[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WATER AND GEOTHERMAL POWER:
UNEARTHING THE NEXT WAVE
OF ENERGY INNOVATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 14, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-55
__________
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
38-273 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois Ranking Member
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon MO BROOKS, Alabama
AMI BERA, California, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania BRIAN BABIN, Texas
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
BRAD SHERMAN, California TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York JIM BAIRD, Indiana
BILL FOSTER, Illinois JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
DON BEYER, Virginia FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida GREGORY F. MURPHY, North Carolina
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois
BEN McADAMS, Utah
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DANIEL LIPINKSI, Illinois RANDY WEBER, Texas, Ranking Member
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California JIM BAIRD, Indiana
BILL FOSTER, Illinois
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois
C O N T E N T S
November 14, 2019
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Conor Lamb, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 6
Written statement............................................ 7
Statement by Representative Randy Weber, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 8
Written statement............................................ 9
Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 10
Written statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 10
Witnesses:
Dr. David Solan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Renewable Power,
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S.
Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 15
Dr. Bryson Robertson, Co-Director, Pacific Marine Energy Center,
Associate Professor, Civil and Construction Engineering, Oregon
State University
Oral Statement............................................... 21
Written Statement............................................ 23
Dr. Joseph Moore, Manager, Utah Frontier Observatory for Research
in Geothermal Energy (FORGE), Research Professor, University of
Utah
Oral Statement............................................... 30
Written Statement............................................ 32
Ms. Maria Richards, Director, Geothermal Laboratory, Roy M.
Huffington Department of Earth Sciences, Southern Methodist
University
Oral Statement............................................... 36
Written Statement............................................ 38
Mr. Sander Cohan, Director, Innovation, Enel Green Power North
America, Inc.
Oral Statement............................................... 49
Written Statement............................................ 51
Discussion....................................................... 61
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. David Solan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Renewable Power,
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S.
Department of Energy........................................... 78
Dr. Bryson Robertson, Co-Director, Pacific Marine Energy Center,
Associate Professor, Civil and Construction Engineering, Oregon
State University............................................... 87
Dr. Joseph Moore, Manager, Utah Frontier Observatory for Research
in Geothermal Energy (FORGE), Research Professor, University of
Utah........................................................... 88
Ms. Maria Richards, Director, Geothermal Laboratory, Roy M.
Huffington Department of Earth Sciences, Southern Methodist
University..................................................... 93
Mr. Sander Cohan, Director, Innovation, Enel Green Power North
America, Inc................................................... 98
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Documents submitted by Dr. Joseph Moore, Manager, Utah Frontier
Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy (FORGE), Research
Professor, University of Utah.................................. 102
Documents submitted by Ms. Maria Richards, Director, Geothermal
Laboratory, Roy M. Huffington Department of Earth Sciences,
Southern Methodist University.................................. 110
WATER AND GEOTHERMAL POWER:
UNEARTHING THE NEXT WAVE
OF ENERGY INNOVATION
----------
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:14 p.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Conor Lamb
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Lamb. All right, good afternoon. This hearing will
come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to
declare a recess at any time. Good afternoon. Welcome to
today's hearing entitled, ``Water and Geothermal Power:
Unearthing the Next Wave of Energy Innovation.'' Thank you to
this distinguished panel of witnesses for joining us. Today
we'll be holding another hearing on clean energy technology
research and development. I believe this will be our eighth
hearing this Subcommittee in the 116th Congress to help us
focus our scientific research priorities, create major new job
opportunities, and address and mitigate the impacts of climate
change. Today's hearing focuses on two draft bills that would
support critical research activity to provide cleaner energy by
using geothermal energy and water power technologies.
The Earth contains vast amounts of heat just under its
surface, which can be tapped and turned into electricity.
Today, just 0.4 percent of total U.S. utility scale electricity
generation is produced by geothermal power plants. The
Department of Energy (DOE) Geothermal Technologies Office (GTO)
has programs focused on conventional geothermal energy
production, from hydrothermal resources, such as geysers, as
well as research focused on enhanced geothermal systems (EGS)
research, which could help us access the higher temperatures
deeper underground. This has the potential to increase
geothermal electric power generation to 60 gigawatts of
installed capacity by 2050, up by about four gigawatts today.
This potential is why it's important for us to focus on R&D
(research and development) in this promising area.
The draft Geothermal Energy Research and Development Act of
2019 would reauthorize the activities of the DOE Geothermal
Technologies Office. In addition to laying out focus areas for
both conventional and enhanced geothermal systems, this
legislation would instruct the Secretary to establish a
demonstration initiative for advanced geothermal energy
systems. And we have heard from many witnesses in many areas
all year about the importance of doing not only the fundamental
research, but also the demonstration-scale research for these
technologies, and we'll be looking to hear from you all about
that today as well.
At least one of the demonstration projects in this
initiative must be located in the eastern United States, which
currently has no such facility, and, finally, the bill would
authorize two frontier observatories for research and
geothermal energy, or FORGE, sites, including the site DOE
selected in Milford, Utah. Today we will hear from Dr. Joseph
Moore, who is the project manager at that site.
Another clean energy technology we will be discussing today
is water power, which includes conventional hydro, pumped
storage, and marine energy technologies. Around 7 percent of
total U.S. utility-scale electricity generation is produced by
conventional hydropower. Pairing this technology with pumped
storage systems allows energy produced by hydropower plants to
be deployed to the grid flexibly.
Marine energy, which includes wave, tidal, and current
power, is another water power technology that has great
potential. DOE's Powering the Blue Economy initiative
highlights the importance of each maritime industry to the
success of other such industries. Investing in this technology
can help improve other areas of coastal and maritime markets,
such as underwater vehicle charging and aquaculture. Given the
overlap and independence between these industries, it makes
sense to address the blue economy as a whole.
The Water Power Technologies Office (WPTO) at DOE can do
just that, and support research across a wide range of
technologies, so the draft Water Power Research and Development
Act of 2019 emphasizes key R&D focus areas and supports, again,
important technology demonstration activities. It also
authorizes existing and new national marine energy centers,
which are testing sites for marine energy technologies hosted
by academic institutions, and funded by both government and
private industry. We are lucky today to have Dr. Bryson
Robertson, Co-Director of the Pacific Marine Energy Center, to
tell us about the important research done at these centers.
I want to thank our panel of witnesses for coming all the
way here today, and I look forward to hearing your input and
feedback on these important topics, and especially on our draft
pieces of legislation.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Lamb follows:]
Good afternoon and thank you to this distinguished panel of
witnesses for joining us today. This afternoon we'll be holding
another hearing on clean energy technology research and
development. I believe this will be our eighth hearing this
Subcommittee has held this Congress to help us focus our
scientific research priorities, create major new job
opportunities, and address and mitigate the growing impacts of
climate change. Today's hearing focuses on two draft bills that
would support critical research activities to provide cleaner
electricity by utilizing geothermal energy and water power
technologies.
The Earth contains vast amounts of heat just under its
surface, which can be tapped and turned into electricity.
Today, just 0.4% of total U.S. utility-scale electricity
generation is produced by geothermal power plants. The
Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Office has
programs focused on conventional geothermal energy production
from hydrothermal resources, such as geysers, as well as
research focused on enhanced geothermal systems research, which
could help us access the higher temperatures deeper
underground. This has the potential to increase geothermal
electric power generation to 60 gigawatts of installed capacity
by 2050, up from about 4 gigawatts today. This growth potential
is why it is important for us to focus research and development
on this promising clean energy technology.
The draft Geothermal Energy Research and Development Act of
2019 would reauthorize the activities of the DOE Geothermal
Technologies Office. In addition to laying out focus areas for
both conventional and enhanced geothermal energy systems, this
legislation also instructs the Secretary to establish a
demonstration initiative for enhanced geothermal energy
systems. At least one of the demonstration projects in this
initiative must be located in the Eastern U.S., which currently
has no such facility. Finally, the bill would authorize two
Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy, or
FORGE sites, including the site DOE selected in Milford, Utah.
Today we will hear from Dr. Joseph Moore, who is the project
manager at this site. The FORGE initiative is crucial for
demonstrating and testing geothermal technologies.
Another clean energy technology we will be discussing today
is water power technologies, which include conventional
hydropower, pumped storage, and marine energy technologies.
Around 7% of total U.S. utility-scale electricity generation is
produced by conventional hydropower. Pairing this technology
with pumped storage systems allows energy produced by
hydropower plants to be deployed to the grid flexibly.
Marine energy, which includes wave, tidal, and current
power, is another water power technology that has great
potential. DOE's "Powering the Blue Economy" initiative
highlights the importance of each maritime industry to the
success of other such industries. Investing in marine energy
technology can improve other areas of coastal and maritime
markets, such as underwater vehicle charging and aquaculture.
Given the overlap and interdependence between these industries,
it makes sense to address the "blue economy" as a whole.
The Water Power Technologies Office at DOE supports
research across a wide range of technologies. The draft Water
Power Research and Development Act of 2019 emphasizes key R&D
focus areas and supports important technology demonstration
activities. It also authorizes existing and new National Marine
Energy Centers, which are testing sites for marine energy
technologies hosted by academic institutions and funded by both
government and private industry. Today we are lucky to have Dr.
Bryson Robertson, co-director of the Pacific Marine Energy
Center, testify about the important research done at these
Centers.
I thank our panel of witnesses again for being here today
and I look forward to their input and feedback on these
important topics and this draft legislation.
Chairman Lamb. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member,
Mr. Weber, for an opening statement.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Chairman Lamb, for holding today's
Subcommittee hearing. Looking forward also to hearing from our
witnesses about the state of water and geothermal power
technologies in the U.S., and about the Department of Energy's
innovative clean energy R&D activities in these areas.
Water and geothermal power R&D is funded through the
Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
or EERE, and as we discuss yet another applied energy program
this afternoon, it is important to remind ourselves that EERE
is, by far, the Department of Energy's largest applied research
program. At almost $2.4 billion, with a B, in annual funding,
EERE receives more funding than the R&D budgets for research in
fossil energy, in nuclear energy, electricity, and
cybersecurity combined.
