towards achieving sustainability demand a
fundamental understanding of the basic processes underlying
energy conversion and energy storage at a microscopic level and
the development of spectroscopic and structural probes with
highly spatial and temporal resolution to monitor individual
atomic and molecular events. Such knowledge can only come from
new generations of scientists trained at our colleges,
universities, and national laboratories, which will require
increased research support from the government.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Scherson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Dr. Scherson.
Dr. Broholm, you are recognized for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. COLLIN BROHOLM,
PROFESSOR, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
Dr. Broholm. Thank you very much. Chairman Weber, Ranking
Member Grayson, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee
on Energy, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify
today on the topic of quantum materials.
Seventy years ago when amplification of an electrical
signal by a transistor was first demonstrated, no one could
have imagined that the average person in 2016 would employ
billions of transistors in their energy and information-
intensive lives. What will be the next materials-based
technological revolution, and how can we ensure the United
States once again leads the way?
Since its 1947 discovery of the transistor, Bell
Laboratories, now a part of Nokia, has shrunk and is no longer
active in fundamental materials research. While the
opportunities for groundbreaking progress from advanced
materials have never been greater, the research now has a broad
and fundamental character that no single company can sustain.
The specific example that I'd like to focus on is quantum
materials. Quantum mechanics has key effects in all materials,
but the most dramatic departure from the familiar generally
fade from view beyond the atomic scale. The Heisenberg
uncertainty principle is, however, on display in elemental
helium that fails to solidify upon cooling even to the absolute
zero temperature. Instead, an astounding superfluid state
occurs where atoms form a coherent matter wave that flows
without any friction whatsoever.
We now find it may be possible to realize such
counterintuitive properties of matter in a new class of quantum
materials, of which I shall provide a couple of examples.
Superconductivity is a low-temperature property of many
metals, including aluminum wherein electrons form a coherent
wave much as the atoms in superfluid helium. But because
electrons carry charge, an electrical current can then flow
with zero resistance. While presently available,
superconductors require cryogenic cooling, we know of no reason
that superconductivity like ferromagnetism should not be
possible at much higher temperatures.
A practical superconductor would have enormous
technological consequences, including the ability to generate,
store, transport, and utilize electrical energy without
resistive losses. There's much recent progress in the
scientific understanding of a new class of superconductivity
enhanced by interactions between electrons. While we do not
have a winner yet, this fortifies our belief that a practical
superconducting material will eventually be discovered.
The next topic is topological materials. The geometry of
the wave function that describes electrons in these materials
gives rise to revolutionary electrical properties. In a
topological insulator, for example, all surfaces are
electrically conducting even though the core or the center of
the material is actually insulating. And this is a really
appealing property considering that the surface transport must
typically be engineered into electrical devices and is
associated with significant resistive energy losses. In
topological insulators, a high-quality conducting surface
occurs spontaneously, and there are many more fascinating
properties of topological materials that indicate they will
have transformative technological impacts.
Digital archiving of events from those of individual
families to those that define our times is generally based on
magnetic information storage. While hard disc storage densities
now exceed 1 terabit per square inch, each bit still involves a
very large number of atoms. By using wrinkles on a prevailing
order within a quantum material to store information, it may be
possible to dramatically increase the information storage
density.
Finally, a new form of information processing called
quantum computing has the potential to transform decision-
making. One of the approaches now being pursued is to utilize
so-called quasi-particles within a quantum material to carry
and process information. While this is a long-term vision, it
is as feasible now as an integrated circuit with 10 billion
transistors must have seemed like in 1947.
Given the potential technological impacts, quantum
materials are receiving huge worldwide attention. Dedicated
research centers are proliferating, and I would argue that
within the DOE as well, quantum material should be an area of
high priority. The Basic Research Needs Report on quantum
materials identifies four priority research directions that
would accelerate scientific progress in quantum materials and
their technological deployment.
So as in much of the modern development of advanced
materials, world-class tools are essential for this work. Such
as the neutron sources at Oak Ridge Lab and the synchrotron and
free electron laser-based light sources, these are absolutely
essential to be able to sustain--to be able to do this kind of
work. And while these are already excellent facilities that are
having strong impacts, several are in urgent need of upgrades
to sustain international leadership.
In the continuing quest to bend materials to satisfy our
needs, it is inevitable that we should eventually employ the
wave-like nature of matter for new functional materials and
electronic devices. To do so requires a deep fundamental
knowledge of interacting electrons in the quantum realm,
versatile abilities to synthesize new materials from the atomic
scale to bolt single crystals, and an array of experimental
tools that probe structure and motion over broad range of
length and time scales.
Sustained basic research efforts in quantum materials can
ensure the United States leads the way as these materials
transform a broad range of energy and information technologies.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Broholm follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Dr. Broholm.
Dr. Hallinan, you're recognized for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. DANIEL HALLINAN JR.,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
FLORIDA A&M UNIVERSITY--FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF
ENGINEERING
Mr. Hallinan. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity
to testify in today's hearing.
I'm here to speak to the importance of the Department of
Energy's national light sources to research and to the
technological challenges of the nation. I will also briefly
address the impact of the proposed upgrades on research
capabilities and U.S. scientific competitiveness. I thank the
Committee for its long-standing and robust support of national
light sources and energy research.
Synchrotron light sources are large-scale facilities. These
clearly are not possible--practical for individual academic or
industrial labs, let alone at home. However, they enable high-
impact research that would not be possible otherwise, and they
advance our scientific understanding of matter across length
scales from the atomic to that which we can see with our own
eyes. They provide insight into dynamics from ultrafast making
and breaking of chemical bonds to structural relaxations that
take longer than a year. They allow us to map in three
dimensions the composition of materials that are poised to
address energy and water needs of the country and the world.
So my personal experience with synchrotron light sources
began during my postdoctoral fellowship at Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory where I used four of the beam lines of the
Advanced Light Source, and I worked with beam line scientists
there. Now as an Assistant Professor at Florida State
University, my group continues to collaborate with scientists
at Berkeley Lab, but we also use, due to uniquenesses, some
beam lines at the Advanced Photon Source of Argonne National
Lab. FSU, Florida State University, recognizes the value of the
travel to do this research, and they support it.
So this schematic that you see on the monitors I'm going to
use just to explain to you briefly how the synchrotron light
source actually works. So electrons are accelerated to near the
speed of light around this ring, and in order to get them to
curve around the ring, magnets are used. And when the magnets
curve the electrons, x-rays are released tangentially, and you
can see those x-rays then go to experiment stations. And there
are many experiment stations located all around this ring. So
they are--and there are many different types of experiments
that can be done with these x-rays.
So you can categorize those experiments into three main
types, and that's scattering, microscopy, and spectroscopy. So
with scattering, x-ray scattering allows us to do is to look at
both length and time scales of a very wide range of length and
time scales of complex materials. Microscopy allows us to look
inside materials so we can get inside something you couldn't
see inside of with optical light and very small length scales
and we can see the composition in there. And then spectroscopy
specifically gives us the composition of materials. So, for
example, we can watch the chemical changes that occur as we
charge and discharge a battery that occur in the electrode, for
example.
