[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REVIEW OF NON-OIL AND GAS
RESEARCH ACTIVITIES IN THE
HOUSTON-GALVESTON-GULF COAST AREA
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 4, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-36
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
______
90-674 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas RALPH M. HALL, Texas
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania BART GORDON, Tennessee
DANA ROHRABACHER, California JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOE BARTON, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
NICK SMITH, Michigan NICK LAMPSON, Texas
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan MARK UDALL, Colorado
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota DAVID WU, Oregon
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
Washington CHRIS BELL, Texas
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri ZOE LOFGREN, California
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois BRAD SHERMAN, California
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia JIM MATHESON, Utah
ROB BISHOP, Utah DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas VACANCY
JO BONNER, Alabama
TOM FEENEY, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
------
Subcommittee on Energy
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois, Chair
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania NICK LAMPSON, Texas
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., DAVID WU, Oregon
Washington MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia RALPH M. HALL, Texas
JO BONNER, Alabama
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
KEVIN CARROLL Subcommittee Staff Director
TINA M. KAARSBERG Republican Professional Staff Member
CHARLES COOKE Democratic Professional Staff Member
JENNIFER BARKER Staff Assistant
KATHRYN CLAY Chairwoman's Designee
C O N T E N T S
December 4, 2003
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Dr. Eugene Levy, Provost, Rice University........... 5
Statement by Representative Judy Biggert, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives. 6
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Nick Lampson, Minority Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 11
Statement by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, Member,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 121
Written Statement............................................ 121
Statement by Mr. Mark White, Former Governor of Texas............ 11
Witnesses:
Mr. Todd Mitchell, President, Houston Advanced Research Center
Oral Statement............................................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 17
Dr. Richard E. Smalley, Director, Carbon Nanotechnology
Laboratory, Rice University
Oral Statement............................................... 20
Written Statement............................................ 23
Biography.................................................... 25
Dr. Mark Holtzapple, Department of Chemical Engineering, Texas
A&M University
Oral Statement............................................... 26
Written Statement............................................ 31
Biography.................................................... 84
Mr. Robert Hennekes, Vice President, Technology Marketing, Shell
Global Solutions
Oral Statement............................................... 85
Written Statement............................................ 87
Biography.................................................... 108
Dr. Franklin R. Chang-Diaz, NASA Astronaut and Director of the
Advanced Space Propulsion Laboratory, Johnson Space Center
Oral Statement............................................... 108
Written Statement............................................ 112
Biography.................................................... 115
Discussion....................................................... 117
Appendix 1: Additional Material for the Record
SAFuel Project................................................... 136
REVIEW OF NON-OIL AND GAS RESEARCH IN THE HOUSTON-GALVESTON-GULF COAST
AREA
----------
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2003
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:30 p.m., in
the Baker Institute Auditorium, Baker Hall, Rice University,
Houston, Texas, Hon. Judy Biggert [Chairwoman of the
Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Review of Non-Oil and Gas
Research Activities in the
Houston-Galveston-Gulf Coast Area
thursday, december 4, 2003
1:30 p.m.
baker institute
baker hall, rice university
houston, texas
1. Purpose of Hearing
On December 4, 2003 the Energy Subcommittee will hold a hearing to
review the extensive non-oil and gas energy research that is being
conducted in the Houston-Galveston-Gulf Coast area. This part of Texas
hosts the highest concentration of the domestic oil and gas industry in
the country. All of the multi-national oil companies also have
extensive operations and facilities in the area. However, the area
research community is very diversified and has extensive capabilities
outside of the oil and gas sector. The hearing will take testimony on
the scope of these activities and how current research being conducted
in the areas is contributing to advances in energy conservation,
efficiency and production.
2. Witnesses
The following persons are expected to testify:
Mr. Todd Mitchell, President; Houston Advanced
Research Center, The Woodlands, TX
Dr. Richard Smalley, University Professor, Director
of the Carbon Nanotechnology Lab., Rice University, Houston, TX
Dr. Mark Holtzapple, Professor, Department of
Chemical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Robert (Bob) Hennekes, Vice President, Technology
Marketing, Shell Global Solutions, Houston, TX
Dr. Franklin Chang-Diaz, Johnson Space Center,
Houston, TX
3. Background
For much of the 20th century Texas was the world leader in oil and
gas production. In the 1920s discoveries of giant fields at Spindletop,
east of Houston; The East Texas field, about 250 miles north of Houston
and the beginning of the discoveries of oil and gas in West Texas put
Texas on a course of transition of a largely agricultural economy to
one heavily based on energy.
Oil production in Texas was so prolific that proration orders were
put into effect in the 1930's to prevent waste and over-production that
led to reservoir damage. During World War II, the Big Inch and Little
Inch Pipelines were built to move oil safely from Texas to the East
Coast over land and out of reach of German submarines. Much of it was
refined in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and shipped to our armed forces
and allies in Western Europe. After WWII markets for natural gas
developed and the interstate natural gas pipeline system grew rapidly,
generally spreading from Texas and Louisiana west, north and east to
supply markets on the West Coast, Midwest and East Coast. However, by
1965 oil production had peaked and peak natural gas production followed
about a decade later. Much oil and gas research was performed in Texas,
primarily by the major oil companies, but almost all of those
facilities have been closed as the industry has been squeezed the
periodic downturns in the price of crude oil and natural gas and their
production interests moved overseas.
The strong influence of the oil and gas industry has created a
highly capable and adaptable research community in the area,
characterized by a combination of universities, private research
institutions and corporations. As oil and gas fortunes have changed the
research community has moved into other energy areas and is among the
leaders in a number of non-oil and gas areas. This hearing will
demonstrate the diverse nature of the Houston-Galveston area research
community and provide the Subcommittee new information on technologies
being developed that may have a substantial impact on meeting the
Nation's future energy needs.
Chairwoman Biggert. And I guess we have sound now.
