[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OVERSIGHT:
ENERGY INNOVATION HUBS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
June 17, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-25
__________
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
97-565 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
MO BROOKS, Alabama ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan PAUL TONKO, New York
STEVE KNIGHT, California MARK TAKANO, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas BILL FOSTER, Illinois
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
GARY PALMER, Alabama
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
------
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
June 17, 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
Witnesses:
Dr. Harry A. Atwater, Director, Joint Center for Artificial
Photosynthesis (JCAP)
Oral Statement............................................... 11
Written Statement............................................ 14
Dr. Jess Gehin, Director, Consortium for Advanced Simulation of
Light Water Reactors (CASL)
Oral Statement............................................... 21
Written Statement............................................ 23
Dr. George Crabtree, Director, Joint Center for Energy Storage
Research (JCESR)
Oral Statement............................................... 43
Written Statement............................................ 45
Dr. Alex King, Director, Critical Materials Institute (CMI)
Oral Statement............................................... 53
Written Statement............................................ 55
Discussion....................................................... 64
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Alex King, Director, Critical Materials Institute (CMI)...... 78
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 84
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 86
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OVERSIGHT:
ENERGY INNOVATION HUBS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:37 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. Good morning, and welcome to today's Energy
Subcommittee hearing on the Department of Energy's (DOE) Energy
Innovation Hubs.
This hearing will establish Congressional oversight over
the four existing Hubs, examining the costs and benefits of the
Department's approach to collaborative research and
development.
DOE Energy Innovation Hubs are designed to coordinate
research efforts across the Department, encouraging cooperation
between researchers in basic science, applied energy, and
engineering, and bringing together researchers from the
national labs, academia, and industry into teams focused on
solving critical energy challenges. With appropriate goals,
benchmarks, and oversight, this kind of collaborative research
and development is just plain old common sense.
Through the national labs, the federal government has the
expertise to conduct basic and applied research, while the
private sector has the ability and the motivation to move the
next-generation energy technology into the marketplace. The
Department funds the four Energy Innovation Hubs at
approximately $90 million per year. The existing Hubs are
focused on a number of energy challenges including extending
the life of nuclear power reactors, developing better and more
powerful batteries, creating new materials for advanced energy
technology, and mimicking the ability that plants have to
create fuels from sunlight.
The Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water
Reactors, also known as CASL, brings together our best and
brightest from industry, academia, and the labs to develop
codes to model and simulate operations of the U.S. reactor
fleet. These cutting-edge tools allow us to increase our return
on investment from DOE's supercomputers within the Office of
Science's Advanced Scientific Computing Research program--the
subject of a hearing we held in the Energy Subcommittee earlier
this year.
One critical application of CASL's virtual environment for
reactor applications, known as VERA for short, is to enable the
nuclear industry and regulators to predict the performance of
reactor components for license renewals by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC). I'd like everyone to take note of
the slide on the screen, which shows what is at stake--it's
called The Clock is Ticking--shows what is at stake for the
nation's base load electricity from nuclear power if the
operating fleet is unable to secure license renewals to 60
years and 80 years of operating life, respectively, and it
shows it there on either one of our slides. These NRC license
renewals are an important issue for the reliability of our
nation's electricity and for my district on The Texas Gulf
Coast.
The South Texas Project, currently operating near my
district which I used to represent, by the way, as you
gentlemen know, provides reliable, zero-emissions electricity
to the State of Texas, and good-paying jobs for my
constituents. It's pretty clear from this graph just how
important these licenses are to maintaining reliable,
affordable power across the country. I know that Dr. Gehin has
provided a similar figure in his prepared testimony, so I look
forward to discussing this important issue today.
The research and development underway in the CASL Hub is
just one example of the benefits from this collaborative
research approach. The technical expertise and scientific
facilities in our national labs can provide tremendous impact
on the private sector through appropriate partnerships.
However, while the current DOE Hubs program pursues worthy
research goals, not all collaborative research is a guaranteed
success. In the first round of Hubs in the program, DOE
established a Hub focused on building efficiency. But due to
cost, poor performance, and a lack of clear goals, this Hub was
dissolved.
Establishing a new Hub, center, or project is not the
answer to every problem, and new proposals must be
appropriately justified to Congress and shown to meet the
research and development goals for the lead DOE office. Any
authorization of new or continuing Hubs proposed by DOE must
also include the ability to efficiently close down projects
that are not achieving clear measures of success.
I want to thank our witnesses today for testifying on their
valuable research and the DOE Energy Innovation Hub program. I
look forward to a discussion about Federal Government's role in
leading collaborative research and development, and how to
leverage limited taxpayer dollars for the greatest economic
impact and scientific achievement.
[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 on
the Department of Energy's (DOE) Energy Innovation Hubs. This hearing
will establish Congressional oversight over the four existing Energy
Innovation Hubs, examining the costs and benefits of the Department's
approach to collaborative research and development.
DOE Energy Innovation Hubs are designed to coordinate research
efforts across the Department, encouraging cooperation between
researchers in basic science, applied energy, and engineering, and
bring together researchers from the national labs, academia, and
industry into teams focused on solving critical energy challenges.
With appropriate goals, benchmarks, and oversight, this kind of
collaborative research and development is just common sense. Through
the national labs, the federal government has the expertise to conduct
basic and applied research, while the private sector has the ability
and motivation to move the next generation energy technology into the
market place.
The Department funds the four energy innovation hubs at
approximately $90 million per year. The existing hubs are focused on a
number of energy challenges--including extending the life of nuclear
power reactors, developing better and more powerful batteries, creating
new materials for advanced energy technology, and mimicking the ability
that plants have to create fuels from sunlight.
The Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors,
also known as ``CASL'' [Castle] brings together our best and brightest
from industry, academia, and the labs to develop codes to model and
simulate operations of the U.S. reactor fleet. These cutting edge tools
allow us to increase our return on investment from DOE's supercomputers
within the Office of Science's Advanced Scientific Computing Research
program--the subject of a hearing we held in the Energy Subcommittee
earlier this year.
One critical application of CASL's virtual environment for reactor
applications, known as ``VERA'' for short, is to enable the nuclear
industry and regulators to predict the performance of reactor
components for license renewals by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I'd like everyone to take note of the slide on the screen, which
shows what is at stake for the nation's base load electricity from
nuclear power if the operating fleet is unable to secure license
renewals to 60 years and 80 years of operating life, respectively.[see
slide]
These NRC license renewals are an important issue for the
reliability of our nation's electricity and for my district. The South
Texas Project, currently operating near my district, provides reliable,
zero-emission electricity to the state of Texas, and good-paying jobs
to my constituents. It's pretty clear from this graph just how
important these licenses are to maintaining reliable, affordable power
across the country. I know that Dr. Gehin [JEAN] has provided a similar
figure in his prepared testimony so I look forward to discussing this
important issue today.
The research and development underway in the CASL hub is just one
example of the benefits from this collaborative research approach. The
technical expertise and scientific facilities in our national labs can
provide tremendous impact on the private sector through appropriate
partnerships.
However, while the current DOE hubs program pursues worthy research
goals, not all collaborative research is a guaranteed success. In the
first round of hubs in the program, DOE established a hub focused on
building efficiency. But due to cost, poor performance, and a lack of
clear goals, this hub was dissolved.
Establishing a new hub, center, or project is not the answer to
every problem, and new proposals must be appropriately justified to
Congress and shown to meet the research and development goals for the
lead DOE office. Any authorization of new or continuing hubs proposed
by DOE must also include the ability to efficiently close down projects
that are not achieving clear measures of success.
I want to thank our witnesses today for testifying on their
valuable research, and the DOE Energy Innovation hub program. I look
forward to a discussion about federal government's role in leading
collaborative research and development, and how to leverage limited
taxpayer dollars for the greatest economic impact and scientific
achievement.
Chairman Weber. So, I'm going to recognize the Ranking
Member, Mr. Grayson, for an opening statement. He's chomping at
the bit.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Chairman Weber, for holding this
hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for joining us today.
I am pleased to see that we have the Director of each
Energy Innovation Hub here this morning. These Hubs seek to
accelerate scientific discoveries that address critical energy
issues, particularly barriers to advancing new energy
technology.
Today's hearing is well-timed. Two of the four existing
Innovation Hubs are up for renewal this year, while the others
are just beginning. The Energy Innovation Hub Program was
established only five years ago and this hearing will provide
Members an important opportunity to understand further what
must be done to ensure the successes of existing, and future,
Hubs.
