[Senate Hearing 107-859]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-859
ADVANCED ENERGY TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT IN NEW MEXICO
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
ADVANCED ENERGY TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT IN NEW MEXICO
__________
DECEMBER 3, 2002
ALBUQUERQUE, NM
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
-------
85-320 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BOB GRAHAM, Florida DON NICKLES, Oklahoma
RON WYDEN, Oregon LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
EVAN BAYH, Indiana RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CONRAD BURNS, Montana
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GORDON SMITH, Oregon
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Brian P. Malnak, Republican Staff Director
James P. Beirne, Republican Chief Counsel
John Kotek, Legislative Fellow
Howard Useem, Senior Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Becker, Charles A., Ph.D., Manager, LEDs for Lighting, GE Global
Research, Gelcore, LLC......................................... 16
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 1
Godshall, Dr. Ned, CEO, Mesofuel, Inc., Albuquerque, NM.......... 34
Hampden-Smith, Dr. Mark, Director and Vice President, Superior
Micropowders................................................... 31
Moorer, Richard F., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Technology
Development, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Department of Energy........................................... 2
National Electrical Manufacturers Association Lighting Division
Solid State Lighting Section................................... 47
Romig, Alton D., Jr., Vice President, Science and Technology and
Strategic Partnerships, Sandia National Laboratories........... 11
Stroh, Dr. Kenneth R., Materials Science and Technology Division,
Los Alamos National Laboratory................................. 26
ADVANCED ENERGY TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT IN NEW MEXICO
----------
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Albuquerque, NM
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. at
Albuquerque Technical Vocational Institute Work Force Training
Center, 5600 Eagle Rock Road, NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Hon.
Jeff Bingaman, chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
The Chairman. Thank you all for coming this morning. This
is a field hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee. We're going to highlight the roles that some of our
companies here in New Mexico, and also our national
laboratories are playing in shaping the Nation's energy future.
Obviously, this hearing is not able to cover the whole
spectrum of areas that people are working in, but we are going
to explore recent technological advances in two areas that are
key to our energy future.
The first of these is the Next Generation Lighting
Initiative. The Energy Information Administration calls
lighting the most important individual energy use in the
commercial sector. The lighting accounts for something over 20
percent of commercial primary energy consumption, which makes
lighting a technological area, and a good new idea can save a
great deal of energy. Worldwide lighting products are about a
$40 billion a year industry, so a good new idea also could do a
great deal for our economy. Using LEDs, light emitting diodes,
to produce white light may provide the technological leap that
we are looking for.
Advanced LED technology involves the use of solid state
diodes and conductive polymers to produce white light twice as
efficient as fluorescent lights and ten times more efficient
than traditional incandescent lights. This LED technology has
the potential to displace our traditional lighting industries,
which are based on the technologies that Thomas Edison invented
more than 100 years ago, so we look forward to hearing from
witnesses about recent advances in this area.
The second technology we're going to hear about today is
fuel cell technology. Fuel cells have been around for years.
They were used to provide the power for the Apollo missions in
the 1960's. More recently, attention has focused on the promise
that fuel cells offer as an alternative to the internal
combustion engine; however, before fuel cells can be widely
used in vehicles and other applications, manufacturing costs
need to be brought to competitive levels; questions of
producing hydrogen need to be adequately answered; choice of
fuels to power fuel cells and how that fuel can be delivered to
the consumer; how it can be stored in a way that makes sense
economically.
We have an excellent group of witnesses today. First panel,
we start with a representative from the Department of Energy,
Mr. Richard Moorer, who is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Technology Development in the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, from the Department of Energy. After his
testimony, Dr. Al Romig, who is the Vice President of Sandia
National Labs Science and Technology Partnerships. He is in
charge of the science and technology partnerships at Sandia
National Lab. And Dr. Charles Becker, who is the manager of
LEDs for Lighting Program for GE Global Research. And we will
hear from all of them.
And in the second panel, Dr. Ken Stroh, who is the Manager
of Transportation and Fuel Cell Programs at Los Alamos; Dr.
Mark Hampden-Smith, who is representing Superior MicroPowders
at Motorola's--their partnership with Motorola, and Dr. Ned
Godshall, who is the CEO of MesoFuel, Inc., here in
Albuquerque.
So we have an excellent group of witnesses, so why don't we
just start in, and I will have--this is our first panel up
here. I'll have a few questions after we hear from the three
panelists on the first panel.
Mr. Moorer, why don't you start and give us your views on
these issues and what the Department of Energy is doing about
it.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD F. MOORER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND
RENEWABLE ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Moorer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity
to testify here today. This is a most appropriate venue to
discuss fuel cells and advanced lighting technologies because
the Department of Energy's two national laboratories in New
Mexico, Los Alamos and Sandia, each play an important role in
developing these technologies.
I'll first discuss fuel cell technology, which is
fundamental to FreedomCAR, our flagship research and
development initiative, to reduce the nation's dependence on
foreign oil and dramatically change how we power our cars and
trucks, and then turn to the subject of solid state lighting.
I have provided some slides for the record; there are some
copies on the back table, and I will go through those as I make
my remarks.
On slide 2, I speak to the most striking feature of our
transportation system: its nearly complete dependence on
petroleum as an energy source. Petroleum is used to satisfy 97
percent of America's transportation energy needs, and roughly
55 percent of our petroleum is imported from abroad.
There is an expanding gap between declining domestic oil
production and our increasing demand. As you can see, opening
the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to
exploration would clearly help, but that alone would not close
the gap.
Research and development to improve auto and truck
efficiency would also help, but again, it would not close the
gap. Indeed, both taken together would not close the gap.
In response to this challenge, we have shifted our R&D
technology portfolio to higher risk, higher reward strategies
leading to the development and use of fuel cells and
domestically derived hydrogen that could one day eliminate our
need for foreign petroleum.
Slide 3: On January 9, 2002, Secretary Abraham, joined by
top leadership----
The Chairman. Does everyone have a copy of these slides?
Are there extra copies that anyone has around here, that we
could pass out?
Mr. Moorer. I believe they're on the back table.
The Chairman. Okay. All right. Go ahead. You were talking
about slide 3.
Mr. Moorer. Slide 3. I have tried to make it easier for you
so that if you don't have slides, you'll at least get the
message.
Slide 3 speaks to the signing by Secretary Abraham and
joint top leadership from General Motors, DaimlerChrysler and
Ford, announcing FreedomCAR at the North American International
Auto Show in Detroit.
Slide 4 speaks to the FreedomCAR partnership. The ``CAR''
in FreedomCAR stands for ``cooperative automotive research,''
and the freedom concept represents our fundamental long-term
goals for this program; freedom from petroleum dependence,
freedom from pollutant emissions, freedom for Americans to
choose the kind of vehicle they want to drive, and to drive
where they want, when they want; and freedom to obtain fuel
affordably and conveniently. This is a dramatic far-reaching
vision, one that requires new technology.
Slide 5 speaks to our strategic approach in this
partnership. The first element of our strategic approach is to
develop technologies to enable mass production of affordable
hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles and assure the hydrogen
infrastructure to support them, but neither industry or
government, working alone, can overcome the significant
technical barriers to a hydrogen fuel cell future in any
reasonable time frame; therefore, we must work in partnership.
The automotive partnership that was in place in the past,
the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, or PNGVs, had
some successes, and we are certainly not abandoning those
successes or the collaborations it fostered. In fact, similar
research elements of PNGV are embodied in the second element of
our approach; to continue support for hybrid technologies and
advanced materials that can dramatically reduce oil consumption
and environmental impacts in the nearer-term before fuel cells
can become competitive.
One of the problems of PNGV was its narrow focus on a
production prototype of family sedans; therefore, the third
element of our strategic approach is to develop technologies
applicable across a wide range of passenger vehicles.
Slide 6 speaks to the technological risks that we face. If
hydrogen fuel cells are to succeed in the marketplace, they
must equal or better the performance of today's vehicles,
including range, durability, start-up time, acceleration and
safety. Moreover, these technologies must be integrated in
vehicles that can be manufactured in quantities of millions per
year at a cost competitive with current technologies.
Since fuel cell vehicles run on hydrogen, which is not yet
available at the corner gas station, elements of our technology
portfolio are focused on making hydrogen production,
transportation, storage, and refueling safe and affordable. We
must also work towards the development of logical regulations,
codes and standards governing the transportation and use of
hydrogen.
The next slide announces our national hydrogen energy
roadmap, and to this end, we have been working on this roadmap.
The secretary announced it on November 12, 2002, and it will
guide us in a collaborative effort with industry, academia and
our national laboratories towards the barriers that this
technology faces.
Los Alamos National Lab and Sandia National Lab, in
particular, have made significant contributions to reducing the
cost of fuel cells and to developing hydrogen storage
materials, respectively.
Slide 8 speaks to the work that's been happening at Los
Alamos. They have been a pioneer in the development of PEM fuel
cell technology. Los Alamos researchers have steadily decreased
the platinum requirement of fuel cells, which has led to a
reduction in projected cost of mass-produced fuel cell systems
by an order of magnitude from around $3,000 per kilowatt, 10
years ago, to around $300 per kilowatt today. Another order of
magnitude reduction to $30 a kilowatt is necessary to be
competitive with the cost of current internal combustion
engines.
Slide 9 highlights the work at Sandia National Laboratory,
where they have made key contributions to the development of
hydrogen storage materials. Hydrogen storage lies in the
critical path to our success for our hydrogen economy. Current
technology relies on high-pressure tanks that take up a lot of
space in fuel cell vehicles, reducing the trunk space and the
vehicle range. We are seeking hydrogen storage systems that
enable high storage capacity at low pressure.
This slide illustrates the progress made in increasing
hydrogen storage capacity of materials that have been developed
by Sandia National Laboratory. DOE's target is to triple the
capacity of most existing metal hydride storage systems. We are
also working to develop PEM fuel cells as a stationary
distributed power source.
Mr. Chairman, my boss tells me that you're somewhat of an
expert in the area of distributed energy, and so I'm going to
forego that and skip to slide 12.
I would like to make the point, though, that there is
important synergy between the transportation and stationary
fuel cell markets and R&D activities. For fuel cells to succeed
in establishing near-term market success, our R&D must address
these critical barriers associated with stationary and
affordable power applications.
Now I'd like to turn to the subject of the other focus of
this hearing; advanced lighting.
We consumed an estimated 96.3 quadrillion BTUs of primary
energy in the United States in 2001, more than a third of
which, or 35 quads, were used to generate electricity.
Slide 14 speaks to the energy consumption for lighting.
Lighting consumes about 22 percent of the total electricity
used in the United States, and the lion's share of energy
consumption for lighting is in the commercial sector.
Today, much of our lighting is relatively inefficient. My
daughter once had an Easy-Bake Oven that she used to bake
cakes, and it was a terrific demonstration that incandescent
lights can produce an awful lot of heat as well as light; a
testament to their inherent inefficiency. Incandescent light
sources only produce about 15 lumens per watt.
Compact and tubular fluorescent light bulbs with electronic
ballasts are more efficient and produce far less heat than
incandescent light bulbs. These light sources produce about 90
lumens per watt. We believe it is possible to produce higher
quality lighting using advanced, solid-state technology that
could deliver as much as 150 lumens per watt, a 70 percent
improvement over the best fluorescent lighting available today.
Slide 15 speaks to the various solid-state innovations that
we have seen. The transition to solid-state technology in
lighting would mirror similar advances made in other fields.
Transistors have replaced vacuum tubes in radios and consumer
electronics, solid-state screens have replaced cathode ray
tubes in computers and television sets, and solid-state
lighting is starting to be employed in certain niche
applications.
Slide 16 speaks to the various solid-state lighting
sources. Within the field of solid-state lighting, or
optoelectronics, there are three general technical subgroups,
each of which can offer search advantages for a range of
applications.
Light-emitting diodes, or inorganic LEDs, are used today in
signs and single lighting applications such as traffic lights
and pedestrian crossing signals.
Organic light-emitting diodes, or OLEDs, are a flexible
organic-based cousin of LEDs. Not yet achieving the same
brightness as LEDs, current OLED development is focused on
large displays, personal display devices and instrumentation.
Other novel solid-state lighting includes light-producing
structures, such as vertical cavity surface emitting lasers, or
``vixels.'' They do not fit conveniently in any of the prior
categories. We can find successful commercial applications of
this technology in telecommunications, and in performing
critical medical and scientific research.
Slide 17 shows some examples of solid-state lighting
applications today. You may be familiar with the NASDAQ sign in
Times Square powered by more than 18 million red, blue and
green LEDs. Just like your television set, when perceived from
a distance, this mix of color produces white light and various
combinations of each, which can produce any color desired.
Another display technology is pictured on this slide. This
is an example of a prototype OLED display that may eventually
replace the computer screens and TV monitors we have today.
Based on the same principle of the three colors, but at a far
greater resolution, we find the technology starting to be used
today in some mobile phones and car radio displays.
If research in this area is successful, these OLED displays
could be formed into ceiling tiles installed in our offices,
being both the fixture and the light source, emitting white
light or any other color that we want. This lighting source can
be infinitely dimmable with no penalty in efficiency or life.
This makes it a superb match for a building energy management
system.
My last slide, slide 18, speaks to the solid-state
roadmapping that we've been doing, and it points out that there
are both cost and technical barriers to the use of these
technologies in the white light market.
To help address these barriers, our office is conducting
lighting research and development through our building
technologies program. Last year, we spent about $6 million in
pursuit of this mission. In an effort to identify the
technology path we should follow to enhance and accelerate the
development of white light from solid-state sources, we
convened eight workshops bringing together key stakeholders
from industry, academia and the national labs.
We believe solid-state lighting potentially offers the most
efficient means of converting electrons into photons. Thus far,
industry has focused on signals and displays. Continued
research into the uses of solid-state lighting for general
illumination could help us maintain technological leadership
and provide us with an important tool in improving the nation's
energy efficiency identified in the President's national energy
policy as a national priority. We are exploring ways to
accelerate this work for a stronger, better-coordinated,
public-private partnership.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to offer these
views today, and I would welcome any questions the committee
might have today or in the future.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moorer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard F. Moorer, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Technology Development, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, Department of Energy
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss advanced
fuel cell and lighting technology.
This is a most appropriate venue to discuss these subjects, because
the Department of Energy's two National Laboratories in New Mexico--Los
Alamos and Sandia--each play an important role in the development of
these technologies.
I will first discuss fuel cell technology, specifically the polymer
electrolyte membrane or PEM fuel cell that is the key to FreedomCAR--
our flagship research and development initiative to reduce the nation's
dependence on foreign oil and dramatically change how we power our cars
and light trucks. PEM fuel cell technology is also a promising
stationary power source for distributed generation, which I will also
touch upon.
By way of background, the most striking feature of our
transportation system is its nearly complete dependence on petroleum as
an energy source. Petroleum is used to satisfy 97% of America's
transportation energy needs, consuming about two-thirds of all the
petroleum we use. Since roughly 55% of our petroleum is imported from
abroad, the implications of this dependency on our energy security are
well understood by the members of this Committee, and I need not dwell
on them here.
THE ``GAP'' IS GROWING
This slide illustrates the expanding gap between declining domestic
oil production and our increasing demand. As you can see, opening the
Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to exploration
would clearly help, but that alone would not close the gap. The R&D
approach we were previously embarked on would have also helped . . .
but would not have closed the gap either. Indeed, both taken together
would not have closed the gap.
Mindful of these realities, Secretary Abraham challenged the
Department of Energy to take a bolder approach to our work. He directed
us to focus our efforts on programs that ``revolutionize how we
approach conservation and energy efficiency.'' He challenged us to
``leapfrog the status quo'' and to pursue ``dramatic environmental
benefits.''
In response to that challenge, we are pursuing revolutionary,
transforming technologies designed to decrease our dependence on
foreign petroleum. We have shifted our R&D technology portfolio to
``higher risk, higher reward'' strategies leading to the use of fuel
cells and domestically derived hydrogen for transportation.
FREEDOMCAR IS A PARTNERSHIP
On January 9, 2002, Secretary Abraham, joined by top leadership
from General Motors, Daimler Chrysler, and Ford, announced FreedomCAR
at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit.
freedomcar
The CAR in FreedomCAR stands for Cooperative Automotive Research.
And the ``Freedom'' concept represents our fundamental, long-term goals
for this program:
Freedom from petroleum dependence;
Freedom from pollutant emissions;
Freedom for Americans to choose the kind of vehicle they
want to drive, and to drive where they want, when they want;
and
Freedom to obtain fuel affordably and conveniently.
This is a dramatic, far reaching vision . . . one that requires new
technology. We cannot break the bonds of foreign oil dependency by
continuing with the status quo. Given the low gasoline and diesel
prices we enjoy today, we can reasonably expect consumers to continue
demanding larger, heavier, more powerful vehicles, and vehicle
manufacturers to continue using internal combustion engines to satisfy
that demand. We clearly see this in the marketplace today. The majority
of the new passenger vehicles sold in 2001 were, for the very first
time in automotive history, light trucks in the form of sport utility
vehicles, vans and pickups.
STRATEGIC APPROACH
If we expect to offer performance, convenience and functionality in
a range of vehicles that can meet the needs of a diverse population
without using petroleum, then we believe the most promising long-term
approach is to employ hydrogen fuel cells combined with electric drive.
Therefore, the first element of our strategic approach is to
develop technologies to enable mass production of affordable hydrogen-
powered fuel cell vehicles and assure the hydrogen infrastructure to
support them.
Fuel cells, of course, can be thought of as batteries that are
continuously replenished by a constant supply of hydrogen. And
hydrogen, the most plentiful element in the universe and the third most
plentiful on earth, can be derived from a variety of sources including
petroleum, natural gas, coal, biomass, and even water.
But there are significant technical and infrastructure barriers
that must be overcome. Neither industry nor government, working alone,
is likely to overcome these barriers in any reasonable timeframe.
Therefore, we must work in partnership.
The automotive partnership that was in place in the past, the
Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), had some
successes, and we are certainly not abandoning those successes or the
collaborations it fostered. Indeed, many of the research elements of
PNGV are embodied in the second element of our approach: Namely, to
continue support for hybrid technologies and advanced materials that
can dramatically reduce oil consumption and environmental impacts in
the nearer term before fuel cells can be competitive.
