[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
INNOVATIONS IN BATTERY STORAGE
FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 1, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-18
__________
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
95-223 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ERIC SWALWELL, California
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
BILL POSEY, Florida MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio PAUL TONKO, New York
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan MARK TAKANO, California
STEVE KNIGHT, California BILL FOSTER, Illinois
BRIAN BABIN, Texas
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
GARY PALMER, Alabama
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
------
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
STEVE 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
May 1, 2015
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...................... 6
Written Statement............................................ 7
Statement by Representative Alan Grayson, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Witnesses:
Dr. Imre Gyuk ,Energy Storage Program Manager, Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Department of
Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 15
Dr. Jud Virden, Jr., Associate Laboratory Director for Energy and
Environment Directorate, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Oral Statement............................................... 25
Written Statement............................................ 27
Mr. Phil Giudice, Chief Executive Officer, Ambri
Oral Statement............................................... 35
Written Statement............................................ 37
Dr. Jay Whitacre, Chief Technology Officer, Aquion Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 44
Written Statement............................................ 46
Discussion....................................................... 57
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Imre Gyuk ,Energy Storage Program Manager, Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Department of
Energy......................................................... 76
Dr. Jud Virden, Jr., Associate Laboratory Director for Energy and
Environment Directorate, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 80
Mr. Phil Giudice, Chief Executive Officer, Ambri................. 81
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Statement submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 84
INNOVATIONS IN BATTERY STORAGE
FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY
----------
FRIDAY, MAY 1, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:10 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 which we might go
ahead and do. Have you all eaten breakfast? So I want to thank
you all for being here today.
Today's hearing is titled Innovations in Battery Storage
for Renewable Energy.
I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening
statement.
Today, we will hear from government and industry witnesses
on the state of large-scale battery storage, and recent
technology breakthroughs achieved through research and
development at the national labs and universities around the
country. Our witnesses today will also provide insight into how
innovative companies are transitioning basic science research
in battery storage technology to the energy marketplace.
Energy storage could revolutionize electricity generation
and delivery in America. Cost-effective, large-scale batteries
could change the way we power our homes, reduce infrastructure
improvement costs, and allow renewable energy to add power to
the electric grid without compromising reliability or
increasing consumer costs. As a Texan, trust me, I know the
value of reliable, affordable energy. With a population in
Texas that is increasing by 1,000 people a day, or more, and
energy-intensive industries driving consumption, Texas is by
far the nation's largest consumer of electricity. The Texas
economy needs reliable and affordable energy to power long-term
growth, plain and simple. With battery storage technology,
Texas could count on power from conventional and renewable
energy sources regardless of the weather, saving money for
Texas consumers and keeping the Texas power grid reliable and
secure.
Although large-scale battery storage has been available for
decades, there is still more work to be done. Fundamental
research and development into the atomic and molecular
structure of batteries is needed to better understand the
operation, performance limitations, and the failures of battery
technology. At our national labs, we have the facilities and
expertise necessary to conduct this basic research. The private
sector plays an instrumental role in commercializing next
generation battery technology. Through partnerships with the
national labs, innovative battery companies can take advantage
of cutting-edge research and user facilities, and develop cost-
effective, efficient energy storage technology that can compete
in today's energy marketplace. Instead of duplicating
deployment efforts that can be done by the private sector, the
federal government should prioritize basic research and
development on energy storage. This investment in energy
storage technology R&D can benefit all forms of energy while
maintaining that reliability and the security of the nation's
electric grid.
Current U.S. policy for advancing the deployment of
renewable energy is built around federal subsidies and tax
credits. But these policies only tend to increase costs for the
American people, and are counterproductive to the development
of battery storage technology that could make renewable power a
good investment in the real world. By creating an incentive to
invest in renewable energy deployment instead of energy
storage, the federal government is actually steering investment
away from battery storage technology. And the truth is, without
affordable and efficient energy storage, renewable energy will
never be able to match the efficiency, affordability, and
reliability of fossil fuels. Instead, the federal government
should end market-distorting subsidies and tax credits for the
renewable energy industry, and allocate those resources to
basic research and development necessary to solve the challenge
of energy storage.
I want to thank our witnesses for testifying to the
Committee today, and I look forward to a discussion about
federal energy storage research and development, and the impact
efficient and affordable batteries can have on energy
reliability and security.
I now recognize the Ranking Member, the gentleman from
Florida, for an opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Weber follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Energy
Chairman Randy K. Weber
Good morning and welcome to today's Energy Subcommittee hearing
examining innovations in battery storage technology. Today, we will
hear from government and industry witnesses on the state of large-scale
battery storage, and recent technology breakthroughs achieved through
research and development at the national labs and universities around
the country. Our witnesses today will also provide insight into how
innovative companies are transitioning basic science research in
battery storage technology to the energy marketplace.
Energy storage could revolutionize electricity generation and
delivery in America. Cost effective, largescale batteries could change
the way we power our homes, reduce infrastructure improvement costs,
and allow renewable energy to add power to the electric grid without
compromising reliability or increasing consumer costs.
As a Texan, I know the value of reliable, affordable energy. With a
population that is increasing by more than 1,000 people per day, and
energy intensive industries driving consumption, Texas is by far the
nation's largest consumer of electricity. The Texas economy needs
reliable and affordable energy to power long-term growth. With battery
storage technology, Texas could count on power from conventional and
renewable energy sources regardless of the weather, saving money for
Texas consumers and keeping the Texas power grid reliable and secure.
Although large-scale battery storage has been available for decades,
there is still more work to be done.
Fundamental research and development into the atomic and molecular
structure of batteries is needed to better understand the operation,
performance limitations, and failures of battery technology. At our
national labs, we have the facilities and expertise necessary to
conduct this basic research.
The private sector plays an instrumental role in commercializing
next generation battery technology. Through partnerships with the
national labs, innovative battery companies can take advantage of
cutting edge research and user facilities, and develop cost-effective,
efficient energy storage technology that can compete in today's energy
marketplace. Instead of duplicating deployment efforts that can be done
by the private sector, the federal government should prioritize basic
research and development on energy storage. This investment in energy
storage technology R&D can benefit all forms of energy while
maintaining reliability and the security of the nation's electric grid.
Current U.S. policy for advancing the deployment of renewable
energy is built around federal subsidies and tax credits. But these
policies tend to increase costs for the American people, and are
counterproductive to the development of battery storage technology that
could make renewable power a good investment in the real world. By
creating an incentive to invest in renewable energy deployment instead
of energy storage, the federal government is steering investment away
from battery storage technology. And the truth is, without affordable
and efficient energy storage, renewable energy will never be able to
match the efficiency, affordability, and reliability of fossil fuels.
Instead, the federal government should end market-distorting
subsidies and tax credits for the renewable energy industry, and
allocate resources to basic research and development necessary to solve
the challenge of energy storage.
I want to thank our witnesses for testifying to the Committee
today, and I look forward to a discussion about federal energy storage
research and development, and the impact efficient and affordable
batteries can have on energy reliability and security.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Chairman Weber, for holding this
hearing. And thank you to our witnesses this morning for
participating.
Today we'll be discussing energy storage and the potential
benefits that can be gained by developing storage technologies.
Energy storage has the potential to solve problems such as
interruptions in power on the electric grid, we all know how
frustrating and, at times, even dangerous a power outage can
be, and to make intermittent renewable sources of energy more
practical and affordable.
Energy storage allows the buying of energy when prices are
low, and the selling of energy when prices are high. This
capability can lead to a reduction in energy congestion on
America's electrical infrastructure; lowering prices for
consumers, and also potentially lowering utility revenues for
providers. We have to plan that out accordingly. Well-placed
storage units can eliminate the need for building additional
transmission lines in some areas, saving consumers money. These
challenges to existing energy infrastructure business models
will grow as residential storage systems become more
affordable.
Japan, according to Bloomberg Business, is said to spend
$670 million in response to the grid issues that it's facing,
so that it'll be able to accommodate the influx of renewable
energy, which is often intermittently produced. In contrast,
our Department of Energy's Office of Electricity Storage
Program was funded at only $12 million; that's $670 million
versus $12 million, for Fiscal Year 2015. We need to do better
than this if we want to maintain a reliable, resilient electric
grid that can accommodate the many new forms of energy
production and storage that are emerging today. Lawrence
Berkeley National Lab estimated the annual costs associated
with interruptions in power are as high as $135 billion, and
often it's the commercial and industrial sectors in our economy
that bear those costs. In a future in which manufacturing
processes increasingly rely on digital technology, even short,
brief outages can dramatically impact production and sales.
Energy storage solutions provide a line of defense against
the cost of an outage, and it is imperative that America be
prepared to incorporate storage solutions into energy and
electrical infrastructure. If we invest wisely, research
programs in electrical and energy storage can help America move
from our current 20th century energy grid to a future grid that
delivers more and pollutes less.
And federally funded research has the potential to create
new product lines, new business opportunities, and new
international markets. Storage technology can make America's
energy future arrive faster, and that's always our goal; to
make the future arrive faster.
Again, I thank each of our witnesses for being here today,
and I look forward to hearing what each of you has to say.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grayson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Energy
Minority Ranking Member Alan Grayson
Thank you, Chairman Weber, for holding this hearing, and thank you
to our witnesses for appearing here today.
Most of us take the electric grid for granted. We flip a switch and
the lights come on. But all of us have experienced outages.
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab estimated that the annual costs
associated with interruptions in power are between $22 billion and $135
billion, most of which is borne by the commercial and industrial
sectors.
As we move to manufacturing and industrial processes that rely more
and more on digital technology to operate, even short outages can
impact the cost of doing business. According to the Lab's study, two
thirds of industrial and commercial outage costs were due to outages
lasting less than five minutes. These outages alone translate to a $52
billion dollar price tag.
Storage can solve this problem.
We will hear today about many of the other benefits storage can
provide.
Even with these benefits, however, storage technologies may face
opposition because storage is a technology that can permanently disrupt
the electricity sector's business-as-usual model.
Storage allows you to buy energy when prices are low, and sell it
when prices are higher. Likewise storage can be used to reduce
electricity congestion, lowering prices in high market areas, which
benefits consumers but lowers utility revenues.