Unfortunately, Congress has yet to provide any authorizing
legislation for the important work being performed at each of
the Hubs. I hope that today's hearing will provide the insights
needed to accomplish that goal. Toward that end, I have already
introduced H.R. 1870, a bill that would establish merit-based
rules governing the selection, scope, and composition of future
Hubs. Further, the Committee hasaccepted the legislative
language from that bill as an amendment to the America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act, which was considered on the House Floor
less than a month ago. I appreciate the Chairman and his
staff's efforts to work together to ensure that this important
provision was included in the final bill. I also want to thank
Ranking Member Johnson for including it in the alternative
COMPETES legislation, produced by the Minority, that was
offered as a substitute amendment both in Committee and on the
Floor.
I am very excited about the possibility of our Committee
finally producing authorizing legislation for Energy Innovation
Hubs. There are some issues I look forward to learning about
this morning, particularly issues regarding Hub management and
length of operation. We need develop a plan for Hubs that reach
the end of their second five-year contract. Presently, the
Department is indicating that Hubs will conclude work after a
maximum of ten years only. I support this guidance in principle
because it fosters a sense of urgency within Hubs to define and
achieve goals as expeditiously as possible.
But what happens when a Hub has been extraordinarily
successful? Maybe there should be some process through which,
according to merit-based review, that Hub is permitted to
continue pursuing promising research and maybe even profound
new discoveries.
The answers to these questions, and others, are what I'm
looking forward to hearing from you all today. I also look
forward to hearing each of your views as to how your own Hub
works in the context of Department of Energy research
activities and goals across the board. How, specifically, is
the research you are performing contributing to the larger
effort to solve our nation's pressing energy challenges and
needs?
Each of you is involved in exciting and innovative work. I
look forward to hearing from you, and watching each of your
Hubs as they progress. It's my hope that Congress can provide
to you the resources that you need to accomplish your goals,
and I look forward to working with you, Chairman Weber, toward
that end.
Thank you. I yield the balance of 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 testifying today.
I am pleased to see we have the Director from each Energy
Innovation Hub here this morning. These Hubs seek to accelerate
scientific discoveries that address critical energy issues--
particularly, barriers to advancing new energy technologies.
Today's hearing is well-timed. Two of the four existing Energy
Innovation Hubs are up for renewal this year, while the others are just
beginning. The Energy Innovation Hub Program was established only five
years ago, so this hearing will provide Members an important
opportunity to further understand what must be done to ensure the
successes of existing, and future, Hubs.
Unfortunately, Congress has yet to provide authorizing legislation
for the important work being performed at each Energy Innovation Hub.
It is my hope that today's hearing will provide the insights needed to
accomplish that goal. Toward that end, I have already introduced H.R.
1870--a bill that would establish merit-based rules governing the
selection, scope, and composition of future Hubs. Further, the
committee accepted the legislative language from that bill as an
amendment to the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, which was
considered on the House floor less than a month ago. I appreciate the
Chairman and his staff's efforts to work with me and my staff to ensure
that this important provision was included in the final bill. I also
thank Ranking Member Johnson for including it in the alternative
COMPETES legislation, produced by the minority, that was offered as a
substitute amendment--both in committee and on the floor.
While I am very excited about the possibility of our committee
finally producing authorizing legislation for Energy Innovation Hubs,
there are some issues I look forward to learning more about this
morning. Particularly, issues regarding Hub management and length-of
operation.
It is my belief that we must develop a plan for Hubs that reach the
end of their second five-year contract. Presently, the Department is
indicating that Hubs will conclude work after a maximum of ten years. I
support this guidance in principle, because it fosters a sense of
urgency within Hubs to define and achieve goals as expeditiously as
possible. But what happens when a Hub has been extraordinarily
successful? Shouldn't there be some process through which, according to
a merit-based review system, that Hub is permitted to continue pursuing
promising research?
Furthermore, how can the Department best make sure that the utility
of a Hub has been exhausted, and that it is not on the precipice of
profound new discoveries?
The answers to these questions, and others, are what I look forward
to learning today. I also look forward to hearing each of your views as
to how you view your own Hub in the context of larger Department of
Energy research activities and goals. How, specifically, is the
research you are performing contributing to the larger effort to solve
some of our nation's most pressing energy challenges?
Each of you is involved in exciting and innovative work. I look
forward to hearing from you, and watching each of your Hubs as they
progress. It is my hope that this Congress can provide the resources
you need to accomplish your goals, and I look forward to working with
you, Chairman Weber, toward that end.
Thank you. I yield the balance of my time.
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentleman.
Let me introduce our witnesses. Our first witness today is
Dr. Harry Atwater, Director of the Joint Center for Artificial
Photosynthesis, or JCAP. In addition to his position at JCAP,
Dr. Atwater serves as the Howard Hughes Professor of Applied
Physics and Material Science at the California Institute of
Technology. He specializes in photovoltaics and solar energy as
well as plasmonics and optical materials. Dr. Atwater received
his bachelor's degree, master's degree, and Ph.D. in electrical
engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Our next witness--and welcome, by the way, Dr. Atwater.
Our next witness is Dr. Jess Gehin, Director of the
Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors, or
CASL. Dr. Gehin has been with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
for over 20 years. Prior to his current position, Dr. Gehin was
a senior R&D staff member performing research primarily in the
area of nuclear reactor physics. Dr. Gehin received his
bachelor's degree in nuclear engineering from Kansas State
University, and his master's degree and Ph.D. in nuclear
engineering from MIT. And by the way, welcome, Dr. Gehin.
And I will now yield to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Lipinski, to introduce our next witness.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Chairman Weber, and thank you,
Chairman and Ranking Member Grayson, for holding this hearing.
It's my honor to introduce Dr. George Crabtree, who's the
Director of Joint Center for Energy Storage Research, or JCESR,
at Argonne National Lab, which is in my district. He's also a
distinguished Professor of Physics, Electrical and Mechanical
Engineering at the University of Illinois at Chicago, serving
as a bridge between Argonne and academia. He has won numerous
awards for his research including the Kammerlingh Onnes Prize
for his work on vortices and high-temperature superconductors.
This prestigious prize is awarded once every three years. Dr.
Crabtree is the second recipient. He has won the U.S.
Department of Energy's Award for Outstanding Scientific
Accomplishment in Solid State Physics four times, which is a
very notable accomplishment.
Dr. Crabtree has served as Director of the Material Science
Division at Argonne. He has published more than 400 papers in
leading scientific journals, has collected over 16,000 career
citations, has given over 100 invited talks at national and
international scientific conferences. His research interests
include next-generation battery materials, sustainable energy,
energy policy, material science, nanoscale superconductors and
magnets, and highly correlated electrons and medals. Dr.
Crabtree co-chaired the Under Secretary of Energy's Assessment
of DOE's Applied Energy programs.
I want to thank Dr. Crabtree for joining us today and I
look forward to your testimony.
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentleman. Welcome, Dr.
Crabtree. Did he say 16,000 citations? I don't know how you can
afford that. Every time I get a citation, my insurance goes up.
Yours has got to be astronomical.
Our final witness is Dr. Alex King, Director of the
Critical Minerals Institute (CMI). Before joining CMI, Dr. King
served as the Director of the Ames Laboratory. Dr. King
received his bachelor's degree in physical metallurgy from the
University of Sheffield and his Ph.D. in metallurgy and science
materials from the University of Oxford. Welcome, Dr. King.
At this time I'm going to now recognize Dr. Atwater for
five minutes to present his testimony. Dr. Atwater.
TESTIMONY OF DR. HARRY A. ATWATER, DIRECTOR,
JOINT CENTER FOR ARTIFICIAL PHOTOSYNTHESIS (JCAP)
Dr. Atwater. Okay. Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members,
ladies and gentlemen. It's my pleasure to be here today to tell
you about the work, the mission and the progress the Joint
Center for Artificial Photosynthesis.
So I think it's fair to say that having a source of
renewable fuels would be a great source of energy security,
economic well-being, and environmental protection for the
United States, and JCAP, which is a partnership that's led by
Cal Tech, but also with major partnerships with the national
labs, Lawrence Berkeley National Labs and Stanford Linear
Accelerator Lab, as well as the University of California, is
focusing on building the scientific foundation for renewable
synthesis of transportation fuels directly from sunlight, water
and carbon dioxide using a process called artificial
photosynthesis, or otherwise known as generating fuels from
sunlight.
So most people are familiar with the idea of generating
electricity from sunlight with solar panels that you might put
on your roof, so what JCAP is working on is the science behind
taking those charge carriers and directly converting those
charge carriers that come out of your solar panel into chemical
fuels, examples of which are hydrogen, which is generated by
splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen, and generating
renewable carbon-based fuels by reduction of carbon dioxide.