One of the recognized problems of PNGV was its narrow focus on a
production prototype of a family sedan. Therefore, the third element of
our strategic approach is to develop technologies applicable across a
wide range of passenger vehicles.
TECHNOLOGY RISKS
Yet, the technology challenges we face are daunting. To succeed, we
must dramatically improve vehicle efficiency without sacrificing the
performance of today's vehicles--including range, durability, start up
time, acceleration, and safety.
Moreover, these technologies must be integrated in vehicles that
can be manufactured in quantities of millions per year at a cost
competitive with current technologies.
Since fuel cell vehicles run on hydrogen--which is not yet
available at the corner gas station--elements of our technology
portfolio are focused on making hydrogen production, transportation,
storage, and refueling safe and affordable. We must also work toward
the development of logical regulations, codes and standards governing
the transportation and use of hydrogen.
In November of 2001, my office convened senior executives
representing energy industries, environmental organizations and
government officials to discuss the role for hydrogen systems in
America's energy future. We sought a common vision for the hydrogen
economy, the time frame for the vision and the key milestones needed to
get there. There was general agreement that hydrogen can be America's
clean energy choice, but that the transition to a hydrogen economy
could well take 30 years or more to fully unfold.
TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP
We have been working on a specific technology roadmap addressing
production, storage, conversion and infrastructure that leads us to
that vision, and we are continuing that work as a part of the
FreedomCAR program plan.
At the Global Forum on Personal Transportation on November 12, 2002
the Secretary announced the National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap. The
Roadmap was developed over the last year in response to the National
Energy Policy. It identifies challenges and paths forward to moving to
a hydrogen economy as well as the role the government and industry will
play.
The National Labs have, and will continue to play, an important
role in tackling these challenges. Los Alamos and Sandia National Labs,
in particular, have made significant contributions to reducing the cost
of fuel cells and to developing hydrogen storage materials,
respectively.
los alamos national laboratory has contributed to reducing the cost of
FUEL CELLS
Los Alamos National Laboratory has been a pioneer in the
development of PEM fuel cell technology. Over the past decade, LANL has
developed fuel cell stack component technology--electrodes, membrane-
electrode assemblies, and fabrication processes--that have been
transferred and licensed to fuel cell companies. Researchers at LANL
have steadily decreased the platinum required in fuel cells--an order
of magnitude reduction--which has led to a reduction in the projected
cost of mass-produced fuel cell systems by an order of magnitude--from
$3,000/kW ten years ago, to about $300/kW today. This cost is based on
high-volume production of 500,000 fuel cell systems per year. LANL
continues to work with our industry partners to improve the performance
and reduce the cost of PEM fuel cells. Another order of magnitude
reduction is necessary to be competitive with the cost of current
internal combustion engines.
On the hydrogen side, Sandia National Laboratory has made key
contributions to the development of hydrogen storage materials. Current
technology relies on high pressure tanks that take up a lot of space in
the fuel cell vehicle, reducing trunk space and vehicle range. We are
seeking hydrogen storage systems that enable high storage capacity at
low pressure.
SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORY HAS INCREASED REVERSIBLE H2
STORAGE CAPACITY
This slide illustrates the progress made in increasing the hydrogen
storage capacity of materials developed at Sandia. We are making
progress toward the DOE target of 6 weight %, triple the capacity of
most existing metal hydride storage systems. But we still have a
challenge ahead of us because the data are for materials only--the
packaging adds weight that must be factored into the calculation. These
and similar materials represent an exciting opportunity for the
development of safe and efficient on-board hydrogen storage
technologies that are an important enabling technology for
transportation applications.
DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES PROGRAM GOAL
We are also working to develop PEM fuel cells as a stationary,
distributed power source. One of the promising opportunities for
customers to manage their peak load requirements is through the use of
combined heat and power systems in buildings. These systems couple
natural gas fired distributed generation, such as microturbines,
reciprocating engines, or fuel cells, with thermally activated cooling
and humidity control equipment to meet a building's energy and indoor
comfort needs. Our program goal is to build into the PEM fuel cells
those characteristics that make it a prime component as a power
generator and make maximum use of recoverable energy for cooling/
heating and indoor air quality for various buildings types.
BUILDING ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Exploring the use of PEM fuel cells as a means to improve overall
efficiency in buildings is important since, based on statistics from
the Energy Information Administration (EIA), buildings account for:
-38% of natural gas consumption;
-67% of generated electricity consumption; and
-36% of national total energy consumption.
STATIONARY FUEL CELL BARRIERS
Secondly, there is significant synergy between the transportation
and stationary fuel cell markets and R&D activities. For fuel cells to
succeed in establishing near-term market success, our R&D must address
the critical barriers associated with stationary and portable power
applications. These barriers include:
Durability. While initial performance of demonstration fuel
cell systems has been very promising, operation over an
extended period of time typically degrades performance of
certain components such as the fuel cell membrane. Fuel cells
for stationary applications must demonstrate 40,000 hours of
useful life. This means that long-term testing must be carried
out before the technology can be introduced into the
marketplace. Introduction into a range of applications is
necessary to achieve enough volume to drive down the cost of
critical components.
Higher temperature operation. To maximize the energy
efficiency of fuel cell technology in stationary applications,
operation at slightly higher operating temperatures is desired
to allow for implementation of combined heat and power (CHP)
strategies and improved heat rejection. This is a major focus
of our fuel cell R&D and is an example of how we are working on
technologies that simultaneously address barriers for both
stationary and transportation applications.
Fuel processing. It is anticipated that most stationary fuel
cell systems will be fueled by natural gas or propane. The
Department is addressing this requirement through the
development of fuel processing technology that addresses issues
such as cost, sulfur tolerance and improved fuel processing
catalysts.
To conclude my remarks about fuel cells and FreedomCAR, we are
excited about the potential of PEM fuel cell and hydrogen technologies,
and we intend to remain actively engaged in partnerships with industry,
academia, national labs, and other government agencies to develop and
commercialize them.
Now I would like to turn to the subject of advanced lighting.
U.S. ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY, 2001
We consumed an estimated 96.3 quadrillion BTU's of primary energy
in the United States in 2001, more than a third of which--or 35 quads--
were used to generate electricity.
ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR LIGHTING
A study \1\ done for the Department of Energy estimates the
national primary energy needed to power all the lights in U.S. homes,
offices, streets and other applications at approximately 8.2 quads. In
other words, lighting consumes about 22% of the total electricity used
in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Lighting Market Characterization Volume I--National
Lighting Inventory and Energy Consumption Estimate, Navigant
Consulting, September 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lion's share of energy consumption for lighting is in the
commercial sector. Moreover, commercial lighting is, by itself, a peak
load component. It also contributes to a building's internal heat
budget and summer air-conditioning loads--another peak load component.
Therefore, in many parts of the nation we can get the additional
benefit of reducing peak electricity loads if we can develop more
efficient lighting.
Today, much of our lighting is relatively inefficient. My daughter
once had an ``Easy Bake Oven'' that she used to bake cakes using an
incandescent light bulb. It was a superb illustration of the fact that
incandescent bulbs produce a good deal of heat as well as light--a
testament to their inherent inefficiency. Incandescent light sources
only produce about 15 lumens per watt.
Compact and tubular fluorescent light bulbs with electronic
ballasts are more efficient and produce far less heat than incandescent
bulbs. These light sources produce up to 90 lumens per watt.
We believe it is possible to produce higher quality lighting using
advanced, solid-state technology that could deliver up to 150 lumens
per watt, a 70% improvement over the best fluorescent lighting
available today.
SOLID STATE INNOVATIONS
The transition to solid-state technology in lighting would mirror
similar advances made in other fields. Ever since the first transistors
were produced and commercialized in the late 1940s and early 50s, the
inherent efficiencies of solid-state electronics have been exploited in
a variety of applications. Transistors have replaced vacuum tubes in
radios and consumer electronics. Solidstate screens (thin-film
transistors) have replaced cathode ray tubes in computers and
television sets. Today, industry is working to develop even more
efficient, higher performance Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED)
displays, including miniature, ultra-high resolution, personal displays
that will soon appear in a variety of consumer products.
In its simplest form, Solid State Lighting is like a photovoltaic
cell running backwards--you put electrons in, and you get photons out.
And you also enjoy significant advantages over conventional lighting
sources such as longer life, improved efficiency, and resistance to
vibration.
Solid-state devices are already penetrating selected colored light
applications such as traffic signals and exit signs. These devices
provide better performance and lower maintenance with 80-90% reductions
in energy consumption. But there are significant cost and technical
barriers to the use of this technology in the ``white light'' market.
My Office operates a Lighting Research and Development Program
through our Building Technologies Program (BT). The mission of our
Lighting R&D program is to increase efficiency in buildings by
aggressively researching new lighting technologies that hold the
promise of an annual savings of nearly 40% of lighting energy and $19
billion in consumer expenditures by 2020. Our program if successfully
developed, works in close cooperation with industry, and last year
spent over $6 million in pursuit of its mission. We look at
technologies that show promise in the short, medium and long-term.
SOLID STATE LIGHTING SOURCES
Within the field of solid-state lighting, or Optoelectronics, there
are three general technical subgroups, each of which can offer certain
advantages for a range of applications.
Light Emitting Diodes, or LEDs, are already competing
effectively for signs and signal lighting applications, like
traffic lights and pedestrian crossing signals.
Organic Light Emitting Diodes, or OLEDs, are a flexible,
organic based cousin of LEDs. Not yet achieving the same
brightness as LEDs, current OLED development is focused on
large displays, personal display devices and instrumentation.
Our colleagues at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) routinely work with many of the manufacturers to
advance ultra-high performance displays for military aviation
and other defense-related applications.
Other novel solid-state lighting, including light-producing
structures such as Vertical Cavity Surface Emitting Lasers
(``Vixels''), does not fit conveniently into the prior
categories. We can find successful commercial examples of this
technology in use today such as running the fiber-optic
backbone of the Internet, and performing critical medical and
scientific research.
EXAMPLES OF SOLID STATE LIGHTING APPLICATIONS TODAY
As I mentioned earlier, today's solid-state lamp can be found in
many applications. You may be familiar with the NASDAQ sign in Times
Square, powered by more than 18 million red, blue and green LEDs. Just
like your television set, when perceived from a distance, the mix of
these three primary colors produces white light--and various
combinations of each can produce any color desired.
Another display technology is pictured here in the upper right hand
corner. Kodak and its consortium of partners have developed a prototype
OLED display that may eventually replace the computer screens and TV
monitors we have today. Based on the same principle of the three
primary colors--but at a far greater resolution--we find this
technology starting to be used today in some mobile phones and car
radio displays.
In the future, if research into this area is successful, these OLED
displays could be formed into ceiling tiles and installed in our
offices, being both the fixture and the light source-emitting white
light or any other color we want. If the technology achieves its design
objectives, it would be infinitely dimmable with no penalty in
efficiency or life--thus making it a superb match for a building energy
management system.
SOLID STATE LIGHTING ROADMAP
Over the past two years, DOE has been working to realize the goal
of solid-state lighting. In an effort to identify the technology path
we should follow to enhance and accelerate the development of white
light from solid-state sources, we convened eight workshops bringing
together key stakeholders from industry, academia and the national
labs.
We have also sponsored a study to explore the magnitude of savings
that might be possible from solid state lighting given various price
performance scenarios. We will be happy to supply this to the
Committee.
In conclusion, solid-state lighting potentially offers the most
efficient means of converting electrons into photons. Thus far,
industry has focused on signals and displays. Continued research into
the uses of solid state lighting for general illumination could help us
maintain technological leadership and provide us with an important tool
in improving the nation's energy efficiency, identified in the
President's National Energy Policy as a ``national priority.'' We are
looking at ways to accelerate this work through a stronger, better-
coordinated public-private partnership.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to offer views on
these important subjects. I would welcome any questions the Committee
might have today or in the future.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much.
Dr. Romig, why don't you go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF ALTON D. ROMIG, JR., VICE PRESIDENT, SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY AND STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS, SANDIA NATIONAL
LABORATORIES
Dr. Romig. Thank you, Senator Bingaman. As Sandia's Vice
President for Science and Technology and Strategic
Partnerships, I'm delighted to testify today on solid-state
light research and development. In the time allotted, I will
highlight a few of the major points contained in my prepared
written statement.
Senator Bingaman, first off, let me thank you for
introducing legislation during the 107th Congress that would
have authorized a next generation lighting initiative at the
Department of Energy. Even though it did not become law, your
bill certainly drew attention to this emerging technology and
it has already stimulated programmatic support for solid-state
lighting at DOE and elsewhere.
As you know, several different research consortia are
already forming in preparation for a national solid-state
lighting initiative. Industrial membership includes such major
U.S. firms as Dupont, 3M, Kodak, Agilent, Phillips, Osram and
General Electric. This initiative will be a winner for all,
benefitting both businesses and the consumer, and will
encourage more high-technology industrial investments here in
New Mexico.
Solid-state lighting has potential for immense benefits. If
most of the Nation's lighting could be converted to solid-
state, we would reduce our electricity consumption by the
equivalent of all the power used by all the homes in
California, Oregon and Washington combined, $25 billion worth
of electricity per year. It would reduce the need for power
generating capacity by 17,000 megawatts, or 17 very large
powerplants. And finally, it would benefit the environment by
reducing the greenhouse gases that are produced by fossil fuel-
based powerplants.
What is solid-state lighting? Well, here's an example. Each
one of these is only one-and-a-quarter watts. Let me make sure
I don't blind anybody with it. It is rather bright; only one-
and-a-quarter watts apiece.
But it's technology for getting white light from a piece of
semiconductor material. The goal of solid-state lighting
research is to replace all of the incandescent light bulbs and
fluorescent lighting tubes in the workplace and in our homes,
with semiconductor light-emitting diodes, or LEDs, that produce
white light.
In the past few years, a new class of semiconductor
materials has been developed that make it possible to create
LEDs that produce colors that were previously impossible;
green, blue, violet, and most importantly again, white. And
here's a small demo box, made by one of the members of our
consortium, where you can see it can produce white and a
variety of reds, blues, yellows, and you can do that just by
simply having a different semiconductor inside each one of the
envelopes to get the color that you desire.
Fluorescent white LEDs are already commercially available
with an energy efficiency better than that of incandescent
light bulbs in your home, which are about 5 percent, but these
solid-state lighting sources are still very expensive and not
yet as efficient as most fluorescents.
Our country's top semiconductor scientists, including those
here at Sandia, believe that with sufficient research and
development, it is possible, within 10 years, to make white
LEDs that are 50 percent energy efficient. That's ten times the
energy efficiency of incandescent bulbs, and far better than
that of fluorescent tubes. And we also believe it will be
possible to reduce the cost so that it is affordable to the
consumer.
Solid-state lighting will have a huge impact on the
Nation's economic competitiveness. Lighting is a $40 billion
per year global industry. I fully expect that New Mexico, with
its rapidly developing optoelectronics research capabilities at
Sandia, Los Alamos, UNM, New Mexico State, and several
industrial entities, such as EMCORE, Zia Laser, Superior
MicroPowders, and others, will be a major contributor to the
growth of this new technology market.
But for energy-efficient solid-state lighting to really
take off, we need a national initiative, which means funding,
for research and development involving Government, industry and
universities in a partnership effort. We should not forget that
large government-sponsored initiatives are already under way in
Europe, Japan, Taiwan and Korea, and have been for up to three
years, depending on which geographic region you're referring
to.
Senator Bingaman, we thank you for your continued support
of a national research initiative in solid-state lighting. This
concludes my summary remarks, and I would be pleased to respond
to any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Romig follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alton D. Romig, Jr., Vice President, Science and
Technology Partnerships, Sandia National Laboratories
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the
promise of solid-state lighting technology and the research in this
area that is being conducted at Sandia National Laboratories. I am
Alton D. Romig, Jr., Vice President for Science and Technology and
Strategic Partnerships, and also Chief Technology Officer, at Sandia.
Sandia National Laboratories is managed and operated for the U. S.
Department of Energy (DOE) by Sandia Corporation, a subsidiary of the
Lockheed Martin Corporation.
Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory of DOE and one of the three
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) laboratories with
research and development responsibility for nuclear weapons. Sandia's
job is the design, development, qualification, and certification of
nearly all of the non-nuclear subsystems of nuclear weapons. We perform
substantial work in programs closely related to nuclear weapons,
including intelligence, nonproliferation, and treaty verification
technologies. As a multiprogram national laboratory, Sandia also
performs research and development for DOE's energy and science offices,
as well as work in national security and homeland security for other
agencies when our special capabilities can make significant
contributions.
I will begin my testimony with some background on solid-state
lighting technology, the current state of development, and where we
think the research is headed. I will then discuss the enormous
beneficial impact that solid-state lighting can have on our nation's
energy security, with the potential to reduce electricity consumption
by 10 percent or more by 2025 over what it otherwise will be. I will
also briefly describe Sandia's ongoing activities in solid-state
lighting in partnership with industry. Finally, I will explain why we
believe that a national initiative in solid-state lighting research and
development involving government, industry, and universities will
provide the best avenue for rapid development and adoption of this
promising technology.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOLID-STATE LIGHTING
This year, about 20 percent of the United States' electricity
consumption will be devoted to lighting. The vast majority of that
lighting will be provided by incandescent and fluorescent bulbs,
technologies that have been around for decades (or longer than a
century in the case of incandescents). Incandescents are quite
inefficient, with only about five or six percent of their electricity
consumption being converted to visible light. The remainder is
converted to waste heat, which contributes significantly to the cooling
loads in buildings. Fluorescent lighting is better, but still converts
only about 25 percent of the electrical energy into visible light. This
wasted electricity represents an attractive target for reducing the
nation's electricity bill.
Solid-state lighting, however, is a new technology which has the
potential to far exceed the energy efficiencies of incandescent and
fluorescent lighting. Solid-state lighting uses light-emitting diodes
or ``LEDs'' for illumination, the same devices that provide the letters
on your clock radio. The term ``solid-state'' refers to the fact that
the light in an LED is emitted from a solid object--a block of
semiconductor--rather than from a vacuum tube, as in the case of
incandescents and fluorescents. (Note: I will limit my remarks to LEDs
made from inorganic semiconductor materials; but it should be
acknowledged that organic-based LEDs, or OLEDs, fabricated from
plastic-like materials, are also expected to play a role in solid-state
lighting.)