Did Dr. Levy want to say anything? Dr. Levy, would you like
to say anything? We thank you very much for----
Dr. Levy. Thank you, Madame Chairman.
I am really please to welcome you this afternoon. My name
is Eugene Levy. I'm the Provost of the University, and it's my
pleasure to welcome you on behalf of the President Board of
Trustees to the Rice Campus where we are very pleased to be
hosting this gathering of participants from the scientific
community and others who can share information with key policy
makers from the United States Congress.
Today we are particularly honored by the presence of
Congresswoman Judy Biggert from the Thirteenth Congressional
District of Illinois and Chair of the Subcommittee on Energy of
the House of Representatives Committee on Science.
In addition to chairing the Energy Subcommittee,
Congresswoman Biggert is also a Member of Subcommittees of
Environment, Technology, Standards, Education Reform and other
committees.
Representative Biggert, we are really pleased you chose
Rice as the venue for today's hearing.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you.
Dr. Levy. Also honoring us with her presence today, we had
expected the Chair of the Texas Delegation to the 108th
Congress and a Member of the Research and the Space and
Aeronautics Subcommittees of the House Committee on Science,
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, who I see is not yet with us,
but I assume will join us soon.
And finally, it is my real pleasure to see again and to
welcome Congressman Nick Lampson, the Ranking Minority Member
of the House Science Committee's Energy Subcommittee and also a
Member of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee in the House,
an especially fitting assignment inasmuch as Congressman
Lampson's District includes the NASA Johnson Space Center here
in Houston.
Congressman Lampson, we are really delighted that you are
here as well.
Mr. Lampson. Thank you.
Dr. Levy. Houston is a world leader in the international
fossil fuel industry which has been so crucial to the
development of modern society and prosperity throughout the
world. Probably it is fair to say that the easy, relatively
easy availability of fossil fuel energy has been among the
handful of the singularly important factors that enable modern
life. But now several factors point us to contemplate the time,
probably the not so distant time, when circumstances dictate
the necessity of developing other approaches to the generation
and distribution of energy. Not as smaller secondary adjuncts
anymore, but as main supply massive primary sources of energy.
The reasons for this necessary transformation are several, and
I am sure you will be hearing about them this afternoon.
Meeting the need for new energy sources is a combined
scientific engineering, economic and policy challenge. Houston
scientific, engineering and policy community, and certainly
Rice's community, is among those eager to take on that
challenge. Meeting the new energy needs will entail marshalling
capabilities and imagination and numerous spheres including
nanotechnology, information technology, environmental
technology and especially in the new and challenging areas that
lie at the intersection of those fields including through
Policy Studies Center here, at Rice's Baker Institute for
Public Policy on the campus.
The Baker Institute, I should remark here, has established
an especially important and prominent position in energy policy
studies. So what's especially pleasing to us about having this
hearing on the Rice campus is that it is potentially so forward
looking a conversation. At Rice we have also been especially
focused on looking forward to plot a future for the university
that will realize it's potential for service to society in the
highest possible way.
Altogether, our continuing aspiration for Rice is to define
and occupy a position at the cutting edge of service to our
society through research, education and outreach to the
community, including importantly, outreach to the public
schools with this entire crucial endeavor ultimately gets
started. It is in that overall spirit that we welcome this
hearing and Members of Congress, and the rest of you to the
Rice campus. The spirit that animates this session needs to
spread widely throughout our society.
So, again, I welcome you to Rice and trust that we all
learn a great deal, and that that will help us move forward
together into a very bright future.
Thank you, and welcome to the campus.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you very much, Dr. Levy.
And I would like to welcome everyone here to this field
hearing of the Energy Subcommittee of the House Science
Committee.
The purpose of the hearing today is to take a look at non-
oil and gas research in the Houston area. That might be
difficult because we always think from other states that this
is the center of the oil and gas. But now granted, this is very
broad but so too are the knowledge and research territory
covered by the panel we will hear from today. Combining
expertise from universities, private research institutes,
corporations and federal science agencies like NASA, today's
panel will cover a broad range of issues and technologies from
high temperature plasmas to rotary combustion engines. And I'd
like to thank our panelists for attending today, and I want to
thank Rice University for graciously hosting us.
As Chairman of the Energy Subcommittee, I've enjoyed
serving with Mr. Lampson in his role as Ranking Minority
Member. And during the development of the R&D provisions in the
Energy Bill, he and Representative Jackson Lee championed the
development of the first comprehensive report on oil and gas
resources off the shores of Texas and Louisiana. And Mr.
Lampson made sure the bill included a project to demonstrate
the benefits of fuel cells in local residential neighborhoods
that are in close proximity to refiners that produce hydrogen.
So we know northerners mostly know Texas for its history of oil
and gas production, but the Lone Star State also supports a
diverse portfolio of innovative energy research.
In addition to research on carbon sequestration and
thermonuclear fusion, researchers throughout Texas are working
to create a new engine that could displace the internal
combustion engine, generate hydrogen from various carbon feed
stocks such as biomass and municipal solid waste, harness the
power of nanotechnology to improve all types of energy
production and conversion, and reduce the energy use of
buildings and vehicles.
So Members of our Energy Subcommittee, like so many in
attendance today, understand the importance of developing
energy alternatives and new energy technologies, particularly
in light of our increasing dependence on foreign sources of
oil. Combine that over-reliance with the environmental impact
of fossil fuel emissions and the research we will discuss today
becomes even more crucial.
What I like most about the National Energy Policy proposed
by President Bush two years ago and the Energy Bill Conference
report recently passed by the House is that both emphasize the
use of advanced technology to expand and diversity our energy
supply, meet growing demand and reduce the environmental impact
of energy production and use.
Advanced energy technologies grow out of basic science and
applied energy research like that supported by the Federal
Government and our universities and national laboratories.