And JCAP was established in 2010, and during its first five
years had a primary emphasis on hydrogen production, and its
missionary objective, a sort of overarching missionary
objective during that time was to develop a robust solar fuel
generator for hydrogen generation that operates 10 times more
efficiently than natural systems like plants and crops. And I'm
happy to say that JCAP has been able to meet that objective of
developing a robust solar fuels generator, and more
importantly, really developing the concept of what a solar
fuels generator is. That's been an important contribution to
the scientific field and to the advancement of technology.
In its next five years in renewal, JCAP is going to focus
on the--as a main objective, reduction of CO2 and
converting reduction of CO2 to transportation fuels,
direct transportation fuels, and this is really also in
addition to a strategic objective for making fuels, it is
really a dramatic scientific grand challenge, the reduction of
CO2 selectively, producing exactly one product and
not a bunch of byproducts is a true scientific grand challenge.
So to date, we have, as I indicated, been able to develop
solar fuels generators that operate 10 times more efficiently
than plants, and that has really set the stage for a follow-on
generation of applied R&D that can develop the scalable
generators, and as you may know, there is no existing solar
fuels industry. While there's a solar panel industry, there is
no solar fuels industry, so it is these innovations that will
really set the stage for U.S. industry, a new U.S. industry in
this area.
And in the course of its work in generating solar fuels
generators, JCAP also discovered new catalysts for water
oxidation and reduction, importantly, a method to protect
semiconductors against corrosion so they can be long-lasting
and robust in their operation.
In addition to these scientific discoveries, JCAP
established a number of important facilities including two
state-of-the-art labs, one at California Institute of
Technology and once at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory that are
purpose-built for solar fuels research. It established new
methods for rapid high-throughput screening of materials so we
can do experiments that used to take years in matters of weeks.
We developed the first facility for so-called benchmarking, or
developing standard test conditions for evaluating catalysts so
that we can understand how different solar fuels materials
operator and perform. We developed new methods for
characterization of solar fuels materials using advanced X-ray
light source techniques at the Advanced Light Source at
Lawrence Berkeley labs and Stanford Linear Accelerator Lab.
Also, to set the stage for a new solar fuels industry, JCAP
has been very active in developing invention disclosures, a
total of 36 invention disclosures, and 26 patent applications,
which are available for licensing to industry, and has an
output of scientific results, 200 papers, 60 percent of which
are in high-impact journals and numerous key note and invited
presentations by research scientists at JCAP.
And so just to highlight some of the things that, you know,
why is it that a Hub is an appropriate mechanism to carry on
and accelerate this kind of research, JCAP has been able to
leverage the integrated Hub concept to make significant
advances, one of which I cited earlier, which is the notion
that we could accelerate the development of catalyst materials
on a time scale that normally takes years in the sort of
conventional pace of progress in science, and carry out that in
a matter of weeks, and so as an example, in 2013, JCAP
developed by a collaboration between two of the JCAP projects,
the high throughput experiment project and the heterogeneous
catalysis project, new catalyst materials composed of four
elements, and there are many, many ways you can combine four
elements together in different compositions, so a very large
number of samples were made and rapidly screened using high-
throughput combinatorial synthesis techniques that allowed us
to very rapidly identify candidates and promising candidates
were scaled up and tested at the laboratory level, really
accelerating that pace of progress.
Another example is the development of a cross-cutting what
we call process materials and integration team, a group of
applied and basic research scientists that came together from
across JCAP to really understand how to put together and design
and build very rapidly solar fuels generator prototypes so we
could understand what works and what doesn't on a rapid time
scale.
So those are many of the key accomplishments, and so for
the future, JCAP is going to focus on the grand challenge of--
scientific grand challenge of reduction of carbon dioxide in
generation of liquid fuels directly from the products, reduced
products. This is an area that takes JCAP, which has a
translational mission, sort of more upstream in the basic
research end, because in the area of carbon dioxide reduction,
there are many more scientific challenges and unanswered
questions than I think currently exist for the case of hydrogen
production. And so it's the opportunity to really unlock the
mechanisms and the scientific discoveries that could
selectively reduce CO2 to fuel products that could
generate a new generation of generators for liquid fuels, and
that's going to be our missionary objective as a scientific
grand challenge and setting the stage for a new type of solar
fuel generator.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Atwater follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Dr. Atwater.
Dr. Gehin.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JESS GEHIN, DIRECTOR,
CONSORTIUM FOR ADVANCED SIMULATION
OF LIGHT WATER REACTORS (CASL)
Dr. Gehin. Thank you very much, Chairman Weber, Ranking
Member Grayson, and Members of the Subcommittee. It's my honor
to be here to provide this testimony on the Energy Innovation
Hub integrated research approach.
CASL was the first Hub established by the Department of
Energy in July 2010. It's currently completing its first five-
year term. It consists of 10 core founding partner institutions
from academia, national laboratories and industries led by Oak
Ridge National Laboratory.
Our focus is on innovations in nuclear commercial power
generator, specifically the advanced modeling and simulation of
nuclear reactors. CASL's vision is to predict with confidence
the performance of nuclear reactors through comprehensive
science-based modeling and simulation technology that is
deployed and applied broadly throughout the nuclear energy
industry to enhance safety, reliability and economics. CASL is
capitalizing on advancements in computing and is helping retain
and strengthen U.S. leadership in two key mission areas of
high-performance computing and nuclear energy.
CASL targets R&D in technical areas that have been selected
as significant current industry challenges where modeling and
simulation can provide meaningful advancements, particularly to
help achieve increases in operating power, life extensions and
higher fuel utilization. Many of the CASL developments are
focused on key phenomena that limit power generation and so
they can improve operations. Similarly, a significant benefit
can be achieved through further life extensions by ensuring
that reactor life-limiting components can meet their design
requirements for longer operating periods beyond the current
license renewals.
CASL's integrated research model is based on establishing
an organization with outstanding researchers with a clear and
agile research plan. Let me point out a few of the key features
of this integrated model: central integrated management
decision making and program integration, strong science and
engineering applications and design leadership, independent
oversight and review by an external board of directors, science
and industry councils for oversight, review and advice, an
agile work process based on 6-month planning execution periods.
In order to achieve our research goals, CSL is developing a
virtual reactor that we call VERA, which stands for the virtual
environment for reactor applications. Our key research
accomplishments in the development of VERA include creating a
comprehensive Hub environment that supports a large team of
researchers working on developing, testing and deploying VERA,
the virtual reactor; developing computational methods and
computer codes for all key physics needed to model reactor
operation; applying VERA to several--to simulate several
nuclear power plants including the Watts Bar nuclear plant near
Oak Ridge, which is designed by Westinghouse and operated by
TVA, both partners in CASL; and coupling of physics software
components and models with initial applications providing
integrated simulation capabilities not previously available.
The key metric of the success of CASL's modeling and
simulation capabilities is deployment to nuclear industry where
these tools can be used. In order to achieve this, we have
strong engagement with our industry partners and a broad
connection with private industry through the integration of
more than 50 additional contributing partners. CASL also relies
an industry-led industry council with over 25 members from the
broader nuclear energy and modeling simulation industries.
VERA has already been deployed in industry engineering
environments through CASL test stands. This includes, for
example, the use of VERA at Westinghouse for simulating the AP-
1000 reactor to confirm their own engineering calculations. In
CASL's second five-year term, VERA will be expanded beyond
pressurized water reactors to support boiling water reactors,
which represent the remainder of our current operating fleet.
We will also consider future light water reactor designs
including small modular reactors.
In conclusion, Energy Innovation Hubs represent an
effective research model that enables CASL to conduct basic and
applied research for critical energy application. Through the
Hub model, CASL has tapped into DOE advanced computing
strengths and nuclear energy research capabilities. We have
taken advantage of the best and brightest university
researchers and we have integrated decades of industry
experience and expertise. This highly integrated, focused R&D
partnership has demonstrated accomplishments at a rapid pace,
notably including successful deployments to several industry
end users. As the first Energy Innovation Hub, CASL has clearly
demonstrated that this research model can be a very effective
method to deliver targeted research and rapid solutions to
address complex issues.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gehin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Doctor.
Dr. Crabtree.
TESTIMONY OF DR. GEORGE CRABTREE, DIRECTOR,
JOINT CENTER FOR ENERGY STORAGE RESEARCH (JCESR)
Mr. Crabtree. Thank you, Chairman Weber and Ranking Member
Grayson and Members of the Committee for this opportunity to
testify. I will be talking about the Joint Center for Energy
Store Research, otherwise known as JCESR, which addresses two
compelling challenges: creating the next generation of high-
performance, inexpensive electricity storage to transform
transportation through the widespread penetration of electric
cars, and to transform the electricity grid through widespread
penetration of clean and sustainable wind and solar energy.
JCESR concentrates exclusively on next-generation electricity
storage beyond the reach of today's lithium ion technology.