Since DOE's Water Power Technologies Office, WPTO, and
Geothermal Technologies Office, GTO, are both housed under this
very well-funded program, I'm kind of again surprised to see my
colleagues on the other side of this aisle propose legislation
to grow these offices even more without proposing the funding
offsets. As written, the Water Power Research and Development
Act would increase spending on EERE's water power technologies
activities by nearly 60, that's 6-0, percent by Fiscal Year
2024. Similarly, the Geothermal Energy Research and Development
Act would increase annual spending on EERE's geothermal
technology activities to 150 million, with an M, dollars, which
is nearly 70 percent higher than the House passed 2020
appropriations level. It would also provide $150 million for
this program each year through 2024.
Once again, I do want to be clear, I'm supportive of DOE
funding for innovative research in advanced renewable energy
sources, and I believe that these technologies play a vital
role in our country's path forward to a clean energy future.
This is why I'm also supportive of basic research, the kind
that the energy industry cannot conduct, like research in
advanced computing, machine learning, and the development of
new materials. This discovery science lays the foundation for
the next technology breakthrough, and can only be supported by
the Federal Government. This will require sustained Federal
investment in the construction of critical research facilities,
and infrastructure across the country, particularly in our
world-leading National laboratories, and in our universities.
By providing American researchers with the tools to perform
that cutting-edge research, we can accelerate the development
of a diversity of advanced energy technologies. These are the
kind of investments we see prioritized in my friend Ranking
Member Lucas' bill, the Advanced Geothermal Research and
Technology Act of 2019.
I'm also particularly pleased to see investments in a
geothermal advanced computing and data science program, and
critical support for GTO's innovative experimental user
facility included in this legislation. Best of all, it
prioritizes these areas responsibly, without significant
increases in new spending.
So I'm looking forward to considering this bill, Mr.
Chairman, and hearing about the research it would prioritize
today. So, in closing, let me say--I feel like I keep repeating
myself. I hope that moving forward we can focus on prioritizing
investments in fundamental research that we all agree are
necessary to develop new energy technologies. And, with that,
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding the hearing. I yield
back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:]
Thank you, Chairman Lamb for holding today's subcommittee
hearing. I'm looking forward to hearing from our witnesses
about the state of water and geothermal power technologies in
the U.S., and about the Department of Energy's innovative clean
energy R&D activities in these areas.
Water and geothermal power R&D is funded through the
Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE).
As we discuss yet another applied energy program this
afternoon, it's important to remind ourselves that EERE is by
far the Department of Energy's largest applied research
program. At almost $2.4 billion in annual funding, EERE
receives more funding than the R&D budgets for research in
fossil energy, nuclear energy, electricity, and cybersecurity
combined.
Since DOE's Water Power Technologies Office (WPTO) and
Geothermal Technologies Office (GTO) are both housed under this
very well-funded program, I'm again surprised to see my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle propose legislation
to grow these offices even more, without proposing funding
offsets.
As written, the Water Power Research and Development Act
would increase spending on EERE's Water Power Technologies
activities by nearly 60 percent by fiscal year 2024.
Similarly, the Geothermal Energy Research and Development
Act would increase annual spending on EERE's Geothermal
Technologies activities to $150 million - nearly 70 percent
higher than the House-passed 2020 Appropriations level. It
would also provide $150 million for this program each year
through 2024.
Once again, I want to be clear - I'm supportive of DOE
funding for innovative research in advanced renewable energy
sources.
And I believe that these technologies play a vital role in
our country's path forward to a clean energy future.
This is why I'm also supportive of basic research - the
kind that the energy industry cannot conduct - like research in
advanced computing, machine learning and the development of new
materials. This discovery science lays the foundation for the
next technology breakthrough and it can only be supported by
the Federal government.
This requires sustained Federal investment in the
construction of critical research facilities and infrastructure
across the country, particularly at our world-leading National
laboratories and universities.
By providing American researchers with the tools to perform
cutting edge research, we can accelerate the development of a
diversity of advanced energy technologies.
These are the kinds of investments we see prioritized in my
friend Ranking Member Lucas's bill, the Advanced Geothermal
Research and Technology Act of 2019.
I'm particularly pleased to see investments in a geothermal
advanced computing and data science program, and critical
support for GTO's innovative experimental user facility
included in this legislation.
Best of all it prioritizes these areas responsibly, without
significant increases in new spending.
I'm looking forward to considering this bill and hearing
about the research it would prioritize today.
So in closing - and I feel like I keep repeating myself - I
hope that moving forward, we can focus on prioritizing
investments in fundamental research that we all agree are
necessary to develop new energy technologies.
Chairman Lamb. If there are Members who wish to submit
additional opening statements, your statements will be added to
the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Good afternoon and thank you, Chairman Lamb, for holding
this timely hearing on two very important renewable energy
resources, water and geothermal power.
Water and geothermal power are some of this country's and
the world's oldest forms of energy. The United States has
harnessed hydropower for decades and Americans have used
various forms of geothermal energy since the 1800s.
Despite this long history, many water and geothermal energy
technologies have struggled to become or remain competitive in
modern energy markets, yet both still possess huge potential
for further advancement and commercialization.
The Department of Energy's recent GeoVision report found
that with technology improvements, geothermal electricity
generation could increase 26-fold by 2050. The same study found
that my home state of Texas, as well as most other states, have
significant opportunities to expand their use of one or more
geothermal energy technologies. New approaches could also apply
geothermal energy to industrial activities, such as through
heat production for manufacturing processes or critical mineral
extraction, including the production of lithium, which is often
needed for advanced batteries.
As for water power, pumped hydropower systems are
considered a leading candidate to provide the large-scale,
long-term energy storage that our electric grid will need as
more renewables enter the electricity mix. Further, marine
energy, which includes energy generated from waves, tides, and
currents, has significant potential to power remote operations,
and the U.S. Navy and others are already testing specific
projects.
With these opportunities for energy innovation comes a need
for strong, well-guided federal investments in research,
development, and demonstration activities. Federal R&D can
continue to lower water and geothermal power costs and validate
their emerging applications. We have only begun to touch the
surface of what these technologies can do, and the DOE and our
National labs, universities, and industry partners possess the
expertise to explore them to their fullest potential. I look
forward to using today's hearing to inform forward-looking
legislation that will enable DOE to propel these technologies
into the future.
With that, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]
Thank you, Chairman Lamb, for hosting this hearing, which
is especially relevant to the geothermal industry in my home
state of Oklahoma.Geothermal energy systems draw from the
constant and naturally occurring heat that radiates beneath the
surface of the earth. This heat is a source of clean and
renewable energy that is always "on." Our country has
significant hydrothermal and geothermal energy resources, and
if harnessed correctly, these resources have the capability to
provide secure baseload power and energy storage for Americans
across the country.
Yet although the United States leads the world in installed
geothermal capacity, geothermal energy contributes less than
one percent to the total utility-scale U.S. electricity
generation.
In 2018, while wind energy generation accounted for 21
percent of the growing U.S. renewable energy portfolio,
geothermal energy generation accounted for just 2 percent.
This is because today's geothermal energy technologies are
often too expensive, time consuming, or risky for industry to
take to scale. While I've seen the potential of geothermal
energy in my district of Oklahoma with our thriving geothermal
heat pumps industry, more work needs to be done to allow the
rest of the country to access the full power of this resource.
In order to effectively leverage these vast untapped energy
resources, the next generation of geothermal technologies and
techniques must become more efficient and less expensive for
American consumers. Fortunately, we are uniquely positioned to
prioritize the basic and early stage research that leads to
groundbreaking technology.
Federally funded research programs at the Department of
Energy (DOE) have a history of paving the way for industry
innovation. So I am pleased to see DOE and its Geothermal
Technologies Office taking the lead in this valuable science,
and to see them here today. It is critically important to our
clean energy future that they have the support they need to
pursue research that industry cannot undertake.
This is an issue that my draft bill, the Advanced
Geothermal Research and Development Act of 2019, will address.
This legislation will provide the DOE's Geothermal Technologies
Office with critical funding and program direction to enable
innovative research in advanced geothermal technologies,
strengthen the U.S. geothermal workforce, and encourage
international collaboration. More specifically, it will
authorize and expand the Department of Energy's early-stage
research in enhanced geothermal systems and the major
facilities needed to support this work.
Today we will hear about one of these facilities from Dr.
Joseph Moore, the manager of the Department's first Frontier
Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy (FORGE) field
site in Utah. This facility will provide U.S. researchers with
large-scale experimental capability to develop and test cutting
edge geothermal technologies and validate experimental models.
Using these tools, industry partners will be able to adapt
techniques developed in the field for commercial use across the
country. Dr. Moore, thank you for joining us today.
My bill will also authorize a new program in advanced
geothermal computing and data science research and development.
This will leverage DOE's best-in-the-world computational
capabilities to provide geothermal researchers with modeling
and simulation tools that will allow them to more accurately
model complex subsurface systems.
With these tools, industry can improve the next generation
of geothermal energy systems, using advanced designs to save
time and money in planning, and producing power more
efficiently with less impact on the environment. I believe this
bill is an excellent opportunity for bipartisan cooperation,
and I look forward to working with my friends across the aisle
moving forward.
We know that American industry has the resources to
successfully commercialize new technology - we've already seen
it happen with wind and solar. What they often lack is the
infrastructure to conduct early stage research and test new
technologies. This is where DOE, the National labs, and
academia can help, providing experimental facilities and
computational tools that will drive costs down and innovation
forward.
If we want to ensure a diverse portfolio of clean energy
technologies now and in the future, we in Congress should
prioritize this important fundamental research.
I want to thank you Chairman Lamb for holding this hearing,
and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about
the path forward for next generation clean energy technologies.
Chairman Lamb. OK. At this time I'd like to introduce our
witnesses. Dr. David Solan is the Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Renewable Power in the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy (EERE) at the U.S. Department of Energy. He
directs renewable energy applied research, development, and
demonstration activities for the Geothermal, Solar Energy,
Wind, and Water Power Technology Offices at EERE. He also
oversees EERE's energy system integration efforts. Previously
he was the Acting Executive Director and Principal Deputy
Director of the Office of Policy, as well as the Senior Advisor
in the Office of Science. Welcome, Doctor.
Dr. Bryson Robertson is the Co-Director of the Pacific
Marine Energy Center, and Associate Professor in Civil
Engineering at Oregon State University. He has a bachelor of
mechanical engineering from the University of Victoria, and a
Ph.D. in environmental engineering from the University of
Guelph. He has spent the better portion of the past 20 years
actively involved within the North American marine energy
market, energy systems, and coastal engineering sectors.