Well placed storage units can eliminate the need for building
additional transmission lines, saving consumers money. But this can
also decrease utility revenues tied to rate increases for capital
expenditures.
These challenges to the existing industry business model are the
beginning. There's more to come. If residential storage systems become
affordable, business models will need to adapt again.
It should be noted that, despite the title of this hearing, storage
isn't really needed to maintain grid reliability when using renewable
energy until you get to very high penetration levels of around 30
percent or more, according to the American Wind Energy Association. For
now, there are actually many other mechanisms to address the
variability of these resources that are more cost-effective. So a lack
of storage is not an immediate show-stopper for renewables. But at some
point, we may well want to go higher than 30%, and affordable large-
scale storage technologies could become an even bigger game-changer for
our environment as well as our energy security.
Energy storage is a powerful enabling technology that can benefit
all of us. It can improve the resiliency and efficiency of our
electrical infrastructure.
If we invest wisely, research programs in storage technologies can
help us transition from our current grid to a future grid with lower
carbon emissions. And, at the same time, federal research can open up
new business opportunities, new product lines, and new international
markets.
Earlier this year, Bloomberg News reported that the Japanese
Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) may be investing more
than $400 million in grid-scale energy storage technologies. In
contrast, the DOE's Office of Electricity Storage Program FY 2015
budget was $12 million. The budget request for FY 2016 is $21 million.
We can do better than this.
Storage can be the next revolution in our energy future if we
invest sensibly. We should be doing everything we can to make this
future come faster.
Thank you and I yield back.
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Mr. Grayson. And I now recognize
the Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Smith.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought I'd
mention to members at least part of the reason and part of the
genesis for this hearing today. A couple of years ago, I was
meeting in my office with the author of a Pulitzer Prize-
winning book on energy. His name is Daniel Yergin, and I
suspect many of you have heard of him. He also happens to have
been a college classmate. And I asked him what was the single
most important thing we could do to help consumers with energy,
and he replied, develop a better battery, or develop a battery
that had better storage capability. And even though that
conversation took place a couple of years ago, that really led
to today's hearing. And so that's how important I think it is,
and how important at least one other expert thinks the
development of better battery storage is as well.
Mr. Chairman, today the Subcommittee on Energy will examine
breakthrough technology in battery storage for renewable
energy. Battery storage is the next frontier in energy research
and development. Advanced batteries will help bring affordable
renewable energy to the market without costly subsidies or
renewable energy mandates. Forty-five percent of new U.S. power
production last year came from wind turbines, while solar power
made up 34 percent of new global power capacity. But without
the capacity to efficiently store the energy produced when the
sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing, renewable energy
makes a minimal contribution to America's electricity needs.
Advanced battery technology will enable utilities to store and
deliver power produced by renewable energy. This will allow us
to take advantage of energy from the diverse natural resources
available across the country.
My home State of Texas offers a ready example of the impact
battery storage could have on harnessing renewable power. Texas
is the top wind producing state in the country. The Lone Star
State currently operates more than 12,000 megawatts of utility-
scale wind capacity; about 1/5 of the total wind capacity in
the United States. In ideal circumstances, wind generates up to
18 percent of Texas' power. But even with this significant
capacity, Texas wind energy cannot produce power on demand. And
when energy needs are the highest, wind makes up just three
percent of Texas power generation. Advanced battery technology
could help the United States meet its energy needs and
effectively manage its power production when conventional and
renewable energy resources, which will save money for energy
consumers. Federal research and development can build the
foundation for the next breakthrough in battery technology.
Mr. Chairman, I know votes have been cast, so if--I'd like
to ask unanimous consent that the rest of my opening statement
be made a part of the record so that we can at least get our
witnesses introduced before we need to leave for votes, and
then I know Members will return after that.
I will yield back.
Chairman Weber. Without objection. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Lamar S. Smith
Prepared Statement of Full Committee Chairman Lamar S. Smith
Good morning. Today, the Subcommittee on Energy will examine
breakthrough technology in battery storage for renewable energy.
Battery storage is the next frontier in energy research and
development. Advanced batteries will help bring affordable renewable
energy to the market without costly subsidies or renewable energy
mandates. Forty-five percent of new U.S. power production last year
came from wind turbines, while solar power made up 34 percent of new
global power capacity.
But without the capacity to efficiently store the energy produced
when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing, renewable energy
makes a minimal contribution to America's electricity needs. Advanced
battery technology will enable utilities to store and deliver power
produced by renewable energy. This will allow us to take advantage of
energy from the diverse natural resources available across the country.
My home state of Texas offers a ready example of the impact battery
storage could have on harnessing renewable power. Texas is the top wind
producing state in the country. The Lone Star State currently operates
more than 12,000 megawatts of utility-scale wind capacity--about one-
fifth of the total wind capacity in the United States. In ideal
circumstances, wind generates up to 18 percent of Texas' power.
But even with this significant capacity, Texas wind energy cannot
produce power on demand. And when energy needs are the highest, wind
makes up just 3 percent of Texas power generation. Advanced battery
technology could help the U.S. meet its energy needs and effectively
manage its power production from conventional and renewable energy
resources, which will save money for energy consumers.
Federal research and development can build the foundation for the
next breakthrough in battery technology. At the Pacific Northwest
National Lab (PNNL), home to one of today's witnesses, researchers are
developing new approaches for large-scale energy storage. PNNL conducts
research on battery technologies, including innovative battery
electrodes to improve energy storage capacity.
Using the powerful transmission electron microscope at the
Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, scientists can study
damage caused by battery recharging.
This basic research on the fundamental challenges to safe,
efficient, and affordable battery technology has incredible value and
application for the private sector. It will help the private sector
lead the way to bring battery storage technology to the energy
marketplace.
Inspired by the fundamental research conducted at the Department of
Energy national labs and universities around the country, the private
sector is now investing in battery storage technology. American
entrepreneurs have invested over $5 billion in battery research and
development over the last decade, which has helped fuel a renaissance
in new battery technology.
Just this week, the tech company Tesla announced it will expand
into the battery market, manufacturing home batteries to help consumers
cut costs and to provide back-up power to their homes. And Tesla's
potential large-scale utility batteries can be used for renewable power
generation.
Two of our witnesses today represent innovative energy storage
companies, with unique battery designs developed through basic
research. I look forward to hearing more about the impact these new
concepts for battery chemistry and construction can have on our economy
and renewable energy production.
While the private sector funding will deploy next generation
battery technology into the energy marketplace, the federal government
should invest in basic research and development that can revolutionize
battery technology.
Prioritizing the ongoing partnership between the national labs and
American entrepreneurs can develop next generation battery technologies
and keep America at the forefront of battery science.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and I yield back.
Chairman Weber. Let me introduce our witnesses. Our first
witness today is Dr. Imre Gyuk. Okay, good German name. The
Energy Storage Program Manager for the Department of Energy's
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. His work
involves research on a wide variety of technologies, including
advanced batteries, flywheels, the super-capacitors, and
compressed air energy storage. Dr. Gyuk received his Bachelor's
Degree from Fordham University, and his Ph.D. in theoretical
physics from Purdue University.
Our next witness is Dr. Virden, Associate Laboratory
Director for the Energy and Environment Directorate at Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory. Now, that's a mouthful. At PNNL,
Dr. Virden leads a team of 1,000 staff in delivering science
and technology solutions for energy and environmental
challenges. And he's been with the lab for over two decades.
Dr. Virden holds two United States patents, and has received
R&D 100 and Federal Laboratory Consortium awards for non-
thermal plasma technology, a Discover Award from MIT for fuel
reformation technologies, and he contributed to a Financial
Times Global Automotive Award for PNNL's assistant to Delphi's
non-thermal plasma technology for automotive applications. Dr.
Virden earned his Bachelor's Degree and Ph.D. in chemical
engineering from the University of Washington. Welcome.
Mr. Giudice--actually, I'm going to yield to the
gentlewoman from Massachusetts, because I think she knows
something about him, to introduce him.
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is my pleasure to introduce Mr. Phil Giudice, the CEO of
Ambri, and a constituent of mine from Wayland, Massachusetts.
Ambri is a technology company in Massachusetts that is creating
cost-effective and reliable battery technology that has the
potential to revolutionize the grid. Phil, in addition to
leading Ambri, has more than 30 years of experience throughout
the energy industry. He has worked as a geologist, a
consultant, a manager, and a public servant. I will highlight
just a few of his many, many accomplishments on his resume.
Phil is a Board Member for FirstFuel, an efficiency startup;
Advanced Energy Economy, an energy business leadership trade
group; and the New England Clean Energy Council. He was an
appointee to the Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and
Renewables Advisory Committee, as well as its State Energy
Advisory Board. And he has served the Commonwealth as
Undersecretary of Energy, and Commissioner of the State's
Department of Energy Resources. I want to thank you, Phil, and
the entire panel for joining us today, and we look forward to
your testimony.
I yield back.
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
Our final witness today is Dr. Jay Whitacre, Founder and
Chief Technology Officer for Aquion Energy. Dr. Whitacre became
an Assistant Professor at Carnegie Mellon in 2007, with a joint
appointment in material science and engineering, and
engineering in public policy departments, where he developed
the chemistry that is the basis for Aquion Energy's product
line. Dr. Whitacre received his Bachelor's Degree in physics
from Oberlin College, and received his Master's and Ph.D. in
material science and engineering from the University of
Michigan.
That concludes the introduction of the witnesses, and
unfortunately, as The Chairman said, they have called votes, so
we are going to recess and then we will reconvene immediately
after the last vote on the Floor.
The Subcommittee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Weber. We're going to reconvene this hearing, and
we're going to recognize our first witness, Dr. Gyuk.
TESTIMONY OF DR. IMRE GYUK,
ENERGY STORAGE PROGRAM MANAGER,
OFFICE OF ELECTRICITY DELIVERY
AND ENERGY RELIABILITY,
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Dr. Gyuk. Chairman Smith, Chairman Weber, Ranking Member
Grayson, and Members of the Committee, thank you for your
invitation to testify at today's hearing. I appreciate the
opportunity to tell you about the energy storage program of
DOE's Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability,
and the serious efforts the program is making to address the
challenges facing the widespread deployment of grid energy
storage.