Transportation and the grid account for 2/3 of all the
energy used in the United States. Transforming them with high-
performance, inexpensive storage not only modernizes our energy
system but also grows the economy, creates jobs and promotes
U.S. innovation in the global marketplace.
JCSER brings a new paradigm to battery R&D, integrating
four functions into a single highly interactive organization,
and those four functions are discovery science, battery design,
research prototyping, and manufacturer collaboration. It is
close interaction spanning across these four functions that
accelerates the pace of discovery and innovation and shortens
the time from conceptualization to commercialization. So
JCESR's new paradigm is a model not only for battery R&D but
also for other critical national energy challenges.
Using our new paradigm, JCESR intends to create two
additional outcomes or legacies: a library of fundamental
science of energy storage, applying the remarkable advances of
nanoscience of the last 15 years to the materials and phenomena
of energy storage at atomic and molecular levels, and the
second outcome, using this new understanding to develop two
prototype batteries, one for transportation, one for the grid,
that when scaled to manufacturing have five times the energy
density and one-fifth the cost of today's commercial lithium
ion batteries. Although the two batteries may look very
different, they will be based on the same library of
fundamental science.
JCESR has already made substantial progress toward its
goals. Soon after launch, we established our new paradigm
spanning 150 researchers at 14 partner institutions. We began
building the personal relationships that enable intense and
effective communication, and we put in place the strategic
objectives and the daily meetings that drive our program. In
its first year, JCESR established three distinguishing tools so
materials genome approaches for crystalline electrodes and
liquid electrolytes that simulate tens of thousands of
materials on the computer to find the most promising ones
before they are ever made in the laboratory.
We also put together a unique electrochemical discovery lab
to synthesize and explore these materials with state-of-the-art
tools and the third distinguishing tool is techno-economic
modeling to simulate the performance and cost of complete
battery systems on the computer before they're prototyped.
So JCESR used these tools to make foundational progress in
all four of its functional areas. We identified four promising
directions for transportation and grid prototypes. We used our
tools to converge these four battery prototypes so techno-
economic modeling revealed the ultimate performance of each of
the four prototypes and in an inverse process provided
performance and cost thresholds for the materials that would
make up the components of those batteries. The materials
genomes found promising materials to meet these thresholds and
the synthesis and prototyping teams began to build partial and
complete prototypes to test the compatibility of the materials
as complete battery systems. So we've met extensively with the
private sector to discuss the size and performance of JCESR's
prototypes that would be required to translate them to
commercialization.
In our 2-1/2 years of operator, we've learned the critical
importance of continuous improvement of our new paradigm. We
worked closely with our 14 partners, our 150 researchers and
our sponsor, the Office of Basic Energy Sciences in DOE, to
refine our management practices, to refine our strategic
directions, and to balance our exploratory divergent research
to identify promising solutions with focused convergent
research to implement and complete the selected solutions and
prototypes rapidly.
During this time, we've terminated research on one
candidate prototype--that would be lithium oxygen batteries--
and initiated research on other promising opportunities
including metal anodes for lithium and magnesium, and membranes
for flow batteries. Nimble response to management and strategic
challenges and opportunities as they arise is essential for
completing our mission in a timely manner.
So thank you again for the opportunity to testify and I'm
happy to answer questions later on.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crabtree follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Dr. Crabtree.
Dr. King.
TESTIMONY OF DR. ALEX KING, DIRECTOR,
CRITICAL MATERIALS INSTITUTE (CMI)
Mr. King. Thank you, Chairman Weber, Ranking Member
Grayson, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify at today's hearing on innovation Hubs.
I'm Director of the Critical Materials Institute, which is
led by the Ames Lab in Ames, Iowa, the U.S. Department of
Energy Office of Science National Lab operated by Iowa State
University. CMI's team includes more than 300 researchers and
support staff across six corporations, seven universities and
four national labs.
CMI exists primarily to mitigate the challenges posed to
the manufacturing sector by materials that provide essential
functions or capabilities but are subject to supply risks. The
Hub focuses on materials used in clean energy technologies, but
many of these have broader uses, notably in the area of
defense. Prominent among the Hub's research targets are the
rare earth elements, which are used in magnets, lighting and
displays, and lithium, which is used in today's rechargeable
batteries.
CMI follows the critical materials strategic developed by
the U.S. Department of Energy, addressing opportunities in
three areas: One, diversification of supply; two, development
of substitute materials; and three, improving the efficiency of
materials used in reducing waste in our access of the currently
available materials.
Within its first five years, this Hub will develop and have
adopted by industry at least one technology in each of these
three areas. In its first two years of operation--we just
celebrated our second anniversary--CMI has developed 34
inventions with significant potential for impact, has made four
patent applications. It is very close to having one replacement
material adopted by an industrial and is within a year or two
of a second. Materials development of this kind typically takes
20 years, and we've succeeded in two. Maybe I'll explain how
later. CMI-developed technology for solvent extraction is being
considered for licensing by two mining companies as we speak.
These results have strong potential for providing financial
returns on the investments made by the U.S. taxpayer. The Hub
has earned an international reputation and has been described
as the gold standard in its field. Several other countries are
modeling their own efforts after CMI.
How does this integrated research model advance the goals
of the Office of Science and Applied Programs at DOE? Let me
offer an example. In pursuit of new magnet models, we combine,
as other Hubs do, computer simulations, experimental
exploration of candidate alloys, rapid analysis and testing.
These methods are all founded upon tools previously developed
among CMI's partners largely with DOE Office of Science
Support, but we have advanced them and made them specific to
our own purposes. So the Hub has in its first two years
developed the first successful theory and computer models for
predicting what is called magneto-crystalline anisotropy--maybe
I'll explain if you ask--for proposed new materials. This is
something that hadn't been possible before. It's a contribution
from fundamental condensed matter physics in support of
developing new magnetic materials.
We've developed a tool based on additive manufacturing
technologies for the rapid production of target magnet
compositions, allowing us to produce arrays of materials that
can then be tested. We've built new capabilities actually in
collaboration with JCAP for rapid analysis of materials that
take advantage of our additive manufacturing tool, and we have
added high-throughput magnet testing capabilities. All of these
capabilities work together to produce new materials, make them,
test them, and meet the needs of the Hub. They are also
enhancing the capabilities of other Office of Science and EERE
programs, bringing them together. We have created a range of
candidate materials for new high-performance magnets.
Effectively, what we have done is to orchestrate diverse
scientific efforts and enhance them so that we're able to meet
technological needs of the day in short order. We're able--
we've demonstrated the ability by doing that to go from zero to
having new materials invented in two years, a process that
typically takes up to 20.
How does the private sector interact with CMI? We are very
flexible. We seek--we have always sought to be flexible and
responsive to industry needs. We find that our research goes
faster when we speak to industry because speaking first we
listen. We foster increasingly intensive collaborations as
companies move from informal interactions to membership in our
affiliate program to full engagement as research team members.
Some companies have also expressed interest in engaging CMI for
proprietary pre-commercial research, and we are considering
that opportunity.
Technologies developed by the Hub using its federal funds
must be pre-competitive, must have high potential for impact on
the supply chain, must be cost-effective, timely and have
potential for adoption by U.S.-based companies.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Dr. King. I thank the witnesses
for your testimony. I now recognize myself for questions for
five minutes.
Dr. Gehin, as I noted in my opening statement, CASL's
support for NRC license renewals is an issue of particular
importance to my district and my adjoining Matagorda County,
Blake Farenthold's district. The South Texas Project Units 1
and 2 are currently under review by the NRC to operate for an
additional 20 years, which means 20 more years of safe,
reliable, and, I might add, zero-emission power for Texans. Can
you explain to us generally how CASL's simulation capabilities
uniquely allow the use of supercomputers to model the integrity
of a reactor pressure vessel and other components and why this
is important for license extensions for the reactor fleet to
operate up to 80 years. Doctor?
Dr. Gehin. Thank you very much for the question. So in a
life extension of a reactor, you need to consider the aging of
the materials, and so this is being done for the current 20-
year life extensions. What we're interested in is informing the
next 20-year extension which, as you have noted, 60 to 80
years. So it will not impact the current--CASL will not impact
the current license renewal, which is already in process.
When you look at the extension to 60 to 80 years, there are
critical components in the reactor that can't easily be
replaced. One of these is the reactor vessel. There's others
that are concrete and other materials.
Chairman Weber. Let me ask you real quick right in here
because I read that in your comments. Why is it that the
reactor core cannot be replaced? Is it just cost prohibitive?
Dr. Gehin. It's cost prohibitive. It's very--it would be
very invasive to extract the vessel, or the reactor vessel,
which is right in the center of the reactor. So it's not deemed
as being cost-effective to replace.
Chairman Weber. Okay. That's strictly based on cost
considerations?