The first practical demonstration of an LED was in 1962. Since the
late 1960s, the brightness of commercially available red LEDs has
increased by a factor of 20 every ten years, while the cost has
decreased by a factor of 10 every ten years. Early on, this rapid
improvement in the technology resulted in LEDs replacing incandescent
bulbs and other vacuum tubes that had previously been used for
indicator lamps and numeric displays in electronics such as clock
radios.
A few years ago, an innovative new semiconductor material was
developed--gallium nitride (GaN)--which enabled the development of the
first LEDs with bright emission in the blue and green spectral range.
(Previously, bright LEDs were available only in red and orange.) This
was a crucial development, since now white light could be realized by
mixing different wavelength light from multiple LEDs, or alternatively
by down-converting blue light to other colors of longer wavelength
using phosphors.
In the past few years, the technology has progressed sufficiently
that LEDs are now viable choices for single color applications such as
traffic signals. Conventional 12-inch-diameter red traffic signals use
a long-life, white, 140-watt incandescent bulb. The red filter over it
discards 90 percent of the light, allowing only 200 lumens of the red
light to pass through. A commercially available LED replacement
manufactured by LumiLeds of San Jose, California, uses 18 red LEDs to
provide the same amount of red light, but consumes only 14 watts. While
LED traffic lights cost more than incandescents, the reduced
electricity consumption allows them to pay for themselves in a year or
less. They also last much longer, reducing maintenance costs. As a
result, LED-based traffic signals are becoming widely adopted
throughout the country. Similarly, 90 percent of exit signs, another
single-color application, are now fabricated with LEDs.
Of course, for general illumination, white light is required. LEDs
must significantly improve to be economically competitive for general
lighting. While today's white LEDs are more efficient than incandescent
bulbs (25 lumens per watt vs. 15), they also cost as much as 100 times
more per lumen. Moreover, they are not yet as efficient as fluorescent
lamps (80 lumens per watt).
Solid-state lighting promises better quality and more versatile
sources of lighting, including the ability to tune colors to virtually
any shade or tint. Because the light can be controlled with extremely
high precision, it is believed that by interfacing it with modern
microelectronics, a ``brave new world'' of digitally controlled
illumination will be achieved. Such ``smart light'' could even be used
to interface computers into networks through the lighting fixtures
themselves. In addition, solid-state lighting offers other desirable
qualities, such as light weight, thinness, low heat output, flexibility
in installation, lifetimes approaching ten years and longer, and
extreme resistance to mechanical shock.
We believe that solid-state lighting can surpass conventional
vacuum tube lighting technologies in both cost and performance within a
relatively short time. With sufficient investment in research and
development, it will be possible to produce a white LED with an energy
efficiency of 150-200 lumens per watt, or 10 times the efficiency of
incandescents and twice that of fluorescents. We expect that the cost
of these highly efficient solid-state lights will be competitive, and
that they can capture most of the lighting market by 2025.
THE PROMISE OF SOLID-STATE LIGHTING
What would be the impact of replacing most of the lighting in the
United States with LEDs? The benefits to the nation's energy security
and economic competitiveness would truly be enormous. A number of
studies 1,2 find the following benefits to the United States
alone (with global benefits that are proportionately larger):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ M. Kendall, M. Scholand, ``Energy Savings Potential of Solid-
state Lighting in General Lighting Applications,'' U.S. Department of
Energy, Washington, DC (April 2001).
\2\ T. Drennan, R. Haitz, J. Tsao, ``A Market Diffusion and Energy
Impact Model for Solid-state Lighting,'' presented at the 21st Annual
North American Conference of the U.S. Association of Energy Economics
and International Association for Energy Economics, Philadelphia,
September 2000.
Reduction by 50 percent of electricity used for lighting
Reduction by 10 percent of total electricity consumption
Reduction by 17,000 megawatts of the demand for electrical
generating capacity (roughly equivalent to 17 large generating
plants or the residential demand from all the homes in
California, Oregon, and Washington)
Reduction in carbon emissions by the equivalent of 28
million tons per year
These large reductions in the nation's energy demands will help
decrease our dependence on foreign energy sources, lessen the impact on
the environment, and increase the reliability and responsiveness of the
nation's electrical grid. Of course, the availability of energy is a
major national security concern that has profound geo-political
implications.
In addition, it should be noted that much of the fundamental
technology being developed for solid-state lighting will provide
ancillary benefits to a host of other national security interests. For
instance, high-power electronics can use the semiconductor material
gallium nitride (GaN), which may make it possible to manufacture
lighter high-power electronic devices. The new unmanned aerial vehicles
now being used to great advantage by the military would benefit from
lighter radars and other electronics, so that they can fly longer and
farther. Even more closely related to solid-state lighting is an
approach to the detection of chemical and biological warfare agents.
GaN can be used to make ultraviolet LEDs and lasers. When illuminated
with ultraviolet light, many biological agents will fluoresce (re-emit
light at a slightly longer wavelength). We are exploring the
feasibility of this technique for rapidly identifying pathogens, such
as anthrax.
Finally, solid-state lighting will have an impact on our economic
competitiveness, which is also a national security issue. Lighting is a
$40 billion global industry, with the United States occupying roughly
one-third of that market. With the higher performance and enhanced
functionality that solid-state lighting offers, it is likely that the
market will grow as new, unforeseen uses come into existence. I fully
expect that New Mexico, with its rapidly expanding world-class
optoelectronics research capabilities (including Sandia, Los Alamos,
UNM, New Mexico State, and several industrial entities such as EMCORE,
Zia Laser, Superior Micropowders, and others) will contribute to the
growth of this new technology market.
Europe, Japan, Taiwan, and Korea have all established large
government-sponsored industrial research consortia to further develop
solid-state lighting technologies. It is possible that without a
substantial government/industry commitment in the United States,
foreign competitors will come to dominate solid-state lighting. For all
the reasons outlined above, this development would result in an
unfavorable impact on our national security position.
SANDIA'S RESEARCH ACTIVITIES IN SOLID-STATE LIGHTING
Sandia has a long history of research in semiconductor
optoelectronic devices. Indeed, we were pioneers in the technology of
the vertical cavity surface emitting laser, or VCSEL, which is now a
mainstay of the telecommunications industry.
A few years ago we began to realize the tremendous possibilities
presented by harnessing semiconductor technology for lighting. Sandia,
working with leading industrial scientists from Agilent, wrote some of
the first papers on solid-state lighting.3,4 In 2000, we
helped the Department of Energy and the Optoelectronics Industrial
Development Association (OIDA) organize a national Solid-State Lighting
Technology Roadmapping Workshop in Albuquerque. That workshop
identified the major scientific and technological challenges to be
overcome and established technology milestones for future years. A
follow-up workshop, also in Albuquerque and partially organized by
Sandia, was held in May and updated the challenges and milestones.
Copies of the Roadmap Reports from both of these workshops are
available from OIDA.5,6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ R. Haitz, F. Kish, J. Tsao, J. Nelson, ``The Case for a
National Research Program on Semiconductor Lighting'' (1999). Hewlett-
Packard/Sandia National Laboratories white paper. Copies are available
from Sandia National Laboratories through the Internet at http://
lighting.sandia.gov, and from the Optoelectronic Industry Development
Association, 1133 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036-
4380.
\4\ R. Haitz, F. Kish, J. Tsao, J. Nelson, ``Another Semiconductor
Revolution: This Time It's Lighting!'' Compound Semiconductor Magazine,
Volume 6, No. 2 (March 2000).
\5\ Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) for General Illumination: An OIDA
Technology Roadmap, Eric D. Jones, ed., Optoelectronic Industry
Development Association (2001).
\6\ Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) for General Illumination II: An
OIDA Technology Roadmap, Jeff Y. Tsao, ed., Optoelectronic Industry
Development Association, in press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the past couple of years, Sandia has also harnessed its
optoelectronics expertise to perform internal research on solid-state
lighting. Under the Laboratory-Directed Research and Development (LDRD)
program, we are currently pursuing a Grand Challenge project devoted
entirely to solid-state lighting. In fiscal year 2001, we invested $1.3
million in this project; in 2002 we are investing $2.3 million; and in
2003 we anticipate increasing our investment again. At present,
approximately 25 investigators are involved in the project, either full
or part-time. Our research seeks to overcome the technical challenges
identified in the OIDA technology roadmaps. It focuses on the physics
of defects and impurities in nitride-based semiconductors, growth of
high-quality, low-cost, nitride semiconductor material, design of high-
efficiency LEDs, development of phosphors for white light, and
encapsulants and packaging to give the LEDs long lifetimes. We are
collaborating in these research areas with several universities and
industrial partners.
THE NEED FOR A GOVERNMENT/INDUSTRY PARTNERSHIP
While numerous university, industry, and national laboratories are
engaging in various aspects of solid-state lighting research, there is
a general consensus that a government-sponsored national initiative is
needed to make solid-state lighting a reality within a reasonable time.
Such an initiative would involve a consortium of U.S. industries in
partnership with universities and national laboratories. There are four
reasons why such a partnership is desirable:
1. Basic research in high-risk areas cannot easily be pursued
by industry alone, particularly in today's tough business
environment. This type of work provides understanding of the
underlying physics. Industry can rarely afford to devote
personnel and equipment for this high-risk, long-term activity.
Industry agrees that this type of pre-competitive research will
be essential for overcoming some of the challenges we face, and
several industrial firms have committed to substantial cost-
sharing in a national initiative, both in-kind and with cash,
for this research.
2. A national initiative will provide a unifying focus for
the entire effort, enabling research to be coordinated and
tasks efficiently assigned. This will help ensure that the
fundamental research performed at universities and national
labs focuses on the most relevant and promising areas, and that
industry remains abreast of recent developments and is able to
incorporate them in products rapidly.
3. A national government/industry partnership will help to
develop an infrastructure of suppliers and equipment firms to
support the commercialization of this new technology.
4. Finally, a national initiative in solid-state lighting
research will provide a long-term funding structure and
resources necessary to develop this new technology. While
solid-state lighting might become a reality without federal
investment, a government program would accelerate the process
by one or two decades.
Studies 1,2 indicate that with an investment of
approximately $50 million per year, solid-state lighting technology
could be substantially achieved within ten years. The accelerated
introduction of solid-state lighting would pay for itself many times
over in reduced electricity charges to rate-payers alone. I have
already mentioned the economic benefits that could be lost if we yield
leadership in this field to other countries, which have ongoing
government programs.
The Next Generation Lighting Initiative Act introduced last year by
Senator Bingaman and Senator Dewine proposes just such a government/
industry partnership. An industrial consortium, coordinated by the
Optoelectronics Industrial Development Association (OIDA) has already
been formed in preparation for enactment of this Initiative. Members
include major firms such as Dupont, 3M, Kodak, Agilent, Philips, Osram,
Corning, Siemens, and of course, General Electric. The Next Generation
Lighting Initiative has many similarities with SEMATECH, the
government-sponsored research and development consortium that began in
the middle 1980s and helped develop high-tech process equipment for our
semiconductor industry. We envision a second semiconductor revolution
this time in lighting.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The technology of solid-state lighting is destined to change our
lives. Early maturation of this technology would lead to enormous
benefits for the nation and indeed the world. Economic, environmental,
and national security advantages will be realized, not only by the
general reduction in total electricity consumption, but also through
spin-off technologies emerging from the underlying semiconductor
sciences.
Although Sandia and other institutions in government, industry, and
the academic sector are working hard on solid-state lighting, a
national initiative based on a government/industry partnership would
greatly accelerate the research and development process. This
initiative will coordinate independent research efforts toward a common
goal and will enable solid-state lighting to become commercially viable
one or two decades earlier than might otherwise happen.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for your vision and
leadership in introducing legislation to make the Next Generation
Lighting Initiative a reality. Sandia supports the Next Generation
Lighting Initiative Act wholeheartedly, and we would like to offer our
expertise in this national endeavor. We believe that the Next
Generation Lighting Initiative will be a winner for all, benefiting
both businesses and the consumer, both New Mexico and the nation, and
indeed, humanity at large.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much.
Dr. Becker, why don't you go ahead and give us General
Electric's perspective on all this.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. BECKER, Ph.D., MANAGER, LEDS FOR
LIGHTING, GE GLOBAL RESEARCH, GELCORE, LLC
Dr. Becker. Okay.
Senator Bingaman, I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Next Generation
Lighting Initiative. I am the project manager for advanced LED
research at GE's Global Research Center in Schenectady, New
York, and I am also the former vice president of Technology for
GELcore LLC, which is located in Valley View, Ohio.
GELcore is a joint venture between GE's lighting business
and EMCORE. EMCORE has operations both here in New Mexico and
in Somerset, New Jersey. GELcore is one of the world's largest
suppliers of energy-saving LED-based systems with products
today in traffic signals, signage and automotive applications.
Mr. Moorer and Dr. Romig have amply described the energy
savings opportunity of solid-state lighting as is envisioned in
the Next Generation Lighting Initiative and have described,
somewhat, about the exciting inorganic light-emitting
technology, which would be critical to this revolution over the
next decade. My written testimony is entirely consistent with
these observations and elaborates on several examples.
I mention here only one example to emphasize that energy
savings are already being attained through LED technology.
GELcore annually produces hundreds of thousands of LED traffic
signals, which consume less than one-tenth of the energy used
by traditional signals and last more than ten times as long.
The energy savings from the GELcore signals installed last year
alone will total over 150 million kilowatt hours each year, for
years to come. That's enough energy to light about 17,000
homes.
GE and GELcore, investing heavily in solid-state lighting,
believe it's crucial technology for global competitiveness.
It's also a technology which is evolving extremely rapidly.
Two-and-a-half years ago, the brightest white LED you could
obtain commercially was a 2-lumen LED suitable for key chains
and, basically, toys.
A year-and-a-half ago, the industry introduced 25- to 30-
lumen LEDs, as Dr. Romig showed the board here, and earlier
this year, 120-lumen LEDs were introduced. This factor of 60 in
2\1/2\ years is an extremely rapid rate of progress, and it
demonstrates how quickly this technology is evolving and has
the potential to evolve going forward.
I'll focus the remainder of my remarks on a very brief
discussion on the promise of organic light-emitting diode
technology, and then offer GE's perspective on the importance
of the consortium structure and Government support for NGLI.
Like inorganic LEDs described earlier, organic LEDs produce
light directly from the energy transition of electrons inside
solid materials. The difference is that the semiconductors in
OLEDs are specialized plastics in sheet form. The state-of-the-
art of white OLED devices is several years behind that of LED
devices, but is also progressing rapidly.
GE Global Research, aided by Department of Energy funding,
has produced the first white illumination-quality OLED devices
in the past year. These devices now emit the same amount of
light per unit area as typical fluorescent fixtures; however,
the most advanced of these devices are still only six-by-six
inches square. They produce about 70 lumens, and they have an
efficiency of about half that of incandescent lamps.
We see no fundamental physical reasons why, with
development, this performance cannot equal that of inorganic
LEDs and surpass that of traditional fluorescents and other
light sources.
The exciting draw for OLED technology as a compliment to
inorganic LEDs is the potential for very low cost. We believe
that these plastics can be manufactured at very high volumes in
roll-to-roll machines that resemble printing presses, much like
newspapers. They're inherently flat in nature, which makes them
ideal for room illumination. With sufficient investment, we see
OLEDs and LEDs as complimentary long-term solid-state lighting
components.
Mr. Chairman, GELcore and GE view increased government
support of solid-state lighting as a critical element in our
global technology competitiveness. We've been strong supporters
of what is now called the Next Generation Lighting Initiative
since it was first proposed by the Sandia and Hewlett-Packard
white paper in early 2000. Thanks to your leadership in
introducing the next generation lighting bill, this vision has
become a reality with significant momentum and broad industry
support over the past year-and-a-half.
GE and GELcore are both charter members in the next
generation lighting consortia. Working with the Department of
Energy, other major lighting companies, national labs and
universities, we have helped create detailed technical roadmaps
for both LED and OLED technologies as described by Mr. Moorer.
We believe that the most effective way to achieve the many
technical breakthroughs needed to make solid-state lighting
practical and affordable is by close industry development and
Department of Energy cooperation and investment in basic
research starting as quickly as possible.
As stated by Dr. Romig, significant Government investment
is already in place around the world, trying to capture the
critical enabling technologies for light sources of the future.
Thank you for your continued support of the Next Generation
Lighting Initiative and for giving me an opportunity to speak
here today. I'd be happy to respond to any questions that you
might have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Becker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles A. Becker, Ph.D., Manager,
LEDs for Lighting, GE Global Research, Gelcore, LLC
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on a
very important initiative for energy efficiency, the Next Generation
Lighting Initiative (NGLI). NGLI, which is authorized in pending House
and Senate energy legislation, brings together government, industry,
national laboratories, and academia to develop a new form of energy-
efficient lighting based on solid state light sources. It is a part of
the Lighting Research and Development budget of the Department of
Energy's Office of Building Technology, State and Community programs.
Despite an on-going U.S. industry and government investment and
commitment to the development of energy-saving solid state lighting,
substantial technical obstacles remain. Full scale commercial
deployment will be significantly delayed, or achieved first by foreign
competitors, unless an effective and coordinated U.S. government and
industry research and development effort is launched. The objective of
NGLI, which is built around a 10-year program within the Department of
Energy and a consortium led by the solid state lighting industry, is to
accelerate the US-based research and development necessary for
transforming solid state lighting into a primary source for the
nation's and the world's general lighting needs.
In anticipation of NGLI, several leading optoelectronics and
lighting companies--including General Electric, GELcore, Emcore,
Philips, Agilent, LumiLeds, Osram, 3M, Corning, and Cree--have already
joined in a solid state lighting consortium, coordinated by the
Optoelectronics Industry Development Association (OIDA). In addition to
this industry support, NGLI has support from the Department of Energy.
Both the Office of Energy Efficiency/Renewable energy, represented here
by Secretary Garman, and Sandia National Lab, represented by Dr. Romig,
have played critical roles in shaping the technical program to ensure
success. Mr. Chairman, you and Senator DeWine introduced the original
legislation for Next Generation Lighting in the spring of 2001. Since
that time, many Members of Congress have strongly endorsed the
initiative. In fact, 22 members of the Senate and 22 members of the
House of Representatives wrote letters to endorse funding for NGLI in
fiscal year 2003. The Secretary of Energy this summer used solid state
lighting as an example of an initiative that could have high impact on
energy efficiency.