So just some statistics about these user facilities, there
are many thousands of researchers that access the light sources
across the nation each year at no charge, but this access is
based on a competitive process. And the competitive process is
to ensure that sound and impactful science is being conducted.
The researchers come from a wide range of fields and generate
thousands of research publications each year, contributing
significantly to the nation's innovation-based economy.
And the most exciting thing to me is that these synchrotron
light sources enable numerous scientific discoveries that
wouldn't be practical without the facilities. And this
practical uniqueness of each facility is the primary reason
that they continue to be an integral part of my research
program.
So I'll mention two areas of my personal research that they
impact. So the first is safer, longer-lasting batteries. With
batteries, we could increase dramatically the efficiency of our
transportation. These electric vehicles are much more efficient
than internal combustion engines. But commercial lithium-ion
batteries now are not inherently safe. They have a flammable
liquid electrolyte. There are engineering controls to protect
against that, but they're not inherently safe, so that's why
we're interested in polymer electrolytes. And these polymer
electrolytes can not only enable safer batteries but they're
compatible with some advanced electrode materials. But their
dynamics are somewhat limited, and so we're studying the
dynamics and the structure of polymer electrolytes for
batteries.
The other area that I'm really interested I'm just going to
touch on for a moment is energy-efficient water generation. So
polymer electrolytes, polymers with charge in them are actually
promising materials for generating more energy-efficient water
from desalination, for example. But in order to do that, the
structure of the polymer is very important, and that structure
is a function of the water content and the salt concentration
in the polymer. So we're using these--some of these x-ray
facilities to study the structure as a function of salt and
water in these polymers.
So in closing, for those of you who have not had the
opportunity to visit one of these facilities, I would like to
impress upon you the scale. So as you saw in that schematic,
these things can be the size of a baseball field or even larger
than the size of a whole baseball stadium depending on the
facility, and they have hundreds of personnel, highly trained
personnel, who work as a team to keep these things operating
consistently and safely. There are a lot of safety concerns.
So this was really inspiring to me to see this many people
working together on science. And I think it's a testament to
what we have achieved, but new opportunities do await with the
most recent synchrotron breakthroughs, and I encourage you to
continue to robustly support the operating budgets of these
facilities, as well as the proposed upgrades.
I thank you for your time, and I'm happy to answer any
questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hallinan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Dr. Hallinan.
I now recognize myself for five minutes, although that's
not enough time for questions.
Dr. Lewis, you mentioned in your testimony that
multidisciplinary teams of researchers can serve as a useful
mechanism to advance to artificial photosynthesis research. Do
you think that that model is the preferred approach to this
science compared to individual investigator labs? And then I'm
going to have you weigh in on it also, too--well, I'll come
back to you. Go ahead, Dr. Lewis.
Dr. Lewis. Thank you for the question. I think we need
both. We need individual investigators still exploring all
sorts of possibilities, and then we need teams of people
because solar fuels is much like building a battery. If you
have one piece, a catalyst, or you have another piece, a light
absorber, and they don't work together or they're not safe
operating together, then you still don't have anything that's
relevant in the end.
So this is where you need the teams of people. You need the
teams of people to think at the systems level to make sure that
we're all rowing our oars in concert toward the same end goal,
and that's best done by having engineers, chemical and
mechanical engineers, by having applied physicists, by having
chemists all at least talking to each other on a regular basis
and working toward the same end goal, whether they're all in
one facility or distributed in different facilities by
videoconferencing is less important than that they all are on
the same page.
Chairman Weber. How often do they talk to one another and
in what format? And I think you may have answer part of that
question, videoconferencing. How often does that take place?
Dr. Lewis. It depends on the facility. In Energy Frontier
Research Centers, and Energy Innovation Hubs that I've been
affiliated with on some cases every day, in some cases every
week, but certainly more often than every month. A lot of it is
in person, and for remote sites, routinely by video.
Chairman Weber. Dr. Scherson, I have the same question for
you regarding how to achieve those potential breakthroughs in
electrochemistry.
Dr. Scherson. Yes, well, certain aspects of my answer will
follow what Professor Lewis was referring to. In a battery we
have two electrodes and we have an electrolyte in between. Each
of these components needs individual attention. Solving 2/3 of
the problem does not solve the problem of coming up with a
viable device. So it's absolutely essential to engage people
with knowledge in physics so that we can understand how ions
migrate through lattices. We need to involve our chemists that
are going to give us insight into how ions solvate and migrate
through the electrolyte and engineers that will have to teach
us how to assemble the device, and finally, I guess that
technoeconomic models are also necessary in order to decide
whether certain technology is viable or not in the marketplace.
Chairman Weber. I just want to know if you can explain that
to my wife so she can keep her cell phone battery charged more
often. If you could put that in layman's language for her,
that'd be helpful.
So let me follow up then for you both. So we've been
scrutinizing the entire DOE research and development portfolio
in this Congress, and I've never heard of EERE supporting any
R&D in these areas. What are the research challenges to enable
artificial photosynthesis in multivalent systems to transition
into that technology that is ready for the private sector to
commercialize? And could DOE's EERE applied research programs
support that work, Dr. Lewis?
Dr. Lewis. Thank you. That's a very important question and
also programmatic aspects. EERE does support work on not solar
fuels but related systems where there's corporate activity such
as electrolyzers or fuel cells. That being said, they can
leverage that investment they've already made where there's
common ground because a solar fuel system just works as a fuel
cell in reverse.
So the same kind of structures, the same kind of
implementation that EERE is learning from and developing could
well be applied and should be applied in translational research
to build systems like the bubble wrap vision that we might have
for a solar fuels generator to take the pieces that are
developed by the Office of Science and to constrain them into
the useful sets that are in a system that could be deployed.
That would be very important as a role for EERE.
Chairman Weber. Dr. Scherson?
Dr. Scherson. Yes. In fact, the same role would apply to
the field of batteries. There are situations where developments
are made and people get excited and then they go and try to
make a viable device, and to find that certain questions were
not answered properly. And so I think that the involvement of
the government of the basic research becomes essential in order
to migrate from the very basic research into industry. This is
a role that EERE should play.
Chairman Weber. Thank you. I'm out of time. I'm now going
to recognize the Ranking Member here with us, Dr. Mark Veasey.
Mr. Veasey. Well, thank you very much.
And I wanted to ask some questions about energy storage for
Dr. Hallinan and Dr. Scherson. I know that you're both working
on innovations in electrical energy storage. I wanted to know
if you could speak about your research and how it may lead to
breakthroughs in developing new battery technologies.
Dr. Scherson. If I may start?
Mr. Veasey. Yes, please.