In numerous hearings before our committee, witnesses have
testified that affordable energy and a clean and safe
environment are not mutually exclusive. We can lessen our
dependence on fossil fuels, reduce harmful emissions and
improve our economic competitiveness by harnessing American
ingenuity, putting technology to work and cutting through some
of the red tape that has stifled the development of new energy
supplies and infrastructure. That's why I think Texas is an
appropriate place to hold this hearing today. There is a lot of
cutting edge research underway here and you are taking full
advantage of the alternative energy supplies available to you.
Now, it's true that I'm from the windy city, but it turns
out that Texas is the windy State. For instance, renewable
energy growth in Texas fueled primarily by wind has been
remarkable. Texas has the second largest wind resource in the
United States after North Dakota, and is expected to have more
than 1200 megawatts of generating capacity on line by the end
of this year. So, unfortunately or fortunately there's not wind
everywhere in the United States like there is in Texas, not
even in the windy city of Chicago, where I blew in from this
morning. And that is why it is important that we continue
researching solutions that will work in other parts of the
country such as biomass for the northeast, energy from the
ocean for coastal states, or even nuclear power which provides
over 50 percent of emissions free electricity in my own State
of Illinois.
As another example, Illinois has significant coal
resources, which is why I am particularly interested in carbon
sequestration research. Some day we may be able to combine
carbon sequestration technologies with high tech coal fired
power plants to make electricity and hydrogen for our fuel
demands without emitting carbon dioxide.
America now has the motivation, perhaps like no other time
since the oil crises of the '70's, to find newer and better
ways to meet our energy needs. But American also has the
ingenuity and the expertise to meet our future energy demands
and promote energy conservation. And we can do environmentally
responsible ways that set a standard for the world.
I look forward to the exciting new technologies that each
of our distinguished panelists is working on. So, again, thank
you for presenting testimony to the Committee today.
And before getting to the panel, I first recognize Mr.
Lampson for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Biggert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Judy Biggert
The hearing will come to order.
I want to welcome everyone to this field hearing of the Energy
Subcommittee of the House Science Committee. The purpose of this
hearing today is to take a look at non-oil and gas research in the
Houston Area. Now granted, this is very broad, but so too is the
knowledge and research territory covered by the panel we will hear from
today. Combining expertise from universities, private research
institutions, corporations, and federal science agencies like NASA,
today's panel will cover a broad range of issues and technologies, from
high temperature plasmas to rotary combustion engines. I want to thank
our panelists for attending today, and I want to thank Rice University
for graciously hosting us.
As Chairman of the Energy Subcommittee, I've enjoyed serving with
Mr. Lampson in his role as Ranking Minority Member. During development
of the R&D provisions in the energy bill, he and Rep. Jackson Lee
championed the development of the first comprehensive report on oil and
gas resources off the shores of Texas and Louisiana. And Mr. Lampson
made sure the bill included a project to demonstrate the benefits of
fuel cells in local residential neighborhoods that are in close
proximity to refiners that produce hydrogen.
We Northerners mostly know Texas for its history of oil and gas
production, but the Lone Star State also supports a diverse portfolio
of innovative energy research. In addition to research on carbon
sequestration and thermonuclear fusion, researchers throughout Texas
are working to:
create a new engine that could displace the internal
combustion engine,
generate hydrogen from various carbon feedstocks such
as biomass and municipal solid waste,
harness the power of nanotechnology to improve all
types of energy production and conversion, and
reduce the energy use of buildings and vehicles.
Members of our Energy Subcommittee, like so many in attendance here
today, understand the importance of developing energy alternatives and
new energy technologies, particularly in light of our increasing
dependence on foreign sources of oil. Combine that over-reliance with
the environmental impact of fossil fuel emissions, and the research we
will discuss today becomes even more crucial.
What I liked most about the National Energy Policy proposed by
President Bush two years ago, and the energy bill conference report
recently passed by the House, is that both emphasize the use of
advanced technology to expand and diversify our energy supply, meet
growing demand, and reduce the environmental impact of energy
production and use. Advanced energy technologies grow out of basic
science and applied energy research like that supported by the Federal
Government at our universities and national laboratories.
In numerous hearings before our committee, witnesses have testified
that affordable energy and a clean and safe environment are not
mutually exclusive. We can lessen our dependence on fossil fuels,
reduce harmful emissions, and improve our economic competitiveness by
harnessing American ingenuity, putting technology to work, and cutting
some of the red tape that has stifled the development of new energy
supplies and infrastructure.
That's why I think Texas is an appropriate place to hold this
hearing today. There's a lot of cutting edge research underway here,
and you are taking full advantage of the alternative energy supplies
available to you.
Now it's true, I am from the Windy City, but it turns out that
Texas is the Windy State. For instance, renewable energy growth in
Texas, fueled primarily by wind, has been remarkable. Texas has the
second largest wind resource in the U.S., after North Dakota, and is
expected to have more than twelve hundred megawatts of generating
capacity online by the end of the year.
Unfortunately or fortunately, there's not wind everywhere in the
U.S. like there is in Texas, not even in the ``windy city'' of Chicago
where I blew in from this morning. That is why it is important that we
continue researching solutions that will work in other parts of the
country, such as biomass for the Southeast, energy from the ocean for
coastal states, or even nuclear power, which provides over 50 percent
of emissions-free electricity in my own State of Illinois.
As another example, Illinois has significant coal resources, which
is why I am particularly interested in carbon sequestration research.
Some day we may be able to combine carbon sequestration technologies
with high-tech coal-fired power plants to make electricity--and
hydrogen for our fuel cell cars--without emitting carbon dioxide.
America now has the motivation--perhaps like no other time since
the oil crisis of the `70's--to find newer and better ways to meet our
energy needs. But America also has the ingenuity and the expertise to
meet our future energy demands and promote energy conservation, and we
can do so in environmentally responsible ways that set a standard for
the world.
I look forward to hearing about the exciting new technologies that
each of our distinguished panelists is working on. Thank you again for
presenting testimony to the Committee today.