Dr. Joseph Moore is the Manager of the Utah Frontier
Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy, or FORGE. He
also holds appointments at the University of Utah as a Research
Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, and as an Adjunct Professor in the Department of
Geology and Geophysics. His expertise is in the geology,
hydrothermal alteration, and geochemistry of geothermal
systems, and his current research is focused on expanding
geothermal development through the creation of enhanced
geothermal systems.
Ms. Maria Richards is the Director of the Geothermal
Laboratory in the Roy M. Huffington Department of Earth
Sciences at Southern Methodist University. She was the
President of the Geothermal Resources Council in 2018. Her
current research focuses on the use of temperature well logs
for understanding climate change, the transition of oil fields
into geothermal production, and low-temperature geothermal
applications, such as district heating for commercial
buildings.
Mr. Sander Cohan directs North American Innovation for Enel
Green Power North America, Inc. He has over 15 years of
experience in the energy sector, specializing in innovation and
emerging and alternative energy technologies. He has served as
chief project director and manager for technology projects in
diverse areas, such as energy storage, microgrids, and smart
grid technology, predictive analytics, geothermal energy,
hybrid renewables, and marine energy.
Again, I know many of you came from far away today to be
with us, so we really appreciate that. As you know, you will
have 5 minutes for your spoken testimony. Your written
testimony will be included in the record. When you've all
completed your spoken testimony, we will begin with questions.
Each Member will have 5 minutes to question the panel. We will
start with Dr. David Solan.
TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID SOLAN,
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR RENEWABLE POWER,
OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Dr. Solan. Thank you. Chairman Lamb, Ranking Member Weber,
and Members of the Energy Subcommittee, thank you for inviting
me to testify today on the opportunities and challenges of
geothermal and water power technologies, and the activities
that the U.S. Department of Energy is undertaking to help
secure America's future through energy independence and
scientific innovation. My name is David Solan, and I am the
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Renewable Power in the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, or EERE. I direct
renewable energy applied research, development, and
demonstration activities there. Today I will be discussing the
valuable work underway in two of our technology offices: The
Geothermal Technologies Office, or GTO, and the Water Power
Technologies Office, WPTO. I will also highlight several
announced and upcoming activities at the Department.
GTO conducts R&D to reduce cost and risks associated with
geothermal development by supporting innovative technologies
that address key exploration and deployment barriers. The U.S.
is the world leader in installed geothermal capacity. As an
always-on energy source that harnesses the Earth's natural
heat, geothermal energy provides base load power with the
flexibility to ramp on and off. Geothermal power plants can
also provide essential grid services, and operate in a load-
following mode, helping to support reliability and flexibility
in the U.S. grid, and ultimately facilitating a diverse,
secure, and resilient energy mix. Geothermal energy can be used
in three technology areas: The first generating electricity;
the second providing residential and commercial heating and
cooling using geothermal heat pumps; and the third direct use
applications that can provide district scale heating solutions,
as well as a wide array of commercial and industrial
applications where process heat is required.
In May 2019 the Department released its GeoVision Analysis,
a multi-year collaboration among DOE and its stakeholders to
evaluate the potential for different geothermal resources. It
assessed opportunities to expand U.S. geothermal energy
deployment through 2050 by improving technologies, reducing
costs, and addressing project development barriers, such as
long permitting timelines. GTO's flagship initiative, the
Frontier Observatory for Research and Geothermal Energy, known
as FORGE, heads the list of activities called out in the
GeoVision roadmap. FORGE is a dedicated site to develop, test,
and accelerate breakthroughs in enhanced geothermal systems,
technologies, and techniques. It is now finishing the second of
three phases, with the third slated to start later this fall.
Turning to WPTO, it works with National laboratories,
industry, universities, and other Federal agencies to conduct
R&D activities through competitively selected projects. It is
pioneering efforts in both marine energy and hydropower
technologies to improve performance, lower cost, and,
ultimately, support our ability to meet evolving energy
demands.
Hydroelectric power is the leading renewable energy source
in the U.S., accounting for 7 percent of utility-scale electric
generation in 2018. Conventional and pump storage hydropower
are stable power sources that are also flexible enough to
smooth out fluctuations between electric generation and demand,
as they have large reservoirs of fuel, that is water, to fill
any gaps in generation at a moment's notice. This stability and
flexibility supports the deployment and integration of more
variable renewable resources, such as wind and solar.
Hydropower and pump storage fit in extremely well with the
Department's activities in the Grid Modernization Initiative,
or the GMI. Just last week we announced $80 million for new
laboratory call projects. This is the latest solicitation
released by the GMI, a cross-cutting DOE effort to develop new
tools and technologies that measure, analyze, predict, protect,
and control the grid of the future.
In addition to critical R&D efforts in hydroelectric power,
WPTO leads the way in evaluating new sources of marine and
hydrokinetic energy, such as predictable waves, currents,
tides, and ocean thermal resources. WPTO is investing in this
new and innovative industry, a nascent technology sector that
can contribute to our Nation's energy independence, and which
is highlighted in WPTO's report: Powering the Blue Economy,
published earlier this year.
In addition, as we speak, EERE's Assistant Secretary,
Daniel Simmons, is participating at the White House summit on
partnerships in ocean science and technology. Later this
afternoon, or as we speak, he will announce exciting
developments in two new water technology prizes.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the
Subcommittee today. DOE appreciates the ongoing bipartisan
efforts to address our Nation's energy challenges, and looks
forward to working with the Committee on the bills in the
future. I would be happy to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Solan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Lamb. Thank you. Dr. Robertson?
TESTIMONY OF DR. BRYSON ROBERTSON,
CO-DIRECTOR, PACIFIC MARINE ENERGY CENTER,
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, CIVIL AND CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEERING, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Robertson. Chairman Lamb and Ranking Member Weber,
thank you for the opportunity to testify today. In my testimony
I'll address three things: First, the domestic marine energy
opportunity; second, the strategic important of--importance of
investment in innovation to spur the domestic marine energy
technology sector; and finally, the importance of the Water
Power Research and Development Act of 2019 for realizing the
marine sector's potential.
First, what is the marine energy opportunity? It
encompasses energy in waves, tides, currents, rivers, salinity,
and temperature differentials. Recent resource assessments
quantify the U.S. wave resource at approximately 3,500 terawatt
hours, the tidal resource at 450 terawatt hours, the ocean
current at an additional 200, and the river at an additional
150, providing a cumulative total of 4,300 terawatt hours. To
provide perspective, the current U.S. electricity demand is 41
terawatt hours, so less than the total resource. As such,
marine energy has the as yet untapped potential to provide
significant and needed renewable electricity resources for the
U.S. grid. These resources would enhance a suite of renewable
resources currently helping drive the U.S. transition from
fossil fuels to renewable electricity generation.
Of further economic interest to the U.S., marine energy
offers a number of competitive advantages, and opportunities
within the emerging blue economy. According to the OECD's
(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's) 26th
report, blue economy related industries and activities
contribute more than $1.5 trillion in value added to the
economy each year, and that value is expected to double by
2030. Marine energy is both part of this new economy and plays
a linchpin role in providing the necessary power for innovation
in the remaining spaces. To this end, the U.S. Department of
Energy's Water Power Technologies Office recently released its
Powering the Blue Economy initiative, which details specific
near-term opportunities for marine energy. These include
powering oceanographic measurement devices, recharging
underwater autonomous vehicles, renewably powering offshore
aquaculture facilities, desalinating water, and powering remote
isolated communities.
It is important to understand and underscore that a
principle challenge in achieving the marine energy resource
potential is the inconvenient fact that the technology
commercialization pathway takes longer and costs more than
terrestrial counterparts. That said, for the U.S. to capture
the benefits of the marine energy resources, the level of
Federal investment in early-stage marine energy technology and
innovation must at least increase in line with comparative
technology investments in our other renewable resources. Water
power investment, including marine energy and hydropower, has
consistently been 3- to 4-times lower than solar. This is
despite the early stage of marine energy technologies, and the
widely acknowledged importance of Federal investment at this
stage of innovation to spur economic development.
Thanks to the efforts of Congress over the past several
years, the U.S. is starting to make significant and strategic
investments in the Department of Energy's Water Power
Technology Office to support research, development, and the
commercial viability of a domestic marine energy sector.
Looking forward, the Water Power Research and Development Act
of 2019 is essential to providing a strategic direction, and
authorizing the sustained funding necessary to accelerate the
development of a domestic marine energy industry. Unlike wind
and solar, marine energy technology developers do not currently
benefit from any tech support mechanisms, such as the
investment tax credit or the production tax credit. Funding
from the DOE WPTO is the key, and only, mechanism to support
U.S. technology developers competing against overseas companies
that receive sweeter subsidies.
Finally, as a faculty member at an institution of higher
education, I wish to close with a focus on the urgent need to
educate and train the next generation of energy leaders and
maritime innovators. As the world becomes increasingly
interconnected and resource stressed, it is the important role
of universities, colleges, and training programs to develop the
talentbase and workforce who understand the technological,
environmental, and social codependencies needed for true
innovation. This workforce is required now. It is my hope that
the Water Power Research and Development Act of 2019 will
provide the fundamental building blocks to ensure that we are
able to create this next generation workforce.
I thank the Subcommittee for your efforts to consider the
opportunity to associate with the thriving marine energy
industry in the U.S., and with that, I'm happy to answer
questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Robertson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Lamb. Thank you. Dr. Moore?
TESTIMONY OF DR. JOSEPH MOORE,
MANAGER, UTAH FRONTIER OBSERVATORY FOR RESEARCH
IN GEOTHERMAL ENERGY (FORGE), RESEARCH PROFESSOR,
UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Dr. Moore. Good afternoon, Chairman Lamb, Ranking Member
Weber, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. My name
is Joseph Moore. I represent the University of Utah's Energy
and Geoscience Institute. I'm honored to appear before you
today to discuss Project FORGE, an innovative geothermal energy
research project funded by the Department of Energy in the
State of Utah.
The thermal energy beneath our feet is enormous. Some of
this energy reaches the surface naturally through hot springs,
like those found in Virginia, Arkansas, and Wyoming, but this
is only a tiny fraction of the available energy. If we could
capture even 2 percent of the thermal energy at depths between
2 and 6 miles, we would have more than 2,000 times the yearly
amount of energy used in the U.S.
Natural geothermal systems require a source of heat, water
to transfer the heat, and permeability to allow the water to
carry the heat upward. Although we can drill deep enough to
reach temperatures suitable for electric generation anywhere in
the world, and inject water to transfer the heat, most areas
don't have sufficient natural permeability to circulate water
at the depths we require.