Dr. Scherson. Well, the components of a battery are
numerous. In fact, very simply, if you take a cathode of the
lithium-ion battery that powers your cell phone, you will find
that it is composed of little tiny particles that are all
electrically interconnected by yet another component, and so
the key is to be able to isolate each of the components of the
battery and try to understand their properties, their intrinsic
properties. So in my research group, we are looking at single
particles of a cathode or anode and trying to investigate the
dynamics, for example, of ion insertion into the materials.
That's important when you charge or discharge. We are taking
particles of the anode and trying to understand how the anode
reacts with the electrolyte, forming a passive film that is
required for the operation of the battery.
So in essence, we need to understand the individual
components and then understand how the assembly of these
components will make a device that is going to fulfill the
purposes for which it was intended.
Mr. Veasey. Another question I wanted to ask you was about
energy storage. As we know, there are many challenges that we
face when it comes to energy storage in the area of wind and
solar, particularly if we want to be able to provide a certain
amount for our energy grid and portfolio. Do you have--anything
else of--just about the challenges that may remain that we may
not be aware of?
And then also I wanted to ask you, do you think that if
we're able to overcome some of the storage challenges and
issues, will that allow us to be able to even use wind more
efficiently? I don't know if you've ever been to a wind farm in
Texas. We provide a lot of wind in the State of Texas, but they
do take up quite a bit of space to get the wind from West Texas
into the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, for instance. You're
talking acres and acres and acres. If you could just briefly
touch on that, I definitely would appreciate it.
Dr. Scherson. Well, in fact, I have not been in Texas at
those facilities, but I've been in Spain where there is a heavy
use of wind. So the trick here is to convert the wind energy
into, let's say, another kind of energy, so one way is to store
it electricity. So you may ask what kind of devices are there
available in order to store this electricity for use when the
wind is not blowing?
So there are batteries, right? There are also some other
devices that are called redox flow batteries, which is like a
battery but then you have these enormous amounts of liquid that
get passed through the electrodes and then you can store power
in that fashion. In fact, the Swiss Government is investing
lots of money in implementing such an approach.
The other possibility is to convert that electrical energy
into chemicals that can be stored and then used at a later
time.
So just to give you an idea of the numbers. In your car you
have the lead acid battery, and that will give you, let's say,
100 units. So if you were going to move the technology into
lithium-ion, then you will get 250 units. So if we can
transition that into magnesium, which is one of the divalent
metals that is being explored at JCESR, then you can increase
that number up to 700.
And then lastly, if you go to the limit you could have
three electrons per atom of charge storage, you can get easily
to 1,000. So you can see by transitioning from today's
technology with lead acid, we can get about an order of
magnitude more efficient energy storage by moving into these
multivalent ion systems.
Mr. Hallinan. Could I make a comment?
So there are other ways also to increase the capacity of
energy we can store. And as has been mentioned, if we increase
the voltage of--the energy that's stored is the product of the
capacity times the voltage. So we can--to increase the energy,
we can increase the capacity, which we can do by going to
multivalent ions or going to other electrochemistries. Lithium
air batteries is this holy grail that takes us an order of
magnitude higher in battery capacity energy storage. But then
we can also just go to higher voltage, make the voltage of the
battery higher.
And in order to do those things, in addition to moving
electrons through the electrodes, we also need to move ions
from one electrode to the other, and that's where polymer
electrolytes come into play because for--especially for lithium
air batteries, we--it's essential to have a solid electrolyte,
that a liquid electrolyte is not even a possibility for these
advanced technologies.
But we need to address the slow dynamics of polymer
electrolytes, and so I think if we can really make that
breakthrough, we are really looking at either--between using
multivalent ions and using new cathode chemistries, we're
looking at an order of magnitude or even more increase in
energy density in theory. I mean, it is a challenging problem,
but it's theoretically possible.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield back.
Chairman Weber. Well, not only did you get a promotion to
doctor, I got a promotion to speaker.
Mr. Veasey. That's right.
Chairman Weber. So the Chair now recognizes Mr. Brooks of
Alabama.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Dr. Lewis, you pointed out that your lab has demonstrated a
functional solar fuel system. Can you elaborate on the
fundamental chemistry and materials research needed to discover
new molecules and materials and why that research is needed if
you have already demonstrated at least one version of a solar
fuel system?
Dr. Lewis. Certainly. Thank you for that question.
Demonstrating one version of a solar fuel system is, in our
view, like the early flight of a Wright brother is we can get
off the ground that we can't fly very far. We need pieces, we
need materials that are as to an aircraft a jet engine is to
that Wright brother's airplane in the first place.
We need to simplify the system so that it doesn't have many
so-called junctions. We need to get catalysts that don't use
precious expensive metals like platinum or iridium. We've made
lots of progress there, but we still have a ways to go in order
to get all of these pieces and we need all out of easily
manufacturable simple things that you or I can do in our garage
as opposed to having to have very esoteric laboratory
preparations of them using expensive materials. And they also
all have to be compatible with each other and last for 20
years, not 20 minutes. So we've demonstrated it's possible, but
we still need to do a lot of fundamental materials science and
chemistry development to get it to be practical.
Mr. Brooks. Okay. A follow-up in that regard, has the
Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Office provided adequate support for transitional or early-
stage research and development for artificial photosynthesis or
for that matter a functional solar fuel system?
Dr. Lewis. To my knowledge, EERE has not had a significant
program yet in solar fuels. They do have related programs in
consuming that fuel, and there are lessons to be learned. They
should be trying out systems like our potential concept of
bubble wrap that would concentrate the sunlight just like the
bubble wrap we receive onto small areas minimizing the amount
of material that we would need, and letting us use more costly
material.
There are other designs that are much more amenable to
reduction to practice that are beyond the Office of Science's
typical charter that would logically be built in EERE's domain
so that we can solve problems that are problems and not solve
that are not problems, learning from experience in a
synergistic effort.
Mr. Brooks. All right. This next question will be for each
of you, and we'll start with Dr. Hallinan and move to my left,
your right. How is the United States faring against
international competition in foundational energy research? And
each of you have talked about different subject matter, so if
we could, your answer be directed to your areas of expertise.
Dr. Hallinan?
Mr. Hallinan. Thank you. So these upgrades--the proposal--
the upgrade proposals, they address mainly being able to look
at complex materials in much smaller length scales and much
faster times. And this is a new breakthrough in synchrotron
science. It's already being implemented in Sweden, and there
are plans to implement it in Brazil. So in that regard I would
say regarding the upgrade to our synchrotron light sources, the
United States is a little bit behind.
I think that really to look at polymer dynamics at the
scale and at the rate that we need to, which is smaller than we
can do now and is faster than we can do with our existing
facility, so I do think the upgrades are important in addition
to maintaining our competitiveness from a research standpoint.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you.
Dr. Broholm. In my area of quantum materials, I think that
the United States has a very lively program, and it is--has
been characterized I think now by a stronger component of
materials synthesis, which is a really key part of development
of quantum materials. I think comparing to other developed
countries sometimes one sees that looking, for example, to
Europe a more kind of organized approach to some of these
topics, but I think sometimes it's difficult to say whether the
organizer as opposed to the thousand points of light is the
better approach. I think things are going pretty well.