Before getting to the panel, I first want to recognize Mr. Lampson
for his opening statement.
Mr. Lampson. Thank you, Madame Chair, and welcome to Texas.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you.
Mr. Lampson. Judy Biggert is a very good Member of
Congress, and a wonderful woman to be able to work with on this
committee. And I am very pleased that you were able to take the
time to come down to Texas and participate in this thing, which
I do indeed believe is a very important hearing for us.
She has been a Member of Congress since 1998. One of the
things that I particularly found impressive about her, many of
you who have followed me at all know that I am involved with
some issues other than the ones that we are here to discuss
today, particularly those that deal with missing children. And
Chairwoman Biggert has been involved with legislation that
dealt with the cyber tip line, making it easier to track and
report computer based sex crimes against children. And doing
some other things as far as trying to track down people who
have ecstasy and all. So your good work goes way beyond the
work that you do on science. And I am very pleased that you
were able to come over today.
I also know that you have the Argonne National Laboratory
located within your District, which is very important to you
and, consequently, the work that you are doing on science can
make a significant difference to the people that you represent.
She has been a leading champion of research in science
programs in Congress. And she's a sponsor of the Energy and
Science Research Investment Act which will provide additional
resources to the Department of Energy's Office of Science and
will make organizational changes that will enhance the
accountability and oversight of energy research and science
programs at the Department of Energy.
Also I want to thank the folks at Rice. This is a
magnificent facility and it's always a pleasure to come here.
You are always gracious hosts. And it is a thrill to be able to
come and continue to learn about the activities that are going
on by the bright men and women who work at this place and the
research activities within which they are involved.
I also want to welcome this excellent group of witnesses.
There is a tremendous level of non-oil and gas research and
development activity in the Houston/Galveston area. And I
wanted to make sure that the House Science Committee has the
benefit of your testimony as we move forward to tackle these
important issues. So I thank all of you for joining us today.
I have been talking for years about the need for us to make
an orderly transition into what is going to be tomorrow's
driving force within our economy. And those of us who think
about it today and find out what it is that we can begin to do
and move to replace those activities that we are involved with
today, will be the leaders of tomorrow. And I hope that is us
right here in Southeast Texas, particularly.
The Science Committee's Subcommittee on Energy is charged
with overseeing research and development programs at the
Department of Energy. Issues that the Subcommittee deals with
range from alternative sources of energy, renewable energy,
nanotechnology, nuclear energy, cutting edge science performed
at DOE's national lab. And as a former science teacher I find
the work that this committee does fascinating and extremely
important to our future.
The Science Committee recently moved key aspects of the
House Energy Bill, particularly in the areas of DOE research
and development. And with a major portion of our current supply
coming from overseas, it is essential that we make significant
national investments in the Department of Energy Research and
Development programs to give us greater control over our future
national energy supply. Got to find ways to being to wean
ourselves away from that and be dependent on ourselves.
Our efforts must be focused now only on fossil fuels, but
across a broad spectrum of energy sources, including wind and
solar, nuclear, hydroelectric and others.
I am proud of a project that we are looking at in Galveston
that will cause the cruise ships that berth there to be plugged
into a fuel cell, the energy of which will be generated from
wind on that island. So it's very important.
Conversation and energy efficiency programs are also
essential. And I supported the Energy Bill because I believe it
provides us with a balanced approach to address our future
energy needs, and we owe this to our future generations.
Now, I am going to take a personal privilege and ask
Chairwoman Biggert to allow me to introduce someone who I
noticed in the audience. He was a former Governor of Texas,
Mark White. And I had a conversation with Governor White
recently, and it was interesting because, part, when I told him
about this particular meeting he made a comment that he was
discussing these issues in 1983. And it is interesting that we
are continuing to comment on the same kinds of things.
A company that he is involved with called Texoga is
involved with some, I think very exciting oxygenating fuels
technology called SAFuel. And it is ester based oxygenated fuel
that's run in diesel engines with greatly reduced emissions and
virtually no toxicity or flammability.
And I thought that it might be appropriate to take a few
seconds and ask him if he would say a word. And I also would
ask consent to enter some information about SAFuel into our
record for today.
Chairwoman Biggert. Without objection.
[The information referred to appears in Appendix 1:
Additional Material for the Record.]
Mr. Lampson. Governor White, would you like to make a
comment?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lampson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Nick Lampson
I would like to welcome Madam Chairman Judy Biggert to Texas. She
chairs the House Science Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and has
represented her suburban Chicago constituents in the Thirteenth
District of Illinois in Congress since 1998.
As a Member of the Science Committee we have worked together to
strengthen our country's basic science research facilities. And I know
this is of particular importance to the Chair--with Argonne National
Laboratory located within her district.
Representative Biggert has been a leading champion of research and
science programs in Congress. She is the sponsor of the Energy and
Science Research Investment Act, which will provide additional
resources to the Department of Energy's Office of Science, and make
organizational changes that will enhance the accountability and
oversight of energy research and science programs at the Department of
Energy. It is a pleasure to have you here today.
I would like to thank Rice University for being such a gracious
host. Rice is known around the world for their cutting edge science and
technology programs. I couldn't think of a more appropriate venue for
our hearing.
I would also like to welcome this excellent group of witnesses.
There is a tremendous level of non-oil and gas research and development
activity in the Houston-Galveston area and I wanted to make sure that
the House Science Committee has the benefit of your testimony as we
move forward to tackle these important issues. Thank you for joining
us.
The Science Committee's Subcommittee on Energy is charged with
overseeing research and development programs at the Department of
Energy (DOE). Issues that the Subcommittee deals with range from
alternative sources of energy, renewable energy, nanotechnology,
nuclear energy, and cutting edge science performed at DOE's national
labs.