Dr. Gehin. Yes.
Chairman Weber. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead.
Dr. Gehin. And so--but the integrity of that vessel is
really very important, of course, for safety and operation
reasons so it's important to look at its integrity, and which
was done extensively, and renewals. What we're doing in CASL by
using our supercomputing capabilities is be able to do a very
precise calculation of the neutron interactions on that vessel.
So the vessel surrounds the fuel and so neutrons, you know,
move around in the core, hit the vessel, and affect its
material properties. So by being able to better follow the
operation of the reactor over its lifetime and calculate the
neutron interactions in a better way, three-dimension, higher
fidelity, you can combine that improved material models that
are being developed to understand the condition of that vessel
and ensure that it can be extended another 20 years.
Chairman Weber. We were talking earlier when I came out to
introduce myself to you all about criticality.
Dr. Gehin. Yes.
Chairman Weber. How long does it take to reach criticality,
for example?
Dr. Gehin. You know, they load the fuel, and it might take,
you know, a day or two to become critical and then there's an
escalation of power over a couple days, and then the intention
is to operate at full power. Critical means operating exactly
steady state power. That's where you want a reactor to operate
for 18 months. That's the goal. Then you shut down for
refueling.
Chairman Weber. So once you reach criticality, and you've
got--forgive me, this is very technical--neutrons. Explain that
process.
Dr. Gehin. So the goal in achieving criticality or steady
state operation is to have a self-sustaining neutron chain
reaction, and so you get neutrons that are produced by fission
and you have those in balance such that they cause additional
fissions that create more neutrons so you maintain a steady
state.
Chairman Weber. Right, and of course, I'm a layman in this,
but it just seems like once you reach criticality, you know the
effect on the reactor core.
Dr. Gehin. Well, you know--so when you reach criticality,
you are impacting the fuel. You're depleting the fuel. You're
irradiating the vessel, irradiating the components, and most
importantly, generating power, which is the whole reason you're
doing this. So while you're doing that, you do not know the
full three-dimensional distribution of fluids on the vessel.
You make measurements in selected locations to confirm the
material behaviors is as expected. But what we can add with
CASL is a lot more detail on what can actually be measured.
Chairman Weber. Are you measuring inside and outside the
vessel?
Dr. Gehin. Yeah. They insert what's called coupons. They're
metal samples that they can then take out of the reactor and
interrogate. So one thing is really important. Simulation alone
can't provide this information, simulation combined with this
type of data and experiments that can give the complete
picture.
Chairman Weber. Are you able to anticipate new materials? I
know we talked about graphite being used, heavy water, light
water.
Dr. Gehin. Yeah.
Chairman Weber. Are you able to extrapolate that to what
those effects would be on the reactor core itself?
Dr. Gehin. Yes, and the tools we're developing are based on
more fundamental principles than typical design tools so
they'll accommodate different material--consideration of
different materials. It's particularly valuable in scoping
calculations, what if we did this, how would it perform, so you
could down-select the most promising concepts that you could
then take forward. You know, this is looking at fuel designs
and how you operate the reactor can give you a lot more
additional information.
Chairman Weber. Okay. Forgive me, I'm way over my time, but
I did have a question for Dr. Crabtree. I think you're working
on the batteries. All I want to know is, can you make it where
my iPhone battery doesn't run down while I'm watching the
grandkids on videos?
Mr. Crabtree. Great question, and I have the same
challenge. I wish my iPhone lasted twice as long.
Chairman Weber. Thank you very much, and I'll now yield to
the Ranking Member.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you. I have some questions for Dr.
Atwater. I'm going to try to understand better how the research
that you're doing fits into the bigger picture of energy
production and storage.
What you described as an effort to create solar fuels as
opposed to the more typical effort to create electricity from
solar power. Is that correct?
Dr. Atwater. That's right, yeah.
Mr. Grayson. All right. So is that similar, would you
agree, to something like ethanol production, or is that
different?
Dr. Atwater. Well, so ethanol is an example of a chemical
fuel. It's a liquid fuel that's suitable as a liquid fuel, and
that is indeed what--ethanol is normally produced by, for
example, fermentation of feedstocks from crops and plants and
so forth, and that's a process that is established but it's
limited by the efficiency of natural photosynthesis. So what
artificial photosynthesis or fuels from sunlight as the--in the
research objectives at JCAP is focused on the same process of
chemical fuel production but with a much higher efficiency. So
the efficiency potential for fuel production rivals that of the
efficiency potential for photovoltaic systems. For example, if
you put solar panels on your rooftop, you can expect that the
solar panels will operate with an efficiency for electricity
production of something like 20 percent of the total sunlight
falling on your rooftop. For example, natural photosynthesis is
less than one percent efficient for most plants and
photosynthetic organisms. So there's a big gap there. And so
JCAP is working to develop processes that can make fuels very
selectively. We want to make one fuel, say, ethanol or methanol
or hydrogen, and not a bunch of byproducts. Nature does this,
of course, very well. But nature's not particular efficient.
And so to make an economical source of fuel generation that can
generate and foster a new industry focused on efficiency, and
like the nuclear Hub, I would mention we're focused on
reliability because if you think about the return on investment
for any solar panel that you would put on your roof, it has to
last for a long time. It has to last for 20 or 30 years in
order to get that return on investment. Similarly, we want to
make devices that are robust and reliable and that last for a
long time.
Mr. Grayson. So are you trying to basically do what biology
does through only chemical and physical means or are you trying
to take biological processes and tweak them and improve them?
Dr. Atwater. Yeah. In JCAP, we have a very sharply focused
research program that's focused on chemical catalytic processes
and physical processes for the charge generation. So we're
using actually for the source of energy generation
semiconductors very much like the semiconductors that are used
in solar panels to generate electricity. But the charge
carriers are then driven to chemical catalysts, not biological,
so we're working on non-biological routes, and as I indicated,
we've already been able to achieve efficiencies for hydrogen
production that are of the order of ten percent and 10 times
greater--more than ten times greater than that for natural
photosynthetic processes.
Mr. Grayson. So the fuel that you've created so far is
hydrogen, not a traditional transportation fuel?
Dr. Atwater. That's right.
Mr. Grayson. Now you're going to try to branch out into
something that you could actually put into a car----
Dr. Atwater. That's right.
Mr. Grayson. --these days like octane or ethanol or
methanol or something.
Dr. Atwater. That's right, exactly, so the grand challenge
is under mild chemical conditions very much like the way a
solar panel would operate, can we generate directly a chemical
fuel without having to build another large plant to do the
downstream distillation and refinement.
Mr. Grayson. One of the more interesting things about solar
power production is that there are arguments in favor of large-
scale production, arguments in favor of small-scale production.
Are you finding any sort of economies of scale that would tilt
you toward large-scale production for this purpose, or not?
Dr. Atwater. So we have done--the best way to answer that
is to look at the record of an industry, and we don't have an
existing solar field industry. However, JCAP has done some
studies of the scalability. So what would it look like and what
would be the key drivers for improved efficiency and cost
reduction if you were to build, say, a 1-gigawatt-scale plant.
That's a very large-scale plant. For example, a conventional
power reactor would be of the order of hundreds of megawatts to
a gigawatt. And what you see is that the primary drivers of the
cost and the economic return are the efficiency and the
durability of the solar fuel generator itself. It's not the
tanking and the piping and other infrastructure.
So the preliminary analysis shows that, you know, the
investments that we're making in the research on the technology
advancement itself are key drivers. So to answer your question
directly, it looks like there's not a big sensitivity to scale.
Mr. Grayson. All right. Last question. Do you have any
judgment yourself about the possibility or the prospect of
actually taking biological processes that exist and tweaking
them, improving them to the point where they can become
commercially viable?
Dr. Atwater. Yeah, that's a very interesting question. The
wonderful thing about nature is that it's regenerative, you
know, in our bodies and in plants and so forth, cells are
regenerated, and the typical photosynthetic organisms only last
for, you know, minutes to hours before they die and then nature
has the benefit of regeneration. So we've really focused in our
effort on non-biological routes because we want to make--
because we know that we want to make things that last for tens
of years. So JCAP really is focused on chemical and physical
processes, which we think, you know, demonstrated by, you know,
the record of durability of conventional solar photovoltaic
panels that have the prospect of being durable for a very long
time without regeneration.
Mr. Grayson. Thanks. I yield back.
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentleman.
I now recognize the gentleman from California. Dana, you're
up.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
A couple of specific questions, and Mr. Gehin, is that how
I pronounce it? Am I correct in that?
Dr. Gehin. Close. Gehin.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. I didn't quite get that. A little
louder?
Dr. Gehin. Gehin.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Gehin. Okay.