If I could say about the facility upgrades, maybe we'll
return to it later, but the--in terms of the neutron
facilities, the spallation source is presently the world's most
intense source of neutrons, pulse neutrons, but the European
community is now building a spallation source in--also in
Sweden, which will be a 5 megawatt source. And there's quite
some concern in the--in--among scientists who use neutron
scattering that this facility will in fact surpass the
spallation neutron source, and we believe that an upgrade is
very important in order to sustain leadership in that area.
Mr. Brooks. I don't know if the Chair will permit, but I've
got two more witnesses. Can they respond?
Chairman Weber. Yes.
Mr. Brooks. Dr. Scherson?
Dr. Scherson. Thank you. Yes, the only example that comes
to mind that I'm fairly acquainted with is in Japan where they
have tried to emulate the EFRCs and hubs programs that DOE is
supporting in this country. The amount of financial support is
lower than the one that the government here provides for these
multidisciplinary centers.
One difference that perhaps may be considered is the
integration of industry into the program. So now you have the
beginning from the basic knowledge to the end user, and that
has proven to be of value so that by going from one extreme to
the other one, this conversation makes it possible to take the
good ideas and then migrate them very quickly into the
marketplace.
Mr. Brooks. Dr. Lewis?
Dr. Lewis. Thank you. Two points to speak to on this, one
is I did mention that in solar fuels there are burgeoning
efforts now, very substantial, in Korea, Japan, China, Sweden,
Germany, and the EU, and I'd say either individually or
collectively they're definitely on par with what we are doing
in the United States.
The second perspective is I'm the editor-in-chief of the
preeminent journal in this field, Energy and Environmental
Science, and that's a global journal. It's turning down 90
percent of the articles that are submitted so it's very
selective, and over half of those articles that appear in this
field are from China, Japan, Korea, and our competition.
We still have leadership, intellectual horsepower, but I
think we're at a crossroads here, and we need to really
understand that there are other nations who see opportunity for
the scientific effort, and we have to make a decision as to
whether or not we're going to continue to lead, and I hope
that's a positive decision.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you for your insight.
Mr. Chair--Chairman, thank you for the additional time.
Chairman Weber. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
Ranking Member.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you. Dr. Lewis, I want to ask you some
questions about something that sort of sounds like an oxymoron,
which is artificial biological photosynthesis. I realize that
your own specialty is physical analogs to photosynthesis, but
it sounds like you're knowledgeable about biological
alternatives as well. So I have a few questions for you.
Biology is the most fruitful means of producing ends,
concrete results that we know of. We can do far more with
biology--or biology does far more for itself than we see
through physical processes or chemical processes. The fact that
I'm looking at you right now is an example of that. Biology
created the eye and the brain. That process is what comes
through the eye, both remarkable accomplishments that we have
no physical or chemical analog for.
So given that fact, is it reasonable to be hopeful that we
can come up with artificial photosynthesis based upon biology
itself?
Dr. Lewis. Certainly it's reasonable to be hopeful. There
are various methods by which this is practiced. One would be to
de-bottleneck photosynthesis, which is fundamentally
inefficient. The plant should be black, not green, to get all
the colors of the spectrum. It actually saturates its
productivity the tenth the light intensity of the sun to
protect itself from radical damage in the shade of the canopy.
There are lots of molecular links in biology that
deregulate systems so that they can be stable and reproduce and
do other things that a science approach to un-bottlenecking and
making plants more optimal for energy conversion as opposed to
everything else could be very fruitful.
There's also people and scientists that are trying to take
biological enzymes, pull them out of the biological system, and
couple them to the manmade systems. And so you can see how a
crosscutting effort that would try to take the best of both
worlds should also be explored. And this would involve a
strategic collaboration between many different parts of our
biological, physical, and chemical research enterprise to find
the best of all worlds in this end use.
Mr. Grayson. All right. So one possibility is what you
refer to as un-bottlenecking. What are some of the possible
approaches there? Are you referring to genetic engineering? Are
you referring to some kind of forced evolution? What are people
actually doing on this?
Dr. Lewis. Right. They're both. Traditionally, we called it
breeding where we breed crops----
Mr. Grayson. Right.
Dr. Lewis. --for fitness, but it would be through genetic
engineering and directed evolution toward--the molecular part
is the coupling between Photosystem I and Photosystem II. That
has to move a molecule, a quinone, and that's a slow process.
And so if you could instead introduce a wire, a molecular wire
that would move the electrons without moving the molecule, you
could de-bottleneck inherent photosynthesis, and there's lots
of interest in that, but probably should have much more
attention at the research level.
Mr. Grayson. Well, that's an interesting question itself.
Do you have any information about, let's say, Exxon doing
research like this? Are there private enterprise efforts that
are being conducted along these lines, or is it being left to
the government to try to develop this?
Dr. Lewis. My knowledge is that there are enterprises
thinking about manipulating algae, for instance, but not so
much in the private sector and the energy companies for
certain. And I think it is now left to the government as very
early stage maybe appropriately because it is a complex system,
and we still have to do research. It's not just taking tools
that we understand and engineering them, but it's somewhere in
that mix.
Mr. Grayson. Well, given the upside here, the fact that
you're basically talking about being able to create an
artificial fuel, transportation fuel, artificial oil, maybe
artificial natural gas, and that has an enormous effect on the
economy. That's roughly ten percent of the entire world economy
right now. Given the upside here, why do you think that there
isn't more effort in the private sector to accomplish this?
Dr. Lewis. I think it's pretty simple. The rate of return
and the capital needed to invest in energy systems is typically
10 to 15 years, and when you're reporting to your stockholders
every quarter, you can't justify a long-term program to return
capital when you have to report everything every quarter to
your stockholders.
Mr. Grayson. So in the short time that we have left, can
you tell us specific examples of artificial biological
photosynthesis that are being conducted right now or at least
efforts that are being made in that direction?
Dr. Lewis. Absolutely. There are laboratory experiments
that have taken enzymes that feed on hydrogen that then convert
them with carbon dioxide into selective liquid fuels like
isopropanol. And so we have a recent demonstration of that, in
fact, out of Harvard that has shown that this is possible.
That's an important first advance. We still have to then reckon
with how long will those enzymes last. Will they be robust
enough to be put into a system? How can we make them scaled up
and cheap enough to deploy at large-scale? But there is this
strategy of--at the research level taking the best pieces from
wherever they are and then combining them into the best system,
and that's certainly a good approach.
Mr. Grayson. Last question, is there any experiment so far
to date regarding artificial biological photosynthesis that has
actually resulted in the recovery of a fuel that had more
energy content than what you put into it, what we call in the--
in an analog of fusion we'd call that ignition.
Dr. Lewis. Exactly.
Mr. Grayson. So is there something like that that exists
already for artificial biological photosynthesis?
Dr. Lewis. Probably not yet. Maybe, maybe in some limited
circumstances, but of course that's the goal is to get the
energy payback more than the system energy put in, but that's
certainly where we want to be.