I am pleased to be part of this panel with some of my
distinguished colleagues who have been great partners over the
years.
Last week, the Administration released the first ever
quadrennial energy review. The QER takes a broad look at the
infrastructure used for the transmission storage and
distribution of energy. Several of the QER findings and
recommendations addressed the opportunities that grid energy
storage can provide to modernize the electric grid.
Today, I would like to highlight our work over the last
dozen years to develop energy storage technology, working on
materials and devices, and to bring them into
commercialization.
The program is firmly based on the knowledge and expertise
of the National Laboratories. We work with Sandia, Pacific
Northwest Laboratory and Oak Ridge in a fully integrated
program which produces cutting-edge research focused on
commercialization. And this focus on commercialization is
essential. We also involve universities and industry as
appropriate. We pursue a wide portfolio of technologies for a
broad spectrum of applications. Some of the technologies we
have studied include advanced lead carbon batteries, sodium ion
systems, magnesium ion systems, and flow batteries involving
vanadium, zinc iodide and organo-metallics. We bring promising
chemistries all the way from basic investigations through
device development, and into licensing and deployment.
I would like to share some success stories in deploying
energy storage technologies, and then discuss how OE's program
is addressing the major challenges.
At Notrees, a small town near Odessa in west Texas, we
partnered with Duke Energy to build a 36 megawatt facility for
wind smoothing and frequency regulation. The installation
helped to inform the Texas Public Utility Commission on
developing rules for ancillary services. Tehachapi, California,
is the site of the world's largest wind field. But sometimes
the wind blows and sometimes it doesn't, and so we partnered
with Southern California Edison to build an eight megawatt,
four hour lithium ion facility to mitigate the variable nature
of the wind.
I believe strongly that federal programs need to work
directly with the States, making the expertise developed by the
national laboratories available to the public. For example, in
Vermont, we are partnering with the Public Service Department
to build a disaster-resilient micro-grid, combining four
megawatts of storage with two megawatts of photovoltaics.
During emergencies, the facility can function as a community
shelter and maintain critical services indefinitely, even
without input from the surrounding grid, which may well be
down. In Detroit, we are exploring a community energy storage
concept, incorporating reused electrical vehicle batteries. In
Washington State, we are leveraging state funds to
commercialize a battery technology that started with research
at PNNL. Avista just inaugurated a one megawatt, three hour
flow battery based on vanadium a few weeks ago, and two
megawatts with Snohomish will soon follow. We will evaluate the
operation of the facility, and make careful cost benefit
evaluations.
DOE has developed a strategic energy storage plan which
identifies four priorities, which form the framework for the OE
Storage Program. One is lowering costs. That comes first. Two
is validating reliability and safety. Three is helping to
develop an equitable regulatory environment for storage. And
four is furthering industry acceptance. The program has
provided key leadership in establishing energy storage as an
effective tool for promoting grid reliability, resilience, and
better asset utilization of renewable Energy.
Although grid energy storage has made a credible beginning,
much remains to be done. DOE looks forward to continuing this
important work. As our electric grid evolves, we expect that
energy storage will be an integral component in assuring that
electricity delivery for communities, business, and industry
will be more flexible, secure, reliable, and environmentally
responsive.
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, this completes
my prepared statement. I will be happy to answer any questions
you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gyuk follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank the doctor. And we're going to move
to our second witness, Dr. Virden.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JUD VIRDEN, JR.,
ASSOCIATE LABORATORY DIRECTOR
FOR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE,
PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY
Dr. Virden. Chairman Smith, Chairman Weber, Ranking Member
Grayson, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify in today's hearing.
My primary message today is that, even with the tremendous
amount of excitement about the emerging U.S. energy storage
market, there is still plenty of need for R&D innovations that
increase performance, reduce lifecycle costs, and improve
safety of the next generation of battery storage technologies.
The presence of Aquion and Ambri here are evidence to the role
of innovative researchers. For our part, I am very proud of
PNNL's battery scientists and engineers who have produced close
to 300 publications, have filed 91 United States patents, with
19 granted so far, and seven licenses to U.S.-based companies
in Washington State, California, and Massachusetts. One of
these companies, Unit Energy Technologies, or UET, was started
by two former PNNL employees, scientists, in 2012. UET has
grown to 50 employees, and they are now deploying their novel
redox flow battery technology in Washington, California, and
Germany.
PNNL recently published the first Institute Scientific
Investigation, looking at the atomic level changes in lithium
ion batteries that enabled us to visualize why they short-out
and fail. The expected lifetime of lithium ion battery systems
today is generally believed to be 5 to 7 years, and grid
storage batteries will need to last ideally 15 to 20 years.
This groundbreaking work also confirmed a new approach that
might dramatically extend the lifetime of lithium ion
batteries. But despite all these advances, we still have
fundamental gaps in our understanding of the basic processes
that influence battery operation, performance, limitations, and
failures.
As you know, renewable energy creates many challenges for
grid operations. Their generation profile does not match up
exactly with demand, and their generation is intermittent. In
the Pacific Northwest, we have five gigawatts of wind, and
sometimes hundreds of megawatts or even gigawatts of RAMs.
Texas has the same problem with wind, and California with
solar. Battery storage could solve these problems by smoothing
out the intermittent generation, and storing energy off-peak to
be used later when it was most needed. Several of our PNNL
studies have concluded that for battery storage to be viable,
it must serve multiple grid applications, such as meeting
energy demands minute-by-minute, hour-by-hour, storing
renewable energy at night for use the next day, as well as
deferring transmission and distribution upgrades. Utilities
would like battery storage to deliver both high power and lots
of energy. This is like wanting a car that has the power of a
Corvette, the fuel efficiency of a Chevy Malibu, and the price
tag of a Chevy Spark. This is hard to do. No one battery
delivers both high power and high energy, at least not very
well or for very long. There are many different types of
battery chemistries and sizes of batteries. In demonstrations
around the country, I have counted over 13 different types and
sizes of batteries being explored. All are in different stages
of development, validation, and demonstration for grid
applications.
While today's batteries can address the higher value-added
grid applications, the cost of batteries need to be reduced,
the lifetime expanded, and the safety validated. We believe
there are three key research and development challenges that
need to be addressed to significantly improve existing advanced
battery systems in the near term, along with the longer term
development of the next generation, lower cost battery systems.
First, to provide confidence to utilities that new battery
technologies will meet multiple grid applications, we need
independent testing and evaluation of energy storage facilities
to validate performance and safety, along with the continued
development of codes and standards that allow interoperability
between different technologies and software.
Secondly, continued support for basic and applied R&D is
needed to discover new battery systems, and to better
understand and predict why batteries don't perform as expected,
why performance degrades over time, or why they fail.
Universities and national labs across the country are well
positioned to address the gap in our lack of fundamental
understanding.
Finally, as new technologies make it out of the lab, we
will need regional field demonstrations that validate the
lifecycle costs, performance, safety, and overall impact on--
batteries will have on reliability, resiliency, and renewable
integration. This information is critical to feed back to those
developing the next generation of batteries.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I'd be happy
to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Virden follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Dr. Virden. Mr. Giudice, you are
recognized for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF MR. PHIL GIUDICE,
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMBRI
Mr. Giudice. Thank you, Chairman Weber, Chairman Smith, and
Ranking Member Grayson, I appreciate the opportunity to testify
today.
I'm the CEO, President, Board Member of Ambri, and as you
know by having this hearing, energy storage has the potential
to transform our electricity grid in very positive and
productive ways. Right now, the grid needs to meet, for every
instant of the day, everywhere, the supply of electricity with
the demand for electricity, and storage will change everything.
Today in the United States, one of the ways we meet our
peak demand is through simple cycle combustion turbines, and
the capacity factor for those engines is two percent. Literally
only 160 hours a year are those engines being driven to meet
the peak demands, and storage could change everything. If we
are able to meet average demand instead of peak demand, we
could actually reduce the amount of grid infrastructure
investment by approximately 1/2 of what our traditional market
is.
So there are many different ways that storage could help.
I'm going to suggest six different areas for federal government
leadership that would be particularly of interest, and I'll
give you a little story about Ambri in the context of that.
First is ARPA-E Programs. So ARPA-E funded campus research
at MIT, Dr. Sadoway, to look at a very interesting application
for the--his life's work, which was electrometallurgical
refining. And basically, he took the same kinds of processes
that are known in the aluminum smelter world of taking a ton of
dirt and running electricity through it to produce pure
aluminum metal at 50 cents a pound, and said what if we could
make those processes reversible so that we're not only taking
enormous amounts of electricity off the grid, but we could turn
around and put it back on the grid. And it was kind of an
interesting concept, a White Paper sort of exercise, a--that
attracted funding from ARPA-E in 2007/2008 time frame. The $7
million grant from ARPA-E made all the difference in the world.
This was a concept that there was no private money, no other
public money, that was willing to step up and see if this idea
could work. With that investment, plus other private sources,
Dr. Sadoway, and then Dr. Bradwell, were able to drive research
on campus to actually prove that this concept works, and works
rather remarkably. They had a team that was up to 20 folks on
campus advancing this technology, which then enabled the
company to come together as a private enterprise and seek
private financing. We are now 50 people, and completely
privately financed with investments from Bill Gates, Total,
Khosla Ventures, the--KLP Enterprises and GVB, and we employ 50
folks and we're out there now delivering our technology to the
marketplace. So we're--we were formed in 2010, we're just now
manufacturing our prototypes, and we'll begin delivering them
this fall. And those go to very interesting customers,
including the U.S. Department of Defense in Massachusetts and
Connecticut, the Joint Base Cape Cod and sub-base in Groton,
Connecticut, Con Ed in New York, Alaska Energy Authority in
Alaska, and then in Hawaii, two prototypes are going--are
scheduled to go there end of this year/beginning of next year,
as well as our first 1 megawatt hour battery storage solution
to the U.S. Navy at Pearl Harbor towards the end of 2016.
So this federal money that was able to sort of get behind a
concept, and become sort of an interesting possible technology,
is now developing itself and being delivered into the
commercial marketplace, and looking very, very attractive.