As a former science teacher, I find the work that this committee
does fascinating and extremely important to our future. The Science
Committee recently moved key aspects of the House Energy bill
particularly in the areas of DOE research and development. With a major
portion of our current oil supply coming from overseas, it is essential
that we make significant national investments in Department of Energy
research and development programs to give us greater control over our
future national energy supply.
Our efforts must be focused not only on fossil fuels, but across a
broad spectrum of energy sources including wind, solar, nuclear,
hydroelectric and others. Conservation and energy efficiency programs
are also essential. I supported the Energy bill because I believe it
provides us with a balanced approach to our address our future energy
needs. We owe this to future generations.
STATEMENT OF MARK WHITE, FORMER GOVERNOR OF TEXAS
Mr. White. Well, thank you very much, Congressman. I am
certainly delighted that you selected Houston for this hearing,
because I do not guess there is a more important place in our
nation for the production of petrochemical fuels than Houston,
Texas, this part of the country.
You have a distinguished panel here that is located Rice
University, which is down the road from a place where I grew
up. And the only way I could ever get into this campus is if I
bought a ticket to the football game. But I gained admission to
the school. I took science twice in college, and it was not
because I liked it so much. So do not ask me any very deep
science question. The chemistry underlying what I'm about say,
and these are observations from a former public servant and an
everyday citizen.
But just as we were talking the other day that 20 years ago
we wee having some of these similar discussions and worried and
concerned about what we were going to do for energy
independence, what we were going to do about improved quality
of our environment, at the same time retain our economic
figure. And we are discussing that again here this year today.
I had the occasion, Madame Chairman, to call soybean
producers in Illinois and ask a few questions this morning. It
was not in anticipation in this hearing. But I want to say that
there is some things going on in Illinois that all of us in
this nation could benefit from in the way in which you all have
gone about using soybean and producing bio-fuels for vehicles
up there in your part of the country. It enhances the--gives
fuller utilization to our agricultural produce. It improves the
quality of the emissions from diesel engines dramatically. And
with a little support from your State government and I'm sure
the Federal Government it makes it economically viable.
I think that is something that should be considered in the
fuels that we are talking about. I know many people will say
``Well, it won't have a big enough impact.'' But it seems that
every piece of advance that we make is a positive issue and can
do a great deal of good in the totality if we look at it in
that overview.
I wish the Committee would recall but for legislative
action and governmental action, we would probably still be
using leaded gasoline today in this country. It was a mandate
that had to be done to make those changes.
I think that there are some things that have recurred and
evidence again is what I have heard in the State of Illinois.
Your soybean producers using that product from agriculture to
produce a bi-diesel that is very environmentally friendly and
has very few downsides that I am aware of. It may be just that
sort of thing that could be required and mandated by the
Congress and say this is what we ought to be doing; let us go
do it. It is not unlike what we see in the health care sciences
in which they discovery some new chemical or some new pill and
which can be applied immediately to change the outcome of
disease, reverse it. They do not go forward with another 10
years of research. They stop the research and say the tests
have gone so well, we just need to implement it.
I think we may get that studied in this particular area as
far as bio-diesel concerns. It has been used throughout western
Europe to good effect. It is something that can be blended into
our fuels right now, causes very little change as far as I am
aware. No change in the way in which the fuel settings are
adjusted in a diesel engine. And will give very positive
results from the environmental point of view. Good for farmers,
good for environment, helps displace foreign imported oil and
improves the outflow of funds or reverses the outflow of funds
in our balance of payments.
I think it is something, Madame Chairman, that would be
just fine that could be looked at more thoroughly and quickly
with swift action hopefully following by your Committee.
Thank you, again, for letting me come back here today. I
have enjoyed very much the opportunity to say a few words to
you.
You could not have a more distinguished panel. And quite
frankly, I think if we can combine the information you will
have here with what you are doing in the great State of
Illinois, we will combine the strong winds of both sources and
make a much better country. Thank you.
Mr. Lampson. Thanks, Governor.
Chairwoman Biggert. And with that, we will turn on the
panels.
I think that I will introduce all of you and then we will
start.
Actually, Todd Mitchell is President of the Houston
Advanced Research Center and he's accompanied by Dan Bullock,
HARC Research scientist and Greg Cook, HARC Air Quality
Consultant and former EPA Region 6 Administrator. Welcome.
Dr. Richard Smalley is the Director of the Carbon
Nanotechnology Laboratory right here at Rice University, and he
is accompanied by Dr. Howard K. Schmidt, Executive Director of
the Carbon Nanotechnology Lab and Dr. Robert H. Hauge, the
Technology Director of the Carbon Nanotechnology Lab.
And Mark Holtzapple, Department of Chemical Engineering,
Texas A&M University. Welcome.
And Robert Hennekes, Vice President of Technology
Marketing, Shell Global Solutions.
Franklin Chang-Diaz, NASA Astronaut and Director of the
Advanced Space Propulsion Laboratory at the Johnson Space
Center.
So welcome to all of you.
Usually the way that our hearings are, it is a 5-minute
limit on your testimony. We will have a little more leeway here
today, but if you could keep it to about 10 minutes so we will
have some time for questions.
And we will summarize your testimony, and then that will be
incorporated into the record without objection.
We will start with Todd Mitchell.
STATEMENT OF TODD MITCHELL, PRESIDENT, HOUSTON ADVANCED
RESEARCH CENTER; ACCOMPANIED BY DAN BULLOCK, HARC RESEARCH
SCIENTIST; AND GREG COOK, HARC AIR QUALITY CONSULTANT AND
FORMER EPA REGION 6 ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you very much, Representative Biggert
and Lampson for inviting us to be here today.
First, before I read some of my prepared comments, I am a
geologist. I grew up in the oil business. I am a second
generation oil and gas person and find myself at this stage of
my career having decided that there has got to be a better way.
And so Houston Advanced Search Center fully dedicated to
looking at clean and renewable energy production and energy
efficiency as a key component of the picture from the
standpoint of how a non-profit organization can help advance
some causes that are very important.