Mr. Grayson. All right. Thank you very much. I yield.
Chairman Weber. I'm going to follow up on that, Dr. Lewis,
if I can. That's a fascinating conversation. You said plants
need to be black instead of green. Somebody earlier said they
pick up the red rays and the blue rays and this is Democrat and
Republican. It's bipartisan, you know.
And so in following up with your discussion with my good
friend Mr. Grayson, you're talking about algae that had a--a
plant should be black and then you said that you needed a wire
to like move the electrons in some of those plants? Are you
seeing articles about this particular process in this very
prestigious journal known as the Energy and Environmental
Science? I happen to know the editor. Right.
Dr. Lewis. Yes, I'm seeing them, and I don't have time to
read every article, but----
Chairman Weber. Okay.
Dr. Lewis. --we do see them in many constructs. The wire
isn't a wire like we think of a copper wire with insulation.
It's at the molecular scale. It's molecules that----
Chairman Weber. Something that moves the----
Dr. Lewis. --electrons----
Chairman Weber. Right.
Dr. Lewis. --between these sites in a way the biological
system wouldn't do itself. And you really do want a solar
converter to look black to the human eye so that it does have a
red component and a blue component and therefore harvests all
of the sunlight. Plants are not optimal for energy conversion
machines because they look green. That means that they're
wasting some photons. They had other evolutionary constraints
and design that when you build an aircraft you don't make it
out of feathers if you want it to fly faster. You're inspired
by that, but we know we can do better.
Chairman Weber. Right. And the landings are brutal.
Dr. Lewis. The landings are brutal.
Chairman Weber. Yes. All right. Thank you. I'm going to--I
yield to the gentleman from California, Mr. Knight.
Mr. Knight. Well, you only get one landing if you make them
out of feathers.
Dr. Lewis, thanks for coming. I appreciate you being here.
You mentioned that artificial photosynthesis could benefit from
modeling and simulation using high-performance computation
systems. Is that something that the research community has
begun to discuss with DOE?
Dr. Lewis. I believe so but not in such an organized
fashion as to establish a separate program for high-performance
computing applied only to this problem. But there are specific
examples. I'll give you three briefly. We discovered a nickel
gallium alloy just recently in our laboratory that selectively
takes energy-efficient carbon dioxide and makes interesting
carbon-coupled liquid and gaseous products. That was predicted
by theory before we did it experimentally.
Now, it turns out that the theory got the energy efficiency
right but it got the carbon products wrong. They predicted
methanol. Well, that's because the theory was done in an ideal
surface with perfect atoms, and the real sample we made had all
sorts of nooks and crannies and edges that then we have to
iterate back to tell the theorists, well, now you've got to
predict what the real-world samples are. But they got it close
enough to tell us where to look.
The second point is that theory has predicted out of 19,000
metal oxides, 200 that might be stable light absorbers under
our conditions. We don't yet know how many of them can made--
can be made outside of the computer and exist, but now we're
looking there to try to have a guide from high-performance
computation into where the experimental work should begun and
then refine it. So that would be the optimal way in my view to
not have the world just abstracted in computer. We have to
build it, we have to make it, and then we have to find out
where the theory is right and wrong and then iterate back and
forth until we get to where we need to be.
Mr. Knight. Just like any test or experiment, you've got to
have a theory and then you've got to actually see the ability
to see it practically work.
I want to go to Dr. Hallinan about the batteries. And Mr.
Veasey was talking about Texas. Well, in California we have
quite a bit of photovoltaics and solar and wind and all kinds
of renewable energy products there in the Mojave Desert. Our
biggest problem is battery storage. Our biggest problem is the
wind is not always blowing and the sun is not always shining.
And so if we want to move to our new RPS, which is our
renewable portfolio standard of 50 and then 60 and 70 percent,
we might get to that line where we can't go any higher. We've
got to burn something because, like I said, the wind's not
blowing and the sun's not shining, so we've got to burn
something to keep the lights on.
At what point or how close do you think we are--and this
might be a question for everyone. At what point do think we are
that we can store something that comes from an 1,100-acre field
out in the Mojave Desert that is producing a huge amount of
energy but we are burning that--or we are using that energy
very quickly, instantaneously?
Mr. Hallinan. Sure. So that's a--it's a challenging
problem, and I think there are a number of constraints that we
face. So one is we don't want to be spending large amounts of
money to make these batteries just to store this energy for a
short period of time, right? So we have this cost constraint,
but then we also want these batteries to last a long time. We
don't want to have to be replacing them regularly. We also need
them to charge and discharge at a rate commensurate with either
the production or the consumption of the energy.
And so when you look at batteries, there's a very wide
array of different types of--we call them battery chemistries.
Lithium-ion are very good for portable electronic devices, and
they are now being used in electric vehicles. Nickel metal
hydride are used in hybrid vehicles, so there are many
different chemistries.
I think what Dr. Scherson mentioned earlier about these
redox flow batteries, they seem to be the most promising for
what I would call stationary storage. So we're--if we don't
need to move battery around, we really don't care how much it
weighs or how large it is to some limit. We care mainly about
cost and satisfying the other needs of storage.
And so for--I think for grid storage, really these flow
batteries--and the reason they're so interesting is once you've
designed the electrodes, then if you need to scale them up, you
just make a bigger tank of your liquid that you're going to
flow to the battery. Now, I would say, you know, they're still
at the research stage, but they seem the most promising from
what I've seen.
Mr. Knight. So I'm going to--if the Chair will allow me
just to ask one more question. I'm going to put this back to
Dr. Lewis because I think he understands this. What we go
through in California, what we go through in Texas, what we go
through in some of the states is the issue is not--well, the
land is an issue, but we have a lot of land that we can put
these thousand-acre fields out there. And it does become an
issue more politically than for the science community, but that
will become a problem.
If we cannot store this energy, if we cannot use this
energy at a later time, then we might be on the wrong
technology. And I say that just personally. We might want to
look at something else because if we cannot store this, we are
going to be using so much of our land that I think that it
might be a problem.
And the second question--I'll give this to you, too--is
we've got car companies coming out and they're doing cars that
can do about 225 miles on a charge and exactly what Dr.
Hallinan said, we would change out the batteries at changing
stations instead of filling up your gas tank with gasoline, and
that could be a problem because now we're producing all of
these batteries. We're going to have a huge amount of batteries
if we've got 50 million cars on the road and we have to have
100 million batteries out there just changing stations. I think
that that's a problem with this technology. But it could just
be me.
Dr. Lewis. I'll at least try to address the first question.
Storage is in my view--I agree with you--the number one problem
to think about actually at scale deploying intermittent
renewable sources. We have technologies that are reasonable at
solar and wind, but if we can't store, we can't have power
after 4:00. It's pretty simple.
We should do this broadly. You should think about ramping
up and down nuclear power plants fast in certain designs, about
natural gas-fired power plants, about demand management, about
making fuel directly from the sun, about batteries. There are
probably lots of ways to think about this.