This strong show of government interest, as well as the technology
road mapping activities sponsored by OIDA and the DOE, have already
created tremendous momentum in the community towards achieving the
goals of NGLI, and have aroused the interest of numerous leading U.S.
universities, who are anxious to focus their research in this area.
General Electric has a longstanding commitment to energy efficient
lighting, as evidenced by several successful programs in conventional
lighting with the Department of Energy's Office of Building Technology.
In 1999, GE Lighting teamed with Emcore, a leading manufacturer of wide
bandgap semiconductor equipment and devices, to form the GELcore joint
venture, with a clear charter to forge the way in solid state lighting.
To accomplish this task, GELcore draws on the technology strengths of
GE Lighting, GE Global Research, and Emcore, as well as the global
market access and application knowledge of GE Lighting.
While investing heavily in the advanced technology required to
enable white solid state lighting in the future, GELcore is already
helping to reduce energy consumption through Light Emitting Diode (LED)
applications. We are one of the largest North American manufacturers of
LED traffic signals, which reduce electricity usage by up to 90% in
hundreds of thousands of installations across the country. GELcore
traffic signals sold in the U.S. over the last year will save more than
150 million kilowatt hours of electricity every year for many years to
come! GELcore has also recently introduced TetraTM, a new
LED system that replaces the neon tubes currently used in channel
letter signs on commercial buildings, again reducing the energy used by
80% or more.
Finally, GE Lighting and GE Global Research, with Department of
Energy help, are also investing in Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED)
white light technology. While this technology is several years less
mature and more risky than inorganic light emitting diodes, it holds
the promise of very low costs for large area lighting panels, as I will
explain later.
THE NEED FOR MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING
Lighting consumes a large and growing portion of all energy
generated in the United States--currently over 20 percent. Improvements
in lighting must be a primary focus to limit future growth in energy
consumption.
The incandescent light bulb and the fluorescent light tube have
long been the primary sources for general lighting needs. As very
mature technologies, these light sources have achieved only incremental
improvements over the last decades, and are near their maximum
potential energy efficiencies. Both convert only a small portion of the
energy they consume into visible light. A 100-watt incandescent light
bulb, for example, generates light from a glowing hot filament,
emitting only 5 percent of the energy it consumes as useful light, and
the rest as heat. Fluorescent tubes generate light by converting an
ultraviolet discharge from mercury gas to white light, but still
convert less than 30% of their electrical consumption into usable
light, the remainder ending up as waste heat. These inefficiencies are
the result of fundamental physics and are not subject to significant
improvements.
Solid State Lighting is based on the generation of light by
inorganic or organic semiconductor light emitting diodes. LEDs and
OLEDs are new technologies for light generation, and are governed by
different physical principles than conventional lighting. These
technologies today can convert over 50% of their electrical energy into
usable light in limited cases, and have the potential to approach 100%
conversion if certain technical barriers are overcome. The goal of the
NGLI program is to develop practical, affordable white lamps with more
than twice the efficiency of today's fluorescent lamps.
SOLID STATE LIGHTING: THE TECHNOLOGY AND ITS BENEFITS
Solid state lighting technology utilizes semiconductor devices
known as light emitting diodes or organic light emitting diodes to
generate light directly from the energy transitions of electrons in
semiconductor structures. Like solid state integrated circuits, these
devices are potentially highly energy efficient, long lasting, and
robust. In addition, like integrated circuits, their cost of
manufacture can be reduced exponentially year after year, as the
technology matures and volumes increase. By comparison, traditional
light bulbs are like the vacuum tubes of more than 30 years ago--short
lived, mechanically fragile, expensive, and hot. In addition, lighting
devices based on LEDs and OLEDs will offer a variety of new consumer
advantages, including extremely long lives, highly directional
lighting, reduced ``light pollution,'' a wide choice of colors, and
easy brightness adjustment.
LEDs
General Electric scientists actually invented the first inorganic
LEDs 40 years ago, but the brightness levels and available colors were
such that, until fairly recently, these devices have been useful only
as indicator or panel lights, such as those on electronic equipment.
Over the last decade, continuous improvements in LED lamp efficiency,
and the discovery of new semiconductor systems that allow all visible
colors to be efficiently generated, have made it possible to produce
LEDs that can actually throw usable light for illuminating other
objects. It has been practical since the mid nineties to use LEDs in
applications such as traffic lights, highway and exit signs, large area
video displays, and certain automotive lighting. However, in order to
achieve mass market acceptance of solid state lighting, particularly as
a source for general lighting needs, we still need to improve
efficiencies by nearly a factor of ten, reduce costs by a factor of
more than 100, improve the color characteristics, and create the
standards and infrastructure to allow easy use and interchangeability
among brands and fixtures. Once these obstacles are overcome, the full-
scale deployment of solid state lighting technology offers the
potential for the substantial economic, environmental, consumer, and
other benefits outlined by Secretary Garman and Dr. Romig.
A typical white LED lamp is a system that consists of one or more
semiconductor chips, a phosphor for converting the single color
emission of the chip into white light, and a package which holds and
protects the chip and phosphor, removes waste heat, and shapes the
light output. Reaching the efficiency and cost levels envisioned by
NGLI will require significant improvement in all of these components
and in the optimization of the entire system.
As just one example of dozens of technologies which need
improvement, we can consider the growth of the light emitting
semiconductor that is fashioned into an LED chip. Current state of the
art production for blue LEDs requires the growth of what is called a
wide bandgap semiconductor material on specialized, expensive wafers
made of either sapphire or silicon carbide. Multi million dollar
machines are used to grow this semiconductor layer one atomic layer at
a time in a several hour process on 2 or 3 inch diameter wafers.
Although a single wafer can produce over ten thousand small LED chips,
current yields can be as low 50%. As the experience of the silicon chip
industry over the last half of the 20th century shows, larger wafer
diameters, better starting materials, more efficient growth machines,
and traditional yield improvement techniques can dramatically reduce
the finished cost of chip, while simultaneously improving performance.
The NGLI roadmap calls for the industry to ``stand on the shoulders''
of the silicon chip industry, forging new technologies only where they
are required by the unique problems of generating light rather than
logic from chips.
OLEDS
Organic LEDs, or OLEDS, also produce light directly from the energy
transitions of electrons, but do so in specialized organic materials,
rather than in crystalline inorganic semiconductors. These light
emitting organic materials are placed between electrical contacts on
large area glass or plastic sheets, and emit light when current is
passed through them. Since the processing of such sheets can be done in
large machines like printing presses, rather than in typical
semiconductor equipment, OLEDS can potentially be made extremely
inexpensively.
The state of the art in white OLEDS is years behind that in LED
systems, but is rapidly improving, with the efficiencies of some colors
increasing by over 100 fold in less than 10 years. Substantial
challenges for this technology remain in overall efficiency, lifetime,
and the demonstration of the expected low cost manufacturing methods.
New light emitting materials, sealing techniques, and high speed
manufacturing processes are all required. An adjacent industry, which
is synergistic to this technology, is the development of large area,
organic material based photovoltaic cells.
Infrastructure
To realize the full savings potential of solid state lighting, the
industry must also develop and adopt a number of ``system'' standards,
making LED or OLED based light sources as practical and easy to use as
today's common incandescent or fluorescent lamps. The technical
roadmaps created by the industry with DoE involvement also address
these areas. As an example, new, highly efficient power supplies and
control systems and technologies will be needed to provide the voltages
required by LED and OLED systems. In addition, since we have far more
control over the color and placement of light with solid state sources,
human factors studies will be needed to optimize lighting for the
working and living environments.
Impact
It is estimated that, given expected market penetration, solid
state lighting could reduce global electricity usage for lighting by 50
percent over the next twenty years and reduce total global electricity
consumption by 10 percent. These changes equate to an overall reduction
in annual global energy needs of 1,000 terawatt-hours representing an
annual saving of over 100 billion dollars. The energy efficiency of
these devices will also translate into major reductions in carbon
emissions. It has been estimated that the United States alone could
avoid over 200 million metric tons of cumulative carbon emissions by
2020 if solid state lighting garners a significant share of the general
lighting market.
Solid state lighting promises better quality and more versatile
sources of lighting, including the ability to tune colors to virtually
any shade or tint. It also offers other desirable qualities, such as
light weight, small size, flexibility in deployment, and compatibility
with integrated circuits to produce ``smart'' light.
Finally, solid state lighting will be far more cost efficient in
terms of product maintenance and replacement. Unlike incandescent bulbs
and fluorescent tubes, LEDs and OLEDs are durable, long lasting, and
easier to operate and control. An example is this LED based stoplight,
which can be guaranteed for at least five year operation, and replaces
incandescent lamps requiring replacement as often as twice per year. In
some architectural applications, the very long life of LEDs may even
make it possible to incorporate them as a permanent part of the
structure, significantly reducing overall costs and building
maintenance.
Moreover, a flourishing solid state lighting industry will have
other important economic benefits to the United States in terms of
employment, growth in supplier and equipment industries, research and
development and new applications. As Dr. Romig points out, there are
also substantial potential benefits to the general wide bandgap
semiconductor industry, with multiple industrial and national defense
applications. Furthermore, as solid state lighting becomes a leading
source for general lighting outside the United States, the U.S. solid
state lighting and related industries will reap expanded economic
benefits for the nation.
THE NEED FOR A GOVERNMENT-INDUSTRY INITIATIVE
Based on the benefits of solid state lighting, including the need
to reduce energy consumption related to lighting, a government-industry
initiative to develop and mass market this technology will be in the
United States' economic and energy security interests. The United
States will benefit not only from major energy and cost savings,
improved lighting quality, and a positive environmental impact, but
also from the ability to enhance and maintain the competitiveness of
the U.S. solid state lighting industry at a time when this technology
is being aggressively pursued by other nations.
Efforts are underway in other countries to rapidly develop solid
state lighting as a viable alternative to conventional lighting
technologies. Government-sponsored industry consortia have been
established in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan to develop more efficient solid
state lighting technologies. It is generally believed that without a
substantial government-industry commitment in the United States,
competitors such as Japan and Taiwan will come to dominate solid state
lighting and become the standard-bearers of this important technology.
Current technology roadmaps for solid state lighting indicate that
the cost reductions and product development work necessary to
commercialize this technology for the general lighting market could
take a minimum of 12-18 years. The implementation of a focused
government-industry initiative to further develop this technology for
general illumination will substantially reduce this timeframe. Such a
shared initiative would reduce the cost of research and development,
enable important information sharing, and accelerate technology
innovation and the development of domestic and international standards.
The companies which have formed the solid state lighting consortium
will continue to invest heavily in this technology, even in the absence
of NGLI.. However, there are clearly major advantages that will accrue
from the forming and funding of NGLI.
First, such a coordinated program will significantly accelerate the
development of key underlying technologies by providing both industry
and government funding and sharing of critical pre-competitive high
risk technologies which no one company can afford.
Second, the communication forum and mutual trust that such an
arrangement between industry and the DOE provides will allow faster
progress by all companies involved and the industry as a whole. The
SEMATECH consortium formed in the 1980's is an outstanding model for
the potential of such research cooperation and scientific collaboration
between major industry players, their suppliers, end users,
universities, national labs, and the government to meet and outperform
global competition.
Finally, by involving not only the large lighting companies, but
also the equipment, packaging, fixture, architectural, and other
infrastructure companies in the lighting industry, this initiative will
speed the practical market acceptance of solid state lighting. The most
efficient lighting technology in the world will not save energy unless
it is practical, easy, and cost efficient to install.
The Chairman. Well, thank you, all three, for excellent
testimony.
Let me start by asking you, Mr. Moorer, if you had a chance
to review the proposal that we did introduce in this last
Congress to establish a next generation lighting initiative and
essentially commit substantially increased level of Federal
support to work with industry to develop this technology. Have
you reviewed that? Do you have a position on that, or any
thoughts on the appropriateness and value of that?
Mr. Moorer. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I have not reviewed it
in its entirety, but I am familiar with it. I don't have a
position on it, but I would like to make the comment that we
are always looking for opportunities to develop public-private
partnerships, and we always try and make sure that we can make
a case that there is a need for a Federal role in developing
technology.
We try to make sure that we can define a very clear
strategy for such a partnership, that we have measurable goals,
and that we are always evaluating the progress of that
partnership against what is really the changing marketplace,
and that's something that we look to industry to do.
In our own program, we continue to look for ways to
increase the amount of emphasis that we're putting on solid-
state lighting, and I think I would leave it at that.
The Chairman. Let me just ask, you know, one of the
analogies that has been referred to by many is what the Federal
Government did with the semiconductor industry, when it
initially provided funding, for several years, for the SEMATECH
operation, which established itself down in Austin, Texas. That
was a circumstance where the Reagan administration stepped up
and committed Federal funds through the Department of Defense.
Secretary Weinberger supported that initiative as Secretary of
Defense, and the result that--at least as I have understood the
history, and some of you on the panel probably could correct me
on this, but the result was that the U.S. firms in the
semiconductor business were able to retain and capture a
substantially larger portion of the employment and market and
have maintained it through today, as we can see with Intel's
operation across the river here.
Is that--is an analogy between where we are today in solid-
state lighting and where the semiconductor industry was back in
the early 1980's or mid-1980's with semiconductors, is that a
reasonable analogy, Mr. Moorer, or not?
Mr. Moorer. I think it is a fairly reasonable analogy, and
I think that we've really stepped up the amount of work that
we've done just in the last year-and-a-half with respect to the
workshops that I mentioned in my testimony, to try to get
together with the industry and with the national laboratories
to actually try and see what we can develop.
The Chairman. Let me ask, Dr. Becker, you referred, and
also Dr. Romig referred, to these efforts that are being made
in some other countries. I think you mentioned Europe, Japan,
Taiwan and Korea.
Dr. Becker. Yes.
The Chairman. What is the extent of those efforts? Are they
essentially what we're doing, the development of roadmaps,
workshops, or is there real long-term commitment funding? What
is happening in these areas?
Dr. Becker. I'll speak about the Japanese commitment, which
I believe is currently 5 years, approximately $50 million per
year of government subsidy. We've heard recently that there's a
move afoot underneath this initiative to actually increase and
lengthen that initiative within Japan. It's called the 21st
Century Lighting Initiative. It consists of the major Japanese
lighting companies, as well as several of the semiconductor
companies. It is focusing on developing ultraviolet-based white
LEDs. These would be LEDs that might have--well, mostly have an
advantage in terms of the quality of color.
As you know, the adoption of some lighting technologies,
such as compact fluorescents, has been fairly slow because
people dislike the color, dislike the long warm-up time. We
believe that LEDs, if we're not careful, may suffer the same
fate, so we're working very hard to understand the quality of
light that's required, and the Japanese initiative seems to be
focused on that.
A more recent initiative is starting up in Taiwan, which
has installed an incredible capacity over the last few years.
This is the type of reactors needed for LED technology and has
begun to enter the white LED market at the low end, but has set
its sights very high.
The Chairman. Dr. Romig, did you have any information you
could give us on these other efforts that are going on
internationally?
Dr. Romig. I think the one place where I would add a
comment is the European effort is more recent than the
Japanese. They're in their second year, but their strategy is
very much the same around roadmapping, equipment, producing of
products, and it has a level of funding that is, in fact, on
that same order of magnitude, around 50 million U.S. dollars
per year.
I'd also to like add a comment about your SEMATECH. Having
been involved in that program, I do see one difference in this
initiative and SEMATECH: it's one where individuals such as
yourself will be so vitally important. In the case of
semiconductors, we, of course, were the world leaders, and we
lost that leadership position, and we all know that Americans
are very good at reacting to things, and so we reacted to that
loss of leadership underneath a potential threat to our
national security.
This is a case where it's a new ball game, and it's not a
matter of getting back into it, and so you can't quite ring the
alarm bells the same as you could around semiconductors, and so
although the business model is a very good analogy, the
political courage to drive this one forward will be a little
more challenging, I think, than SEMATECH was.
The Chairman. Is there a funding available today to assist
with these technologies, Mr. Moorer, and how does it compare to
the 50 million a year that Dr. Becker referred to in Japan?
Mr. Moorer. We are spending about 4 million a year right
now in this area on a program that's totally directed at this.
We have some other programs that are targeted at small
businesses and universities where we try to take some of our
high-priority areas of research and get some funding done
there, so if you were to add those projects, as well, it
approaches about $6 million a year in support right now.
The Chairman. Do you know if there's a plan in the upcoming
budget submission to the Congress to increase that?
Mr. Moorer. I probably shouldn't comment on that, Mr.
Chairman, at this point.
The Chairman. Okay. That's still in the works.
Mr. Moorer. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Okay. Let me ask another--since you're only
testifying on this first panel, Mr. Moorer, you did testify
both about the solid-state lighting and the fuel cell
technology. One concern that I've got, and I think some of the
witnesses on the second panel will bring this out, but since
you won't be back up here as a witness, let me ask you about
it.
Ned Godshall, the CEO of MesoFuel, he has in his testimony
here a statement that I think is interesting. He says,
``Government investment in hydrogen generation and hydrocarbon
reforming will have a far bigger impact on fuel cell adoption
rates than additional funds applied to either fuel cells or
cars.''
Now, the effort that the administration has made to date
with the FreedomCAR, that being, as you've pointed out, the
flagship project to move us into a hydrogen economy, hydrogen-
based economy, would seem to assume something else, would seem
to disagree with what Dr. Godshall--or Ned Godshall--is saying
here. What is your response to that?
Mr. Moorer. Well, I think if we strictly look at the
dollars being invested being his point, and I hate to try to
speculate on his comment, we are spending within the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy about $2 to 1 for fuel
cell and propulsion technology versus hydrogen production, if I
think that's where he's coming from.
However, if you look at the entire Department of Energy,
and look at all of the work that we have going on right now,
there is a fair amount of work that you might define as
indirectly supportive of hydrogen production. If you look at
the fossil program and the work that's being done there on
gasification and those sorts of technologies, there is a fair
amount of work that would be considered indirectly supportive
of the production of hydrogen.
I think I should point out that there are a couple things
that have happened that are trying to make sure that we, in
fact, do have a balanced program. One is the hydrogen roadmap
that I mentioned in my testimony.