Houston Advance Research Center, it is a non-partisan
research organization. Our mission statement says that we are
dedicated to mobilizing the tools of science, policy and
technology to improve people's lives and protect the
environment in Texas. HARC serves as an unbiased, neutral
organization that cooperates with universities, industry and
governmental agencies to address complex and pressing issues
related to how people interact with the natural environment on
a regional scale. By applying an interdisciplinary approach to
research and policy priorities, HARC seeks to improve decision-
making and increase awareness of how science and technology can
support and implement sustainability concepts.
HARC has been active in energy research since the 1980's,
initially concentrating on oil and gas technologies. HARC
managed consortium-based research programs funded by many of
the world's largest E&P companies. Our primary research focus
was on seismic, petrophysics and geochemistry. In the early
1990's the Geotechnology Research Institute was formed at HARC
and designated as a state entity by the legislature of Texas
with a mission to carry out research related to advanced
hydrocarbon exploration techniques. But in the mid-1990's, the
legislature expanded GTRI's mandate to include environmental
geosciences.
In 2000 HARC narrowed its mission and dedicated itself to
advancing the concepts of sustainable development in Texas. In
the lexicon of sustainable development, protection of the
natural environment is given a priority alongside social and
economic development goals. With its new mission, HARC phased
out our petroleum-related energy research programs and focused
now entirely on clean and renewable energy.
While there are many reasons for our nation to develop
clean and renewable energy resources, ranging from national
security to minimizing the greenhouse affect on global
climate, HARC is particularly active in the link between
energy generation and urban air quality.
Energy and air quality have become interlocking pieces in a
critical technology and policy puzzle. Energy generated for
residential, business, and transportation uses is a primary
cause of air pollution in Texas cities, as well as cities
around the world. There are four non-attainment areas in Texas
for the 1-hour ozone standard, including Dallas/Ft. Worth,
Houston/Galveston, Beaumont, Port Arthur, and El Paso. By
remaining in a non-attainment status, the State of Texas stands
to lose access to billions of dollars in federal transportation
funds. We have seen estimates recently that the cost of Texas
failing to come into compliance with the attainment standards
could account for a loss of $24 to $26 billion net present
value. So the costs are extremely serious.
The Houston region has the country's largest petrochemical
infrastructure, which is a major source of point source
pollution. But Houstonians drive further on average than
residents of any other United States city. And if you add to
that a hot and humid climate and other accidents of geography
and meteorology, the result is an air shed that is capable of
producing ozone at unprecedented rates. The health costs and
lost productivity related to air pollution in Houston alone
exceeds $3 billion annually.
The civic and business leadership in Houston has determined
that Houston's poor air quality is having a detrimental impact
on job creation and corporate relocations to the region.
To address the crisis, the State of Texas is actually doing
some fairly progressive and unprecedented things. There is a
program that is providing $150 million called the Texas
Emissions Reduction Program. $150 million annually for the
reduction of air emissions specifically looking at NOX
reductions with a large focus on diesel emissions.
Within that $150 million program, 9.5 percent of it will be
focused on environmental technologies. There's an organization
called the Texas Council on Environmental Technology, which
will be funded to the tune of $12 to $15 a year to fund the
development and deployment of air emissions technologies. And I
am speaking about air quality, but ultimately most of these
technologies link back to energy generation.
If I were to describe to HARC's role, I'd like to sort of
divide it into sort of a energy generation and energy
efficiency programs that we have at HARC.
In the energy supply side, one of the first programs that
I'll mentioned is in the hydrogen powered automobiles. Hydrogen
fuel cells will be the power trains of the future, but
significant market penetration of hydrogen-powered vehicles is
over a decade away. In the meantime, major auto companies will
roll out prototype fuel cell vehicles, first in limited pilot
programs and then later within fleets, and finally as a mass
market.
Texas has the second and third largest truck and auto
market in the country. We have got significant air quality
problems and we have a fairly pro-business environment. And for
those reasons, Texas has become an essential base of operations
for the major auto companies that will be rolling out fuel cell
vehicles. The market is too big here and the air quality
challenges too significant for the fuel cell auto manufacturers
to ignore the Texas market.
HARC is in discussions with two auto companies about
providing support for fuel cell vehicle roll-outs, and we look
to work in the following areas:
First of all, providing strategic expertise linking the
science and policy of air quality and transportation in Texas;
Secondly, we would like to provide a physical site for
pilot scale demonstration programs;
We would like to identify and coordinate fleet partners to
help roll out these new technologies; and
We would like to be involved with data collection and
analysis to support these auto companies as they manage and
test these fuel cell vehicles.
Within the stationary fuel cell area, we believe that fuel
cell powered vehicles are more than a decade away from being
significantly penetrated into the market, but residential and
commercial fuel cell applications can provide early markets to
support industry development and technology advancements.
Because stationary applications are less constrained by weight
and size limitations and are easier to supply with hydrogen
feedstock, they can be deployed in greater numbers within the
next few years.
An area of need that precedes widespread adoption of this
new technology is the creation of programs to test and evaluate
early commercial products and to communicate this information
to potential consumers. Since 2000, HARC has been engaged in
such a program and is active in helping industry assess the
market readiness of this technology. Our fuel cell applications
consortium is supported by ChevronTexaco, BP, Shell Hydrogen,
Southern Company, Disney, and other corporate and governmental
entities. Texas A&M University and University of Houston are
active observers in the consortium.
HARC's fuel cell applications program is also active in
deploying fuel cells in demonstration settings as a valuable
precursor to more widespread commercial adoption. We are
currently in discussion with the City of Houston and Bush
Intercontinental Airport about a fuel cell program to reduce
airport emissions
In the area of hydrogen generation, the main process for
hydrogen generation today is Steam Methane Reformation or SMR.