Attempts to create enhanced, or engineered, geothermal
systems were initiated by the Los Alamos National Laboratory in
the late 1970s. More than a dozen attempts to create reservoirs
by hydraulic stimulation followed worldwide, but none created
commercial-scale reservoirs capable of producing more than a
couple of megawatts of electricity. The Frontier Observatory
for Research in Geothermal Energy, or FORGE, was envisioned to
be an underground field laboratory where new technologies for
enhanced geothermal system reservoir creation and operation
could be developed. The Utah FORGE site was one of five
locations in Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and California
originally considered for the laboratory.
The granite rocks at the Utah site are representative of
the geologic environments at many locations across the U.S.,
thus reservoir creation in Utah can provide a template for
enhanced geothermal system development elsewhere. The site is
located on State land near three conventional geothermal
plants: A wind farm, a solar field, and a biogas facility. Can
you think of a better place to create an enhanced geothermal
system? I can't.
DOE has obligated nearly $125 million to Utah FORGE for FY
2020 to 2024. Fifty percent of the funds will be utilized for
research. The remainder will be used for field operations and
drilling. The technologies that will be developed are not
limited to enhanced geothermal systems. New stimulation and
drilling technologies will also improve the productivity in
conventional geothermal systems and high temperature oil and
gas plays by reducing the number of wells that must be drilled.
In 2020 we will begin full deployment of the Utah FORGE
laboratory. The centerpiece of the laboratory will be a pair of
deep wells into rock with temperatures of 400 to 450+ F. One of
the wells will be for injection, the other for production. The
second well will be completed in FY 2023. Testing and
demonstrated commerciality of enhanced geothermal systems will
occur in the following 18 months. At the end of 2024, Utah
FORGE will decommission the site, plug and abandon the wells,
and bring the drill pads back to their original grade.
The Utah FORGE site is a unique publicly owned and operated
laboratory, and an essential stepping stone to commercial
enhanced geothermal system development. Maintenance of the site
beyond 2024 will provide a facility where new technologies can
be tested at low cost in an ideal enhanced geothermal system
environment. No alternative facilities currently exist in the
U.S., and none are envisioned at this time. We strongly urge
the Committee Members to continue their support of Utah FORGE
and enhance geothermal system development in the U.S.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on Project FORGE.
I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Moore follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Lamb. Thank you. Ms. Richards?
TESTIMONY OF MS. MARIA RICHARDS,
DIRECTOR, GEOTHERMAL LABORATORY,
ROY M. HUFFINGTON DEPARTMENT OF EARTH SCIENCES,
SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY
Ms. Richards. Chairman Lamb, Ranking Member Weber, and
Members of the Committee and staff, it is an honor for me to be
here today, speaking with you. My name is Maria Richards, and I
am the SMU (Southern Methodist University) Geothermal Lab
Director. As a geothermal researcher, university program
coordinator, and past president of the Geothermal Resources
Council, I'll share with you ways to grow our country's ability
to find innovative methods which use this Nation's geothermal
base for a more resilient and diversified electric grid, plus a
cleaner environment for generations to come.
The House bill is similar to the Senate bill, the Advanced
Geothermal Innovation Leadership Act, the AGIL Act, so I'll be
referencing that today in my talk. It tells you what is
helpful, but does not tell you why it's important. Using my 25
years of geothermal experience, I will provide background on
increasing our usage of geothermal resources, building projects
connecting industries, and the significance of university
research and outreach.
The National Renewable Energy Lab's GeoVision Study
provides a road map from today's western U.S. geothermal power
production of 3.6 gigawatts to a deployment across our country
of 60 gigawatts by 2050. It also estimates two million homes
are heated and cooled by geothermal heat pumps today, with this
number increasing to 28 million homes by 2050. That's 30 years
away, yet now is the time to act because geothermal power
plants, they take 7 to 10 years from conception to production,
and even having enough installers for the geothermal heat pumps
and their growth require time for local companies to grow and
train employees. And to help create momentum for geothermal
heat pumps, please support House Bill 3961, the Renewable
Energy Extensions Act of 2019.
Surprisingly, it is the oil and gas industry who
comprehends the volume of untapped heat and fluid sitting idle,
just waiting to be extracted. Oil and gas colleagues share how
geothermal energy is considered their safety net because of how
giant it is as a resource. We've learned the two industries are
definitely different, yet complementary. The SMU Geothermal Lab
is known for our outreach and bridge building conferences.
These conferences bridge the geothermal industry with oil and
gas, waste heat to power, desalinization, heat storage, and
district energy systems, plus we've examined ways to cool and
inlet temperatures of natural gas plants, and how to transition
a coal plant to geothermal power.
Currently there are no technologies able to use the 150 to
185+ low-temperature produced fluids from our productive shale
plays. The Southwest Research Institute is working with a small
company to get to market a technology that could generate
electricity from these produced fluids, and it could assist
many States. Yet it may not come to fruition. Over the past 15
years it has been exciting for me to participate as new
technologies enter the market, only to learn the company is out
of funds before a proper demonstration. The funding of small
tech companies in small-scale, low-temperature demonstrations
in our sedimentary basins, is a strong next step. These are
plug and play, easy to adapt technologies to include if the
United States is going to achieve widely sourced geothermal
power from sedimentary basins.
The House Bill and the AGIL Act are funding--arriving at a
critical juncture for universities. It is a resource assessment
allocation for the USGS (United States Geological Survey), yet,
as Dr. Robertson mentioned, universities are important
components of this. We have been the lead in collecting and
assessing these data for decades. A broader initiative will
provide essential funding for keeping faculty and researchers
in geothermal exploration, while training students. Founding
researchers in heat flow and geothermal resources are either
already retired, or in retirement age. A geothermal fellowship
program is another step, as part of training the next
generation. Funding universities now is of utmost importance to
preserve the greater technology transfer and knowledge in
keeping us a world leader in the geothermal energy.
The DOE's ability to fund universities, National labs, and
companies allows all of us to work together in finding
innovation, which shifts from the United States as a fossil
fuel-dependent country to partnerships between industries, and
a win-win-win for the fossil fuel industry, the geothermal and
other renewable industries, and the public. Through Congress'
consistent yearly funding, the geothermal industry can reach
its full potential. Thank you for this opportunity to testify
today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Richards follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Lamb. Thank you. And Mr. Cohan?
TESTIMONY OF MR. SANDER COHAN,
DIRECTOR, INNOVATION,
ENEL GREEN POWER NORTH AMERICA, INC.
Mr. Cohan. Chairman Lamb, Ranking Member Weber, and all
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate and
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My
name is Sander Cohan. I lead innovation efforts for Enel Green
Power North America. I am part of a team within the Enel group
to lead the deployment and commercialization of new energy
technologies.
I'm pleased to provide testimony in support of continued
U.S. programs to foster geothermal and water technology R&D. As
a longtime advocate for these technologies, Enel's innovation
group focuses on issues of market deployment helping new ideas
cross the so-called commercialization valley of death. As a
company, we are interested in both incremental innovations that
can improve existing technologies, and disruptive innovations
that create entirely new opportunities. What is important to
realize, that, instead of delivering on corporate venture
capital, our mission is to serve as a catalyst and driver of
energy innovation as an invention's first large industrial
partner. The reason why I'm here today is that the programs
described in the proposed legislation create the necessary
preconditions to realize this mission. Without support from
government, National laboratories, and inspiring startups, the
full economic and social benefit and impact of geothermal and
marine technology would remain out of reach.
To give more context, the Enel Group is a multinational
energy company, and one of the largest integrated electricity
and gas operators. Enel Green Power North America, based in
Massachusetts, is one of the largest and fastest growing
renewable energy companies in the United States. To date we
manage over 100 renewable energy plants in 24 U.S. States, with
a capacity of just over 5 gigawatts, leveraging wind, solar,
hydroelectric, and, of course, geothermal and marine. The
company is currently the largest wind operator in Kansas, and
the second largest in Oklahoma.
With regard to geothermal and water power, Enel has a
history of innovation in both. Italy is a birthplace of
geothermal energy, with the development of the first commercial
geothermal facility in Larderello, Italy more than 100 years
ago. Today, in the U.S., we own and operate three binary cycle
geothermal plants, distilled water and salt wells facilities in
Nevada, and the Cove Fort plant in Utah, part of a global
geothermal fleet that spans four continents. Enel's experience
in water power, specifically ocean energy, is more recent. In
the same way Enel manages a competency in geothermal, we also
maintain a similar competency in marine energy research and
development on both wave and tidal streams. Marine energy is a
younger technology than geothermal, and the projects we have
are largely in the development phase. Enel Green Power is
focused on supporting companies to create and deploy
foundational technologies to capture the energy produced by
ocean waves. For example, we were one of the lead industrial
partners in the Marine Energy Innovation and Research Center in
Santiago, Chile.
Looking forward, Enel's current innovation slate for
geothermal through 2021 contains budget for roughly 15 new
projects. This pipeline contains a broad range of technologies,
from ways to streamline and improve plant operations, to data,
analytics, and methods to evaluate and process seismic data, to
hardware intensive activities, such as new drilling methods,
and investment in, and support of, enhanced geothermal systems,
such as those being tested at FORGE. In the United States, Enel
continues to leverage its presence as a geothermal operator to
improve the state of technology and increase its economic
value. Three projects highlight our ongoing and future
commitment: Our Stillwater Triple Hybrid Plant that contains
geothermal, photovoltaic, and solar thermal technologies; our
Cove Fort Plant that contains hydroelectric and geothermal; and
our recent commitment to the University of Utah's Earth and
Geosciences Institute.
This is a way of saying that continued Federal funding in
support of research, development, and deployment efforts is
important. As Enel and other developers work to expand the
footprint of geothermal energy, fundamental investment in
scientific capital is essential to overcome substantial
challenges. In order to remain competitive with other renewable
energy sources, and serve as a viable resources, the programs
being discussed today in today's hearing are essential. As a
developer of technology, Enel's focus would be to expand and
deploy these inventions, enhance geothermal systems, minerals
recovery, and hybrid systems fostered under the investment made
through this policy. Marine energy also deserves attention.
Though my colleagues and I agree that more work is required,
especially in the establishment of open ocean marine. These are
key to bridging the gap between smaller scale university and
naval sites and the commercial market.