Your focus on advanced simulation for light water reactors,
we have a light water reactor in Orange County, and it's shut
down now, and we have found all over the world where light
water reactors have made things--have been put public--the
public around those light water reactors in danger, and so now
there is a danger associated with every energy source, but
don't we have other potential sources of nuclear energy that
are less dangerous that what light water reactors will be? And
why are we stuck on light water reactors? I mean, I must have
been briefed on three or four different alternatives to light
water reactors that are safe and will not leave plutonium
behind and can't melt down, whether they're pebble-based or
thorium or high-temperature gas-cooled reactors. Why are we
still putting money into light water reactors rather than going
to a new generation of a different concept that wouldn't be
dangerous?
Dr. Gehin. Yeah, so that's a very good question. I think,
you know, my response will be, we need to look at both. I mean,
we have a large current fleet generating a lot of clean, low-
cost energy that the safety record is quite good on. And so
CASL's goal is to improve upon that, so--and I think we're
doing that as well.
There are other--there are other advanced reactor concepts.
DOE is doing research on these with expectations of deployment
later on in this century. And so hopefully that will be a
possibility. CASL's, though, focus is, we have the existing
fleet of 99 reactors. We're going to be adding five more. Let's
operate those the best that we can and get all the benefits
that we can.
Chairman Weber. Will the gentleman yield for just a second?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I certainly will.
Chairman Weber. I'll give you some extra time.
In somebody's testimony, I read where the nuclear reactors
we use on subs are safe because they're designed to shut down
in the event of a military incident. Whose--was that yours, Dr.
Gehin? Do you remember?
Dr. Gehin. No, it wasn't me.
Chairman Weber. Okay. What kind of reactors are those? Are
they light water reactors?
Dr. Gehin. Yeah, that's my understanding, although that's
technology that the Navy protects very closely, but, you know,
they put a lot of effort in the design of those reactors to
ensure that they're safe.
Chairman Weber. All right. Thank you. Reclaiming your time.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. Thank you.
What we're talking about is research that was done back in
the 1940s and 1950s, and light water reactors are old
technology. This is like trying to improve the steam engine. I
mean, we spent a lot of money improving steam engines, and in
fact, I believe light water reactors are based on steam
engines.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that focusing our limited
research dollars on light water reactors is a terrible waste
and misuse of limited dollars that we have here. At the very
least if we are going to use nuclear energy, let's focus on
those very promising technologies that we have not invested in
yet rather than trying to perfect something that we've been
basically researching for 40 and 50 years. I'm dismayed about
this, and I've been talking to the Department of Energy about
this for a number of years, and we just can't get them to
invest. As I say, there's at least three or four alternatives
that I know about, and I'm not a scientist. So with this, let
me ask about batteries, Mr. Crabtree.
Again, are we researching old methods of batteries or do we
have some new methods? I understand that, I think it's Dr.
Goodenough has got some sodium base. I'm not an expert on any
of this stuff. Pardon me. You guys know much more about it than
I do, but what about Dr. Goodenough's research into sodium
batteries and what's your reaction on that?
Mr. Crabtree. So that's a great question. JCESR looks
exclusively beyond lithium ion. Lithium ion is the technology
we have now that powers cell phones, although not long enough.
They go out at 4 o'clock in the afternoon when you want to make
a call.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Mr. Crabtree. And we're looking beyond that. We'd like to
get a factor of five in performance and higher and a factor of
five lower in cost. So this is definitely next generation.
None of the batteries that we're looking at are related to
lithium ion in their concepts or in their performance. So
there--many people don't realize this, that beyond lithium ion
space is very much better and richer than the lithium ion
space. So lithium ion is one battery technology, been around
for 25 years nearly. We know it pretty well. It can get
incrementally better, but just as you were saying, we're
looking for a transformative change, not an incremental change.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So let me just point out what we're--that
was the right answer for nuclear energy, and so thank you very
much. I'm glad that you're doing what we expected our Hubs to
be doing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Weber. The preceding comment was an editorial
statement, not necessarily reflecting the view of the
management.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not sure I can
even add anything more. I was going to ask Dr. Crabtree some
questions but what more than an endorsement from Dana
Rohrabacher could there be? But I'll go ahead anyway.
Battery technology in so many ways we know is critical for
a real clean, affordable energy future, and certainly, as Mr.
Rohrabacher said, it is a--what's being done at JCESR is
certainly what we need to be reaching for. I mean, right now we
have Tesla, Google and Apple making investments in energy
storage. Tesla announced its giga factory to be completed next
year, but we really need to find that breakthrough technology,
and I think you did a good job.
My first question was going to be, you know, how the Hub
works, it helps towards making a breakthrough but I think you
did a very good job of explaining how the Hubs give you the--
your Hub gives you the opportunity to be very nimble in what
you're doing, so that was a great example of one of the
advantages of a Hub.
I want to ask about the connection to industry because I
know JCESR has partnered with companies like Dow, Johnson
Controls, and Applied Materials. Can you explain how these
partnerships help JCESR to span the whole innovation ecosystem
and help, you know, look to the future to bring these
technologies to the market?
Mr. Crabtree. Yeah. Great question, and indeed, this was
one of the things that when we made our proposal and launched
our project that we had in mind. What do you do after you make
the technology? How do you get it out to the marketplace? So
JCI, otherwise known as Johnson Controls, happens to be right
across the state line in Wisconsin from Argonne, so we go up
there quite often. We spent three full days talking with them
about what a prototype would look like that would interest them
in manufacturing it. So this is something that certainly on the
basic science side almost never happens. We think about the new
ideas in the basic sciences but we don't think about how to
bring them to market. On the applied side, it does happen. I
think JCESR is unique in that it combines both the basic
science discoveries and the guidance from industry, for
example, JCI, what would it take to actually be manufactured.
So they can advise us, for example, don't use any materials in
a certain class, they're too corrosive. We will know that from
the very beginning, and at a discovery science stage, we won't
be pursuing those kinds of materials. So their guidance is
actually very, very important.
We have another group that works with us and our
affiliates, which now number 80 plus. They're start-up firms.
They're big companies. They're research organizations. And we
talk with them all the time about their interest. So the ones
that are startups, we talk about what kind of battery would you
like to have, and I think it's this connection to the
marketplace which is one of the unique things about JCESR that
was missing before. So Toyota will look to its own research and
development organizations with its own marketing needs in mind
but they won't go outside their own house. We make it possible
to go outside individual organizations.
Mr. Lipinski. So have you seen companies make these
connections set up locally to have the access? Does that make a
difference?
Mr. Crabtree. Oh, it does. So we--there are several battery
firms, usually small companies, that we work with extensively
already. We--this does two things. It makes us familiar with
what their needs are so we can address them better, and it
makes them familiar with what we can do. So they can address a
question or a challenge to us that in fact we can respond to.
So it's spilled out. You know, Argonne has a very extensive
traditional battery program, lithium ion and other things,
that's not part of JCESR but we interact with that group as
well, and when we--through our affiliates and other industrial
connections, we actually direct them to the right place. If
it's within JCESR, that's great. If it's not, then we're part
of that interaction as well.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I have a very quick question--I
have little time--for Dr. Atwater. I was--it was probably now
about 7, eight years ago now, I was at JBEI. So are you working
completely--something different than they are?
Dr. Atwater. Yeah, that's good----
Mr. Lipinski. Because--go ahead.
Dr. Atwater. Thank you for your question, Mr. Lipinski. So
we actually have Dr. Jay Keasling, who's the Director of JBEI,
as a member of our board of governors and so there's close
coupling and communication between JBEI and JCAP. JBEI takes a
focus on using alternatives to the traditional biofuels
feedstocks to generate a new generation of biofuels. As I was
alluding to in my response to Mr. Grayson, JCAP's focus is on
using physics and chemistry to achieve the same outcomes as
natural photosynthesis using artificial photosynthesis with
greater--such that the generator has greater durability and
greater efficiency, so that's the primary distinction between
the two.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Weber. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Dr. Gehin, I
want to circle back over to the light water reactors. I'll take
a little different approach here, but in Georgia, Plant Vogtle
is bringing online hopefully very soon two Westinghouse AP-1000
reactors. We're actually taking a CODEL trip to visit Georgia
Power here next month to view those.
In light of what Mr. Rohrabacher said, can you elaborate a
little bit how CASL and VERA have been useful in licensing,
ensuring the safety operations of the AP-1000s and should the
people in Georgia be concerned or is the technology sound? Can
you elaborate a little bit on these two new reactors coming
online?
Dr. Gehin. Yeah, so thank you. It's very exciting to have
these two reactors coming online in the South. I'm from the
South so it's great to have that more power there.
I also point out, Southern Company is part of our industry
council we've got interactions as well with the folks working
on that plant as well, Westinghouse, the designer of that
plant.