The SMR process is based on reacting steam with methane over a
catalyst to form hydrogen. The cost of producing hydrogen
through SMR is dependent on the price of natural gas; however,
the price volatility of natural gas and the increasing demand
for hydrogen create the need for a new reliable low cost source
of supply. HARC has established a partnership to investigate a
new approach to produce hydrogen at low cost. The key to the
economics of this process, which is called the HydroMax
technology, is the use of carbon feedstocks that have little or
no value such as biomass, sewage sludge and municipal waste.
The process is a low risk adaptation of existing bath
smelting technology that has been in commercial use for over 20
years. Conceptual engineering has been performed to develop
estimates for a commercial plant. And a number of process
simulations have shown that a wide range of carbon feedstocks
is viable.
The operating cost of producing hydrogen via this process
is less than zero if you take into account byproduct credits
for electricity generation, steam and ammonium sulfate
fertilizer. When carbon sources with a negative net cost are
available, such as municipal waste or sewage sludge, it is
possible to produce hydrogen at even lower costs.
In addition to what I've entered in the written testimony
is that we have made it to a second round of DOE review for a
proposal written to fund a pilot study for this program.
In the reduced energy demand side, we are working actively
in the hybrid vehicle arena. We have a partnership right now
with Environmental Defense and Federal Express. Federal Express
has developed a delivery vehicle that has using a diesel-
electric hybrid motor can reduce fuel use by 50 percent and NOX
emissions by 90 percent. This is a developed prototype. There
will be six of these rolled out in the immediate coming months
in Texas. With those vehicles, HARC is being hired to look at
market penetration and to assess air emissions impacts over
time. And having executed this project I think very well, we
are now in discussions with other parties about helping
entities who want to introduce these prototype technologies in
Texas.
Energy efficient buildings is an area that we are hiring a
nationally known expert. If you look at buildings nationwide,
residences and commercial building account for approximately
one-third of energy consumption and two-thirds of our
electricity to man, as well as being a contributor to SOX and
NOX emissions. There is a major certification programmed called
LEEDs program which is gaining nationwide recognition as the
primary certification for so called ``green buildings.'' The
problem with green buildings is that that is an undefined term
until you put metrics onto it. The LEEDS program helps define.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Todd Mitchell
Introduction
Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC) is a non-partisan research
organization dedicated to mobilizing the tools of science, policy and
technology to improve people's lives and protect the environment in
Texas. HARC serves as an unbiased, neutral organization that cooperates
with universities, industry and governmental agencies to address
complex and pressing issues relating to how people interact with the
natural environment on a regional scale. By applying an
interdisciplinary approach to research and policy priorities, HARC
seeks to improve decision-making and increase awareness of how science
and technology can support and implement sustainability concepts.
HARC has been active in energy research since the 1980s, initially
concentrating on oil and gas technologies. HARC managed consortium-
based research programs sponsored by many of the world's largest E&P
companies. HARC's primary research focus was on seismic imaging of the
subsurface, with ancillary programs in petrophysics and geochemistry.
In the early 1990s the Geotechnology Research Institute (GTRI) was
formed at HARC and designated as a state entity by the Texas
legislature to carry out research related to advanced hydrocarbon
exploration techniques. In the mid-1990s, the legislature expanded
GTRI's mandate to include environmental geosciences.
In 2000 HARC narrowed its mission and dedicated itself to advancing
the concepts of sustainable development in Texas. In the lexicon of
sustainable development, protection of the natural environment is given
a priority alongside social and economic development goals. With its
new mission, HARC phased out petroleum-related energy research to focus
entirely on clean and renewable energy.
While there are many reasons for our nation to develop clean and
renewable energy resources--ranging from national security to
minimizing the greenhouse affect on global climate--HARC is
particularly active in the link between energy generation and urban air
quality.
Energy and Air Quality--HARC's Role
Energy and air quality have become interlocking pieces in a
critical technology and policy puzzle. Energy generated for
residential, business, and transportation uses is a primary cause of
air pollution in Texas cities.
There are four non-attainment areas in Texas for the one-hour ozone
standard, including Dallas-Ft. Worth, Houston-Galveston, Beaumont, Port
Arthur, and El Paso. The new eight-hour standard will expand the number
of non-attainment areas substantially. Houston is consistently second
in the U.S. only to the Los Angeles region in the number of days of
ozone exceedances. By remaining in a non-attainment status, the State
of Texas stands to lose access to billions of dollars in federal
transportation funds, as well as potentially suffering other penalties
and being subject to federally mandated measures. By failing to meet
federal ozone standards, it has been estimated that Texas would
experience economic losses of $24 to $36 billion over the next 10
years.
The Houston region has the country's largest petrochemical
infrastructure--a major source of point source pollution--and
Houstonians drive further on average than residents of any other U.S.
city. Add to that a hot and humid climate and other accidents of
geography and meteorology, and the result is an air shed that is
capable of producing ozone at unprecedented rates. Health costs and
lost productivity related to air pollution in Houston exceed $3 billion
annually. Civic and business leadership in Houston has determined that
Houston's poor air quality is having a detrimental impact on job
creation and corporate relocations to the region.
To address the air crisis, a variety of measures, some
demonstrating unprecedented leadership and cooperation, are emerging.
The State of Texas, in its recent legislative session, authorized
estimated revenues of $150 million annually for the Texas Emissions
Reduction Program (TERP), an incentive-based program focusing on
reducing vehicle emissions, and NOX emission reductions in particular.
A subset of the TERP funding, allocated to a program called the Texas
Council on Environmental Technology (TCET), provides $14 million
annually to promote the development, deployment, and validation of
technology that will reduce air emissions, especially NOX and VOCs.
The legislature also approved expenditure of an estimated $3
million for air research on the Dallas and Houston areas. This program,
overseen by the Texas Environmental Research Consortium (TERC), will
improve the reliability of input information and air shed models in
East Texas. TERC has selected Houston Advanced Research Center as a
Research Management Organization to oversee the expenditure of these
funds and to work with regional stakeholders to translate the research
for the benefit of public policy-makers.