In conclusion, successful energy innovations are difficult
to realize, especially ones like geothermal and water power
technologies, they rely on require the development of new
infrastructure, and the construction of capital-intensive hard
assets. They require intense cooperation throughout the entire
value chain, originating in fundamental research and
development programs like the ones today to initiate the
process of technology transfer, and continuing through the
process of technology deployment and commercialization. My
team, and the rest of Enel Green Power, look forward to
cooperating with this network of government programs, National
laboratories, and industry and related fields, especially oil
and gas, to lower the cost of deployment, and realize
geothermal and marine's full potential.
Thank you again for allowing me this opportunity. My
comments today and submitted testimony just begin to address
this topic, and I look forward to fielding your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cohan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Lamb. Thank you very much. We'll begin with our
first round of questions, and I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Dr. Solan, there's been increasing discussion on our
Committee all year, and back in Western Pennsylvania, where I
represent, about emissions from the industrial and heavy
manufacturing sectors, you know, sort of apart from the grid
itself, and how we start to tackle some of those problems. So I
was curious, is DOE's Geothermal Office looking at this problem
at all, and how you could provide heat for sort of very serious
heavy manufacturing, whether it's steel or other similar
processes?
Dr. Solan. We are. The Geothermals Office has actually
started a program for looking at feasibility of deep direct use
for industrial heat processes. So we have a number of studies
that represent a number of use cases in a diversity of regions
around the U.S. I believe that there's six or so, and I think
two are in the Appalachian Basin. So they're looking at various
processes, and trying to take a look at innovation in these
areas. So whether it's agriculture, or a little bit higher
temperature processes, but still low temperature for industrial
processes in east Texas. We are just finishing those up, and
the Appropriations Committees have taken an interest in doing
an eventual demonstration, but we're not quite at demonstration
stage yet, so we are also looking at opportunities in more
design engineering as a possible next step.
Chairman Lamb. Is there any particular industry, or sector,
or type of manufacturing, that would be the most promising from
the early studies?
Dr. Solan. That I would have to get back to you on, but I
know agriculture, paper drying, these are the types of
activities that a number have looked at, especially with the
low temperature at this point.
Chairman Lamb. OK. Are you coordinating with the Advanced
Manufacturing Office on any of that, or do you know if they're
engaged in this same line of activity.
Dr. Solan. In these activities, I don't believe so. I'd
have to get back to you. But we are engaged with the Advanced
Manufacturing Office (AMO) with geothermal on a number of
activities, one of which is with AMO and the Critical Materials
Institute with opportunities to harvest lithium from geothermal
brines. That's an area. And we are also in discussions with
them on taking a look at advanced manufacturing for specific
geothermal mechanisms and parts, et cetera. So we're taking a
look at that as well.
Chairman Lamb. OK. Thanks. Ms. Richards, you highlighted
the possibility of retrofitting aging coal plants for
geothermal. Has that been tried anywhere, or is it more sort of
in the idea phase? Could you just kind of elaborate on that a
little bit?
Ms. Richards. Yes. The idea of transitioning a coal plant
to geothermal is the ability to do it over a long period of
time, so it'd be 5 to 10 years, most likely, and the best cases
have started to be looked at. Primarily Susan Petty is the
person who's spearheading this, and she has looked at, and her
team, at ones in Oregon and Washington, and then also in Texas,
because of our aging Texas coal plants. And what we have
focused on in Texas was the idea that we could overlap with the
oil and gas industry, and their wells. And the idea is that you
would use the same--they already have water, they have
infrastructure, they have the turbines, they have a workforce.
And so the goal would be--is to use that same workforce, re-
train them, and use the same grids, and things like that, and
slowly transition from electric power from coal to geothermal
being the power source.
Chairman Lamb. Do you know sort of where on the spectrum
they are toward a demonstration-type activity, or----
Ms. Richards. Susan has talked with people in Montana as
well, so there's a coal plant in Oregon that has been--
specifically been in discussion with her. So those are the two
States that have been closest to discussing it. So in terms of
the blueprints that would be getting to that point, I would
need to go back to her and give you more information.
Chairman Lamb. Great, thanks. And just wanted to ask one
question for the group. I don't know if Dr. Solan would be the
one, or anyone, but I'm curious about hydropower as it gets
built onto existing infrastructure. I think a lot of us, given
the difficulty of getting infrastructure legislation through,
are skeptical about truly large-scale dams in a lot of parts of
the country. But in Pittsburgh, for example, on the Allegheny
River, the University of Pittsburgh has helped develop adding
hydropower capacity to an existing lock and dam that we have on
the river. And it's small, but it's going to supply about a
quarter of the electricity for the University. Are you aware of
other efforts underway to do similar things like this on our
existing infrastructure?
Dr. Solan. Yes. There's actually about 80,000 unpowered
dams that provide a great opportunity. Even if we could do just
a small number of those, or a small percentage, it would
actually provide a lot, in terms of reliability and resiliency.
So we are doing activities in these areas. WPTO actually looks
at, in a couple areas, low head hydro, standard modular hydro.
So these are the type of the areas where, if you put in
smaller, modular, cheaper turbines, and--it would make a lot of
sense because in the past--hydro's an interesting industry,
because when dams were built a very long time ago, if it was
for power, folks just optimized it to deliver as much energy as
possible, and then they thought about the environment after
that. Now that we're looking at in stream reaches and low head,
we're actually trying to design it as an integrative function
across all the needs that you need to meet. Instead of making
it unique to one situation and one spot, as we did many years
ago, to get that last kilowatt hour out of every project.
For the most part, a standard modular design would work
many different places, and it would actually bring the cost
down a lot, so we expend a lot of activities in that particular
area.
Chairman Lamb. Great. Thank you, and I'm out of time. I'll
recognize Mr. Weber for 5 minutes.
Mr. Weber. Well, where do we start? Thank you. I'm going to
go back to you, Deputy Assistant Secretary Solan, for a minute.
As you mentioned in your prepared remarks, the future of the
electric power grid may look very different than it does today.
Do I recall correctly there are nine grids in this country,
electric grids? Do you know that number?
Dr. Solan. I don't. It depends on how you define the--
whether it's reliability, or organization area, or
interconnections, but there's a lot of different market
structures, and--whether it's regional, transmissional, or----
Mr. Weber. I'm thinking there's nine grids, and, of course,
Texas----
Dr. Solan. Um-hum.
Mr. Weber [continuing]. Has ERCOT, Electric Reliability
Council of Texas----
Dr. Solan. Right.
Mr. Weber [continuing]. Which is about 85 percent of the
State's in its own grid. So you say that it's going to look
very different, however, no matter how those grids evolve, we
understand that many of today's challenges will still be there
in the future, meaning we will still need to address grid
flexibility. You said connectability, how you define a grid,
and I would add variability, while we want to ensure the
reliability and the affordability of energy resources. So, as
we seek to decarbonize the electric power sector, we will need
to advance a diversity of clean energy resources in order to
encourage the development of innovative energy technology,
while ensuring at the same time minimal cost increases for
American consumers, you follow me? OK. I'm getting to my
question.
As the Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of
Renewable Power, how do you propose to balance all of these?
First we have to define those grids. How do you balance those,
affordability, reliability, all at the same time?
Dr. Solan. So the--for--Assistant Secretary Simmons has
made one of his three core pillars on affordability, so
everything that we do is trying to bring the cost down, and the
efficiency. I mentioned the GMI before. This is one of the
efforts that we're doing to make sure that the grid is both
reliable and resilient, and that we're bringing costs down to
make it more affordable as we move forward. But the grid is
definitely transitioning over time, and how we use electricity,
the system's becoming--the need for flexibility and speed is a
lot greater than----
Mr. Weber. Is absolutely increasing. How often do you
coordinate with the Advanced Research Projects Agency Energy,
ARPA-E, in your work with the Geothermal Technologies Office
and the Water Power Technologies Office? Do you get to
coordinate with them?
Dr. Solan. Yes, we do. Actually, for each area, the ARPA-E
has actually had some calls related to enhanced geothermal
systems, with the input of the Geothermal Office, to make sure
that the space that they were in was complementary to the work
that we were doing, and all of our applied research offices in
renewable power actually worked directly with ARPA-E on those,
and in many cases we actually sit on each other's panels.
Mr. Weber. And the Office of Science as well?
Dr. Solan. The Office of Science--we do a lot on the
storage area, which does include hydro. We do a lot in EERE
generally to do with battery chemistries, so that's not only in
renewable power, but that's also in the Vehicle Technologies
Office as well. But we also work on that with grid storage. So
that's Assistant Secretary Simmons' second pillar, is on
storage.
Mr. Weber. OK. I'm going to jump over to you, Dr. Moore. In
your prepared testimony you highlight the various conditions of
your research site that make it an ideal location for DOE's
first FORGE field laboratory. So how unique are these
conditions, number one, and the second question, in your
opinion, how important is it for this kind of experimental
geothermal facility to represent general geologic conditions
across the entire country?
Dr. Moore. The DOE established five criteria for an ideal
enhanced geothermal system. One was temperatures of 175 to 225
Celsius degrees at 1-1/2 to 4 kilometers. The second was the
rock type should be granite. Third was no environmental issues.
Fourth was low seismicity, and fifth was no connection to an
existing system, so a Greenfield system. We looked at sites
across the country, and Utah is not unique. Granite is the
country rock. Here's an example of one, what it might look
like, and the permeable fracture in it. Granite is found across
the country. In fact, I would suggest that we could drill here,
beneath our feet, to find conditions that are similar. Probably
drill a little deeper, but we would find very similar
conditions here.
Mr. Weber. Mr. Chairman, I have about 17 more questions,
but I guess I'd better yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Lamb. And only 15 more seconds, which is a shame.
Mr. Weber. I know.
Chairman Lamb. Now recognize Mr. McNerney for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the Chairman. I thank the witnesses.
I really liked your testimony. It's encouraging, it's positive.
Thank you for that. Dr. Robertson, you mentioned a capacity
potential for 4,300 terawatt hours. That's per year, right?
Dr. Robertson. Yes, that's correct.
Mr. McNerney. And how much of that is marine power?
Dr. Robertson. All of those would sit within the sort of
broader space of marine power. Wave would account for about 80
percent of that. The numbers were, if I can bring them back
up----
Mr. McNerney. Well, I was kind of driving at a question.
How much impact would that have on the coast, if you took that
much energy out of the waves and the----
Dr. Robertson. Goodness, this is, like, a bulk resource.