Storage of electricity has been realized as a gap since
Thomas Edison noticed it in 1931, and we have to solve this
problem. This is where, I think, a broad program not just in
batteries but in all sorts of technology options that can help
us meet load in the face of a dynamically changing energy
market are critically important.
With respect to the battery recycling, that solves one
problem and introduces another. It solves a problem in that
there won't be a rapid recharge of a battery by electricity for
a very long time because all batteries have what's called an
internal resistance that prevents them from shorting. If you
try to charge them up, you dissipate so much heat through that
resistor that you would boil all the liquid in your car if you
tried to do that in five minutes.
So instead, you swap a battery out with a previously
charged battery, and the problem of course is now you have at
least twice as many batteries on your hand you have to move
around. This again points to what would be a dream solution of
if instead you could make liquid fuel and store the energy that
way, then you could convert that electricity into stored fuel
and we know how to handle that.
So there are lots of things we should be thinking about.
These are incredibly important problems and we need to do a lot
more research in order to try to make them into reality.
Mr. Knight. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for
the indulgence.
Chairman Weber. Thank you for yielding back.
The gentleman from--is it Illinois--Mr. Lipinski is going
to be recognized for five minutes as soon as he's ready.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
very much for stalling there for a second. I was at another
hearing. I just finished my questioning there, so I thank the
witnesses for being here today.
And this may be a little bit of a repeat and that's what
we're trying to avoid here, but I wanted to make sure that I
directly had you address some of these things. Dr. Hallinan,
the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee, BESAC, recently
released a report detailing which BES upgrade proposals should
be prioritized, and I was pleased that BESAC recommended
beginning construction on the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne
National Lab, which is located in my district.
It's my understanding that your research has relied on APS,
so could you talk a bit about your work that uses the APS and
how upgrading it would advance both your research in the field
of high-energy light source research in general?
Mr. Hallinan. Sure. So the electron beam at APS is--and
actually at all of our synchrotron light sources is actually
this long, wide beam--sorry, not the electron beam, the light--
the x-rays themselves. And so if we want to do some of these
advanced experiments, some measuring dynamics, we're
essentially taking movies, very rapid movies, and we need to
have a point source. And so what they do now is they just block
off the vast majority of the light that's generated by these
light sources. Well, what the upgrades will enable is actually
in--so this is not--the actual upgrades is not my area of
expertise, so I can't actually tell you a lot about the
technical details of the science. But my--but as I understand
it, they're able to shrink that x-ray down to a point without
having to block lots of it, and so they're increasing the--what
we call the brightness by 10 to 100, maybe even more times what
it is now.
And that's what enables us then to--with this brighter beam
we can basically take faster frames of the movie, of the
dynamics of these structured materials whether--and it doesn't
only need to be applied to polymers. I don't want to give you
that impression. That's--my research uses polymers. And the
theory predicts that there are these segmental motions that are
on very small length scales and are very rapid that we want to
be able to look at experimentally to verify that the theory is
predicting correctly. And then if we understand the
fundamentals from this theoretical and experimental standpoint,
then we may be able to design faster or better transporting
polymer electrolytes.
I think the impact is going to be much broader than just
polymer electrolytes for batteries. I mean, there are people
doing research in biological systems looking at DNA, looking at
ribosomes. There have been Nobel Prize--the Nobel Prize in
chemistry in 2009 apparently was awarded for work at the APS.
And--but--so what is it--essentially what it's going to
allow us to do is look at faster and smaller with all the
different capabilities. So I think I answered your question.
Mr. Lipinski. Yes. What about the--in general the impact on
international competitiveness for the U.S. to do this
upgrading?
Mr. Hallinan. I think it's essential. I mean, this is a new
breakthrough in synchrotron science, and it's really going to
push the limits of what we can do--of the research questions
that--the scientific questions that we can answer. Any
scientific questions, I think, are important for several of our
technological challenges of the country. And we don't--you
know, I mentioned earlier that the personnel, the people behind
the science, it's like if you gave a vehicle to a monkey, he
wouldn't really make much of it, and so these beam line
scientists are also crucial, and so if we don't upgrade, we're
going to start losing some of our really great talent to these
other countries would be my concern.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. One other question I want to throw
out there, I know you talked already about energy storage.
JCESR is also centered at Argonne. Is the Energy Innovation Hub
model the best way to pursue this type of research and other
research? I just want to get a reaction to that if that's the
best way to do this and to continue on with other research
challenges that we face?
Dr. Scherson. Well, I'm fairly well-acquainted with JCESR.
I belong to their advisory board. And this is some sort of a
large-scale experiment in trying to do the basic science and
then migrate all the basic science through all the steps that
are required to put the final product out the door of
commercial companies that may want to take that technology and
bring it to the marketplace.
It is a remarkable thing that's working very well from what
I can tell. It encompasses activities from the chemical
engineering but it goes into the design of the system to the
very basic teaching so far what one particle can do when the
electrode gets charged and discharged. So it's the entire
spectrum of activity that is concentrated into one organization
under one head.
Mr. Lipinski. My time is expired so I will yield back.
Thank you.
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski.
The Chair now recognizes Mark Takano from California.
Mr. Takano. Well, I'd like to thank the Chairman of the
Energy Subcommittee for allowing me to be here today due to my
specific interest in this sector, so I really appreciate that,
Mr. Chairman.
I am co-Chair of the Battery Energy Storage Caucus and have
a particular interest in energy storage and what we can do as
policymakers to support and spur innovation in this industry.
California is making large investments in energy storage,
and in my district at the University of California Riverside at
the Center for Environmental Research and Technology they are
working on the local--they're working with the local utility to
integrate battery storage, as well as combining it with
electric transportation.
We have heard from scientists and policymakers alike that
there's often a false boundary between basic and applied
science. To some, supporting basic research is an important
role of government, while applied research should be left to
the private sector. Yet this idea that there is a line that
neatly divides the two separate levels of research is not
realistic, and it goes against our general understanding of
scientific discovery and innovation. Would you agree with this
characterization, this last characterization? And I want to ask
that question first and if you can briefly just address that,
each one of you.
Dr. Lewis. Certainly. To efficiently utilize our researches
and our capital, our intellectual capital, we have to focus on
the seamless transition of end use. We don't want to be wasting
our time making discoveries of materials that end up when
they're combined into a battery are explosive and unsafe. We
don't want to be doing that with solar fuels generators either.
And the only way you can do that is if you actually build a
system and then understand from the system-level what the
constraints are on the materials that go into that system,
whether it's a solar fuels generator or a battery or a flywheel
or any other type of consumer or industrial product.
So to the extent that the use-inspired fundamental research
has an outlet into practical implementation, there should be no
boundary. On the other hand, there is a discussion about
whether or not taking it further than a demonstration and
constraining it is the role best served by the government or is
that for all best handed off to private industry? And I think
that boundary is something that is beyond where the technical
expertise--that's more a policy.