So one role I encourage is continued support for ARPA-E and
the work that they're doing. Another--five other possibilities
include continued support on demonstration projects through the
Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. Third is to
continue work with States and Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to help them understand and appreciate the full
value of storage. There's a very clear and compelling need
between States' roles and rights, and the federal government in
terms of helping to educate and appreciate the value that
storage can provide. And then two other areas I'd touch on. One
is the Loan Guarantee Program which, of course, has gotten a
lot of coverage, I think plays a very interesting role and
could be very helpful for storage, both from manufacturing and
demonstration projects. Federal tax credits and--including in
master limited partnership clean energy investments as
possibilities to help this nascent technology that the United
States, in fact, has the best research going on and the best
new companies starting to really bear full fruit and become a
world-dominant provider.
So I am excited to be here today, and look forward to
taking any questions that you might have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Giudice follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Mr. Giudice. Dr. Whitacre,
you're up.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JAY WHITACRE,
CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER,
AQUION ENERGY
Dr. Whitacre. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank
you for inviting me to speak today on the innovation and grid
scale energy storage. I also want to acknowledge the Bipartisan
Center's American Energy Innovation Council for working with
your staff on setting up this important hearing.
I am the Founder and Chief Technology Officer of Aquion
Energy. I am also still a Professor of Materials Science and
Engineering, and Engineering Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon
University.
Seven years ago, I set out to solve the problem of making
large-scale energy storage systems that are high-performance,
safe, sustainable, and cost-effective. The solution we
developed is an Aqueous Hybrid Ion intercalation battery, which
is a mouthful, I know, but it's simple. It uses a saltwater
electrolyte, manganese oxide cathode, carbon composite anode,
and synthetic cotton separator. We chose these materials
because they are made from safe, cheap, and abundant elements
which will make a technology cost of around $100 per kilowatt
hour achievable when produced at scale. The battery performs
remarkably well; providing long-duration discharges of up to 20
continuous hours, while maintaining performance over thousands
of cycles and, thus, many years of operation.
We now have over 130 employees and a full-scale
manufacturing facility in western Pennsylvania, as well as a
satellite office in Boston. We have been shipping product to
customers since mid-2014, and our batteries are now deployed or
under testing with service provides in 18 States, who serve, in
theory, millions of customers. Our products have also been
exported overseas to Germany, Australia, Malaysia, the UK, and
the Philippines, among other locations.
The story of Aquion is indicative of the kind of public-
private partnership behind many game-changing energy
technologies. The idea for Aquion's battery came out of my
research at Carnegie Mellon, which was actually informed by my
seven years working as a Senior Staff Scientist at NASA's Jet
Propulsion Laboratory. Shortly after arriving at Carnegie
Mellon, I started a small exploratory project on this sodium
ion battery chemistry that resulted in some key early results.
This allowed me to garner some seed funding from a venture
capital firm that allowed me to incubate the concept at
university for a year or so, until some critical performance
goals were achieved in the lab. At that point, we decided to
try and start a real company. At the same time, we applied for
and received Department of Energy funding, which was matched by
private investors. Set up the facility, focused on prototyping
battery units, build a pilot-scale production line, and
demonstrate performance in a grid-connected environment.
Additionally, that funding supported continuing basic research
at Carnegie Mellon; the results of which helped us refine the
technology and our manufacturing processes at the company.
After pilot production and demonstrating the performance of the
technology, Aquion was able to raise multiple rounds of private
investment that has allowed us to scale and commercialize our
batteries.
Without this DOE partnership, our early days would have
been far more challenging, and perhaps Aquion would not have
made it this far. My decision to--back in 2008 to spin out the
company was wrought with risk. Aquion had to cross that pre-
revenue valley of death where we're spending a tremendous
amount of money and time to turn lab results into something
that was a bankable technology, while--at the same time, while
the technology and the manufacturing piece is not well defined.
It is very challenging to find private investors who can
stomach this much risk. A handful exist, but by themselves,
it's rare for them to--to them to actually double-down and make
it happen. And it's even more difficult to get--net new
technologies like ours and Ambri's scale--to the scale that
it's been done without this kind of support.
The partnership I had with DOE was critical for getting
across this chasm, from a research concept to a marketable
product with proven performance. Furthermore, we continue to
collaborate with the DOE. We're actively testing various
generations of our products, and have partnered with us to
develop large, in-house energy storage test beds.
What can be done by the DOE and national labs to advance
other breakthroughs? The DOE has a solid track record of
encouraging good ideas and funding projects that can result in
a significant impact. However, one key aspect that is often
overlooked early in the technology development process is the
difficulty of scaling and manufacturing. Since all new energy
technologies will be both materials and manufacturing-
intensive, focusing more on these aspects of the process early
on would increase the success rate of translating lab results
into market products. There is still a tremendous amount of
important and interesting fundamental science and engineering
to be done during the process scale-up and manufacturing side
of any new energy storage technology. I would, therefore,
encourage the DOE and the national labs to incorporate the
considerations of scalability early in the technology
development process, such that they are focused not only on
what benchtop solutions make sense, but also how to turn a
benchtop solution into a scaled, mass-produced and relevant
technology.
Thank you for the opportunity to share Aquion's story, and
the attention you are devoting to energy technology and
development.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Whitacre follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Dr. Whitacre.
Did we lose Chairman Smith? Okay. So I will recognize
myself for five minutes, and start with some interesting
questions.
Dr. Gyuk, the Fiscal Year 2016 budget request includes a
proliferation of battery and energy storage R&D scattered
throughout DOE, including in the Office of Science, through the
Joint Center for Energy Storage Research, JCESR. Do you all
have a name for that, an acronym? JCESR, okay. Which, to me,
sounds like some kind of salad dressing, but--in ARPA-E, in the
Vehicle Technologies Program, the Solar Energy Program, the
Hydropower Program, the Geothermal Program, and Advanced
Manufacturing Programs at EERE, and then the program you
manage, the Energy Storage Program in the Office of
Electricity. So how does the department make sure the highest
priority research is funded, and how do you avoid duplicative
research?
Dr. Gyuk. Thank you for this question, Mr. Chairman. It's a
very complex question, and I will try to attempt answering at
least part of it.
I would like to point out first of all that our particular
program in the Office of Electricity is the first and original
program at the Department of Energy. Most of the other programs
entered the fray when grid storage reached a certain stage of
development. ARPA-E does very interesting research aimed at
cutting-edge technology. They are in the form of grants, and
they have produced some very interesting projects like the
Ambri project that we have heard about. We also interact with
them. In fact, I was the person who suggested to the head of
ARPA-E that he ought to be interested in grid energy storage.
The Office of Science does basic work on--mostly on the
electrochemistry involved in storage; catalysis and things of
that type. We don't do hydropower because there is an office,
and hydropower is a well-developed technology which has some
interesting things if you--to advance, but it's not in the
purview of our particular office.
Chairman Weber. Let me break in here for a second. Do you
have a particular person who's tasked with watching these
different programs, assessing their priority, and determining
what's the highest level, and if so, who is that?
Dr. Gyuk. I believe not, however, we are putting together
the QER Program which will provide more of a framework for not
only grid energy storage, but also the whole field of grid-
related energy projects.
Chairman Weber. Okay. Well, forgive me, we're running short
on time. Do you believe that grid-scale energy storage research
receives the same priority within the department as vehicle
battery R&D? Grid-storage research same priority as vehicle
battery R&D.
Dr. Gyuk. Battery storage for vehicles has been sponsored
for a long time, and has produced some very good results on
lithium ion, and it's also at a much higher budget level than--
--
Chairman Weber. Well, when I--when we look at the numbers
in the budget request, I have to tell you that grid-scale
research looks to be a lower priority, just from the numbers in
the budget request.
Dr. Gyuk. I would prefer to call--to say that we have a
lower budget, but it's not necessarily lower priority.
Chairman Weber. So--and that was my first question; who's
assessing those priorities. But let me move on to my third
question for you. Wouldn't it make sense to cut the overhead
cost and risk of duplication by combining all of these various
programs into one battery and one energy storage program at
DOE? If yes, why--if no, why not?
Dr. Gyuk. I would have to do this on a personal basis
because policy decisions of that type are generally made by
people in the administrative offices.
Chairman Weber. Okay. All right, well, I'm going to move
on. All witnesses, very quickly. What impact could large-scale
energy storage have on electricity reliability and reducing
cost for customers? I mean that's our goal, right? So just as
quickly as you can, what impact could large-scale energy
storage have on electricity reliability and reducing the cost
for our consumers? Doctor, we'll start back with--actually,
let's do it backwards. Doctor, let's start over on this end.
Dr. Whitacre. The impact ranges dramatically depending on
location, and depending on what kind of infrastructure and what
kind of degree of renewables are local. In some places it can
have a profound effect, and others it can be less profound. The
message really is we need to figure out what locations can
benefit most from grid-scale storage and implement those first,
and then let it trickle through.
As Phil indicated, one of the key things to do is to first
try and off-set these peaker plants that are very rarely turned
on. That's a low-hanging fruit. Also finding places where we
can level out wind or solar. Low-hanging fruit. And from there,
there are weak points in the grid that are also low-hanging
fruits. So you phase this in at the biggest pain points first
and move through. It's hard to put a dollar value on it, but
there are already significant pain points.
Chairman Weber. Could you put a percentage on it?
Dr. Whitacre. Not for the entire country. For different
locations you can. It's a hard question to sort of average out
because it's a time question and a location question. I will
defer.
Chairman Weber. Okay.
Mr. Giudice. Yeah, just quickly, I agree completely with
Dr. Whitacre. The--it is very situationally-specific,
especially over these next few years. When proven out over this
next decade and more, I think we could be at an electric system
that could cost us 30 to 40 percent less than our existing
electric system----
Chairman Weber. Less.
Mr. Giudice. --and largely because less assets will be
involved. Right now, this is the most capital-intensive
industry in the world. It's $3 of assets for every $1 of
revenue that the industry generates across the entire value
chain, and that's all because we're not using these assets very
much. A lot of assets are laying idle in preparation for when
we have our peak demand. So with storage fully developed and
fully deployed, I think it could be a very, very different----
Chairman Weber. Well, I love hearing the 20 to 30 percent
lower, but it just depends on what the investment is. Dr.