We're also, right now, involved in producing a hydrogen
posture plan which continues to follow through on making sure
that we have a balanced program with respect to both, not just
the production and the use of that hydrogen, but also how do we
move it? How do we store it? So there are a whole host of
issues in trying to drive home the hydrogen economy.
The Chairman. Did you say you have something else that's
coming out in addition to the hydrogen--so-called hydrogen
roadmap that you've already issued?
What is that that's coming out?
Mr. Moorer. It's a so-called posture plan, the Under
Secretary has asked us for, which is something that we're doing
in connection with that roadmap.
The Chairman. And who is developing this posture plan?
Mr. Moorer. It's an effort to, you know, there's always
this challenge of trying to coordinate activities across
various elements of not just a single department, but various
governmental agencies, as well as trying to get a handle on
what's happening in the industry, and what we're trying to do
here is basically follow through on the hydrogen roadmap, which
asked us to try to bring together all of the elements within
the Department of Energy that are working on fuel cell
technology and the fuels that would power those fuel cells.
The Chairman. But this posture plan is being developed
internally within the department; it's not an outside group.
Mr. Moorer. That's correct. That's correct.
The Chairman. Okay. All right. Well, thank you. I think
this is useful testimony, and obviously, we'll have a chance to
get into some of the hydrogen and fuel cell issues in more
depth here with the second panel.
Let me just thank all the witnesses, and particularly thank
Dr. Becker and Dr. Romig for your support of this next
generation lighting effort. We will continue to push that in
the new Congress, and we hope very much we can persuade the
Department of Energy to support that. I think it would be a
very good thing and might actually create some jobs, which
would be a good thing.
Mr. Moorer. Mr. Chairman, if I may?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Moorer. You asked me, before the hearing started, about
the juxtaposition of these two topics at today's hearing, and
it strikes me that there are some major common issues that face
both these exciting areas.
One is this issue of U.S. superiority or U.S. leadership in
both these areas. We're seeing foreign investment, foreign
government support, both in solid-state lighting and in fuel
cell technology, rapidly growing. We have the need for public-
private partnerships, trying to make sure that the Government
is working in an appropriate way with the private sector, and
then, finally, recognizing the value of our national
laboratories. I believe both these areas can benefit from that.
Thank you.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you all very much. Why don't
we go ahead with the second panel, Dr. Stroh with Los Alamos
National Laboratory; Dr. Mark Hampden-Smith, and Dr. Ned
Godshall.
Okay. I already went through a very short introduction of
each of you. Why don't we just--if no one has any particular
preference on this, Dr. Stroh, why don't you start, and we'll
just come right down the table here and hear from each of you,
and then I'll have a few questions. Go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF DR. KENNETH R. STROH, MATERIALS SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY DIVISION, LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY
Dr. Stroh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
report this morning on the status of our hydrogen and fuel cell
programs at Los Alamos National Laboratory. I'm Ken Stroh, and
I've worked at Los Alamos for nearly 25 years on energy systems
design, analysis and testing, but for the last 10 years, my
focus has been on fuel cells, and I currently manage the lab-
wide efforts on hydrogen, fuel cells and vehicle technologies
at Los Alamos. I expand on the brief comments I'm going to make
here this morning in my written testimony.
Since 1977, the laboratory has been performing leading-edge
research on polymer electrolyte membrane, or PEM, fuel cells
and the supporting technologies, with our primary funding
coming from the U.S. Department of Energy. Fuel cells directly
convert the chemical energy in a fuel to electricity with
higher efficiency and reduced environmental impacts compared to
fuel combustion and energy conversion in conventional engines
or turbines.
These highly efficient power conversion systems are fueled
by hydrogen and have emissions of greenhouse gases and criteria
pollutants that can approach zero when the hydrogen is made
from a clean process. Hydrogen can be derived from an array of
diverse domestic energy sources, thereby adding to our energy
security.
Systems coupling hydrogen production from water via
electrolysis, together with hydrogen storage and fuel cells, if
such systems can be made economical and durable, would enable
intermittent renewable energy sources, such as the sun and the
wind, to drive systems that dispatch power on demand. Such
systems could be ideal for off-grid power in remote locations
or as part of a distributed power system and would be emission-
free and, more importantly, sustainable.
The hydrogen and fuel cells program in Los Alamos has
helped advance these technologies to the point where they can
be considered for broad application to our power needs; for
applications that range from cell phones, laptop computers and
portable electronics, to combined heat and power for
residential, commercial and industrial buildings, to
transportation.
The focus of the Los Alamos effort over many years has been
on pre-competitive fundamental research that thereby enables
knowledge-based innovation. Deputy Assistant Secretary Moorer
mentioned one such area in the reduction of the amount of
platinum catalyst required, an enabling breakthrough for the
industry. Our goal is to further reduce or even eliminate the
need for this expensive and limited commodity.
Collaboration with industry has been a characteristic of
the Los Alamos program from the earliest days. In a recent
letter to the Department of Energy, the co-director of General
Motors Global Alternative Propulsion Center stated,
``Collaboration with Los Alamos, supported by the Department of
Energy, serves as the technical foundation for the intensive
development effort in fuel cells at General Motors today.''
Many key players in the emerging domestic fuel cell
industry trained or worked in the Los Alamos program. And many
of the first tests of pre-commercial products developed by
these companies were performed at the laboratory.
Although the promise of a sustainable clean energy future
based on renewable hydrogen and fuel cells is compelling, many
technical barriers remain to realizing that vision. State-of-
the-art fuel cells are still too expensive, even when one
considers the cost savings of mass production, and they are
still too large, too heavy, too fragile for widespread
application. Hydrogen generation and storage present additional
challenges.
The continuing contraction of the fledgling fuel cell
industry, and layoffs among the survivors, demonstrate the
technology, though promising, is not yet commercially viable.
There is a growing industrial consensus that significant
increases in fundamental, pre-competitive research and
development are essential to enable the innovation that is
required if fuel cell systems are to become competitive.
Los Alamos conducts a broad-ranging fundamental research
and development program for the Department of Energy's Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, which is aimed at
the necessary cost reductions, performance improvement and
durability enhancements. We receive additional funding in
focused areas from the DOE's Office of Science and Office of
Fossil Energy and from the Defense Advanced Research Project
Agency, and also directly from industry; however, no single
laboratory or company can meet the R&D demands, so partnering
is essential.
Mr. Moorer also described the FreedomCAR initiative where
Los Alamos provides the major portion of the fundamental fuel
cell R&D. I represent the laboratory as one of two non-industry
members on the FreedomCAR Fuel Cell Technology Team. This team,
acting under the umbrella of the United States Council for
Automotive Research, provides technical comment and industry
perspective on the department's technical targets and on its
research and development approach through monthly review
meetings.
Cooperative research and development agreements with
industry, known as CRADAs, provide both technology transfer to
the industry and further insights for the researchers into the
barriers to commercialization, which then helps to catalyze the
innovation that will lead to the next generation of fuel cells
and supporting technologies. Our current CRADA partners include
Motorola, Dupont and the Donaldson Corporation.
Los Alamos works with eight other national laboratories
participating in the DOE hydrogen and fuel cell programs and
with supporting companies, such as Superior MicroPowders
represented on the panel here today. We also have placed eight
coordinating university subcontracts for higher-temperature
membrane R&D that are further supplemented by a subcontract
with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
For the future, the President's budget request for fiscal
year 2003 contains language to initiate establishment of a fuel
cell national resource center at Los Alamos National Laboratory
to provide national focus and an integrated approach to
addressing technical barriers to polymer electrolyte membrane
fuel cell commercialization. This would be a national user
facility for research and development and testing.
While the designation of a national fuel cell center and
details of the center's work scope, operation and funding
requirements are subject to further discussion with the
sponsors, we believe the center, if established, will focus on
close collaboration with industry, universities and other
national laboratories, and will perform fundamental research
enabling the next generation of fuel cells and related
technologies that have the necessary reduced cost and higher
performance and increased durability.
The center will also provide resources in the form of
access to the existing knowledge base, access to experts in the
field and access to state-of-the-art experimental and
analytical capabilities, and it could provide a magnet for
regional economic development; however, realizing this vision
will require additional investment in the facility's equipment
and people.
In conclusion, for more than 20 years, Los Alamos has
developed the fundamental knowledge and technology innovations
enabling the current generation of low-temperature fuel cells.
This technology, if it can be made affordable and durable with
acceptable power and energy density, will enable a truly
sustainable energy future that is both emissions-free and that
conserves nonrenewable resources. Our country faces ongoing and
new challenges in energy, environment and economic security.
Our laboratory is committed to meeting these challenges for our
Nation and the world.
Finally, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
past support. Your continued support is critical to our ability
to meet the technically demanding and vital national challenges
we face today and in the future.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Stroh follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Kenneth R. Stroh, Materials Science and
Technology Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory
INTRODUCTION
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members and Staff of the
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, for the opportunity to submit
this report on the status of our Hydrogen & Fuel Cells Program at Los
Alamos National Laboratory. I am Ken Stroh, and I've worked at Los
Alamos National Laboratory for nearly 25 years on energy systems
design, analysis and testing. For the last 10 years my focus has been
on fuel cells, and I currently manage the lab-wide efforts on hydrogen,
fuel cells and vehicle technologies for the Laboratory's Energy and
Sustainable Systems Program Office.
Since 1977, the Laboratory has been performing leading-edge
research on polymer electrolyte membrane, or PEM, fuel cells and
supporting technologies, with primary funding from the U.S. Department
of Energy (DOE). Fuel cells directly convert the chemical energy in a
fuel to electricity, with higher efficiency and reduced environmental
impacts compared to fuel combustion and energy conversion in
conventional engines or turbines. These highly efficient power
conversion systems are fueled by hydrogen, and have emissions of
greenhouse gases and criteria pollutants that can approach zero when
the hydrogen is made from renewable sources. Hydrogen can be derived
from an array of diverse, domestic energy sources, adding to our energy
security. A companion technology, the electrolyzer, works like a fuel
cell in reverse, taking electricity and pure water and liberating
hydrogen. Systems coupling an electrolyzer, hydrogen storage and fuel
cells, if they can be made economical and durable, enable intermittent
renewable energy sources, such as the sun and wind, to drive systems
that dispatch power on demand. Such systems could be ideal for off-grid
power in remote locations, and would be emission-free and sustainable.
The National Vision of the U.S. Hydrogen Economy recently developed
by stakeholders and the Department of Energy is compelling--``Hydrogen
is America's clean energy choice. It is flexible, affordable, safe,
domestically produced, used in all sectors of the economy, and in all
regions of the country.'' Fuel cells are an enabling technology for
achieving this vision.
The Hydrogen & Fuel Cells Program at Los Alamos, which supports the
Laboratory's mission in the area of solving ``. . . national problems
in energy, environment, infrastructure and health security,'' has
helped advance these technologies to the point where they can be
considered for broad application to our power needs, for applications
ranging from cell phones, laptop computers and portable electronics, to
combined heat and power for residential, commercial and industrial
buildings, to transportation. In this testimony I will provide an
overview of accomplishments to date, the status of the program, and
challenges for the future.
BACKGROUND AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The focus of the Los Alamos effort over many years has been on pre-
competitive fundamental research that enables knowledge-based
innovation. For example, a key breakthrough enabled low-temperature
fuel cells to rapidly evolve from high-cost hardware for the manned
space program into a potentially viable commercial power system. The
development at Los Alamos of thin-film electrode technology reduced the
required precious-metal catalyst loading by a factor of 30 or more,
while simultaneously improving performance. This technology is nearly
universally used, and one major fuel cell component supplier even uses
the trade name ELAT, which stand for ``electrode Los Alamos type.''
Collaboration with industry has been a characteristic of the Los
Alamos program from the earliest days. In a recent letter to the
Department of Energy, the Co-Director of General Motors' Global
Alternative Propulsion Center stated, ``General Motors and Los Alamos
have a long and successful history working together to research and
develop fuel cells for automobiles. This collaboration, supported by
the Department of Energy, serves as the technical foundation for the
intensive development effort in fuel cells at General Motors today.''
Many key players in the emerging domestic fuel cell industry trained or
worked in the Los Alamos program. And, many of the first tests of pre-
commercial products developed by these companies were performed at the
Laboratory.
Use of hydrogen derived from reformed fossil fuels is a likely
transition strategy to the ultimate renewable hydrogen economy, and Los
Alamos has greatly improved low-temperature fuel cell impurity
tolerance and developed key fuel-processing cleanup technology. Los
Alamos used these technologies in a collaborative effort with industry
leading to the world's first demonstration of electricity production in
a polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell system fueled by gasoline.
Participating team members were awarded the 1997 Partnership for a New
Generation of Vehicles Medal for Government-Industry Teamwork.
Fuel cells offer the potential of battery replacements and portable
power systems that can be readily refueled, featuring high energy
density, high reliability, low noise, and low vibration. Applications
range from consumer electronics to power supplies for the defense and
intelligence communities. However, hydrogen supply can be an issue for
small systems. A variation of the hydrogen systems I've been discussing
uses dilute methanol (commonly known as wood alcohol) as the hydrogen
carrier. Methanol offers a high-density hydrogen storage medium, and
can be used as a liquid fuel in the Direct Methanol Fuel Cell, or DMFC.
In 2000, Los Alamos, in collaboration with Ball Aerospace, demonstrated
a complete, stand-alone direct methanol power system for the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the DOE.
In January 2001, the Los Alamos Fuel Cells for Transportation
Program was selected for the Energy 100--a list of the 100 ``finest
scientific accomplishments'' in the history of the Department of
Energy. That list was then given to a distinguished Citizen Judges
panel which further selected the Los Alamos effort for an Energy @ 23
Award, honoring those efforts in the 23 years of the Department that
best ``. . . demonstrated benefits to the American public, a
contribution to U.S. competitiveness in the global marketplace and the
potential for significant future growth.''
STATUS
Although the promise of a sustainable, clean energy future based on
renewable hydrogen and fuel cells is compelling, many technical
barriers remain the realizing that vision. State-of-the-art fuel cells
are still too expensive, even considering cost savings from mass
production, and are still too large, heavy and fragile for widespread
application. Hydrogen generation and storage present additional
challenges. Continuing contraction of the fledgling fuel cell industry
and layoffs among the survivors demonstrate that the technology, though
promising, is not yet commercially viable.
Los Alamos conducts a broad ranging fundamental research and
development program for the Department of Energy's Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy aimed at the necessary cost reduction,
performance improvement, and durability enhancement. We receive
additional funding in focused areas from the DOE's Office of Science
and Office of Fossil Energy, from DARPA, and directly from industry
(DOE's Office of Fossil Energy is developing a high-temperature fuel
cell technology in parallel with the PEM effort noted here, that may be
able to use hydrocarbon-derived fuels more efficiently--these systems
may find technical and market advantages in stationary systems).
Today, a focus of the Department's technology development efforts
is the Freedom Cooperative Automotive Research, or FreedomCAR,
initiative. The transportation sector has been targeted not only
because it represents about one-third of U.S. energy use and is
responsible for about one-third of the domestic greenhouse gas
emissions and the majority of urban pollution, but also because nearly
all oil consumed in this country is used to move people and goods. And,
the developing world will continue to demand increased mobility and
ever increasing numbers of vehicles, with global implications for fuel
use and pollution. The FreedomCAR goal is to develop hydrogen and fuel
cell technologies that can enable affordable full-function cars and
trucks that offer freedom from dependence on foreign oil, freedom from
harmful emissions, freedom of mobility, and freedom of vehicle choice,
all without sacrificing safety. I represent the Laboratory as one of
two non-industry members on the FreedomCAR Fuel Cell Technology Team.
This team, acting under the umbrella of the United States Council for
Automotive Research, or USCAR, provides technical comment and industry
perspective to the Department's technology targets and research and
development approach through monthly review meetings.
An independent panel representing industry and academia also
reviews the Department's research and development program annually. One
comment on the Los Alamos program, from the June 2000 Merit and Peer
Evaluation noted: ``This effort is doing exactly what the national labs
should be doing: leading the way and sharing knowledge.''
Cooperative Research and Development Agreements with industry,
known as CRADAs, provide both technology transfer to industry and
further insight into barriers to commercialization that helps catalyze
the innovation that will lead to the next generation of fuel cell and
supporting technologies. The Los Alamos fuel cell effort has CRADAs
with U.S. industrial partners ranging from portable electronics
manufacturers to fuel cell developers to hydrogen generation developers
to filtration companies. Current CRADA partners include Motorola,
DuPont, and the Donaldson Corporation.
FUTURE
The President's budget request for Fiscal Year 2003 contains
language to ``Initiate establishment of a Fuel Cell National Resource
Center at Los Alamos National Laboratory to provide national focus and
an integrated approach to addressing technical barriers to polymer
electrolyte membrane fuel cell commercialization. This will be a
national user facility for research, development and testing.'' While
the details of the National Resource Center's work scope, operations
and funding requirements are still being determined, we believe the
Center will focus on close collaboration with industry, universities
and other national laboratories, and will perform fundamental research
to enable the next generation of fuel cells and related technologies
that have reduced cost, higher performance and increased durability.
The Center will also provide resources in the form of access to the
existing knowledge base, access to experts in the field, and access to
state-of-the-art experimental and analytical capabilities. Ford Motor
Company, General Motors and others have written letters to the
Department of Energy supporting establishment of this National Resource
Center at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Our existing research and development program is housed in eight
separate buildings spread across the Laboratory site. Our main activity
is housed in a building that is over 50 years old and all facilities
are crowded and inadequate for even the current program, let alone an
enhanced national role. Working with our program sponsors in the Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, we are studying the
possibility of constructing a new building to house the Fuel Cell
National Resource Center. We are currently developing the pre-
conceptual design and program information to request a Critical
Decision-0 (CD-0), Justification of Mission Need, at the end of this
fiscal year. If CD-0 is approved and funding obtained, we hope to
perform the conceptual design work in Fiscal Year 2003. The conceptual
design work in 2003 would lead to a request for Critical Decision-1. If
CD-1 is subsequently approved and funds appropriated, the Laboratory
could be in a position to let a design-build contract as early as
Fiscal Year 2004.
If we do get the opportunity to put up a building for the Fuel Cell
National Resource Center, it is the Laboratory's intent to use this
facility as a pilot project in sustainable building design. Besides
designing a safe, worker friendly environment where productivity is
enhanced, we intend to demonstrate energy efficiency and advanced
technology taking guidance from the U.S. Green Building Council's
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED, criteria and
the 21st Century Laboratories initiative of the Environmental
Protection Agency and the DOE's Federal Energy Management Program.