It's not feasible to block the whole coastline to generate that
much electricity, so it's really about finding locations where
you understand the implications of the other economic
activities that are happening in that location. In the State of
Oregon, and the test facility we are building there with Oregon
State University, we've had extensive engagement with the crab
fishery, the Dungeness crab fishery. So you have to account for
all these. It's a large marine special planning exercise to try
and identify high priority locations, and use those as your
first deployment sites.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Dr. Moore, talking about injection
and production of geothermal, how about the wastewater? How
does the wastewater production from geothermal compare with the
wastewater production from fracking, for example?
Dr. Moore. These are completely two different processes. In
a fracking environment, water is produced, along with oil and
gas, and that water has to be removed, it can't be reinjected.
So, in the oil and gas industry, that water is taken somewhere
else and injected into rocks that are already saturated with
water. And occasionally some of those fractures in the basement
will slip, and we have earthquakes. Geothermal doesn't have
wastewater. We inject, and we produce. So, in a natural
geothermal system, the water is already present in fractures
like these. That water is produced, and then it is re-injected
back into the reservoir. In fact, by law it's----
Mr. McNerney. So you re-use the wastewater.
Dr. Moore. Yes. It's renewable in that----
Mr. McNerney. All right. Thank you. Ms. Richards, what
about some of the extra benefits of this wastewater? For
example, in Southern California, there's efforts to couple
geothermal with critical mineral production.
Ms. Richards. Yes. In fact, the lithium industry, there's a
company from Australia who is working on the largest geothermal
power plant that will exist in the United States just to
extract lithium. So there's a lot of production there. The
wastewater, though, also in our sedimentary basins, has a huge
opportunity for us to gather heat, and create small distributed
energy systems, as well as larger EGS systems. So even in the
central United States, this wastewater has opportunity to be
productive.
Mr. McNerney. OK. Thank you. What about the role geothermal
plays in base load, and providing additional grid storage? What
are some of the benefits of that part of geothermal energy?
Ms. Richards. So, with storage--and solar makes a lot of
heat, and so--but if it's at night, it gets cool, so the goal
is to take that hot solar fluid that--solar can heat fluid.
That fluid is then put into wells, such as abandoned oil and
gas wells. Those wells then become a storage which contains
that heat, that then is brought back to the surface, and then
is used during the day for needs--for the grid, or to offset
the solar.
Mr. McNerney. OK. Dr. Robertson, you highlighted in your
testimony the need to educate and train the next generation of
energy technicians and engineers, and so I couldn't agree more.
What role can our universities play to enhance that situation,
to improve that situation?
Dr. Robertson. Thank you for that question. That is the
fundamental role of the universities, and the colleges, and our
training programs across the country, to do that. You know, we
facilitate the workforce that goes into our fantastic National
labs, and into the governments, and into our private companies,
and it is our role to take young raw talent, educate them,
teach them to be innovators in that space, and then put them
into these different companies or institutions. And in the
marine energy space, there is no lack of interest in those new
recruits. Fundamentally our issue generally is funding to do
the research and the training to put them through so they can
do it, so we can put them into the labs, put them into
companies, and put them into government.
Mr. McNerney. So Federal grants, and so on, are very
important in that process?
Dr. Robertson. Exceptionally important. Both the grants and
the vision associated with them so that we can make sure we
attract and maintain the best faculty members within the
universities to focus their research enterprise in this space
so that they aren't attracted by something else where there is
research and investment, so----
Mr. McNerney. Thank the Chairman for the indulgence, yield
back.
Chairman Lamb. And recognize Mr. Baird for 5 minutes.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Chairman Lamb, and Ranking Member
Weber, and I want to thank all the witnesses for being here
today, and sharing your knowledge with this Committee, because
we're in a constant search for reliable, cost-effective sources
of energy. So I'm going to start with Ms. Richards. In your
prepared remarks, you described how expanded geothermal energy
generation could benefit rural communities, and ease the
pressure placed on cooperative electric facilities. District 1,
that I represent in Indiana's Fourth congressional District, is
largely rural. So could you expand on how increased geothermal
energy generation could benefit these rural districts, and our
rural cooperatives?
Ms. Richards. Yes. Geothermal, because it's everywhere--as
Joe said, it's right below us even, right here, has the ability
to build small or large, depending on the high-temperature or
low-temperature resource that is there, but then to either
build electricity, or offset the need for electricity through
something as basic as a geothermal heat pump for a home, or a
building, or a school. But it also has the ability to then
stabilize the grid with distributed, and with the storage of--
like we talked about earlier. And so it's the idea that
through--especially sedimentary basins, and being in Illinois,
there's a sedimentary basin there that could be tapped into for
a distributed system.
Mr. Baird. So would any of the other witnesses care to
comment on that question about the impact in rural areas?
Dr. Robertson. I couldn't speak to the geothermal aspect of
that question, but I think it's important to highlight the
multitude of scales that both of these technologies can work
at, whether you're using a heat pump for a single community, or
whether you're developing a large scale facility to power an
electric grid, I think the same opportunities exist on the
water power technology side. There the DOE has funded a
fantastic project to put an in-stream hydrokinetic turbine in
Igiugig, Alaska to provide power to a community that's pretty
much inaccessible most of the winter, and 100 percent relying
on diesel generation. And these are the sorts of technologies
that you can create smaller scale and deploy for rural and
remote communities. Additionally, it's not just coastal
communities that also get to benefit from this. There are also
communities that are landlocked, through technology innovation.
Dr. Solan. So where there's current expression, and obvious
resources, for geothermal for conventional hydrothermal
systems, these tend to be in pretty rural areas. So these
provide important jobs for specific areas, whether it's in
parts of Wyoming, or Utah, or Idaho, like Raft River, or Neal
Hot Springs in eastern Oregon. These tend to be communities
where it's an important employer. And also it's an innovative
technology, so it does attract talent also from outside the
region.
Dr. Moore. May I follow along with a comment? FORGE Utah,
in fact, is located near a community of 1,400 people. We employ
the local residents. We employ the students at the local high
school. They're excited about renewables. They take that
information to their parents. We provide jobs for the
neighboring towns. So it's an important resource, and heat
pumps--in terms of rural communities, heat pumps are not
geologic-specific, and so they can be used anywhere, and they
are being used. Electric and direct use require population
centers, but, with enhanced geothermal systems, I think that's
a viable alternative for rural communities as well.
Mr. Baird. Thank you very much, and I yield back the rest
of my time.
Chairman Lamb. Thank you, and Mr. Foster for 5 minutes.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our
witnesses. As we put more renewables on the grid, that
obviously makes a bigger premium on energy storage, which is
something I've been worried about a lot. I'm proud to have
introduced what's called the Better Energy Storage Technology
Act (BEST Act), which now has 38 bipartisan co-sponsors. It
would reauthorize and reorient the DOE's grid scale storage,
research, development, and demonstration efforts around
ambitious technology goals to facilitate breakthroughs. And the
BEST Act directs the Secretary of Energy to establish moonshot
goals of up to five demonstrations of grid scale energy storage
that will meet aggressive commercialization targets for cost,
performance, and durability, and so I have several questions
about that.
First, could you elaborate on how you see the horse race
between the different things like pumped hydro, and so on, and
how they are going to compete against the rapidly falling
prices of batteries, for example, and where you think that's
going? Dr. Solan?
Dr. Solan. So right now hydro actually accounts for, in
pumped storage, 95 percent of our actual storage for the----
Mr. Foster. Currently the winner, right.
Dr. Solan [continuing]. Which a lot of people don't know,
but it's kind of taken for granted. It's also a great example,
thinking about how pumped storage operates, how the grid's
changing, because it used to be you'd pump the water at night,
when rates are low, and there wasn't much demand, and then, as
load ramped up during the day, and there was a peak, you'd let
the water down, and you'd produce some power. Now things are
changing, actually. So we have a couple studies that WPTO is
working on with Argonne National Laboratory to take a look at
some of these issues, and the preliminary results are actually
showing, from actual pumped storage facilities, that that's not
the way that they're necessarily operating anymore.
So, for example, in California, where there's a lot of
solar, and there's a lot of generation at certain points in the
day, it turns out that, for arbitrage, and, based on the rates,
that they might actually pump up during the day, and then have,
like, a sort of a head-and-shoulders pattern, where, as solar
comes down, then you start letting the hydro out. So it's
actually illustrating how the grid is changing as we get more
variable resources with that.
A lot of companies are looking at grid-scale storage in the
near term with lithium ion. It depends on what their targets
are, as you were saying, if you set different goals for
different, say, durations of power, or different materials. So
DOE Office of Electricity is actually looking at batteries that
are for grid scale, but don't necessarily use----
Mr. Foster. Yes. Well, the legislation we've introduced is
deliberately technology neutral. I was wondering how it was
likely to end up. And, you know, Ms. Richards, you mentioned
the idea of just pushing the heat back in the ground, and maybe
then cycling that, which is a concept I wasn't familiar with.
I'd presume that does not ramp on and off very rapidly, or does
it?
Ms. Richards. It could be done daily.
Mr. Foster. Daily, yes----
Ms. Richards. Right.
Mr. Foster [continuing]. But not when a cloud goes over the
solar array? It's not going to respond to that time scale, I
would assume?
Ms. Richards. I would agree with that. Yes.
Mr. Foster. So it may well be that optimized storage will
have a mixture of many technologies. Are pumped hydro--is that
essentially a mature technology, that turbines have been
designed by geniuses back in the 1930s----
Dr. Solan. There actually are some new types of designs
that are coming out, but a lot of this was built a long time
ago.
Mr. Foster. Yes.
Dr. Solan. And one thing that we're discovering on the
innovation side that is not necessarily on the actual power
production side, the Water Power Office sponsored a FAST Prize
to commission pumped storage hydro faster, and a couple of the
winners recently--they were actually tunneling and construction
companies who said, this is not the way we would do things
today. We could reduce the costs with these technologies that
we've been developing for different types of industries. So
that's where some of the innovation is heading.
Mr. Foster [continuing]. Underground reservoir is
potentially on flat areas, like the 11th District----
Dr. Solan. Yes, and there are some innovative sub-surface--
there's closed loop, which is not connected to natural hydro
systems.
Mr. Foster. OK. Dr. Moore, when I recall last looking at
enhanced geothermal, there were problems that were--the
development of hydraulic shorts between the injection and
production wells induced seismicity, corrosion of the produced
water causing lifetime problems, and then just the difficulty
of dumping the heat. You'd obviously need a nearby river, or
some sort of--you need a source of cold, as well as a source of
heat, to get your Carnot engine, what's the status of those?