Virden?
Dr. Virden. Well, thank you for the question. I like one
part of your question a lot, which is the goal of energy
storage is to keep prices down.
Chairman Weber. Yeah.
Dr. Virden. It'll serve certain very high-end markets
initially, but the goal is to keep prices down. And it will
have a huge impact on resiliency and reliability and robustness
of the grid.
Let me give you one example. We did an analysis for Puget
Sound Energy, and they had three substations that were
basically maxed out at capacity about 9 days out of the year.
Texas has the same challenges in the middle of the summer. And
they asked where would energy storage have the biggest impact
into maintaining the reliability of that substation and the
distribution feeder. We did the analysis. It turns out you
could put about a 3 megawatt battery that would run for 3 to 4
hours at a certain substation. Now, the key was they gave us
real world data so we could make that analysis. It saved them,
given the ROI they wanted, $6 million over the other options
which were upgrading the transmission infrastructure, the
distribution infrastructure, the substation. So with that
battery, they can now meet, they believe, 90 percent of the
challenges they have on that distribution feeder. And the main
return on investments for them was inter-hour balancing, so
balancing on that distribution feeder the, you know, inter-hour
requirements. T&D deferral was the next one. And we often talk
about renewables, but the arbitrage part of that had very
little ROI, even though the battery would spend 15 percent of
the time. So as the previous witnesses said, there's no one
answer fits all. You almost have to go utility-by-utility and
what their specific needs are, almost down to the distribution
level.
Chairman Weber. Dr. Gyuk, I'll let you weigh-in on that
quickly please.
Dr. Gyuk. It's easy because most of the points I would like
to make have just been covered.
Chairman Weber. Okay.
Dr. Gyuk. I think we are all agreed that we have to start
things slowly, and where we can find the most sensible results.
Frequency regulation is already cost-effective in at least
Texas and the FERC areas. Resiliency and emergency preparedness
is an important one because when you need it, any price is
good, and that includes the military bases. So military bases,
islands, coastal areas are beautiful for resiliency. Peaking is
another one. But the whole thing is about getting the right
benefit streams, and increasing the asset utilization of the
system as a whole.
Chairman Weber. Okay, thank you very much.
And at this time, I'm going to yield to the Ranking Member.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Intel spends $5 billion a year on research and development.
There are several drug companies that actually match that or
exceed it. Why don't we see the same thing with regard to
batteries? Batteries are over $100 billion a year in revenue,
why don't we see Eveready or Duracell or Rayovac doing the same
kind of research that would, to a large degree, underwrite what
you do every day? I think Dr. Whitacre alluded to that in his
testimony, so I'll start over there.
Dr. Whitacre. Yeah, there was actually a very interesting--
thank you very much. There was a very interesting report done
by the DOE, perhaps almost ten years ago now, that assessed
this, and one of the findings was that, early on, I think folks
recognized--this is for lithium ion batteries specifically,
that in North America the return on investment on this kind of
technology is a very long--it's a very long investment window.
Japan and other folks in Asia were more willing to invest over
that long period of time, compared to what you might find in
North America. So there was a general perception that this is a
long-haul kind of technology development process, and that, in
some cases, I think it's very difficult for North American and
North American industry to double-down on a very capital-
intensive, very costly situation.
Mr. Grayson. Mr. Giudice, go ahead.
Mr. Giudice. Yeah, so to address the question, this is not
unique to batteries. This is the--one of the energy challenges
that the energy industry faces, especially the electricity
industry, and it's part of the nature of the industry
structure. There was an organization, the Electric Power
Research Institute, that was--that came together to try and
spur R&D and demonstration projects. It's a very small budget.
The vendors are--have a very small budget. The industry is not
set to innovate in general, and so it's a--there isn't a model
in this industry, writ large, not just around batteries, to
innovate and to invest in the kinds of ideas that could be
breakthrough. And it's in part related to the nature of this
industry. It's a highly regulated industry, both federal and
state. It's not an industry that goes easily into change. When
you have this kind of asset intensity, we have 30-year lifelong
assets that they're dealing with, so they're not sort of with
the mindset of let's keep reinventing ourselves every couple of
years. And so I think that it really suggests why there's such
an important federal and other public policy roles to bring us
to a better energy future.
Mr. Grayson. So are you suggesting that it's economic or
that it is regulatory, or that it's cultural, what do you think
is the most important----
Mr. Giudice. I think the fundamental economics are not--do
not reward innovation at this stage, and consequently, the
regulations are not such that they're spurring change across
the board. And it relates to smart metering, it relates to all
kinds of aspects of the electric industry. It's not just as it
relates to storage. Yeah.
Mr. Grayson. Doctor? Doctor Virden.
Dr. Gyuk. Yeah. Well, first of all I'd like to point out
that there are battery companies that are working on
innovation. For example, a company in Pennsylvania called East
Penn worked with us to develop the ultra-battery which has a
cycle life which is almost 10 times that of a regular lead acid
battery. General Electric is another company that actively
works on research. But I agree with you that by and large, the
battery industry is conservative. And the utility industry is
conservative also, although we do have forward-looking
utilities like Southern California Edison, Florida Power and
Light, First Energy American Public--you know, and various
other companies of that type. But the federal impetus, I think,
is helpful in bringing out the best in these companies, and
coaxing them towards innovation and new battery development.
Mr. Grayson. Dr. Virden?
Dr. Virden. Yeah, with the Intel example specifically,
they've got about an 18-month R&D cycle for next products, and
huge profit margins. And when you start wandering into the grid
and the energy storage space, the fundamentals, and I think you
said it here are it's high capital, high risk, long-term
payback, and fragmented market, and it makes for uncertainty.
Mr. Grayson. All right, I see I'm almost out of time, so I
yield back.
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Grayson. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I have one
more question.
Chairman Weber. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you.
Doctor, I'd like you to try to clarify your response to
Chairman Weber's question earlier about who coordinates the
various energy storage activities at DOE. Is it true that the
Secretary established the Undersecretary for Science and Energy
for that purpose?
Dr. Gyuk. Yes, that is true.
Mr. Grayson. All right, thank you.
Dr. Gyuk. Yeah.
Mr. Grayson. Now I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Weber. And now the gentleman that drives a battery
just about everywhere he goes is recognized. Gentleman from
Kentucky.
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I drove an 85 kilowatt
hour battery here this morning. It has four wheels. And that's
probably the way to look at it; it's a rolling battery.
Before I ask some questions about batteries, I want to ask
Dr. Whitacre and Mr. Giudice about the role that patents play
in commercializing technology. I think this is something that a
lot of my colleagues here in Congress don't fully appreciate
why these are in our Constitution, but can you tell me do
patents help or hinder you in your quest to commercialize this
technology?
Dr. Whitacre. Thank you. I believe that maintaining a
strong intellectual property stable, both patents as well as
trade secrets, is critical. Folks will not invest or really
take heart that you have something that's legitimate unless you
have some documentation that establishes your right to, you
know, exercise your idea without being copied immediately. So
it's critical. And that story really matters.
On the other hand, I will say especially in the energy
technology space in general, and batteries specifically, there
is a tremendous amount of overlapping intellectual property
right now that is difficult to assess out, and there has been a
lot of really interesting court cases and a lot of other things
that go with this. Chemistry materials are hard to patent and
maintain patent. And there's a difference between right to
practice, versus right to block.
So it's critical--I am positive that we wouldn't have got
the degree of investment that we have gotten without the nine
or ten patents that we have, and the worldwide patents that we
have as well. It's super important.
Mr. Massie. Thank you.
Dr. Whitacre. On the other hand, you know, it doesn't hurt
us, for sure.
Mr. Massie. Right. Let me give Mr. Giudice a chance to----
Mr. Giudice. Sure. I share the--Dr. Whitacre's perspectives
on this as well as far as the patents are critical.
Intellectual property, without having our control of our
intellectual property, we would not have attracted the
investors we have. They are all motivated for long-term
significant positive change for the planet and the country, but
the financial rewards are what enables them to be able to write
the checks for us. So I don't think that there's any doubt in
my mind that without that, it would--it would not have been the
same kind of conversation.
Mr. Massie. Thank you. That confirms what my experience,
when I started a company at MIT with technology from there is
that, without patents--and you might think you would want all
this to be shareware, but the reality is the investors will not
come and invest the money and commercialize in the
manufacturing unless you have patents. And you have to be able
to defend them as well. And I know it can get messy with
overlapping technology, but that's what the courts are for, and
we can get to the facts.
So now, I'm sort of on a mission here in Congress to
protect our intellectual property system, and it's--trust me,
it's being attacked here right now. Quick--have a few
questions. What--Dr. Gyuk, what portion of our storage capacity
right now consists of pumped hydroelectric capacity on the
grid, just roughly? It seems to be the most conventional at
this point.
Dr. Gyuk. It's the vast majority. Pumped hydro is a
classical technologies--technology. All the utilities that have
it bless the day when it was put in because it helps them with
peaking power. I mean it's very difficult to live without it.
Nonetheless, not very much is being built these days.
Mr. Massie. Why is that?
Dr. Gyuk. It's a combination of most--many of these plants
were built to cope with the hoped-for development of nuclear
power, because nuclear power likes to put out flat electricity,
and the pumped hydro was intended to follow the load and do the
up-and-down. Since nuclear power is not as big a component of
our national energy budget as was intended, the impetus for
doing pumped hydro is less.
Mr. Massie. Thank you.
Dr. Gyuk. It's also very expensive to build a new pumped
hydro plant.
Mr. Massie. Is--and how does it compare like with batteries
right now, the cost of pumped hydro versus, say, a chemical
solution?
Dr. Gyuk. When you take into account a long lifecycle, a
pumped hydro could run for 20, 30 years easily. You amortize
over that period and the cost--the lifecycle cost them becomes
lower than most batteries. And that's sort of what we have to
crack with battery research. The same is also true for
compressed air energy storage, of which we have two very good
examples in the world; one of them in Alabama in Huntsville,
and the other one in Germany. But we are now developing new
compressed air energy storage. That's another bulk technology
that amortizes over long periods of time, and will give us good
output.