Experience shows that this whole-building design approach can deliver
comparable first costs and much reduced life-cycle costs.
The Laboratory has identified a very visible and open-access
building site, where visitors can see energy efficiency and advanced
renewable technologies actually being used. This site is also adjacent
to the Los Alamos Research Park where we expect industrial
collaborators would establish local offices. We intend to make all
hydrogen required for our research with electrolyzers and hope to
provide the electrolyzers with electricity from a photovoltaic array,
thereby demonstrating the zero-emissions renewable solar hydrogen
cycle. We will consider providing building combined heat and power from
a fuel cell power plant running off natural gas. Regardless of
technology and features included, we intend to instrument the building
as a living laboratory, where we can quantify the benefits to sponsors,
visitors, and the building community. If the budget allows, we'd also
like to provide a hydrogen fueling system and electric charging station
for government fleet testing of fuel cell and electric vehicles.
CONCLUSION
For more than twenty years, Los Alamos has developed the
fundamental knowledge and technology innovations enabling the current
generation of low-temperature fuel cells. This technology, if it can be
made affordable and durable, could enable a truly sustainable energy
future that is both emissions free and that conserves non-renewable
resources. Our country faces ongoing and new challenges in energy,
environmental and economic security. Our Laboratory is committed to
meeting these challenges for our nation and the world.
In conclusion, I would like to thank you for your past support.
Your continued support is critical to our ability to meet the
technically demanding and vital national challenges we face today and
in the future.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mark, why don't you go ahead with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF DR. MARK HAMPDEN-SMITH, DIRECTOR AND VICE
PRESIDENT, SUPERIOR MICROPOWDERS
Dr. Hampden-Smith. Thank you. Good morning.
Senator Bingaman, thank you for this opportunity to speak
before the committee this morning.
The goal of this presentation is to give a brief overview
of fuel cells and their applications in general, and then focus
on the specific potential of methanol fuel cells for use in
remote applications of portable power.
Superior MicroPowders, or SMP as we call ourselves, is a
New Mexico-based business that is providing high-performance
materials for a number of energy-efficient market applications,
including the fuel cell, display and lighting industries. In
the fuel cell area, SMP is providing complete materials
solutions, including fuel processor catalysts, as well as fuel
cell stack electrocatalysts and electrode technology. More
information on our products and our strategic relationships is
available on our website.
SMP has been working with Motorola Labs in the development
of materials for methanol-fueled fuel cells. Motorola is a
leading developer of methanol-fueled fuel cell systems and the
leading U.S. manufacturer of portable electronic devices.
Motorola Labs previously demonstrated an early prototype
methanol-fueled fuel cell two-way radio battery charger to
Senator Bingaman on a recent visit to SMP.
Fuel cells are one type of a number of alternative energy
technologies that have the potential to make a significant
economic, strategic and environmental impact on our Nation and
on the rest of the world. Fuel cells convert a fuel, such as
hydrogen or hydrocarbons, and oxygen from air into water and
electricity. The applications for fuel cells are generally
divided into three categories: transportation applications,
stationary applications and small portable applications.
The use of fuel cells for transportation and stationary
applications can have a significant environmental impact by
avoiding the generation of environmentally unfriendly gases
produced from traditional power sources. While a potential
distributed fuel infrastructure exists for stationary
applications; namely, natural gas, the fuel infrastructure
remains an important issue to be resolved, particularly in
transportation applications.
A source of hydrogen that is not derived from fossil fuels
is desirable. An excellent source of hydrogen could be water,
in which case, noxious carbon-containing gases and gaseous by-
products would be completely avoided. There would, therefore,
be an environmental impact and a strategic impact due to the
reduced dependency on foreign resources of fossil fuels;
however, there is a great deal of technical development
required to make this vision a cost-effective reality, which
includes not only the development of fuel cell stacks and
systems architecture, but also fuel-reforming, fueling
infrastructure, safety, permitting, legislative issues and,
most likely, an integrated technology strategy to renewable
energy.
As a result, there are numerous government and State-funded
programs focused on the development of fuel cells for
transportation and stationary applications, and there are
numerous demonstration programs to demonstrate this technology
and educate the public. Our colleagues at MesoFuel, who are
developing fuel-processing technology, will provide more
information on the logistics of hydrogen use.
Fuel cells designed for small portable applications are in
a somewhat different situation. Here, small portable fuel cells
will be used to provide power for portable electronic devices,
such as communications devices, including two-way radios, cell
phones, personal data assistants and portable computers. In
this market segment, the competing technology is battery
technology, mainly secondary or rechargeable batteries. There
are a number of compelling reasons for utilizing fuel cells for
these applications.
From the consumer standpoint, future portable consumer
electronic devices are expected to combine multiple functions,
such as wireless voice and data communication, as well as
computing. Current studies indicate that the power requirements
of these devices will not adequately be met by current or
projected rechargeable battery technologies.
From an environmental standpoint, the fuel cell could be
used many times over by refueling it, and does not contain
environmentally-toxic materials, unlike its battery
counterparts, such as lithium ion or nickel cadmium batteries.
Logistically, fuel cells are attractive because they can be
instantly recharged by adding a new fuel canister, and
therefore avoiding the recharging time and carrying extra
rechargeable batteries.
Furthermore, the ability to operate the electronic device
remotely from the grid, because the grid is not required to
recharge a battery, is, we believe, of considerable strategic
value in certain applications, especially in the military and
emergency service.
Finally, from a national economic benefit and strategic
performance viewpoint, there is a strong driver for U.S.-based
companies to take the lead in technology commercialization for
portable power, a market currently dominated by foreign, mostly
Asian, companies.
For small portable fuel cells, the fuel is, again, an
important issue that must be addressed. Hydrogen is the best
candidate from an environmental point of view, but is currently
not practical due to the lack of high-energy density storage
technologies for hydrogen; a similar issue exists in automotive
applications of fuel cells.
Currently, methanol appears to be the most viable candidate
due to its high energy density, its availability, and the
technical success in operating fuel cells, either directly on
methanol, or on a reformed methanol fuel feed. These factors
mitigate some fueling issues; therefore, we view this area as a
likely early market entry for fuel cells in general.
Government support for the development of small portable
fuel cells has been mainly focused on strategic applications of
small portable fuel cells for military purposes and so funded,
primarily, by the Department of Defense. NIST has also
addressed dual-use aspects of portable fuel cells with a few
programs. Indeed, SMP has recently received two NIST ATP
awards, with Motorola and others as subcontractors, as well as
a DOE award for the discovery and development of automotive
fuel cell stack materials.
Motorola is funded through the Army Research Lab's
Cooperative Technology Alliance program to develop technology
for methanol-based portable fuel cells; however, there are
currently no methanol-fueled fuel cell demonstration programs
with significant scope, to our knowledge. The near-term
commercial potential of small portable fuel cells would be
significantly enhanced by a well-supported demonstration
program.
In the introduction of a broadly impacting new technology,
technology demonstration programs are critical to success for
both the technology developer, the end user, and for public
education. The State of New Mexico is well-positioned to play a
leading role in the development and demonstration of small
portable fuel cell technology due to the presence of technology
leaders in the State, including the national labs and a number
of small businesses, a customer base with a strong need and
political leadership that understands the issues involved.
We can envision a focused demonstration of portable
methanol-fueled fuel cell battery chargers for two-way radios,
with a customer vehicle such as forest fire fighters in New
Mexico. This customer set clearly has strategic interest to the
State.
Superior MicroPowders has a leadership position in fuel
cell materials technology development and Motorola has a
leadership position in fuel cell system technology and
commercialization and the Forest Service currently uses
Motorola two-way radios and communication systems. It is
envisioned that a demonstration program such as this will
provide a valuable starting point for a large and nationwide
developmental effort probably best administered by the
Department of Energy. The execution of a demonstration program
is an important step to better understand the performance
requirements, packaging and demographics of device operation,
as well as understand the logistics of a totally new way to
recharge by refueling a portable electric power device.
The value of small methanol fuel cells in forestry
applications is as follows: The rechargeable batteries used in
the existing two-way radios last 8 to 10 hours between
charging. In a remote location, where the electric grid is not
available and transporting a traditional electricity generator
is cumbersome or impractical, the rechargeable nature of the
battery becomes useless. The alternative is to carry numerous
disposable, or primary, batteries, or use rechargeable
batteries once; therefore, the first target application for a
small methanol fuel cell will be a charger that can recharge
the battery and require relatively small volumes of methanol to
be carried, rather than numerous batteries.
The development of a small portable fuel cell battery
charger avoids the need for complex interfacing between the
fuel cell and the two-way radio if the fuel cell were to be
used to power the two-way radio directly.
The same concept applies to a wide variety of other remote
applications for portable power, including military
applications, such as homeland security or remote special
forces activities, emergency services, the construction
industry and hospitality services, amongst others. Lessons
learned are likely to be applicable to other fuel cell
applications.
So in conclusion, we feel there is an excellent opportunity
for New Mexico to play a leading role in the demonstration of
methanol-fueled fuel cells for remote applications of portable
power through the presence of technology leaders, a strong
customer base, and a strategic need.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony
before the committee.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Dr. Godshall, you're the final witness here. We're
interested to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF DR. NED GODSHALL, CEO, MESOFUEL, INC.,
ALBUQUERQUE, NM
Dr. Godshell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me be
the clean-up batter here. Seriously, we're quite honored to be
here, so thank you.
I'll start off my remarks this morning, not by repeating
the excellent points made by others here this morning about
fuel cells, by my esteemed colleagues, Drs. Moorer, Stroh and
Hampden-Smith, but rather first touching on a point that is not
as often appreciated in our national debate on energy; that is,
in addition to the obviously important topic of how much energy
we have, we also need to consider the quality of that energy,
specifically the fact that electrical energy is more valuable
to us than the same amount of energy expressed in terms of
heat.
Without getting into the arcane topics of thermal mechanics
and entropy, which I'm sure would bore everybody here in the
room this morning, what this means is that by electrochemically
extracting the energy from our limited fossil fuels, rather
than burning it, as we now do almost exclusively, we can
extract far more useful energy from every barrel of oil that we
either import or produce ourselves, or indeed, as we're now
doing, using soybeans that are grown in the heartland of
America to produce that same amount of energy.
As Senator Bingaman previously pointed out this morning,
fuel cells have existed for 40 years. They were a key component
of America's space program in the 1960's and 1970's. Fuel cell
technology and products are available today. The single largest
impediment to their use, in the advent of a widespread energy
economy based on hydrogen, we believe, however, is the
surprisingly simple problem of distribution of the fuel to the
fuel cell; distribution, not of the fuel cells themselves, in
other words, but rather, distribution of the fuel, the hydrogen
itself, as was discussed previously by Mark.
By analogy, imagine that no gas stations existed with which
to fuel our cars today. In that scenario, the economic problems
faced by Detroit in selling new cars would not be the cost of
the cars themselves, but rather, the unrealistically high cost
of having a gasoline tank truck come to your house every
morning to put gas in your car.
The new beneficial technology of the car would therefore
never have seen the economic light of day in that scenario of
having no gas stations on the corner. We believe that the same
is true for fuel cells at the present time. The problem in the
case of hydrogen-fueled fuel cells, is the lack of low-cost
distributed fuel; that is, the hydrogen, not the fuel cells
themselves.
Some other technical and economical problems still exist,
as has been alluded to by Dr. Mark Hampden-Smith, our colleague
here at SMP, to be sure, but primarily is one of somewhat
higher cost than desired by the marketplace is the cost of the
expensive metal catalysts, but that economic problem is being
addressed by SMP, Los Alamos and Sandia, represented here this
morning. It is, therefore our belief that the primary economic
barrier to widespread fuel cell use in the emerging energy
economy is not the remaining cost issues with the fuel cells
themselves, but the lack of distributed hydrogen.
MesoFuel is a small company based here in Albuquerque.
We're focused on solving these remaining last hurdles in low-
cost, on-site, on-demand generation of hydrogen when and where
consumers need it. In this manner, we believe that we can be
instrumental in enabling the U.S.'s transition to a hydrogen-
based economy that is both more sustainable and environmentally
sound, as opposed to the current hydrocarbon-based energy
economy we live in today.
We do this by using new proprietary micro-scale technology
to chemically convert conventional and some exciting new
alternative fuels, as I mentioned, for example, soybeans,
directly into hydrogen in small new products called hydrogen
generators. We are looking to introduce those products later
this year.
The output of our products are, therefore, pure hydrogen
gas that can be supplied directly to the fuel cells to generate
electricity and water. Our hydrogen generator prototypes
generate hydrogens from conventional fuels, such as natural
gas, propane and butane, and as I mentioned, alternative fuels,
as well. We also plan to introduce products, early next year,
that will generate hydrogen from gasoline, diesel, kerosene,
jet fuel and other heavier hydrocarbons.
Most exciting to us, as I've alluded to, however, is our
current research which shows that we will be able to generate
hydrogen from sustainable renewable alternative fuels, such as
the oils extracted from soybeans and other crops grown, as I
said, in America's heartland. Each barrel of such oil is a
barrel of oil that is not imported from politically unstable
foreign markets.
Using our new meso-scale technology, we produce large
amounts of hydrogen gas from a relatively small product volume.
The core reactor of our first initial product is shown here.
It's no bigger than the size of a stack of business cards.
Combined with the inherently greater efficiency of fuel
cell technology, this process will produce much greater amounts
of electrical energy from a given quantity of hydrocarbon fuels
than current combustion processes. Our prototype for portable
applications is not much bigger, as I said, than a stack of
business cards, and our hydrogen generator for stationary
residential applications fits in about the size of a cubic box
about one foot on a side.
Coupled with an integrated fuel cell of equivalent 2-
kilowatt power, such a system is projected to be the size of
about that of a dishwasher, and can supply an average home with
both its electrical and hot water needs.
MesoFuel's on-demand, on-site generation of hydrogen also
innately solves another postulated problem with the emerging
hydrogen economy, and that is one of safety. Competing
technologies for distributing large amounts of hydrogen to
local fuel cells requires large amounts of hydrogen storage at
those fuel cell sites, whether that be portable, stationary or
automotive applications, as discussed earlier by Mr. Moorer.
Such storage mechanisms include high-pressure-compressed
gases and extremely cold liquefied hydrogen. Both of these can
pose, however, significant problems should the storage
container be ruptured or malfunction during fueling, especially
for those automotive applications. MesoFuel's business model,
however, is to generate the hydrogen on site only in the
amounts immediately required by the fuel cell or other
application. In this manner, no storage of hydrogen is
necessary, and the safety concerns, we believe, are
significantly reduced.
Additional advantages of the integrated hydrogen generator
fuel cell combination are, one, both technologies have
virtually no moving parts and generate no or little noise.
These advantages have led to keen interest, as Mark mentioned,
by both U.S. military and commercial entities desiring either
primary or backup power in a distributed environment;
Two, distributed power also now carries a homeland security
component with it, since many sites around the country
producing smaller amounts of electrical power will have obvious
advantages over a few centralized sites producing large amounts
of power, by being not as vulnerable to targeted threats;
Three, unlike batteries, again, as Mark said, the system
requires neither recharging, costly maintenance nor replacement
when the chemicals inside the batteries are depleted;
And lastly, four, MesoFuel's technology produces no nitrous
oxide components, nitrogen oxides. Not only does our technology
operate at a far lower temperature than combustion processes
that produce such noxious pollutants, but our particular method
of generating hydrogen uses water, interestingly, rather than
air, which completely eliminates the source of nitrogen from
which these nitrogen oxides are produced.
I might also just mention that MesoFuel's technology is
really part of a larger effort here in New Mexico in the
exciting area, realm of technology in general known as
microsystems or meso-scale technology. And again, even though
he didn't speak on it earlier, Dr. Al Romig, I think,
represents that embodiment of that new effort here at Sandia
National Laboratories, and it is rather quite exciting for the
State of New Mexico.
Microsystems technology refers to a size scale that's only
about the width of one to ten human hair diameters, and
although this is smaller than products made by conventional
machining that is current technology, it is actually larger
than the size scale found in today's microelectronic chips; for
example, at Intel.
This size scale and the ability to produce products in this
fundamental characteristic operating size range has,
nevertheless, been largely overlooked until now, we believe.
MesoFuel and its parent company, MesoSystems, along with New
Mexico's two national laboratories, as I said, are leading the
Nation in this technology and the novel products that are now
possible from it. MesoFuel's especially focused on applying
this new meso-scale technology to miniaturizing hydrogen
generation for the distributed power applications we've
discussed here this morning.
In summary, MesoFuel believes that we can make a big impact
on the way the Nation meets its future energy needs. Even
though we are a very small company, we have lofty goals. Thank
you for this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to testify before the
Senate Committee on Energy and National Resources and for
soliciting our input and that of my esteemed colleagues here
today.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Godshall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Ned Godshall, CEO, MesoFuel, Inc.,
Albuquerque, NM
Dear Chairman Bingaman:
Thank you for this opportunity to speak before the Committee's
field hearing this morning.
As you know, there has been great renewed interest recently in the
subject of fuel cells and the role that the ``hydrogen economy'' can
play in reformulating the way we procure and use energy in the United
States. Hydrogen is the most abundant element on earth. However, the
majority of this hydrogen carries with it no inherent energy content,
because it is chemically combined with oxygen in the form of water.
That is, water may be thought of not in its usual way, but as ``the
fully oxidized form of hydrogen''. And because the hydrogen is fully
oxidized, we cannot ``burn'' it further or extract any energy from it.
So let us picture water as one extreme end of a continuum of hydrogen-
containing compounds that contain more or less inherent energy.
The Energy Continuum
Energy Content
Low ________________________________________________________ High
Water (H2O) Hydrocarbons
(CxHy) Hydrogen (H2)
Fortunately for us, not all hydrogen-containing compounds are fully
oxidized. The very large class of materials known as ``hydrocarbons''
represent a form of hydrogen that is chemically combined with carbon.