You know, the AP-1000 design has been worked on by
Westinghouse and evolved and very rigorously reviewed through,
you know, the NRC licensing process, and so it has got a well-
founded safety basis. It enhances the safety of our current
fleet, incorporates lessons from Fukushima. So I think these
are very impressive designs, very safe reactors. So I would not
hesitate living near a reactor like that.
As far as CASL, CASL insofar as the timing was not in place
to impact the licensing. AP-1000 received its design
certification several years ago, and the construction operating
license was in place several years ago. But what we are doing
working with our Westinghouse partner, applying our tools so
they can actually use these to compare to and confirm their own
results and help improve their tools for future operations and
when those reactors start up so they have more information. So
we expect there will be usefulness from our tools going forward
but they've not played a direct role in the current licensing
of those reactors.
Mr. Loudermilk. With reactors such as the AP-1000, we're
bringing these on, they're the first new reactors we've brought
on in how many years?
Dr. Gehin. So Watts Bar One came online in 1996. Watts Bar
Two which was started, you know, a couple decades ago will be
online next year, and so these will be the second reactor
online in this century in the United States.
Mr. Loudermilk. Are there obstacles that are in the way of
expanding nuclear power in the nation that this body can work
on?
Dr. Gehin. You know, so one of the areas that we're focused
on helping, and it's broader than just CASL, is the economics
of nuclear power. It does provide low-cost economics but in
competitive markets with variations, it can be rather
difficult. You know, it's not a--it has a technical aspect that
we're working on to reduce the operating costs, fuel costs.
There are other non-technical areas as well that probably need
to be addressed. This works very well in the South where
there's a regulated electricity market where you can plan long-
term, so that's why you're seeing these built in the South. I
think continue to improve the economics, improve the benefits
that we're getting from it but also looking at some of these
non-technical issues might be worthwhile.
Mr. Loudermilk. And one last question back on something
that Mr. Rohrabacher brought up is other plants that had safety
concerns. Can you elaborate on what were those, why were those
plants shut down, and why is Plant Vogtle different?
Dr. Gehin. Yeah, you know, as far as I know, you know,
there are some plants that have been shut down in the United
States. I don't--I wouldn't attribute necessarily that shutdown
to safety concerns. There have been issues that have resulted
in economic evaluation to not, you know, address like replace
stream generators or address steam generator issues. When you
do the economic analysis, you find out, you know, the business
decision is not to do that. These could be addressed. They
could have been brought back but the economic decision was not
to do so.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Weber. Thank you. The gentleman from Colorado is
recognized.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thanks, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank the
panelists for being here today. This is fascinating. And I'm
going to ask more general questions, not as specific as some of
my colleagues have asked.
And Dr. King, I'd like to start with you. The purpose of
these Hubs in my estimation, and as policymakers, we're trying
to decide are they working, are they not working, are they
doing the kinds of things that you might expect as an
experienced scientist and an administrator. Do you see these
Hubs as beneficial to the future of this country? And it's
going to be that broad, so go for it.
Mr. King. Short answer, yes.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. Why?
Mr. King. Because among many things the Hubs can do is,
they bring an intense focus on a particular technology or
scientific challenge, and they put resources in the hands of
scientific leaders who are able to, as I said in my earlier
remarks, orchestrate the immense talent and tools that we have
around the country to actually solve problems in very much
shorter order in time than has typically been the case. So in
the case of CMI, we've achieved in two years what typically
takes 20 in a few well-selected cases. I'm not saying we can
always do it.
Mr. Perlmutter. Well, but that's the nature of science too.
Mr. King. Yes.
Mr. Perlmutter. I mean, if there weren't some errors to go
with the trial and errors, you wouldn't be learning much. If
you knew the answer before you started, then, you know, what's
the point. So----
Mr. King. I agree completely.
Mr. Perlmutter. So I appreciate that.
So Dr. Crabtree, my question to you is, how do you
determine what the question is, what the mission is, and how do
you put the team together?
Mr. Crabtree. Great questions, and that's exactly what
JCESR faces. I was mentioning that the beyond lithium ion space
is really rich, big and complex, and there's really a challenge
to find out where are the promising directions. So we spent
about a year and a half doing that. We call that divergent
research because maybe it's the solution, maybe it's that one,
maybe it's that one. We've now switched in the last year to
convergent research where we've picked four directions and
we're going to implement them and make them work. But I'm sure
that we're going to leave things on the table. So there will be
things, even when we're done, assuming we get renewed--let's be
optimistic--you know, eight years from now, there will still be
wonderful challenges to be addressed in a similar way.
Mr. Perlmutter. How did you put your team together? How did
you determine which industry partners, which academic
institutions would be part of your Hub?
Mr. Crabtree. Great question. So the first requirement is
they have to be good. They have to be the best. If we can get
the best, we go for the best. If we can't, we go down a notch.
And we have to be diverse. So we want to be able to look at the
entire beyond lithium ion space, not just a piece of it, but
all of it so that we can make a judgment about where are the
best opportunities. And so we have universities, national labs
and industry, and that's critical that it be that diverse.
Mr. Perlmutter. I mean, if I raised my hand and I said gee,
Doctor, I'd like to be part of your team, how do you vet me? I
mean, I'm just a lawyer so I wouldn't add much other than I'd
try to keep you out of trouble.
Mr. Crabtree. We have lots of lawyers on the team too.
Mr. Perlmutter. All right. Good.
Mr. Crabtree. First we would ask, is it covered by somebody
that we already have or is there somebody better than you--
excuse me for asking that question, but--because we want to go
for the best, and we don't want to duplicate. Our resources are
limited so we have to spread them around just as taxpayer
dollars, you always do, in the best way. So we don't want to
duplicate and we want to cover everything.
Mr. Perlmutter. So Dr. Gehin, how long should these Hubs
remain in operation? Is it in perpetuity or is there a finite
time period? What do you expect as the administrator of your
Hub?
Dr. Gehin. So we're expecting, and we've already done this
to some degree, of having capabilities that we're deploying to
industry for their use in the short term. We've done that in
the first five years. We will continue to do that with our
renewal.
With that said, there are--these technologies require
sustainability. We're looking to that as far as through our
industry partners and other means of maintaining something that
we develop so we don't lose it as soon as the Hub ends. We're
looking towards industry to do that because they're the ones
who will take this technology forward.
Means of performing additional research is uncertain at
this time. I think we'll learn things that will lead to
additional questions and insights that could be carried forward
but our current approach is within the ten years have expanded
simulation capabilities that we can hand off and have those be
applied in a reactor operation.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. And my time's up. I'll get to you,
Dr. Atwater, next go-around, okay? I yield back.
Chairman Weber. Would the gentleman like an additional
minute?
Mr. Perlmutter. No, no, go ahead, because I've got to go
downstairs and ask questions----
Chairman Weber. Because I was going to take it from the
gentlelady from Massachusetts.
The gentlelady from Massachusetts is recognized.
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
the panelists.
I have--I also have a sort of general question for all of
you, but it's been a theme that's come up. Dr. Crabtree, you
referred to it. This--we tend to talk about basic and applied
research in two different buckets and, you know, really silo
that, and I think it has an impact in not only how we look at
science and the way the Hubs are working but also in other
areas in the way we fund things and prioritize. What I'm
hearing from your testimony--and we had a hearing last month
where Dr. Whittaker also referenced that this is sort of a
false dichotomy that we have put together, and I would love to
hear in your experience in the Hubs how you see this and, you
know, do you see any potential dangers in really looking at
these as two very different siloed ways of looking at science
and research?
Mr. Crabtree. Great question, and I would hark back to
maybe 25 years ago, the time of the great industrial labs such
as Bell Labs and Xerox and IBM where they were integrated and
indeed the basic science was done right along with the
application development. We've lost that, and part of that is
the pressure of Wall Street. Business has to look at the next 6
months, not the next 20 years. That's hard.
JCESR is one of the few organizations, brand-new one, that
bridges that gap and it looks at a very specific problem unlike
the old industrial labs that looked at many, many problems.
We're looking at next-generation energy storage only. So we're
able to focus, we're able to bring--attract the best, and we're
able to integrate across that spectrum, and I believe that this
paradigm, this, as we call it, our next paradigm of doing
business, doing research, may be the most important outcome of
JCESR, that it may be a model for not only the battery
community but lots of other critical challenges where you
combine the basic and the applied and actually the transition
to market. So I'm actually excited about that, and I feel that
we're learning now how to do it. It can be done much better
than we are now doing. I'm sure of that, and if we can develop
this model, we'll be way ahead of the game.
Ms. Clark. And one of my concerns is that as we look at
innovation as a pipeline, if we don't start using the model
that you are using, you know, where are we going to be as we
pull back? And I don't know if any of the other of you have
concerns or want to comment on that. Dr. Atwater?