Mr. Massie. Thank you very much.
I see my time has expired. Are we going to do another round
of questions, hopefully? I'll beg for some more time if----
Mr. Grayson. I don't have any objection to that.
Mr. Massie. Okay. I yield back then.
Chairman Weber. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from California is recognized. Or--I'm--yeah,
that's right. Go ahead, Mark.
Mr. Takano. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also
appreciate the Subcommittee's indulgence to allow me to join
today. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity.
Mr. Giudice, last week the majority passed a bill out of
our Committee that would have cut--that did cut funding for
ARPA-E by 50 percent. In contrast, your testimony strongly
recommends increasing our support for the agency, and provides
an excellent example of the critical role that ARPA-E now plays
in advancing new grid-scale energy storage technologies. Can
you explain why you believe that ARPA-E is such an important
part of our nation's energy innovation ecosystem?
Mr. Giudice. Thank you for the question. Yes, ARPA-E is a
relatively new agency, and it has done a remarkable job in the
few short years that it has been up and running and operating.
I do think that, as we were talking earlier, I think Ranking
Member Grayson mentioned the comparison of Japanese spending on
storage, $670 million a year, versus the budget that Imre Gyuk
controls of $12 million a year. ARPA-E fills a little bit of
that gap, and it's--their mission, obviously, is much broader
than just energy storage, but they are there to try and help
create the breakthroughs that will serve our country and our
planet for years and years to come. There is no alternative to
that. There isn't a private sector group that's going to stand
in to do that, there's not private investors through the
venture capital-type community that can stand up and take the
lead on these kinds of innovations. The large corporations are
spending very small amounts of money because it's not
economically attractive to them to do that. So there is no one
else to be able to take on that leadership. I strong encourage
the continued support for the ARPA-E Program.
Mr. Takano. Would your company and your technology be
anywhere near where it is today without the early stage
investments from ARPA-E? Would it even exist?
Mr. Giudice. I do not believe it would exist. I don't
believe that--and to be clear, it was the campus research that
got funded at MIT, so it was all done under a public-private--
or public partnership with the ARPA-E on that. And that was
necessary to advance the technology to the point that we could
attract and have conversation with private investors. So we
weren't even ready for any kind of conversation with private
investors when it was just a concept. That was necessary to
prove out in the laboratories at MIT before it could be at all
of interest to private investors.
Mr. Takano. So we see that--we know that you have a number
of private investors, notable ones, and you're saying to me
that the private sector could not have done this just on its
own.
Mr. Giudice. I'm saying they could, but they would not
because there is no economic package that makes sense on the--
on its own.
Mr. Takano. So--I mean in theory, it's possible that they
could have--they have the capacity----
Mr. Giudice. That's right.
Mr. Takano. They have the capacity to do this.
Mr. Giudice. That's right.
Mr. Takano. But the market alone doesn't seem to be able to
move us in this sort of direction. It sometimes takes
leadership----
Mr. Giudice. Absolutely.
Mr. Takano. --through government-funded efforts.
Mr. Giudice. Yes, that's completely appropriate. I--and you
look at the profitability in the energy industry of equipment
and services that are provided to this industry, versus the
profitability in the Intel example or the pharmaceuticals
example, and they're just--the private sector isn't making the
kind of money in this industry to justify spending money on
concepts that could, in fact, bear great benefit for society.
And this is a very appropriate role for federal leadership to
stand in and say, let's figure out what might make sense here,
and then when it's ready, the federal government can step back
and the private sector can take it forward for commercial
deployment and bear full fruit.
Mr. Takano. I think about how geography and circumstances
forced a nation like Japan to move in certain directions, and
our relative geographic situation where we had abundant
resources, we didn't have to think like they did, but--like
they did, but I think about the way that they began to dominate
the car market, the design of their cars and, you know, and
the--they gained a competitive edge, and I'm worried about our
Nation keeping a competitive edge in R&D and also in the ways
we can bring this technology to market, or transfer that
technology, transfer that knowledge.
My time is up, Mr. Chairman, and I will yield back.
Chairman Weber. Gentleman yields back. Thank you.
I recognize the Chairman of the Full Committee, Chairman
Smith.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Dr. Whitacre,
let me apologize for not hearing your testimony; I had to go
give a quick speech, but I'm glad to be back. And I am also
sorry I didn't get to hear all the questions that were posed by
my colleagues, so I may be plowing some of the same ground.
But let me direct my first question to Dr. Gyuk, if I
could, and it is this. First quick question is, you may have
seen Tesla announce yesterday that they were announcing a new
sort of home storage battery and a new industrial strength
battery that presumably had better storage capability than
others. I don't know how much information you might have read
about Tesla's new batteries, but do you have any comment on
them?
Dr. Gyuk. My information is roughly the same information
you have. I hear the public announcements. Tesla has a very
fancy luxury car. They have talked about residential batteries,
but they really do not have any major part of the market. And I
wish them well. If they succeed then energy storage will profit
from it as a whole.
Chairman Smith. And I'm guessing it's incremental progress,
not something that's explosive perhaps, or not something that's
a major breakthrough, but they are on the forefront of car
batteries in general, so that's why we tend to look to them
maybe for some of the most--greatest advances in battery
storage.
Dr. Virden, you mentioned in your testimony that I heard
that there are number of gaps in our knowledge about developing
the next generation battery, and looking for the next
breakthrough. Given those gaps, do you want to give us any kind
of a timeline, any kind of a prediction as to when we might
make those kind of breakthroughs that will dramatically change
the way we use alternative forms of energy?
Dr. Virden. Yeah, thank you for the question. I think what
you're going to see, from my perspective, is two phases. You
have companies who have taken technologies that maybe have been
developed over the last five or so years and they're going to
try to move those to the market, and they're going to try to
improve them.
Chairman Smith. Um-hum.
Dr. Virden. We, for example, on that vanadium redox flow
battery, which was a well-understood battery, it's been around
for years, through some fundamental scientific investigations
in solubility, we are able to increase the capacity by 70
percent. Not incremental, but kind of revolutionary.
So you're going to see, I think, those continued advances
in the pipeline. Maybe five or ten years out are all kinds of
ideas of--you know, every battery has an anode and a cathode,
just like your car battery, and an electrolyte in between. And
you see all kinds of press releases about a new anode material
that's five times better than anything out there----
Chairman Smith. Um-hum.
Dr. Virden. --and it probably is, but as Mr. Whitacre--Dr.
Whitacre was saying, when you put that in with an electrolyte
and a cathode, and put it together and then try to scale it,
all kinds of things don't work. Materials start to fall apart,
the chemistry isn't well known, there's side reaction, and
usually what that leads to is loss of performance, loss of
safety. And we as fundamental scientists don't understand those
basic mechanisms.
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Dr. Virden. So in this ecosystem, you need that fundamental
research that continues to move the state of knowledge along so
companies can take that and utilize it, and the unique tools
that DOE provides they can utilize.
Chairman Smith. Right.
Dr. Virden. Then you need companies to spin out and move it
along. And we do really undervalue the challenge of scale-up. I
think you're exactly right. In every materials process I see,
in an experiment in a lab like this big, it works perfectly.
Then when you want to make thousands of them----
Chairman Smith. Yeah.
Dr. Virden. --it doesn't. And so I think that is the
challenge is filling that U.S. pipeline of fundamental science
that can spin off, and people can keep moving things forward.
And with respect to that ecosystem and why it's so hard to
move things out, there's 3,000 utilities----
Chairman Smith. Right.
Dr. Virden. --in this country, and they don't have R&D
budgets, and they don't have venture capital budgets.
Chairman Smith. Right, yeah.
Dr. Virden. And they've got--we've got private, we've got
public, we've got co-ops. The fragmented market makes it very
difficult for the ultimate end-user to do the R&D.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Virden. You said five to ten
years, so I gather that's what you're thinking.
Let me ask the other witnesses real quickly my last
question. What's--sorry. And that is, and you're welcome to
mention your own companies as well, in the case of our last two
witnesses today, but what do you think is going to be the next
great breakthrough? And, Dr. Whitacre, we'll go to you, and
then Mr. Giudice and then Mr. Gyuk.
Dr. Whitacre. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The--there
is a tremendous amount--there's a lot of leeway in that
question, I will say. It's difficult for us to--for me to
speculate on which vector the breakthrough should be in.
There's energy density, there's power density, there's cost,
there is lifetime, there is sustainability. These are all
different, you know----
Chairman Smith. Yeah.
Dr. Whitacre. --axes of innovation. And my sense is which
axes is more--most important I believe is cost and lifetime.
And the things that are going to move the bar in that are going
to be the broad scale and adoption of maybe not necessarily
completely different kinds of technologies, but understanding
how to leverage our existing base to get it to the right price
for the right durability.
Chairman Smith. Yeah.
Dr. Whitacre. It's lifetime cost of electricity that
matters. Electrons are dollars.
Chairman Smith. Thank you. Mr. Giudice, my time is up, so
if you'll give me a brief answer.
Mr. Giudice. Sure. It's going to be less than three years,
and it's actually demonstrating the technologies that are now
just getting to the market that are going to show the kinds of
improvements that we need. And it is all about cost.
Chairman Smith. And what's the quick technology you're
talking about?
Mr. Giudice. Well, I'm excited about Ambri, I'm excited
about Aquion. There's a few others out there.
Chairman Smith. Okay, great. Dr. Gyuk?
Dr. Gyuk. We have driven down the cost of vanadium systems
to a considerable degree. We are now thinking of taking that
experience and going into new directions, but with the same
general approach. Zinc iodide is a possibility. Metalorganics
and completely organic electrolytes.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you all.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Massie. [Presiding] Thank you, Chairman Smith. And
because this is such an interesting topic, and we have such
great witnesses, we're going to do a second round of questions,
at the risk of not catching our airplanes. And I appreciate
your indulgence if you're available to stay for more questions.
Mr. Takano. Mr. Chairman, you could always give me a ride
in your car.
Mr. Massie. Yeah. It will get you there very quickly.
And at this point I yield five minutes to Mr. Takano from
California.