Hydrocarbons have sizable energy content, although not the maximum
possible, since some of the hydrogen atoms' inherent energy is tied up
with the carbon atoms. Hydrocarbons include not only the fossil fuels
that we extract from the ground throughout the U.S. and the world--
crude oil, coal, natural gas (and the things refined from them:
gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, home heating oil, etc.)--but they also
represent the basis of the foods we eat--sugars, carbohydrates, etc. In
both cases, fuels and food, we ``burn'' these hydrocarbons in oxygen
(air) to extract their remaining inherent energy content to benefit us.
Let us then contemplate the other extreme end of the above ``Energy
Continuum''--the case where hydrogen has not given up any of its
inherent energy to other atoms chemically tied to it. This case is
simply that of pure hydrogen--a gas (at room temperature and pressure)
that when reacted with oxygen releases an immense amount of energy. It
is this energy that is the focus of the current popular discussion
about the ``hydrogen economy''--not the hydrogen per se. When combined
with oxygen to form water, hydrogen represents the ideal scenario for a
fundamentally improved energy policy for America, since it represents:
The largest amount of energy in the above Energy Continuum
The simplest and cleanest carrier (fuel) of that energy
The lowest pollution burden (only pure water is produced)
THE PRESENT: BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS
Most of the world's present energy is obtained from burning
hydrocarbons--the ``middle ground'' in the above Energy Continuum. This
has successfully led the United States and the other industrialized
countries through the industrial revolution of the 19th and 20th
centuries, but it now poses problems for the economic growth of both
the under-developed countries as well as our continued growth and
energy needs. Foremost among these problems is that of environmental
pollution. Not only does the burning of hydrocarbons represent less
than the optimal amount of energy possible on the above Energy
Continuum, but it also contributes to ``global warming'', since the
``carbon half'' of the hydrocarbon is turned into carbon monoxide and
carbon dioxide during the burning process. To make matters worse, some
of the nitrogen present (from the air) during such burning of fossil
fuels leads to harmful nitrogen oxides. Similarly, sulfur present
naturally in many fossil fuels is also oxidized during such burning,
and directly leads to ``acid rain''.
THE FUTURE: DIRECT CONVERSION OF HYDROGEN
The reaction of pure hydrogen with oxygen, however, results in none
of these environmental problems. The only byproduct (pollutant) of the
reaction that need be produced is pure water. Changing the country's
energy policy to one based on a ``hydrogen economy'' would therefore
not only result in a greater amount of useable energy than the
equivalent amount of hydrogen in the fossil fuel hydrocarbons that we
extract from the ground, but would also greatly reduce the
environmental burden associated with our energy use.
the quality of energy
A critical point that is often overlooked in the present debate is
the quality of the energy that is produced in both scenarios.
Presently, the first thing that we do with nearly all fossil fuels
extracted from the ground is that we burn them. This burning process
extracts the inherent energy in the fuel--but it unfortunately does so
in a manner that represents the lowest possible form of that energy--
heat. Imagine another continuum, this time one describing the quality
of energy, rather than the amount of energy:
The Energy Quality Continuum
Energy Content
Low ________________________________________________________ High
Heat Motion Electricity
Electricity represents the highest form of a given amount of
energy; heat, the lowest form of that same amount of energy. The motion
of, say, a car or a vacuum cleaner motor represents an intermediate
form of that same amount of energy. A quick illustration will
demonstrate the point that the same amount of energy has different
``qualities'' associated with it: we know that in our homes we can turn
on our electric stove tops and convert electricity from our local power
company into heat by boiling a pan of water. However, the converse is
not true--we cannot take that same energy (in the boiling water) and
easily convert it back into electricity to power our vacuum cleaner.
Any energy generation process is therefore far more useful if it
directly results in electricity rather than heat.
Fuel cells powered by hydrogen do just that--they directly convert
the energy content inherent in the hydrogen fuel into electricity. They
do not burn it, as we presently do with 99% of all fossil fuels
extracted from the ground for energy use today. Stated differently,
even if the above-described benefit of a future ``hydrogen economy''
over our present ``hydrocarbon economy'' did not exist--just this
``direct conversion to electrical energy'' point alone could represent
huge cost savings and reduced foreign oil imports over the present
situation. Presently, we burn fossil fuels in our cars and our homes
and most of our power plants. By doing so, we immediately reduce the
fuel's inherent energy content to its lowest form. Then, we are forced
to extract back only a small fraction of that energy in relatively
inefficient mechanical devices, such as the engines in our cars and
generators in our power plants.
A car, for example, utilizes only about 15% of the inherent energy
in the gasoline with which we fuel it. That is because we burn 100% of
it immediately, reducing the gasoline to its lowest possible form--and
then we convert about 15% of that heat back into motion through the
pistons in the engine to make our cars go down the road. The remaining
85% of the energy is lost as heat, which is why we need the radiators
in our cars to cool the engine from all the lost heat. A fuel cell
powered car, conversely, directly converts the fuel's inherent energy
into electricity without burning it and without this innate degradation
of the energy. This direct conversion to electrical energy could
represent huge cost savings and reduce foreign oil imports over the
present situation. Even just a 5% increase in the country's energy
efficiency through such direct energy generation would represent
millions of barrels of oil that need not be imported.
SO WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
So here we have a great new technology: hydrogen--a simpler form of
energy with a higher energy content than an equivalent amount of
hydrocarbons, one that can be easily converted into a higher and more
efficient form of that energy (electricity) when coupled with a fuel
cell, and one that has virtually no pollution or environmental
drawbacks! So what's the problem? Why is it not here already?
The problem, as with any new technology, is economics. Technology
does not a business make. Until the economics of fuel cells and the
hydrogen economy become cost competitive with the present hydrocarbon
economy, these technologies will remain only intellectual curiosities
and research laboratory pursuits.
Fuel cells have existed for 40 years. They were a key component of
America's space program in the 1960s and 1970s. Fuel cell technology
and products are widely available today. The single largest impediment
to their use, and the advent of a widespread energy economy based on
hydrogen, we believe, is the surprisingly simple problem of
distribution. Distribution not of the fuel cells themselves, but rather
distribution of the fuel--the hydrogen itself.
By analogy, imagine that no gas stations existed with which to fuel
our cars. In that scenario, the economic problems faced by Detroit in
selling cars would not be the cost of the cars themselves, but rather
the unrealistically high cost of having a gasoline tank truck come to
one's home each time the car's gas tank ran empty. The new beneficial
technology of the car would never have seen the economic light of day
in that scenario. We believe that the same is true for fuel cells at
the present time. The problem in the case of hydrogen-fueled fuel cells
is the lack of low-cost distributed fuel--hydrogen--not the fuel cells
themselves.
Some other technical and economic problems still exist, to be sure,
with widespread fuel cell sales and acceptance--primarily the one of
somewhat higher cost than desired by the marketplace due to the cost of
expensive metal catalysts. But that economic problem is being addressed
and solved by fuel cell manufacturers and their suppliers, for example
through the development of electrode micropowders that perform better
while actually using much less of the expensive metals. One such
important developer, Superior MicroPowders, is another local New Mexico
company based here in Albuquerque, and another panelist here this
morning, Dr. Mark Hampden-Smith, is SMP's V.P. and co-founder. These
remaining fuel cell technical and cost hurdles are also being addressed
and solved by New Mexico's two national laboratories, Sandia National
Laboratories and Los Alamos National Laboratory, represented here also
this morning by Drs. Al Romig and Ken Stroh, respectively.
MESOFUEL, INC.
The primary economic barrier to widespread fuel cell use and the
emerging hydrogen energy, therefore, is not the remaining cost issues
with the fuel cells themselves, but the lack of distributed hydrogen.
MesoFuel is focused on solving this remaining last hurdle--the low-
cost, on-site, on-demand generation of hydrogen when and where
consumers need it. In this manner, we believe that we can be
instrumental in enabling the U.S.'s transition to a hydrogen-based
energy economy that is both more sustainable and environmentally sound.
We do this by using new proprietary micro-scale technology to
chemically convert conventional and alternative fuels directly into
hydrogen in small new products, called Hydrogen Generators, that we are
introducing later this year. The output of our products is pure
hydrogen gas that can be supplied directly to the fuel cell to generate
electricity and water. Our Hydrogen Generator prototypes generate
hydrogen from conventional fuels such as natural gas, propane, and
butane. We also plan to introduce products early next year that will
generate hydrogen from gasoline, diesel, kerosene, and jet fuel. Most
exciting to us, however, is our current research, which shows that we
will also be able to generate hydrogen from sustainable, renewable,
alternative fuels such as oils extracted from soy beans and other crops
grown in America's heartland. Each barrel of such oil is a barrel of
oil that is not imported from politically unstable foreign markets.
Using our meso-scale proprietary technology, we produce large
amounts of hydrogen gas from a small product volume. Combined with the
inherently greater efficiency of the fuel cell technology, this process
will produce much greater amounts of electrical energy from a given
quantity of hydrocarbon fossil fuels than current combustion processes.
Our prototype for portable applications is not much bigger than a stack
of business cards, and our Hydrogen Generator for stationary/
residential applications fits in a cubic box about one foot on a side.
Coupled with an integrated fuel cell of equivalent 2 kW power, such a
system is projected to be the size of a dishwasher, and could supply an
average home with both its electrical power and hot water needs.
MesoFuel's on-demand, on-site generation of hydrogen also innately
solves another postulated problem with the emerging hydrogen economy:
safety. Competing technologies for distributing large amounts of
hydrogen to local fuel cells require large amounts of hydrogen storage
at the fuel cell site, whether that be portable, stationary, or
automotive applications. Such storage mechanisms include high pressure
compressed gases and extremely cold liquefied hydrogen. Both can pose
significant safety problems should the storage containment be ruptured
or malfunction during fueling, especially for automotive applications.
MesoFuel's business model, however, is to generate the hydrogen on-site
only in the amounts immediately required by the fuel cell or other
application. In this manner, no storage of hydrogen is necessary, and
the safety concerns are significantly reduced.
Additional advantages of the integrated Hydrogen Generator/fuel
cell are:
Both technologies have virtually no moving parts and
generate no noise. These advantages have led to keen interest
by both the U.S. military and commercial entities desiring
either primary or backup power in a distributed environment.
Distributed power also now carries a homeland security
component with it, since many sites around the country
producing smaller amounts of electrical power will have
advantages over a few centralized sites producing large amounts
of power, but vulnerable to targeted threats.
Unlike batteries, the system requires neither recharging,
costly maintenance, nor replacement when the chemicals inside
the batteries are depleted.
MesoFuel's technology produces no nitrous oxide pollutants
(NOX). Not only does our technology operate at a far
lower temperature than combustion processes that produce
NOX pollutants, but our particular method of
generating hydrogen uses water rather than air, which
completely eliminates the source of nitrogen from which
NOX is produced.
MICROSYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY
MesoFuel's technology involves an exciting new realm of technology
known, in general, as Microsystems (or meso-scale) technology.
Microsystems technology refers to a size scale that is about the width
of only 1 to 10 human hair diameters. Although this is smaller than
products made by conventional machining, it is actually larger than the
size scale found in today's microelectronic chips. This size scale, and
the ability to make products in this fundamental characteristic
operating size range, has nevertheless been largely overlooked until
now. MesoFuel, and its parent company MesoSystems--along with New
Mexico's two national laboratories--are leading the nation in this new
technology and the novel products that are now possible from it.
MesoFuel is specifically focused on applying this new mesoscale
technology to miniaturizing hydrogen generation for distributed power
applications.
MESOFUEL'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ENERGY COMMITTEE
The primary need is for hydrogen and hydrogen generation
technology, and the need for sustained and significant
investment in these issues by DoE. Most of the present research
and development money is going into fuel cells and fuel cells
cars, not hydrogen generation. Government investment in
hydrogen generation and hydrocarbon reforming will have a far
bigger impact on fuel cell adoption rates than additional funds
applied to either fuel cells or cars.
Long-term government tax relief incentives, such as those
used to support the wind power industry twenty years ago, would
support faster adoption of fuel cells and accelerate the
commercial viability of the industry.
Future U.S. energy policy should incentivize both the
private and public sectors towards significant clean air and
alternative/renewable energy economies. The reaction of
hydrogen with oxygen, especially when occurring
electrochemically in a fuel cell, represents the cleanest and
most environmentally benign process imaginable for intelligent
use of scarce natural and renewable resources. The prospect of
significantly reducing harmful nitrogen oxides, for example,
should be strongly encouraged in the 21st century. Similarly,
the prospect of reducing foreign oil imports through
incentivized development and use of renewable fuels such as soy
diesel, methanol, and ethanol to produce hydrogen should be
equally encouraged by U.S. energy policy.
In summary, MesoFuel believes that we can help make a big impact on
the way the nation meets its future energy needs. Thank you for this
opportunity to testify before the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, and for soliciting our input and that of my esteemed
colleagues here today.
The Chairman. Well, thank all three of you for excellent
testimony.
Let me ask Dr. Stroh first, your--you say you are on the
board that's involved with development of the FreedomCAR, as I
understood your testimony.
Dr. Stroh. I'm on the fuel cell technology team for
FreedomCAR, yes.
The Chairman. The fuel cell technology team. What is the
time frame that is being considered there for actual
development of a commercially available fuel cell-powered car?
Dr. Stroh. The targets for complete market competitiveness
are on the order of a decade. There are interim targets and
there will be, you know, functionally appropriate products,
that could go into Government fleet demonstrations and other
fleet markets where you don't have to put in broad
infrastructure because fleets have limited operating range and
tend to have a centralized support, in much nearer-term.
Some of the foreign companies are talking about leasing
fuel cell vehicles to governments in the next year or two.
The Chairman. And those fuel cell vehicles foreign
companies are going to have available in the next year or two,
how are they powered? What is the source of the hydrogen that--
--
Dr. Stroh. Well, nearly all the vehicles that are out there
in test situations, such as the California fuel cell
partnership, are powered by direct hydrogen on board, either as
compressed gas, or in some cases, stored on board as liquid
hydrogen or in metal hydrides.
There are a few vehicles out there with on-board reformers
for--DaimlerChrysler has one with methanol. General Motors has
one with gasoline, so there are vehicles of all types out
there, but the vast majority of things you might see in the
press releases are hydrogen vehicles.
The Chairman. Let me try to get straight in my own head
here the various applications that people have in mind for fuel
cell technology.
I think, Mark, you referred to it in your testimony as a
transportation application, which is the FreedomCAR, and the
various others that we just talked about; a stationary
application where you would put a unit in a home, for example,
that would provide power for the home; a third would be the
small portable applications; and is there a fourth, or is
that--are those the three that----
Dr. Hampden-Smith. I think that covers it, yeah.
The Chairman. I guess I'm concerned, from the little I know
about this, that the priority that we have established by
making this FreedomCAR the sort of flagship effort with regard
to fuel cell development, the priority we've set is in that
area, the transportation application, and that is the most
difficult and the farthest in time from being actually
feasible, and some of these other things are getting short
shrift, which might actually produce much nearer-term results
that would then help us in developing the FreedomCAR or other
applications.
Do you have any views on that, Dr. Stroh?
Dr. Stroh. Yes, I do, and I'm sure my colleagues do, as
well.
You're right in that the transportation application is like
doing the hardest problem first. In order to be in your
vehicle--mine's parked outside--it's got to be cheap, light,
small, put up with very little maintenance, operate in all
kinds of environmental conditions, and rapid start-up, all
those kinds of things. The thing is, if you can do that
transportation application, all the other applications are
available to you because their constraints are less.
You can pay several times the dollars per kilowatt for
stationary application that you can for transportation, but
there are trade-offs there, too. You'd like a stationary
application to last much longer than you would a transportation
system, so there are different challenges in each application.
The thing that's common, which I think argues against the
idea that one application is getting the short end, is that the
materials and the types of construction in all these devices
are very similar, even comparing hydrogen fuel cells and liquid
methanol fuel cells. The materials at the heart of the electric
chemical conversion are the same, and in fact, the
transportation program, under FreedomCAR, actually funds work
at Los Alamos on few-watt direct methanol fuel cell systems
because that may be one of the very earliest market
applications, it may be the place the consumers first get used
to relying on fuel cells and buying fuel cells. It maybe be the
first applications that lead to mass production of the core
material, and therefore, it is enabling for the transportation
application.
I think the reason that you see the bulk of the effort
oriented toward transportation is that's where we use oil, and
anybody that uses energy has issues with emissions and
efficiency of the fuel source, but transportation, we use most
of the oil we use in this country. And so I think it's
reasonable for that to have a very high priority.
The Chairman. Let me ask, Mark, did you have a comment on
where we're putting our emphasis in the research and
development of these different applications?
Dr. Hampden-Smith. Yes, I think so. I don't think I
actually completely agree with everything Dr. Stroh just said.
I think actually, it's perhaps the other way around. I think it
was a very clever thought of the DOE to go after the most
demanding, the highest-cost target market because that drives
the rest of the industry. So if you look at some of the cost
targets, I mean, full adoption of fuel cell cars has the cost
around $50 a kilowatt, maybe $30 a kilowatt, I think, as we
heard earlier today. That's extremely demanding.
A stationary residential fuel cell has a cost target of
full market adoption of $500 a kilowatt, so as we've seen
actually in the industry, a lot of the car companies are now
looking at providing stationary fuel cells because they realize
they can get revenue on the way to making a car. You could look
at Toyota, they've got stationary residential fuel cell
programs.
And actually, at the other extreme, if we all grab our
little cell phones, of course, if we pay $100 for our long-life
lithium ion battery, and it puts out a watt, that's $100,000 a
kilowatt. That's the math. So, which market supports the
earliest entry point? Probably this one, because we're already
paying a $100,000 a kilowatt. So I think, actually, from the
beginning, to have an aggressive target on the most demanding
application is absolutely the right thing to do.
I think, as the technology develops, I think there's a lot
of leverage in what's being developed in terms of reforming, in
terms of electrocatalysts; you can pick up the other markets on
the way there, so perhaps now it is time to look at some of
those other market opportunities and getting some government
support for that, but actually, it is happening. I think DOE
has a solicitation coming out in the residential fuel cell
area, so I think, through all the good lobbying that's going on
and good information that's being exchanged between private
industry, the national labs and politicians, you know, the
vision is being shared, and I think the direction is being
taken.
Of course, we have a particular interest in wanting to see
something perhaps go more into the direct methanol area or
methanol fuel, in general, because--or maybe support that fuel
being separated, but there is a market need, why, we're all
currently paying well above the prices of fuel cell----
The Chairman. Dr. Godshall, did you have a point of view?