Dr. Moore. We can take them one by one. In terms of the
thermodynamics, that's been resolved. We can use single flash,
double flash, multiple turbine systems for electric----
Mr. Foster. OK. I was referring to, you know, you have a
production injection and an extraction well, and that you'll
get one channel carrying all the burden, and you won't really
extract heat from the whole rock mass.
Dr. Moore. That's a potential problem, or a challenge, in
any geothermal system. We're looking at Utah FORGE in a
different way. Most of the--in fact, all of the EGS projects
prior to this have looked at large sections of open hole, and
tried to fracture those large sections, and in that case you
will tend to get a single fracture that controls fluid flow.
We're actually taking a step back and using oil and gas
technology. So, at the FORGE site, we'll be casing the well,
and then using isolation equipment to isolate small sections of
the well, stimulate those sections behind casing. In fact, we
had the first test in April. It was very successful. So this is
a mechanism to avoid that short circuiting.
Mr. Foster. OK. And, Mr. Chair, could I have another 30
seconds?
Chairman Lamb. Yes.
Mr. Foster. All right. Yes, so the corrosion for the rock
types you're looking at, is that not an issue?
Dr. Moore. Corrosion is not an issue in geothermal systems.
It tends to be a problem in the Salton Sea, with the solid
contents of 300 thousand parts per million plus, and the fluids
are acidic. In most geothermal systems, fluids are benign, and
corrosion is not an issue.
Mr. Foster. OK. And then, finally, the location, do you
need a river nearby to dump the heat? Or what is the cold
source of----
Dr. Moore. No, you can't dump the heat. This is a
recirculating system, and so the fluid that comes through the
turbine----
Mr. Foster. But you need a Carnot-cycle engine going from
hot to cold, and----
Ms. Richards. Actually, what I'm understanding is--in our
binary technology systems, that those systems have a hot and
cold side, and so the hot fluids coming out of the Earth go
back down, and get re-injected. But in order for the binary
surface part to be able to have that Carnot difference, you
have the cold source, which is either air cooled, or that's
where the river comes in, or the idea of some sort of water
source at the surface that is a cold--to create a difference in
temperature.
Mr. Foster. Right. OK.
Ms. Richards. But not at a large power plant.
Chairman Lamb. I may just have to stop you there so we can
recognize Ms. Bonamici, and thank you for your patience.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member, for allowing me to participate as a full Committee
Member, but not a Member of the Subcommittee. I am so glad I'm
here today. This is a great discussion. Thank you to the
witnesses. The ocean covers more than 70 percent of the surface
of our planet, and we know that the waves, and currents, and
tides can be used as a plentiful renewable resource. And as we
transition to a clean energy economy, we need to recognize that
potential of marine energy. According to the U.S. Department of
Energy, there's enough kinetic energy in waves and tides along
the U.S. coastlines to meet a significant part of our Nation's
power, and Dr. Robertson thank you for clarifying that in your
testimony--reinforcing that.
Oregon is at the front of marine energy, thank you for
recognizing that, with Dr. Robertson, you being here today, and
it's in large part because of the leadership of Oregon State
University, the Pacific Marine Energy Center, and pioneering
businesses like Vigor, one of our great shipbuilders in
Portland. Last month I had a chance to see the ocean energy
device Vigor built in collaboration with the Marine Energy
Center before it before it got tugged off into the Columbia
River, and it's on its way to the coast of Hawaii. It wasn't
until I was actually standing in front of it, and actually got
to climb onto it and explore it, that I understood and grasped
the scale of this resource, but also the potential.
Importantly, we can recognize that efforts to extract power
from moving water can be done without jeopardizing the
integrity of marine environments. And I know, from representing
the north coast of Oregon, we can get that done.
We know the potential of marine energy, and Federal
investment can help unlock it. I'm continuing to lead my
colleagues in advocating for robust funding for the Department
of Energy's Water Power Technologies Office. This funding
supports the leading research and development efforts at the
Pacific Marine Energy Center, but will also help efforts to
establish a wave energy test facility off the coast of Oregon.
I'm also pleased to be co-leading the Marine Energy Research
and Development Act with Congressman Deutch from Florida. Our
bill will accelerate the introduction of marine energy
production in the United States.
So, Dr. Robertson, you mentioned in your testimony--you
talked about how the development of marine energy technologies
is a challenge, so can you talk about the current barriers for
the demonstration of technologies, and how Congress can better
support these efforts to make sure that marine energy doesn't
fall within that commercialization valley of death? We want it
to be deployed at scale.
Dr. Robertson. Thank you very much for the question. I
think there's a host of ways that, through supportive funding,
and through collaborative efforts between the National labs,
the universities, and industry we're looking at these questions
of how do we avoid the valley of death, and how do we get at
some of the hurdles? So, first, working in the ocean is just
more expensive. You need to use vessels, you need to wait for
the waves to die down, you need to be able to access the ocean.
It's a lot more expensive than having a pickup truck, and
driving out into a field, and testing a wind turbine. It just
takes longer. There are seasonal effects as well. Off the coast
of Oregon, there is about 6 months of the year where we would
not be able to access it. So it does take longer to do this
innovation, but we are achieving significant successes, the
ocean energy buoy on its way to Hawaii being one of those
examples.
The development of the PacWave test facility off the coast
of Oregon is a significant step in that direction. It provides
a baseline, or an environmental impact, of marine energy. It
provides a final demonstration site for U.S. technology
developers to prove out their products before selling them into
the domestic market and internationally. It allows us to
compete with our European partners, who are also active in that
space. So it's a big part of the effort as we go along.
The other thing I think--one of the biggest hurdles we
continue to face in this space is going through the
environmental permitting process, but there are opportunities
of great collaboration. In that realm, I've got to acknowledge
the efforts of Dr. Andrew Copany of PNNL, the Pacific Northwest
National Lab, who writes, for the International Energy
Association's Ocean Energy Systems Report, ``State of
Science,'' where are we in this space, so that we can start to
work with regulators to accelerate the development----
Ms. Bonamici. I'm going to try to get another question in
the remaining time.
Dr. Robertson. Sorry.
Ms. Bonamici [continuing]. No, that's OK. I want to really
focus on how Congress can better support the development, but I
appreciate that you talked about the holistic view of the
development pathway. So what are the advantages of
partnerships, and, based on your understanding of the Water
Power Research and Development Act discussion draft----
Dr. Robertson. Um-hum.
Ms. Bonamici [continuing]. Are there additional resources
that the centers would need to thrive and compete with other
energy sources?
Dr. Robertson. Yes. You know, I think we have a great
collaborative model, with the Marine Energy Centers
representing the academic institutions, with the National labs
being actively involved. With the industry being part of the
sector, it's very collaborative. This isn't a competitive
industry. This is one where we all identify collaboration as
the only way for us to move forward.
I see one of the hurdles right now, as my previous comment
said, was training the workforce to enter these National labs,
enter these industries, so they can continue to thrive. We need
to make sure that the smartest, the brightest people end up in
the space, and drive the innovation pathway, and do it quickly.
So it's the combination of the training to get the people into
the industries, and providing the infrastructure to allow them
to test quicker, test cheaper, and test more rapidly.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. As a Member of the Education and
Labor Committee, we're working on that as well, from that
perspective. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
I yield back.
Chairman Lamb. Thank you very much. Mr. Cohan, in your
testimony you talked a little bit about the role that you all
play in investing technologies that have not been proven to
work as a first of a kind demonstration, but don't yet have the
capital and infrastructure to move beyond that. So I was kind
of hoping you could maybe elaborate for us a little bit on your
theory of where the government is best involved here, and where
it's not, particularly as you get closer toward demonstration
scale. What's the balance between government and private sector
involvement? Where have you seen us work well together, where
do you think we should be doing more, or just doing better?
Mr. Cohan. You know, I think that there are opportunities
all across the value chain. I think when we think about the
commercialization valley of death, and sort of the barriers to
commercialization, or the technology valley of death, it's
actually a series of mini-valleys. There's a series of pitfalls
all the way down and all the way back up that I think would
benefit from support from government services. I'm glad we're
discussing Vigor and the ocean energy device. I think they make
a good example.
Principally, I think there's a number of ways. One is, you
know, I think in terms of supporting programs for partnerships
between large industrials and startups, government has a larger
and broader view. But I think more importantly, government has
a way of supporting the groundwork for these things to happen.
So not just the development of technology, but development of
infrastructure around these technologies. The creation of, for
example, in the marine energy business, onshore heavy industry
to build the infrastructure to build offshore devices. I think
this is really important from an education standpoint, I think
it's important from a skills standpoint, and it's important
from a technology and infrastructure.
The ocean energy device, for example, is enormous. You
can't build that every day, and you can't build that in your
backyard. And so support for, you know, and then support for
that can come from any number of ways, from, you know, a loan
guarantee program to specific challenges and programs to focus
and develop industries around technological advancement.
Chairman Lamb. Do you think loan guarantees have proven to
be an effective method for enlarging some of these projects?
Mr. Cohan. They are a method I would say. I would say that,
you know, the idea here is not to specifically mandate a
technology, because I think there are different needs, and
different ways, and it's very hard for anybody to see in the
future, but I think the role here is to create the bandwidth,
and the environment, and the space for industries, and National
laboratories, and startups to work together. And so that can
be, you know, everything as light, as I said, you know, a water
power challenge, but it can also be specific programs to drive
partnerships into a marketplace, or create a marketplace in
industry.
Chairman Lamb. Thank you. That's very consistent with what
we've heard many times this year. And with that, I yield to Mr.
Weber for 5 minutes.
Mr. Weber. I thank the Chairman. 5 minutes is never going
to get it, but we'll start. To all the witnesses, when it comes
to advancements in water and geothermal power technologies, how
important, or have you considered is it important, the role of
international collaboration, first question. If so, who are our
main international collaborators in this space? And, third, who
are our competitors? Dr. Solan, I'll start with you.
Dr. Solan. That's a great question. In terms of geothermal,
we've actually been very active in working with New Zealand.
New Zealand's been helpful in supplying data for us to actually
do some machine learning AI (artificial intelligence) type
projects, and we have an agreement with them. But the
Geothermal Office is also working directly through Geothermica,
which is working with the EU, and essentially leveraging both
resources to provide some shared projects. So we've actually
been working with them, and they've been----
Mr. Weber. So is it important we've got collaboration with
those? Who's our competitors?