Mr. Takano. Yeah, do you have a battery as part of your
freestanding house in----
Mr. Massie. Yes, I have a 45 kilowatt hour lead acid
battery that's 12 years old, and I'm looking for a replacement,
by the way, so I want to talk to you after the hearing.
Mr. Takano. And you're completely off the grid, is that
right?
Mr. Massie. Yes, sir.
Mr. Takano. Literally.
Mr. Massie. Literally. In this--and because of that, I
understand the importance of batteries. I have 13 kilowatts of
solar on my roof, but it does me no good when the sun goes down
if the batteries can't hold the electricity. And some days,
because I'm off the grid, the power is literally just kind of
spilling out. It goes nowhere and doesn't get saved.
Mr. Takano. I know our Chairman is an expert himself, so I
thought I'd ask him a question too.
The question for all of you if you can answer it is, really
where do you see the greatest potential for targeting future
federal R&D funding to support emerging markets for grid-scale
batteries, how we can scale, you know, do the grid-level--I
mean just how best can we target our federal dollars? And if it
were me, I would try to raise the R&D levels of spending, but
what more--what's--what do we need to do next? What are the
next things we could do, given if you believe that there's a
role for the federal government in the basic research? Go
ahead, take----
Dr. Whitacre. Okay, I'll take a crack. I sort of talked a
bit about this already. My focus would really be to--I propose,
and others have mentioned as well, that there are tens of
amazing bench--like bench-scale results already out there that
could be breathtaking and super innovative, but getting them to
the next level, getting into something that is repeatable,
demonstrable, that is scalable, there's a tremendous amount of
fundamental and basic science in that process. And I often
think that there's a boundary drawn between basic science and
applied science that is maybe technically a little false.
Right? There's a tremendous amount of basic fundamental
research in the process of making more than one tiny example of
something, and why--how do we make that work. And energy
technologies in general are about replicating and scaling, and
and this is one of the disconnects. It's so easy to do one
thing, comparatively speaking, than having lived this, I can
make you--and I did indeed make a very nice, very individual
thing years ago, and my life's work the past six years has been
making it repeatable.
Mr. Takano. Wonderful. Mr. Giudice?
Mr. Giudice. Yes, from my perspective, I think from a
federal leadership standpoint, I would really move towards the
demonstration and pull through from the market standpoint than
just on the basic science. And I appreciate the purview of this
Committee is really more of the R&D side of it, but I really
believe that there's an enormous amount of work to be done, as
the largest energy consumer in the world, to start
incorporating more of these different types of technologies in
the mix of the energy choices that the federal government is
making, and then working through all of the policies and issues
around federal and state regulations to be able to fully value
what the economics--the potential economic value of storage
would be, and figure out ways to help make sure that gets as
fully appreciated as possible as soon as we can.
Dr. Virden. I'm going to use the all-of-the-above response
on this one. And I truly believe you have to have the basic
research to provide the long-term foundation. You're exactly
right. There's some really cool technology ideas out there, but
if you don't have the applied sciences, where most of the
battery work starts to fall apart is when you take it out of
the lab, put it in a real world battery system, and it's that
applied science that starts to troubleshoot and figure out why
they're not performing the way they should. The theoretical
densities are always really high. When you make one, it drops
way down. And then you can't get the full feedback until you do
demonstrations. And if you don't have all those parts of the
ecosystem, it's hard to innovate rapidly.
Dr. Gyuk. Couldn't agree more. And that's what our program
has tried to do; take the applied ideas, drive them through
developing the devices, and then get them out in the field and
see how well it performs in the field in the real-life
situation. And we need to have that entire chain from support
of basic scientific research, through the scaling into
prototypes and beyond, and the applications for the first early
adaptors and demonstrations out in the field.
Mr. Takano. And just real quickly, do any of you believe
that this--getting to where we want to go can happen without
federal leadership? I'll take that as a--no one believes that.
Okay, well, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Massie. Thank you. At this point I yield myself five
minutes. I can't wait.
Takano. Take as long as you want.
Mr. Massie. And I've been given permission to take even
more time.
But the first thing I want to ask you about, I listened to
your list of materials, Dr. Whitacre, in your battery, and I
heard, you know, saline or seawater--saltwater and some other
things, cotton, some magnesium maybe in there. I was glad I
didn't hear unobtainium, you know. This is a problem that we
have when we try to scale things from the lab, you know,
theoretical to mass production is sometimes you pick a material
that's hard to obtain or hard to find at those scales. And I
think one thing we need to be careful of, and I know you
mentioned vanadium and iodide, which aren't unobtainium, those
are familiar, is that we don't trade one set of moral
encumbrances for another if we design materials into our
batteries that aren't available domestically, and I'm okay with
free trade, but are only available in politically unstable
regions. And so could you talk to that issue? Mr. Giudice, you
mentioned your battery technology, does it have any unobtainium
in it or any special sauce that we can't get in this country?
Mr. Giudice. Yeah, so thank you for the question. The
formation of the company was all about cost, and it was all
about getting to the lowest possible cost for the delivered
energy solution, because we know that that's going to make the
most significant impact. So the chemistries that we utilized,
we're not public about, there's been a lot of research
published on our chemistries and other chemistries from the
group Sadoway work on campus. We haven't disclosed as a company
what ours is, but it all starts with crustal abundance and
local supplies as being very, very important. And you're right,
the initial work on campus was ultrapure materials, working
inside glove boxes, and looking at could this sort of chemical
matching work as a battery. And the answer was yes. As an
industrial company now, we're doing things in open air, and
we're doing things from industrial grade materials, and it's
working very, very well. So I think it's an appropriate concern
to have because it's all about delivering as low a cost, and
getting as much of an impact as we possibly can. And we're
quite comfortable that we're on track to do that.
Mr. Massie. Would anybody else like to comment on that? Dr.
Gyuk?
Dr. Gyuk. Yes. There are two charts that I keep in my mind
when I think about new technologies. One is the chart of
crustal abundances, which tells you how abundant the things are
in general, and it also has a subsection on what materials are
industrial materials. Vanadium is an industrial byproduct of
the steel industry.
Mr. Massie. Um-hum.
Dr. Gyuk. So that's okay. The other one is the chart of
electro--electric potentials. You need materials that give you
a large voltage window. Can't be too large if you're dealing
with water, otherwise you're producing hydrogen and you may
explode. But these two together define the limits of what we
look into, and that's why we are interested in organics which
are basically carbon with stuff added, okay. And once you have
the way to make it down pat, it should be fairly easy to
produce industrially in quantity.
Mr. Massie. Because we're using carbon and hydrogen and
oxygen, right?
Dr. Gyuk. Yeah.
Mr. Massie. Okay.
Dr. Gyuk. And simple materials.
Mr. Massie. All right. Well, thank you very much.
Now, I know that the constraints on a car battery are
different than the constraints on a stationary application
where you just go for cost and cycle time, and you don't have
to worry about weight, but what occurs to me is that--you were
talking about those fancy cars they make, and I heard my car
being called fancy, but it's an 85 kilowatt hour battery and
we're fast approaching 100,000 of those vehicles in, you know,
domestically. It's--that's like 8.5, if I've got my decimal
place in the right spot, 8.5 gigawatt hours of capacity running
around in this country pretty soon. Is there a potential for
using that wisely, Dr. Virden?
Dr. Virden. I think there is. There's, you know, practical
issues like if you do plug your car into the garage, who has
liability for the battery----
Mr. Massie. Um-hum.
Dr. Virden. --if you're using it for, you know, stabilizing
the grid. Interestingly, we did a study of all NERC/FERC sub-
regions and looked and said how many of the cars could you put
on--electric vehicles on the grid right now region-by-region,
and the places where you could put a lot of cars on the grid,
and the grid could deliver the electricity needed to charge and
interact, was the Midwest primarily, and it was the places that
had a lot of coal and natural gas intermediate capacity. And
interestingly enough, in the west, Washington State, Oregon,
California, where we're hydro-dominated, you could put the
least amount of vehicles on the grid and charge them, because
of our--having to back water up behind the dam at night, and we
don't have a lot of intermittent capacity. So people are
looking at the idea. It makes sense. We could handle some of
the distribution challenges, but there's still a ways to go to
be able to get that transactive signal that would allow the
battery to play in that grid market.
Mr. Massie. If you'll indulge one more question.
Mr. Grayson. That's fine.
Mr. Massie. All right. Dr. Whitacre, I know your company is
making a battery and it's selling it into applications that
seem to involve different levels of scale. It's sort of the
unique feature of your battery; you can scale it up and down.
And this is really a question to all of you, but I'll start
with Dr. Whitacre. To what degree are we going to be dealing
with distributed storage, like at the home scale, versus
centralized storage, and is there even a cost-effective place
where it makes sense to do home storage? And I start with you,
Dr. Whitacre.
Dr. Whitacre. Thank you. For sure it makes sense in some
locations right now. Hawaii comes to mind as an obvious
location where the cost of electricity is already so high, and
the penalties with selling back to the grid during peak solar
production hours is great, that people would just rather buy
the battery and do it. And this is a fully distributed customer
size meter model. There are other places around the world where
it's even worse. People are--and I should point out that our
most intriguing early markets are not domestic. We are
selling--we are exporting to a variety of places; the
Philippines, Malaysia, you know, everywhere else, where there
are--the dominant mode right now is distributed diesel
generation, and they want to get rid of that, it's expensive
and dirty. They would rather go to solar and batteries. They
want the right batteries. And----
Mr. Massie. That's what I tell people that want to go off
the grid, there's only one thing worse than the battery problem
and that's the generator.
Dr. Whitacre. The generator, right. And----
Mr. Massie. I'm on my first set of batteries, but on my
fourth generator so----
Dr. Whitacre. Yeah. Yeah, a couple of our installations,
yeah, we have some in northern California right now, they've
been going for almost a year now and we really watch how often
the generator comes on. That's a big satisfaction piece for the
customer; how often--and usually we're lucky, most of the time
in our installations it's just the, you know, the weekly turn
on to maintain integrity of the generator. That's what you want
to see. That's a key--it's a key like win for us if we have
that.