Dr. Godshell. Yeah. Thank you.
I think it is an excellent point to raise and so I'll just
try--I agree with everything he said, so I'll just try to add
one other component to it, if that's helpful to the committee,
and that's to put some numbers on these three markets you've
identified without getting into engineering.
The portable market, I think that's obvious to everybody,
is, obviously, much smaller than the transportation need in
your car, but what's not as well-appreciated is the residential
application. That middle market we've talked about is actually
considerably smaller in the actual size of that one unit, that
one application, so to put numbers on them, the portable
application, like Mark just mentioned, is on the order of .1
kilowatt. A car takes on the order of 100 to 150 kilowatts, and
what's surprising there now, to most people, is that a home
only takes 2 to 5.
So a car takes, in terms of power, takes anywhere from 75
to 100 times that of the power it takes to run your home. And
although that surprises people at first, the reason for that is
really quite obvious, and that is, you're not trying to drive
your home down the highway at 60 miles an hour, so the only
point that I'm really trying to be helpful with here, is, first
of all, is that the residential market, which we are targeting
because it is closer to approach, it is the nearer time, as you
suggested, Senator, is also an easier and more near-term market
physically, just because its application is the size of the
unit that we may make or the size the fuel cell is can be up to
100 times smaller than the equivalent of that amount of power
that you need to run your car down the road.
The Chairman. Well, as I say, I guess my concern is that as
we are focused on the hardest problem, and that may be a good
strategy from the point of view of pushing the envelope, as far
as development of technology, it may not be the right strategy
as far as getting fuel cell technology utilized, and I'm
wondering if we're going to end up essentially ceding to
foreign competitors the nearer-term market in fuel cell-
related, technology-related applications while we are focused
on helping develop the FreedomCAR somewhere down the road. Is
that----
Dr. Godshell. That absolutely is our belief. Now, again, I
remind everybody again that there is--it's somewhat self-
serving for us to say that because that is the business model
we have taken, but we've taken it for the very reason you've
said, Senator. We believe it's a very near-term and much more
plausible avenue to tackle the more doable things first. Some
of our competitors have indeed taken the opposite approach, and
that is go directly to the automotive market, which, as Dr.
Stroh said, is admitted by all that are knowledgeable in the
field is a much more difficult, much more long-term task, so
you're absolutely right.
It's our belief that what we should have been picking is
the more portable and residential applications, not only
because they're near-term and partly what you suggested, that
we don't miss the boat, and so, absolutely, we concur that as
long as it's well-balanced, all three of these markets, in
terms of fuel cells, obviously, need some attention by the
research and Government funding sources, but yes, we do believe
that perhaps the smaller--physically smaller applications have
not gotten as much attention.
The Chairman. Mark, let me ask you, you are focused on
using methanol as the fuel to operate these fuel cells. What is
the reason that is chosen over other sources? I gather that
there's some advantage to that. Maybe it's just the thing that
you are sure----
Dr. Hampden-Smith. In general, without being here for 3
hours, the use of fuel cells and the fuels that fuel them is
going to be extremely application-specific. I mean, let's look
at those three areas, I mean, briefly, and let you get kind of
a better feel for why people are choosing different
technologies.
Actually, we make materials for fuel cells powered by
natural gas, hydrogen and methanol. It just happens that
methanol is particularly suitable for this particular market
for portable power. But if you go back and look at the
transportation area, you've only got two choices; you can say
I'm going to use this infrastructure that fuels all our cars
today, and ``I'm going to put some device on the car that
converts the gasoline that I would put into it,'' or some other
fuel, ``into hydrogen that runs the fuel cell,'' and I think
DOE, in consultation with all the car companies, are saying,
``Well, gee, that's unlikely to be realistic because of the
issues of a fuel processor to run such a big fuel cell small
enough I'm not going to be able to fit it in the car.'' So
they've immediately taken the burden out of, perhaps,
developing the fuel cell for the car to making that problem
more the hydrogen infrastructure for the automotive
application. So that's one issue, as I see it. Chances are,
fuel cell vehicles are going to be fueled by hydrogen, and it's
going to be reformed off-site, somewhere else.
Now, in the stationary application for homes, and that
would be--stationary fuel cells could be 250 kilowatts, the
nice thing about stationary fuel cells is, if you run them off
natural gas, the fueling infrastructure already exists, for the
most part, or you could run them off liquid propane, for
example, or some other fuel that is commonly distributed, so
stationary fuel cells are probably closer to the market because
there's no logistic fueling infrastructure issue in the sense
of where I do get the fuel from. Most of our homes will be
plumbed with natural gas.
If you want to make a very small fuel cell, you're really
faced with two choices: You've either got to use some kind of
fuel, then reform it, which means two-way radios are a little
bit larger. There's a better value proposition in the emergency
services and military for having that instantly, we can all
probably carry around--afford to carry around a couple
batteries, but what I'm faced with is either having a fuel
processor--the fuel processor on board on this thing, which is
generally unviable, or I've got to put hydrogen on here, but
there's no real good way to store hydrogen. It's very energy-
inefficient and cost-inefficient.
So methanol has a higher energy content than hydrogen,
because it's a liquid, primarily; it has a lot of energy
content in it compared to gas, H2, so it can be stored very
efficiently, at a very high volume, and actually, a direct
methanol fuel cell does two things at once: the fuel cell
itself is its own reform, its own fuel processor, so the same
materials in that fuel cell convert the methanol to hydrogen
and then the hydrogen, the protons do the rest of the chemical
reaction, so actually, a direct methanol fuel cell has in the
fuel cell an on-board reformer.
That's why you want to use a fuel like methanol; it can be
converted to hydrogen at relatively low temperatures by the
same catalyst that would split the hydrogen into protons to
react with oxygen and make electricity. So methanol's a good
fuel of choice. Actually, ethanol would be better, but it's
tougher, technically. Ethanol would be better from an energy
and density point of view, but methanol now is the fuel of
choice for small fuel cells because you can use the same
catalyst to both reform the methanol and convert it.
The Chairman. Okay. That's very useful. That's a very good
description.
Let me just ask one other question about this technology
demonstration program for small portable methanol fuel cell
battery chargers.
Dr. Hampden-Smith. That's a mouthful.
The Chairman. Is that all accurate that----
Dr. Hampden-Smith. Yes.
The Chairman [continuing]. That's what your view, Mark, is,
that we should give that a priority both because it's not
getting a priority, but also because this is a very readily
achievable application that has commercial potential; is that
accurate?
Dr. Hampden-Smith. Yes, it is. Here's our thought. We can't
take credit for it, a lot of other people have had the same
thought, and I think people who are making other small fuel
cells for small electronic devices are definitely going down
the path of don't-replace-the-battery integration issues
associated with getting the fuel cell to integrate directly
with an electronic device, but rather keep recharging the
battery; recharge the battery.
It was Motorola, I think, that thought it up. But a lot of
people are thinking about that for that reason. I think one
reason that we see this as a very good market opportunity is it
will be good for fuel cells, in general. I think fuel cells
need to be brought to the attention of the general public.
There's a lot of information floating around about them, but
it's all mainly transportation-focused, and as everybody says,
that it's kind of miles off in the future, you know, is it
going to happen, is it going to happen.
On the other hand, I don't think you should go out and
expect, in a year, to see all our cell phones being fueled by
fuel cells because it doesn't make any business sense to go
after the market that's most demanding as your first target
market. So we have teamed with Motorola for that specific
reason, we make the materials, they have the market entry
point, and they have a systems integration capability in a
market where there's a very strong need for the type of
capabilities a fuel cell recharger would supply.
So, for example, if you could--the two-way radio the Forest
Service uses, or emergency services use are relatively large,
one would envision having built a holster that is a direct
methanol or even reformed methanol fuel cell that would
trickle-charge the battery. The reason there's a very good
business proposition for this, the math works out that if you
wanted to power these two-way radios for the week, which is
typically the time a forest firefighter fights a fire, they
need about 80 watt hours, that's about seven NiCd batteries. So
they're carrying seven NiCd batteries. It's equivalent--even
including 21 percent efficiency on converting the methanol to
electricity, that's about 70 millileters of methanol. It's
about this much. So what would you rather do, have your two-way
radio battery being constantly recharged by your holster, and
carry small amounts of methanol, or carry seven relatively
bulky batteries.
These folks are paying a lot of money for a battery, so
there's a good economic value, too, and actually, you know,
methanol, under certain circumstances, is a flammable
substance. Who better to manage that in an early demonstration
program than firefighters. So, for a lot of reasons, it really,
to us, makes a lot of sense, and I think, actually, more than
that, I think getting this technology out in the marketplace
and getting people familiar with it and talking about it, and
if it goes into emergency services, it can probably go into the
hospital--I mean it'll start to infiltrate lots of other
markets and that's typically how these markets learn about, you
know, advanced technology. So that's our view on the situation.
The Chairman. Either of the rest of you want to make a
comment on the appropriateness of giving priority to this
development of a battery charger?
Dr. Stroh, did you have a follow-up?
Dr. Stroh. I think that that's a good first market to look
at. I think there are opportunities in other markets, as well,
to do early demonstrations, to get these things out, in use,
get the public used to them, do some education around them, do
some Government first-buys that generates a revenue stream that
keeps some of these companies going.
One point that does back up your concern about the way
we're headed in this country is the fact that in just the last
3 or 4 months, a couple of rather innovative companies have
closed doors because if you're looking at revenues being 5 to 7
years out, small companies can't stay alive that long, so we
need to find ways to get some early markets going, get revenue
coming into these companies, and at the same time as the
products get out there, people get familiar with them, kids
learn about them in school, they start to generate some market
pull where the benefits are realized, and you can bootstrap the
market up from there.
The Chairman. All right. Well, this has been very useful.
Thank you all very much for the testimony, and we will try to
take this record and educate some of our colleagues about the
value of both solid-state lighting and fuel cell technology and
hydrogen generation technology and hope that we can do some
good with the information in the next Congress.
Thank you all very much. That will conclude our hearing.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the hearing was adjourned]
[Subsequent to the hearing, the following statement was
received for the record:]
Statement of National Electrical Manufacturers Association Lighting
Division Solid State Lighting Section
INTRODUCTION
The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) Solid
State Lighting Section appreciates the opportunity to present testimony
before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources regarding
solid-state energy efficient lighting technology.
The testimony will focus on the following areas: introduction of
the NEMA Solid State Lighting Section to the Committee; the need for
solid-state lighting technology in commercial and consumer
applications; the operational characteristics of solid-state lighting
technology; and finally, encouraging investment and development of sold
state lighting technology.
THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
SOLID STATE LIGHTING SECTION
The NEMA Solid State Lighting Section is comprised of 13 member
companies representing various market segments that manufacture
semiconductor light sources, products, and systems for specialty and
general lighting applications. The Solid State Lighting Section is one
of several sections within the NEMA Lighting Systems Division. NEMA is
proud to represent such a dynamic and growing lighting technology
field.
The National Electrical Manufacturers Association is the largest
trade association representing the interests of U.S. electrical
industry manufacturers. Our more than 400 member companies manufacture
products used in the generation, transmission, distribution, control
and use of electricity. NEMA works to advance the interests of member
companies in the areas of government affairs, standards and economics.
Annual shipments of member goods exceed $100 billion in value, and
these firms employ over 400,000 workers in the United States.
The NEMA Solid State Lighting Section is tasked with integrating
the dynamics of solidstate light sources into existing lighting
practices, and to create new practices to fully utilize the potential
of solid-state lighting technology. In this regard, the section
includes all related downstream users including application, controls,
and power necessary for the effective utilization of solid-state light
sources. This also includes building and maintaining a center of
expertise, creating a definition of terms, and coordinating activities
with other sections within the NEMA Lighting Systems Division. It also
includes working with other NEMA sections outside of the Lighting
Division, and recognized policy and standards setting organizations.
While the NEMA Solid State Lighting Section recognizes many topics
of concern to section manufacturers, a primary interest is the
integration of solid-state lighting technology into existing lighting
practices and systems. While research and development on solid-state
lighting technology are worthy goals, the NEMA Solid State Lighting
Section also believes in end-use applications as an important goal.
THE NEED FOR SOLID STATE LIGHTING TECHNOLOGY
Solid-state lighting technology is a significant part of the future
of energy-efficient lighting. The U.S. public and private sectors have
undertaken strategies to reduce our energy consumption through the
development, promotion, and application of energy-efficient lighting
products and systems. While significant achievements have been
realized, further important energy savings are possible with technical
breakthroughs that would result in the application of solid-state
lighting systems in general lighting markets. It is estimated that
adoption of solid-state technology could reduce global electricity
usage for lighting by 50 percent, and reduce global electricity
consumption by 10 percent over the next twenty years.
Expanding on this analysis, it has been estimated that lighting
represents about twenty to thirty percent of electrical use in the
United States. Furthermore, the best illumination systems on the market
today convert about twenty-five percent of electricity into light. A
report in Scientific American from February 2001 estimates that if
white light emitting diodes (LEDs) could be made to match the
efficiency of red light emitting diodes, they could reduce energy needs
and cut the amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the air by electrical
generating plants by 300 megatons a year.
Solid-state lighting holds tremendous potential for the
environment. It has been estimated that the United States could avoid
200 metric tons of carbon emissions by 2020 if solid-state lighting
garners a significant share of the general lighting market. There are
also economic benefits in terms of employment, growth, and in supplier
and equipment industries.
The numbers and analysis all lead in the same direction and
eventual conclusion: solid-state lighting technology is a significant
part of the future of energy efficient lighting. Indeed, the future
holds the potential benefit of long-lasting, durable light emitting
diodes that burn less energy and emit virtually no heat as compared to
their lighting counterparts. Solid-state lighting technology is the
next generation of lighting technology and deserves the attention of
American policymakers and energy consumers.
THE OPERATION OF SOLID STATE LIGHTING TECHNOLOGY
Light emitting diodes are only a few tenths of a millimeter in
size. They are essentially semiconductor materials that convert
electrical energy into light. They consist of semiconductor crystals
grown layer by layer, with the crystal layer emitting a characteristic
colored light when electricity is passed through it.
According to material in the February 2001 edition of the
Scientific American, the modern goal for light emitting diodes is
making pure white light. This helpful article provides an easier grasp
of solid-state lighting technology, and identifies two main ways of
generating white light. The first is ``color theory'' where the light
output from LEDs of red, green, and blue wavelengths are combined to
make white light. However, research has shown that it is difficult to
truly mix the colors of the LED to achieve uniformity and control. The
second way relies on an LED photon to excite a phosphor. For example,
one can package a yellow phosphor around a blue LED. When the energy of
the LED strikes the phosphor, it becomes excited and gives off yellow
light. This mixes with the blue light form the LED to give white light.
Alternatively, an ultraviolet light LED can be used to excite a mixture
of red, green and blue phosphors to give white light. This process,
similar to that in fluorescent tubes, is simpler than mixing three
colors, but is less efficient due to absorption and scattering factors.
THE PRESENCE AND BENEFITS OF SOLID STATE LIGHTING TECHNOLOGY
IN EVERY DAY APPLICATIONS
Light emitting diodes convert electricity to colored light more
efficiently than a common incandescent bulb available on today's
market. They are rugged and compact with some types of LEDs lasting up
to 100,000 hours. This translates into approximately a decade of
regular use. In contrast, the average incandescent bulb lasts about
1,000 hours.
Light emitting diode technology is everywhere: from cell phone
faces and automobile dashboards to bigger applications in buildings and
memorials. To better understand the reallife applications of sold-state
LED technology, it is helpful to look at a bustling commercial
enterprise like the NASDAQ in New York City, and the refurbishment of
the venerable Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC. In both situations,
planners used solid-state lighting technology with striking results. At
the NASDAQ headquarters on the NASDAQ Marketsite Tower, the worlds
largest video screen uses 18,677,760 LEDs covering 10,736 square feet.
At the Jefferson Memorial, Osram Sylvania used more that 17,000 LEDs to
illuminate a quote from Thomas Jefferson that was hard to see under the
old lighting conditions. Jefferson's famed quote--now brightly lit--
encircles the inside of the vaulted rotunda at the base of the dome:
``I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every
form of tyranny over the mind of man.''
Light emitting diode technology can also be found in exit signs,
traffic signals, edge and backlit lighting for signage, accent lighting
for buildings and marker lighting (e.g. airplanes or theaters), or
landscape lighting when low-level lighting is used to show the way in
darkened areas. In Europe, LEDs are being used in the majority of cars
produced there for high mount brake lights. The United States is moving
in that direction as well; light emitting diodes are being used in
taillights, turn signals and side markers for trucks and buses. LEDs
also have intriguing applications in medical science and museum curator
applications.
LED's low heat, flexible strips and even wavelength promises
reliability and wide applications.
ENCOURAGING INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF SOLID STATE
LIGHTING TECHNOLOGY
The NEMA Solid State Lighting Section strongly supported the Next
Generation Lighting Initiative (NGLI) as described in S. 517/H.R. 4.
While good progress was made on the legislative language, it fell prey
to a crowded end-of-session calendar.
The NEMA Solid State Lighting Section believes the language passed
by the Senate as part of the comprehensive energy bill (S. 517) in the
107th Congress will provide the necessary resources to overcome the
pre-competitive research and development hurdles associated with white
light illumination using solid-state light emitting diodes. Modeled
after successful past initiatives, it will enable manufacturers to
address those problems associated with such technological development,
with the ultimate goal of end-use application of solid-state lighting
technologies.
With regard to federal appropriations dollars, within their limited
resources, the Department of Energy has shown support for solid-state
lighting research and development. The NEMA Solid State Lighting
Section wrote to key appropriators and urged the full funding for the
NGLI in fiscal year 2003 as described in the authorizing language. The
Section supports full funding for the Next Generation Lighting
Initiative, and appreciates the commitment by members of Congress to
achieve that end.
The NEMA Solid State Lighting Section stands ready to work with
interested legislators, policymakers and other stakeholders to pass and
enact language for a Next Generation Lighting Initiative.
CONCLUSION
The NEMA Solid State Lighting Section appreciates the opportunity
to address the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
concerning solid-state energy efficient lighting. The section hopes
that the foregoing introduction and discussion of solid-state lighting
technology, and the subsequent discussion of the need for investment in
the end-use application of the technology, will reinforce the benefits
of energy efficient lighting technology to the Committee.