Mr. Takano. Okay. Great. Dr. Scherson?
Dr. Scherson. Yes. I will just simply complement the answer
given by Nate. I just learned that about ten percent of the
cost of an actual battery goes into materials, 90 percent into
manufacturing. So, you know, we have to be able to bridge the
gap between what we regard as fundamental research and applied
research. I'm afraid that companies may not want to take the
risk of trying to take something from the laboratory and try to
produce something under their cost into a final product. So in
my view, JCESR has managed to be able to bridge this gap in
trying to make these boundaries disappear.
Mr. Takano. Great. Dr. Broholm?
Dr. Broholm. I think the--we--it is important to focus on
the key role that the government has in supporting discovery-
driven research, and let me give an example, which is that in
the pursuit of superconducting material that might in fact
solve some of these storage and transmission problems that we
have been talking about, there comes a time when perhaps one
does need to look at a material which superconducts at 100
millikelvin. And this material may in fact provide the
intellectual breakthrough that allows you to then compose a
material that will become a practical superconductor.
So I would--so on the other hand I think that the cross-
fertilization of the motivation from discovery-driven research
to use-inspired research is very important such that those who
are working in the discovery realm need to have the ability to
view some of the challenges that exist in the real world as
well. So this artificial barrier is in fact very unfortunate if
it exists. On the other hand, we have to really remember to
also support the discovery-driven part of it, not to have it
cast aside for not being practical.
Mr. Takano. Yes.
Mr. Hallinan. So, yes, and I'd like to just emphasize that
with a quick example, that there needs to be a balance between
supporting these for-profit entities and basic science. And so
I think a great example is the discovery of the MRI, which is
widely used in the medical industry now, was originally
completely driven only by a fundamental science question. There
was no perceived application of that research.
And so I think, you know, I just want to--I would like to
moderate the responses with the statement that I think it
shouldn't--while taking things to market is extremely
important, it shouldn't be at the expense of basic science.
Mr. Takano. Might I ask just a follow-up?
Chairman Weber. Yes.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The work supported through the Basic Energy Sciences
program, would you agree that it's a major example of how there
is really no clear boundary between basic and applied science
even if basic is in its title?
Dr. Lewis. I think that's a fair characterization in the
sense that we don't know what the applications will be of many
of the materials made or fundamental concepts that are
supported by basic energy sciences will end up specifically
into an energy system in a consumer or in a generator's kind of
infrastructure. So that's foundational research, and its
outcome and where it goes should be unconstrained.
There are separate parts that are use-inspired that I think
should be properly constrained into things that could be
implemented and are devoted to, say, using elements that are
not so expensive or so rare that you could never actually use
them at scale for energy applications. There are still
fundamental research questions, but it's constrained into don't
give me an answer on a material that I can't possibly think
about ever using. Give me an answer that's relevant to ones
that I could think of using. And I think they're both important
to founder.
Mr. Takano. Dr. Scherson?
Dr. Scherson. If I could address the importance of
theoretical research. Nowadays, we have the ability of throwing
at a computer all the elements in the periodic table and begin
to ask questions. And we said what kinds of materials could
possibly be designed in the computer that are going to end up
giving us the ideal material for an actual application? And,
you know, I have been many times and I'm sure that my
colleagues are the same that the computer produces something
that we never thought of. And there is a case at the moment of
the material discovered by the computer that is very good in
terms of allowing magnesium two plus to migrate through the
cathode.
And so people at JCESR are contacting one laboratory in the
world which happens to have that capability, and then you can
then validate what the computer predicted and then do the
experiment to find out whether that is a good one or not. So
this interchange between theory and experiment is becoming to
be crucial in order to discover new and more efficient
materials for all sorts of applications.
Mr. Takano. Fascinating. Dr. Broholm?
Dr. Broholm. Yes, I--let me return to a topic that I opened
with, which was the nature of AT&T Bell Labs or Bell
Laboratories, which was a very interesting institution where
you have this connection between truly fundamental science and
very specific applications. And so I think I actually worked at
a time and I think there was a tremendous inspiration in fact
even though we were working on topics that were truly
discovery-driven science, we had the opportunity to talk to
individuals who are working in a very applied end of it. And
this actually--it can become a motivating factor.
And so I think basic energy sciences has the opportunity to
be the place where these strands of research actually connect
to each other, both the fundamental and the applied side.
Mr. Takano. Dr. Hallinan?
Mr. Hallinan. Yes, I would agree. I think that the
questions that we need to answer are well-defined by the
applied side, and then we can approach them from a fundamental
perspective. So, for example, as an engineer, the reason that
I'm interested in studying polymer electrolytes is that I
recognize the massive energy efficiency gains we can achieve by
transitioning to electric vehicles from conventional internal
combustion vehicles, for example. But my research does not
cover trying to put these batteries into a car. That's for
someone else to do.
So I think that I agree with you that there is not really a
clear line between basic and applied, and that we get the
important questions from the applied side and then we figure
out how to answer them, I think, from the basic side.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the extra
time.
Chairman Weber. You're welcome. Doctor--the Chair
recognizes himself for five minutes for a couple more
questions.
Dr. Broholm, could you give us a general sense of how far
we are from being able to--I know I'm asking you to predict the
future now. How far are we from being able to really develop
useful quantum computing systems and explain the materials
challenges?
Dr. Broholm. So there are many different forms of quantum
computing that are now being pursued, and I think that already
shows you that we don't know now which approach is actually
going to become the one that functions or which approach is--
the general challenge that one is facing there is that it is
necessary in the quantum computer to allow a physical quantity
such as a nucleus in or a photon or a patch of a
superconducting material to respond quantum mechanically to
specific conditions that are imposed.
And it's important that the wave mechanics associated with
quantum physics can unfold without loss of coherence until the
quantum computation has actually been completed. And so having
a quantum material that can respond quantum mechanically for a
sufficient period of time is actually a first step towards
quantum--to having a quantum computer.
And as I said, there are a number of different materials,
platforms that are now being explored, and I would say that I'm
optimistic because of the excitement that surrounds the topic
and the talent that's being applied to it at this time. But I
think the timescale is--one would be--it's a folly to try to
really pin down a timescale on that, and I think we should be
thinking of that as a vision that needs a sustained level of
research of the type that I think predominantly the government
will be able to support.
Chairman Weber. I think you just said you don't know.
Dr. Broholm. I'll take that.
Chairman Weber. Okay. Thank you, Doctor. And I want to
follow up with that. What role can the DOE research program in
BES and even in the ASCR program within the Office of Science
play in advancing this research?
Dr. Broholm. As you pointed out, this is really early
stages, and it's very important to take that approach. And so I
think we're talking about the development of new classes of
materials, quantum materials that sustain quantum coherence for
sufficient timescales to allow quantum computing. And so one of
the key approaches that we need to take is to combine the
theory of materials with the synthesis of materials and the
ability to measure those materials in order to examine the
viability of different class of materials to function in a
quantum computing system.