So--but there are other places, to be honest, in North
America especially where electricity is very cheap, the grid is
very reliable, and it's hard to imagine that those residences
will be wanting to go distributed off-grid.It's--from a
financial perspective, it's a tough sell. But in those same
areas, you may have some local grid issues or renewable issues
where a more centralized storage infrastructure makes sense. So
again, it's very locationally dependent.
Mr. Massie. Mr. Giudice.
Mr. Giudice. Sorry. I agree, and the markets are
developing, and we'll see how they continue to develop. As you
think through the 3, 4, 5, six years out, I do think it's going
to make better sense to keep it at the grid level for the most
part, and be able to share amongst your neighbors both the
storage and the distributed generation that might be on
everybody's rooftop or on everybody's hilltop, but not have to
duplicate the storage investment on a building-by-building
basis. I think that there will be better economic value from a
societal standpoint by doing that. It's a very natural role for
the grid to be able to provide that at the distribution level,
and then be able to offset a lot of the other investments that
would otherwise have to be made by doing it that way. But it's
going to take some time to work out those business models and
really be able to put that in place.
Mr. Massie. All right, my time has very much expired, and
so I will yield time generously to Mr. Grayson from Florida.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you.
The basic idea of a battery, the anode, the cathode, the
electrolyte, that idea is roughly 200 years old, about as old
as our country, and it is interesting when you consider all of
the other technologies that have been developed in the
meantime; the telephone, the computer, television and so on,
that we're still basically using the same model that was used
200 years ago.
Is there any realistic prospect of moving beyond that model
for energy storage? Dr. Whitacre.
Dr. Whitacre. There are certain thermodynamic realties
about storing electricity and materials, and those realities
drive us to a sort of bipolar design where you have two
separate material systems that retain different positive and
negative charges when you apply a current to them. It's hard to
imagine a different paradigm using the materials as we
understand them today to allow this. It is sort of--the anode
and cathode are a natural reflection of thermodynamics, is the
way I would put that. So my answer is, if you're talking about
electrochemical storage, I don't think so. This is the
paradigm. The key is to enhance our understanding and to
maximize performance, and explore new material systems and new
electrode designs and so forth.
Mr. Grayson. Mr. Giudice?
Mr. Giudice. So obviously, I think a point was made earlier
that, as the grid exists now, 97 percent of the storage that's
done on the grid is pumped storage, mechanically, compressed
air energy storage, two projects are going. So from an
electricity storage standpoint, there's alternatives, but from
an electrochemical battery standpoint, I don't think there are
alternatives. And then the third form of storage, thermal
storage, is obviously being utilized in lots of different
applications as another interesting way to store energy, not so
much electricity.
Mr. Grayson. Dr. Virden?
Dr. Virden. I would agree with the previous witnesses'
comments, if you're trying to store electrons directly, the
battery storage is really the only way to go about it. And it
has practical challenges with, over those 200 years, I don't
think we've been faced--we've had to face the real issues of
batteries, but with transmission distribution constraints,
renewables, we're now having to face directly, you know, how do
we store energy in a battery.
Mr. Grayson. Dr. Gyuk?
Dr. Gyuk. Yeah, I cannot--I need to agree with what you
have heard so far. If you're doing electrochemistry, you have
certain limitations on the system. Nonetheless, there are
directions one can go in. I do not necessarily believe that
lithium ion is the end all and be all, even for cars. We have
things to go beyond, but they will not necessarily be, you
know, totally different.
Mr. Grayson. Following up on my colleague's question
regarding distributed versus centralized storage, it seems to
me that one of the key factors in that regard, whether you
store electricity or energy centrally, or whether you store it
household-by-household or business-by-business, is whether
there are any significant economies with scale in the storage
that would make up for the transmission losses that you would
encounter when you distribute that energy from a centralized
source. So please tell me, again, starting with Dr. Whitacre,
whether you see any likely economies of scale in storage of
energy that would offset the transmission losses.
Dr. Whitacre. Absolutely. I think, depending on where it
is, you again--I keep on going back to this, but location
specificity matters depends on how good your transmission and
how close you are to a centralized power source. By typically,
I mean there's an argument for some degree of distribution to
either eliminate the cost and the issues of either augmenting
or establishing a more centralized traditional grid backbone
system, or indeed, just by the straight efficiency losses
associated with transmitting power. If you generate electricity
on--in a location, you're best apt to store it near or at that
location. This is happening in Germany right now. There's a
self-consumption incentive wherein folks are actually driven to
put batteries in their residence because they're generating
electrons in their residence, and they--it's a more efficient
system. So yes, there is.
Mr. Grayson. So just to be clear, do you see a future of
big storage, big batteries, or a future of small storage, small
batteries?
Dr. Whitacre. You know, I see an intermediate situation.
There's probably an intermediate thing where there are--there's
certainly not a single battery in the center of the country,
right, and there's certainly not a battery in each of our
pockets. There are--there's an intermediate distribution of
storage where there's an optimal distribution. Maybe it's at a
neighborhood level or at a block level, or something--if we
were to really reduce this down to that kind of question. There
is some optimal economy of size and distribution. I'm not sure
exactly what it is, but it's probably more than--it's probably
outside the residence, but smaller than an entire city.
Mr. Grayson. Mr. Giudice?
Mr. Giudice. Yeah, so the market will tell us, and we'll
see as it goes forward. I do think it's going to make sense, as
I think where Dr. Whitacre was going, towards the distribution
side of the business as the dominant place to have it make
sense. And it's not so much economies of scale of delivering
storage, but it's economies of the application. So on the
neighborhood basis where clouds are coming by and we're all
solar generating on our rooftops, those clouds are sporadically
shutting off different rooftops as they cover up the sun. The
storage at each house would have a much different effect than
if it was storage across that whole small grid area. And I
think that in terms of reliability and reducing costs, we're
probably going to find optimal levels at those kinds of
applications, rather than any central generating storage or
storage for every single household.
Mr. Grayson. Dr. Virden?
Dr. Virden. I think it's going to be distributed at the
substation level. So for me that's, you know, several megawatts
in a few megawatt hours. This is beyond frequency regulation
where you have tens of megawatts. That's the higher value-added
market right now. I see the home market behind the meter as
longer term, except in a few places like California and Hawaii.
That Tesla announcement, by the way, you'll get a battery
pack that's $3,000, you still have to buy the inverter, so it's
$4,500, and that would give you about 7 kilowatt hours. That's
not going to take you off-grid. Our estimates to go off-grid in
a home, you're spending $15,000 to $20,000 or more, so it's
still expensive. The community application, to me, makes the
most sense because you spread the cost and get multiple
benefits.
Mr. Grayson. Dr. Gyuk?
Dr. Gyuk. Yeah, we consider distributed storage to be on
the distribution side, which means substation and maybe
slightly above or slightly below. Size from 500 kilowatt to
about 10 megawatt. Those, I think, are the easiest
applications. If we are going to go into residences, it's not
so much residences as small businesses, campuses, business
parks, and so on, there it makes sense to be behind the meter.
Individual residences are probably a market considerably in the
future.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Massie. And as we close, I'm going to yield one more
minute to my friend from California----
Mr. Takano. Just----
Mr. Massie. --Mr. Takano.
Mr. Takano. Just one quick question. What about any kind of
systems that might generate hydrogen or--and store hydrogen,
you know, just through electrolysis? I don't know the science
of it, but--and in combination with a fuel cell.
Dr. Whitacre. I can quickly comment on that. While this is
completely technically possible, and folks are still looking at
doing it, one reality is the roundtrip energy efficiency of
that kind of system is, at best, 60 percent maybe on the very
best day. Most of the time it's 50 percent or less. And it's
simply because the thermodynamics of converting water to
hydrogen, and then converting it back to water and getting
electrons, and storing electricity through that process, is
inherently inefficient. And so this is difficult to compete
with the 80 or 90 percent roundtrip efficiency we have in
batteries. And that's a big, big deal when we talk about each
electron is worth money.
Mr. Takano. Thank you very much.
Mr. Massie. Well, in closing, I want to say this has been a
very enlightening hearing, thanks very much in part to the
quality of the witnesses and the quality of the questions. And
it confirms what I--my personal experience which is, batteries
are not sexy, okay. You know, buckets of acid in your basement
do not evoke envy from your neighbors, even though blue solar
panels on your roof might. And--but the reality is this is
what's holding our country back, this is what's holding
renewable energy back. In fact, this is holding nuclear energy
back, this is holding coal-fired energy back. I mean all these
peak issues, they apply to any energy source that we have. And
so I think even though it's not as sexy as some of the other
topics, it is fundamentally very important to moving forward in
our country is to have a better battery. The world needs a
better battery. So I thank you for making that point, and
informing us today on some of the issues. I will say that we
very much value your testimony today.
And the members--the record will remain open for two weeks
for additional comments and written questions from Members.
And this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Imre Gyuk
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Jud Virden
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Mr. Phil Giudice
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared statement of Committee Ranking Member
Eddie Bernice Johsnon
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for being
here today.
Today we will hear about the Department of Energy's important role
in advancing new large-scale energy storage technologies, which are
critical to making our electric grid more efficient, reliable, and
resilient, enabling a cleaner environment and lower costs for
consumers.
The title of this hearing aside, improvements in energy storage are
actually important for all forms of electricity generation, not just
renewable energy production, as demand for electric power is often
highly variable. Currently, high capacity power plants are required to
meet expensive peaks in demand while operating below capacity for when
demand is low. Grid-scale energy storage allows lower capacity plants
to meet the same demand at a lower cost.
Dr. Gyuk, I am encouraged by DOE's work on large-scale energy
storage solutions to date, and I frankly believe that given your track
record and the size of this problem, your budget should be much, much
higher than the $12 million that your entire program received last
year.
It should be noted that another major contributor to early-stage
research in this area is ARPA-E. This is yet one more reason that I was
so dismayed that the majority proposed to cut this agency by 50 percent
in their COMPETES bill just last week. I look forward to discussing the
essential role that both ARPA-E and DOE's Office of Electricity play in
accelerating the development and commercialization of these
technologies here in the U.S.
As highlighted in the Department's first, widely praised
Quadrennial Energy Review--which was released just last week--this area
is vital to the future of America's energy infrastructure, and there is
still much more work that needs to be done.
Thank you and with that I yield back the balance of my time
[all]