Dr. Atwater. Yeah, let me just respond to your comment, and
thanks very much for your insightful question. So JCAP I would
say has--if you think about spanning the spectrum from
fundamental research to deployment and development and scale-up
sort of furthest upstream and has activities that start on the
basic research but do in fact span all the way through applied
research, and we provide the insights that create the
deployment decisions that have yet to be made as we operate in
an environment where there is no existing industry.
But I did want to say that the progress that we've made in
defining just the basic question of what does a solar fuel
generator look like. We have a now well-defined model concept
of what a generator is. It has a cathode and an anode, very
much like a fuel cell or a battery. It has an electrolyte. It
has various components that five years ago before an integrated
team of scientists and engineers came together from across the
applied and basic research spectrum really didn't exist, and
it's that collective synthesis of ideas and then execution of
potential prototypes that led to the concepts of the solar
fuels generator. So while we don't address through applied
research and development yet an existing industry, the
acceleration of progress that we've made actually depended on
the interaction with applied researchers as well.
Ms. Clark. Great. Dr. King?
Mr. King. Yeah, I think the old model is fading. We
certainly work with a lot of researchers who have spent their
career working in fundamental research and publish a paper and
worry not about how it will be commercialized. We started the
process where every time we take on a fundamental research
topic, we have industrial potential users come in and talk with
the researchers about it. But first we were desperately worried
that this would not work. What we have found is two things. One
is that the academic and national lab researchers actually
enjoy it very much indeed. They come out of the room saying why
didn't we do this 20 years ago, and the research has
accelerated considerably. Case in point: We are trying to
develop new red and green emitting compounds, used very
fundamental physics and computer models in a materials genome
type of campaign, came up with a dozen different compounds that
could emit green light and presented those instead of just
publishing those and then going on to work on producing all 12,
testing them, refining them, et cetera. We went to our industry
partner, and our industry partner looked at the 12 compounds
and said only three of those would ever be considered in our
company, and they gave different reasons for rejecting the
other nine. When you think that testing 12 pounds is typically
a 20-year campaign, we have just saved 15 years of research. So
getting constant feedback from industry is enriching,
enlivening, and it's inspiring to the researchers but it's also
a huge accelerator for the research itself.
Ms. Clark. Great. Thank you.
Chairman Weber. The gentlelady yields back. Ranking Member
Grayson would like to ask at least one more question, so we're
going to give him time to do that.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Gehin, we have something like 300-plus light water
reactors in the world. They're very expensive, something like
half a trillion dollars in replacement value for those
reactors. In the United States at least, energy production
facilities are privately owned. I have to wonder, as much as
I'd like to see the advancement of human knowledge in general,
why is the industry not trying to add 20 years of life to a
half-a-trillion-dollar asset? Why does this fall upon the
taxpayers to do this?
Dr. Gehin. You know, so the--so that's a very good
question. So I think industry is very interested in this. I
think where the value comes in with the government-sponsored
research is enabling this through the tools that we've already
invested in advanced computing, the leadership-class computing
capability that we have, the fundamental science, speaking to
Ms. Clark's question, taking some of the basic technology we
have and improving that national investment into our reactor
systems. So I think it adds value to things that they're
already motivated and doing that they wouldn't otherwise do or
have access to.
Mr. Grayson. Are they doing it? Are there private research
facilities that actually are trying to do what you're trying to
do and making any progress?
Dr. Gehin. Not at the scale that we're doing it with the
science that we're using.
Mr. Grayson. Is the industry willing to come together and
try to fund those facilities since it's for their benefit?
Dr. Gehin. Well, they already are, so one thing that's
important to understand about the Hub is, or at least Hub, is
that the industry partners cost share. So they're already
making investments into the Hub through cost sharing and data
that we could otherwise have access to.
Mr. Grayson. I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Weber. Okay. I want to thank the witnesses for
their valuable testimony and the Members for their questions.
The record will remain open for two weeks for additional
comments and written questions from the members.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Alex King
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Statement submitted by full Committee Chairman
Lamar S. Smith
Today, the Subcommittee on Energy will examine the
Department of Energy's (DOE) Energy Innovation Hubs and provide
important oversight for the Department's approach to
collaborative research and development.
DOE Energy Innovation Hubs encourage cooperation across
basic science, applied energy, and engineering research and
development programs. The hubs represent a new model for
integrating basic research and development with applied
research to create new technologies.
Through the hubs, DOE brings together teams of researchers
from the national labs, academia, and industry to solve
specific energy challenges.
Currently, the Department operates four hubs--two with a
focus on applied energy challenges and two using basic research
to advance technology development.
The Department first established the innovation hub model
within its Office of Nuclear Energy in 2010 with the
establishment of the Consortium for Advanced Simulation of
Light Water Reactors, or CASL [CASTLE]. CASL's diverse team of
experts in reactor physics and materials sciences use super
computers to model and simulate nuclear reactors.
This work will help make reactors safer, improve their
performance, and increase their operational lifetime, which is
critical to sustainable zero-emission nuclear energy in our
country.
Funded through the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, the Critical Materials Institute was
established in 2011 to address domestic shortages of rare earth
metals and other materials critical for American energy
security.
Led by the Ames National Lab, a leading center for
materials science and technology, researchers work to solve
critical materials challenges. These include the development of
new material sources, the increase in efficiency in
manufacturing, and better methods to recycle and reuse
materials.
The Office of Science sponsors two hubs that focus on basic
research directed at how energy is produced from sunlight and
ways to advance battery storage.
The Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis, led by the
California Institute of Technology, conducts basic research
with the goal of designing efficient energy conversion
technology that can generate fuels directly from sunlight,
water, and carbon dioxide. This research presents the
opportunity to recreate the energy potential of natural
photosynthesis.
The research and development conducted at the Joint Center
for Energy Storage Research hub, commonly known as JCESR [Jay-
Caesar] and led by Argonne National Lab, develops new battery
storage technology. Researchers at JCESR study how different
materials perform at the atomic and molecular level inside a
battery.
By examining materials, these researchers are able to
develop batteries that have more capacity, power, and a longer-
life span.This energy storage research could have
groundbreaking impacts on not just the solar industry, but also
on all forms of energy and on the reliability of our electric
grid.
As DOE pursues new ways to conduct research and
development, benchmarks to measure progress and the responsible
use of American taxpayer dollars must be a top priority.
With a price tag of approximately $90 million per year for
the existing DOE hubs, Congress should conduct appropriate
oversight to ensure that limited research dollars are well-
spent.
I thank our witnesses today for testifying on their
important research. And I look forward to a productive
discussion on the research goals of the four DOE hubs.
I also want to thank the ranking member of this
subcommittee, Rep. Grayson, for working with me to include
targeted authorization language for the hubs in the America
COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015, which passed the House
last month.
The Department of Energy should prioritize the ongoing
cooperation between the national labs and academia in order to
solve basic scientific challenges. It should also partner with
American entrepreneurs to solve energy challenges through new
technologies.
Leveraging limited resources through partnerships will keep
America at the forefront of cutting-edge science.
Statement submitted by full Committee Ranking Member
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Chairman Weber for holding this hearing, and
thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
First established in 2010, the Energy Innovation Hubs are
modeled on legendary research institutions like Bell
Laboratories, which unfortunately no longer exist to any great
extent in the private sector due to an increased emphasis on
shorter-term returns. Each of these large multiinvestigator,
multi-disciplinary Hubs is focused on addressing major
challenges to advancing new energy technologies. In short,
these centers of excellence are tackling a variety of areas
that may well be vital to our clean energy future.
They include: dramatically reducing the costs for new
energy storage technologies; advanced computer modeling to
improve the safety and efficiency of nuclear reactors;
addressing our limited supply of critical materials that are
essential to a wide range of clean energy technologies; and
learning from the world of plant biology so that we can find
new, far more efficient ways to create a usable fuel from three
simple ingredients--sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide.
I believe it is long past time for Congress to authorize
and provide legislative guidance for the Hubs model--which is
why I included language to do this as part of the America
Competes Reauthorization Act of 2014, and again in 2015, both
of which were co-sponsored by every Democratic Member of the
Committee. I particularly appreciate Ranking Member Grayson's
good work in introducing and advancing a bill to finally
authorize the Hubs this year.
I want to thank all of you again for being here today. Your
work in these key technology areas is a clear example of why we
need to not just sustain, but significantly increase federal
investments in research across the board, and not just in
research areas that have partisan support.
If the past is any guide, these investments in fundamental
and applied research, including energy efficiency, renewable
energy, and yes, even social and behavioral sciences, will have
a major impact on both our nation's economic competitiveness
and our quality of life.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
[all]