Dr. Solan. From what I understand, of course, China is
pursuing all areas of energy.
Mr. Weber. I'm sure they're going to convert their coal
plants to geothermal.
Dr. Solan. I did want to mention, though, also on the water
power side, they're very involved internationally, and we're
actually hosting, for the first time ever in the U.S., an
international conference next year related to marine and ocean
energy, and that's a great opportunity for the U.S. to show
leadership.
Mr. Weber. Let me jump over to Dr. Robertson. Is it
important, international collaboration?
Dr. Robertson. Without a doubt. It's key. You know, we need
to leverage every dollar in every part of the world to
facilitate the development of this industry, and there are huge
lessons learned--so over the past year. I've traveled to our
main competitors and collaborators, if we count the EU and
Australia. There are other countries who are spending
significant dollars in this space. I would say the U.S. plays a
leadership role through the Water Power Technologies Office,
understanding that we need to open the aperture of what we
consider marine energy to do.
Mr. Weber. I need to move on. Dr. Moore, is it important?
Dr. Moore. It's critical, especially in this enhanced
geothermal environment. These are extremely expensive
experiments----
Mr. Weber. OK.
Dr. Moore [continuing]. And we need to leverage what we
can. Right now we are working closely with China, who has their
own EGS experiment----
Mr. Weber. Are you afraid they will steal our technology?
Dr. Moore. There's no technology to steal here. We need to
learn how to do this----
Mr. Weber. We already know how to do all this.
Dr. Moore. I wish we did.
Mr. Weber. OK. That's what I'm afraid they're stealing from
us. Ms. Richards, how about you? Is it important?
Ms. Richards. Yes, in terms of China. They're the ones who
developed the first oil and gas field into geothermal----
Mr. Weber. OK.
Ms. Richards [continuing]. So they did it before Texas.
Mr. Weber. Well, we need to steal--I mean we need to talk
them about that technology.
Mr. Weber. Mr. Cohan?
Mr. Cohan. I think international collaboration is critical,
but that's because I'm biased because my job is 100 percent
about international collaboration.
Mr. Weber. OK.
Mr. Cohan. I'm the link between our U.S. and Italian
operations.
Mr. Weber. Yes.
Mr. Cohan. You know, thinking about, you know,
collaboration versus competition, there are more projects than
money or people right now, and so, you know, there's only
outside, and there's only collaborative outside. The reason why
we're operating in Chile is because there is a positive effort
from the Chilean government to build a marine energy business
there.
Mr. Weber. I need to move on, if I may, so let me talk
about the wave energy that you talked about. I'm from a coastal
area. I have the first three coastal counties of Texas,
starting at Louisiana, that other foreign country, and then
going down southwest. So is there any thought to when you have
that kind of a structure, and you harness the power of waves,
does it reduce the amount of erosion on that beach? Has that
been looked at, do you know?
Mr. Cohan. I don't have any specific expertise in that
area, but I can find out for you.
Mr. Weber. OK. One would assume that if you harness the
power of the waves, and slowed them down, the surfers might
complain about that, right? They have to get out in front of
that barrier to do the surfing. But that's something
interesting, if you can get back to that. Let me----
Mr. Cohan. I suppose--to that end, I suppose it depends on
the technology. It depends on how far out in the ocean you're
talking about.
Mr. Weber. Sure.
Mr. Cohan. So, you know, a lot of wave energy technology
that we develop, we're pretty far out there.
Mr. Weber. Well, so what's the distance? You're going to
have the infrastructure, the transmission lines, as it were,
albeit buried, you know, beneath the waves on the ocean floor.
How deep's the ocean floor, how big is the line, what's the
miles? What's the furthest out you all have contemplated going?
Mr. Cohan. We haven't gone too far out. As I said, these
technologies are sort of in early stages, but you're talking
about in the hundreds of meters to kilometers.
Mr. Weber. OK.
Mr. Cohan. So, you know, when you're talking about the
Gulf, you know, we have offshore rigs that are about the----
Mr. Weber. Yes. We're going 20 miles to 40 miles out----
Mr. Cohan. Right.
Mr. Weber [continuing]. With oil export terminals.
Mr. Cohan. And you could piggyback on the infrastructure. I
mean, that's----
Mr. Weber. Well, that's the point.
Mr. Cohan. Yes.
Mr. Weber. Sure. You bet. Mr. McNerney and Dr. Robertson,
that was about the beach erosion. I'm jumping back. Ms.
Richards, you talked about injecting the fluid that it was hot,
you didn't need it, and you injected it at night, and you
brought it back during the day. Do you remember that?
Ms. Richards. Yes, I did.
Mr. Weber. OK.
Ms. Richards. Correct.
Mr. Weber. You're going to lose temperature at some point.
You're going to have a temperature drop. Have we calculated how
much of a heat loss we have at that point?
Ms. Richards. So there are people who have worked on that,
and I can get back with you in more detail.
Mr. Weber. OK. And then, finally, Mr. Robertson, you were
talking with Congressman Baird about a community in Alaska that
had a potential project. What's the population of that
community?
Dr. Robertson. I don't know the number off the top of my
head, but it's less than 100.
Mr. Weber. Less than 100? I would say that's a fairly
small-scale plan.
Dr. Robertson. Without a doubt.
Mr. Weber. Yes. And you said they do diesel power. Are you
aware of Newfoundland, I was there about 10 years ago, give or
take, and they use a lot of diesel power. Do you know if they
still do?
Dr. Robertson. Newfoundland?
Mr. Weber. Yes.
Dr. Robertson. They do, and they've got their large-scale
hydro system that they're also building. Part of the value of
these small communities is that we can build economies of
scale, and we can build small prototypes that are cheaper.
Mr. Weber. OK. All right. Well, I don't want to keep
everybody. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lamb. Thank you. And Mr. Foster for an additional
5 minutes.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cohan, could you
say a little bit about collaborations with the National labs,
and how you see this fitting into things? Dr. Solan, I'm sorry.
Dr. Solan. Yes. We've worked directly with the National
labs in all of our programs, so we utilize the universities, we
utilize the National labs. It depends on the program which
specific ones that they work with, but National laboratories
are--foundation of knowledge, as far as--and doing certain work
that is mission driven, based on our programs. And they also
work directly with businesses.
Mr. Foster. Is the handling of the intellectual property,
which we've sort of touched on, you know, is there a clearly
understood national goal that's in, you know, I sort of view
the decarbonizing the world economy as two problems. One, the
U.S. You know, we have enough money in this country to
decarbonize our own economy, but unless we can develop cheap
technologies, that's not going to be enough for, you know,
India, South America, other places with less money, so we have
to work on knocking down the costs of these things.
And part of that is that we're not doing this entirely as a
profit-making enterprise for the United States. We have to
understand we're providing technologies that will be used
worldwide. And I guess, Mr. Cohan, what is your sort of
attitude about the worldwide goals in this? Are there a bunch
of for-profit entities that are trying to go and dominate the
market here, or are they really trying to all solve the problem
with whatever technology ends up working?
Mr. Cohan. We see this mission as part of--we see them as
one in the same, frankly. We see corporate sustainability as
part of environmental sustainability. So we've made a very
specific decision as a company to pursue clean energy as a
means of maintaining ourselves as an entity going forward. And
so, you know, our core mission is an idea of open power, the
idea that, as we create things that benefit the communities we
operate in, we too survive as a corporation.
Mr. Foster. Yes, Ms. Richards?
Ms. Richards. I'd like to point out that many of the small
technologies for turbines that have come through United States
that are companies that haven't succeeded, and now one of the
companies that is pushing forward is a company called Climeon,
who's out of Norway, or Sweden, up in that part of the world,
and coming in, and is, like, the new, exciting one that people
are also looking at. And that's a case where we are losing out
because it is needed technology around the world, and if we
could support these small companies, we would have a technology
to export.
Mr. Foster. OK. So there's still a problem with tech
transfer in this? That, you know, there's a long list of things
that were developed at U.S. labs and commercialized offshore,
including many money-losing enterprises offshore.
Mr. Cohan. Can I add to that? On tech transfer, you know,
when we partner with startups, and when we partner with
National labs, we have a very clear delineation between IP that
we create mutually, and IP (intellectual property) that the
startup brings to the community, and we try to focus, as a
company, on our core mission, which is producing reliable
electrons, and valuable electrons. And so our goal is to
support the development of this R&D, and to support the
development of intellectual property. And so, you know, if we
were to--it, it would get in the way of our actual mission.
Mr. Foster. Now, someone who--may have been Dr. Solan,
mentioned salinity gradients as a source of potential power.
What's the status of that, and are there near-term projects?
Dr. Robertson, it's yours? Your testimony also mentioned
charging stations for underwater things. Is there a bunch of
military money going into that for drone swarms and stuff? If
you'd just give a quick update on those two things?
Dr. Robertson. So, on the first one, I would have to get
back to you on it. I'm not familiar with the current status of
ocean thermal and ocean salinity. On the second one, the UUV,
underwater vehicle recharge, yes, there's definitely military
interest in that space, but there's also great oceanographic
interest too. We don't understand the ocean yet. That is purely
due to the fact that we can't provide reliable power to sensors
in the deep ocean, and we need to be able to overcome that
barrier. We have the sensors, but we can't power them. So
marine energy provides an opportunity for us to be able to
power those sensors so we can understand the ocean. We also
have military applications that those would provide a huge
benefit to.
Dr. Solan. We did mention in testimony thermal conversion.
In terms of the priorities of the WPTO, we spend the most, in
terms of marine energy, on wave energy, because that's our
biggest resource, and probably thermal conversion is probably
an area where we provide the least, just because of the
opportunities, and where our budgetary priorities are.
Mr. Foster. All right. Thank you, and yield back.
Chairman Lamb. OK. Thank you again to all the witnesses for
joining us. This was a tremendously helpful hearing, as we get
ready to finalize this legislation. Just a reminder the record
will remain open for 2 weeks for any additional statements from
Members, and for any additional questions the Committee may
have for the witnesses. With that, the hearing is now
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:41 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. David Solan
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Bryson Robertson
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Joseph Moore
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Ms. Maria Richards
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Mr. Sander Cohan
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Documents submitted by Dr. Joseph Moore
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Documents submitted by Ms. Maria Richards
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]