And if I may, I would say that one of the key roles that I
see of Department of Energy in basic energy sciences is the
provision of world-class facilities that can actually probe the
structure and the dynamics of quantum materials to determine
their viability in these purposes.
And in my own research I'm using the technique of neutron
scattering to actually visualize the quantum mechanical
electronic wave function of these--some of these materials, and
in fact it's in many cases the only method that we have to
inquire the quantum physics of these materials at the
appropriate length scale. So I think that the provision of
world-class facilities for this kind of research is one of the
important roles of the Department of Energy.
Chairman Weber. Thank you. In your exchange with
Congressman Takano, you mentioned looking for a superconductor
fabric of 100 million----
Dr. Broholm. MilliK.
Chairman Weber. MilliK.
Dr. Broholm. That's a very low temperature, 0.1 above the
absolute zero. And my point was that that is something that we
do in the lab, and it teaches us about the fundamental behavior
of electronic systems. But we can then take that knowledge and
develop materials that are practical at higher temperature
based on the same principle. And the connection there is trying
to make to storage and transmission of energy. I did--while
there was a discussion, I didn't quite have the opportunity to
make that, but superconducting--a practical superconducting
material is a potential component in a large-scale energy
storage system where you could in fact take the energy being
generated by a photovoltaic station and put it into a current
in a superconducting solenoid system that will hold the energy
for a long period of time without loss and can then disperse
energy when it is required. So this is another example of there
being a range of different potential technologies that we have
to be pursuing.
Chairman Weber. Is that because it's so low temp, number
one; and number two, when it releases that energy, doesn't it
generate heat?
Dr. Broholm. No. In fact, it doesn't have to be low temp.
And so this is what we're pursuing as to materials that will
allow superconductivity to persist at very high temperatures.
And once you have superconductivity, you have absolutely zero
resistance. And so imagine you can simply put the current into
the superconducting ring and then just close the ring and the
current will persist----
Chairman Weber. Well, then when you charge it, it doesn't
produce heat, zero resistance.
Dr. Broholm. Zero resistance. It just sits there. So as
long as it is in the superconducting state and then you--when
you want to release that energy for use, that can then be done
as well. So it's a really quite interesting potential way of
storing energy particularly for these intermittent distributed
energy--renewable energy resources.
Chairman Weber. Okay. And one last question and then I'm
going to yield to my good friend from Florida. Dr. Lewis, are
you seeing discussions--I think in your earlier comments you
said most of the comments were coming from Japan, China in your
publication, about half of them. I didn't hear you mention
Russia in there. Russia is noticeably absent. But are you
seeing these kinds of discussions in your publication?
Dr. Lewis. We don't see much from Russia.
Chairman Weber. Not Russia specifically but the quantum
part that Dr. Broholm is discussing.
Dr. Lewis. Not particularly much. Most of the discussions
are focused toward solar, wind storage----
Chairman Weber. Right.
Dr. Lewis. --and more use-inspired things that would be
true to the energy and environmental science----
Chairman Weber. Absolutely.
Dr. Lewis. --is vital.
Chairman Weber. So, Dr. Broholm, do you know of
publications that are discussing the superconductivity that
you're discussing in a quantum fashion? Are there--is that
discussion being held worldwide?
Dr. Broholm. Yes, it's a very--countries around the world
are putting in effort to try to discover a practical
superconductor, and there are advances being made, and we're
very optimistic that we'll be successful.
Chairman Weber. Okay. And then, Dr. Hallinan, and lastly
for you since I come from the district that has a lot of what
we call petrotech chemical industry, petroleum and other
chemical industries, when you're talking about polymers of
course you're talking about something that kind of gets my
attention. Are you also hearing that discussion on a worldwide
basis?
Mr. Hallinan. Regarding polymer----
Chairman Weber. Yes.
Mr. Hallinan. --electrolytes and--yes, absolutely. And we
have been for decades because they can fill many different
roles. They can fill hydrogen fuel-cell roles. They can fill
artificial photosynthesis role. They're batteries, water
purification, and so there are definitely publications from all
around the world. Yes. So I----
Chairman Weber. Okay. Who would you--what country is our
runner-up if you will, is doing the most--you're hearing the
most from?
Mr. Hallinan. I would say probably Italy actually is the
runner-up to the United States in terms of polymers and for
membranes, all kinds of polymer membrane applications.
Chairman Weber. Okay. Thank you. And I yield to my good
friend from Florida.
Mr. Grayson. Thanks. A few questions for Dr. Broholm
regarding superconductivity. Doctor, join me in our time
machine. We're jumping back to 1986 and the discovery of the
possibility that you could have much higher temperature
superconductivity that anybody had ever realized before. People
thought that anything above 30 K, 30 kelvin was impossible, and
now suddenly 70, 80, 90 is possible. And nobody knows exactly
how high you can go, maybe as far as even room temperature.
Nobody knew 30 years ago. Well, here we are 30 years later and
we still don't know. What should we have done 30 years ago to
try to pin down the possibilities and get that science done?
Dr. Broholm. I think the point here is that these are
extremely difficult problems. Despite the supercomputers,
despite the advances in theory of electronic systems, really no
one would have predicted that materials such as iron and
selenium, those two elements joined together can actually be a
superconductor in that case at relatively low temperatures. No
one would either have been able to predict that when you place
a single atomic layer of iron and selenium onto strontium
titanate you actually can greatly enhance the superconducting
transition temperature to 50 kelvin in that system. And again,
it's something that even the smartest theorists at this point
are not able to really predict as an issue, kind of as a basic
prediction.
So I think that the statement is that these are simply
extremely complicated problems because they involve the
interaction of a very large number of electrons amongst each
other. On the other hand, there also very, very rich sets of
materials that give the ones of us who are working in them a
sense of amazement and a sense of optimism in terms of the
kinds of properties that we will be able to extract from these
materials as we advance our understanding. So I think we have
to take the long view as we look at these properties. It's as
true today as it was in '86 that there is potential for us to
create superconducting--practical superconducting materials,
not necessarily at room temperature but practical for our use
in energy and information.
Mr. Grayson. So what should we do right now to bring the
future forward and make that scientific discovery happen
sooner?
Dr. Broholm. I think a lot of things are being done. I
think perhaps what I would advocate--we talked about a little
earlier is the close interaction amongst scientists that have
different perspectives on materials, different techniques and
different ways of thinking about materials. This tends to be a
very fruitful exercise. So what appears to be a brick wall for
a Knudsen, a physicist, a chemist may have a different way of
thinking about the material that allows you to really tunnel
through that challenge.
And so I think bringing together people who are experts in
synthesis, people who are experts in theory of materials, and
people who have innovative new methods to probe materials, that
this is the way that we can best make progress on these very
complicated but very promising areas of materials development.
Mr. Grayson. Thanks. I yield back.
Chairman Weber. Well, I thank the witnesses for their
valuable testimony and the Members for their questions. The
record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments
and written questions from the Members.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Statement submitted by Ranking Member
Eddie Bernice Johnson
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]