Clean Energy Supply--HARC's Role
The federal regulations that require States to clean up the air
also create opportunities and incentives to deploy new clean energy
technologies. HARC is actively engaged in introducing energy
technologies with direct impacts on air quality.
Hydrogen powered automobiles. Hydrogen fuel cells are the power
trains of the future, but significant market penetration of hydrogen-
powered vehicles is over a decade away. In the meantime, major auto
companies will roll out prototype fuel cell vehicles, first in limited
pilot programs, later within fleets, and finally to a mass market.
Texas, with the second and third largest truck and auto market in the
country, significant urban air quality challenges, and a pro-business
environment, is an essential base of operations for auto companies
wishing to roll out fuel cell powered vehicles. HARC is in discussions
with two auto companies about providing support for fuel cell vehicle
roll-outs in the following areas: (a) strategic expertise linking the
science and policy of air quality and transportation in Texas; (b) a
physical site for pilot scale demonstration programs; (c)
identification and coordination of fleet partners; and (d) data
collection and analysis support for operational fuel cells.
Stationary fuel cells for commercial and residential buildings.
While fuel cell powered vehicles are more than a decade away from being
significant in number, residential and commercial fuel cell
applications could provide early markets to support industry
development and technology advancements. Because stationary
applications are less constrained by weight and size limitations and
easier to supply with hydrogen feedstock, they can be deployed in
greater numbers within the next few years. One area of need that
precedes widespread adoption of this new technology is the creation of
programs to test and evaluate early commercial products and to
communicate this information to potential consumers. Since 2000, HARC
has been engaged in such a program and is active in helping industry
assess the market readiness of the technology. Our fuel cell
applications consortium is supported by ChevronTexaco, BP, Shell
Hydrogen, Southern Company, Disney, and other corporate and
governmental entities. Texas A&M University and University of Houston
are active observers in the consortium. HARC's fuel cell application
program is also actively deploying fuel cells in demonstration settings
as a valuable precursor to more widespread commercial adoption. HARC is
currently in discussion with the City of Houston and Bush
Intercontinental Airport regarding a fuel cell program to provide low
emissions electricity to ground-support equipment.
Hydrogen generation. The main process for hydrogen generation today
is Steam Methane Reformation (SMR). The SMR process is based on
reacting steam with methane (natural gas) over a catalyst to form
hydrogen. The cost of producing hydrogen through SMR is dependent on
the price of natural gas; however, the price volatility of natural gas
and the increasing demand for hydrogen create the need for a reliable
low cost source of supply. HARC has established a partnership to
investigate a new approach to produce hydrogen at a low cost. The key
to the economics of the HydroMax technology is the use of carbon
feedstocks that have little or no value such as biomass, sewage sludge
and municipal waste. The process is a low risk adaptation of existing
bath smelting technology that has been in commercial use for over 20
years. Conceptual engineering has been performed to develop estimates
for a commercial plant. A number of process simulations have shown that
a wide range of carbon feedstocks is viable. The operating cost of
producing hydrogen via the HydroMax process is less than zero, ^$0.03
per pound (^$0.066/kg), when the carbon source is petroleum coke priced
at $10 per ton and byproduct credits are taken for electricity, steam
and ammonium sulfate fertilizer. When carbon sources with a negative
net cost are available, such as municipal waste or sewage sludge, it is
possible to produce hydrogen at even lower costs.
Reduced Energy Demand--HARC's Role
HARC is actively involved on the other side of the energy equation,
reducing energy demand. The following programs provide a snapshot of
HARC's activities.
Hybrid vehicles. A promising trend is the rapid pace of technology
development for hybrid engines (gas-electric and diesel-electric) in
vehicles. Toyota's gas-electric Prius has exceeded expectations as a
viable mass-market vehicle. Fleet operators are recognizing the life-
cycle fuel cost savings associated with hybrid vehicles. HARC and
Environmental Defense have teamed up to work with Federal Express to
introduce diesel-electric hybrid delivery trucks in Texas. FedEx's
design uses 50 percent less fuel and generates 90 percent less NOX
emissions than its conventional vehicle. HARC's role is to model market
penetration scenarios and to predict the air emissions benefits of this
technology. Having successfully managed the FedEx project, HARC is in
discussion with other potential partners interested in introducing
hybrid fleet vehicles in Texas.
Energy efficient buildings. Nationwide, residences and commercial
buildings account for approximately one-third of our energy consumption
and two-thirds of our electricity demand. From the perspective of
national air quality, almost one-half of SOX emissions, one-quarter of
NOX emissions, and one-third of greenhouse gas emissions are attributed
to the energy consumed by buildings. The Department of Energy has
established the target to have a net zero energy residential building
system by 2020 and a net zero energy commercial building by 2025. The
recent growth of the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC, a Washington
D.C.-based non-profit) is an important development. In 1995, USGBC
created the LEEDTM (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design) Rating
System in response to the U.S. market's demand for a definition of
``green building.'' USGBC's membership is growing rapidly and the
LEEDTM standard is becoming the common measure of green design. We see
a powerful convergence of clean and renewable energy generation
technologies, energy efficiency technologies, and green building
standards as forces that will propel a new era in energy efficient
building design. Communities will be able to set well-defined goals for
building efficiency that architects, builders, and occupants can
understand. HARC has recently hired a national leader in green
buildings to provide support for institutions in our region that look
to implement green building concepts to reduce the energy demands of
buildings.
Building Systems and Materials. Equipment and systems that provide
thermal comfort and adequate indoor air quality for residential and
commercial buildings consume 39 percent of the total energy used in
buildings nationwide. In the greater Houston area, however, the cooling
load can be much higher. A recent greater Houston area forecast
predicts that 35,000 new homes will be added to the regional single-
family home inventory annually for at least the next five years. HARC
is working with others on a program designed to advance the state-of-
the-art and overcome barriers associated with the use of desiccant
dehumidification systems for residential applications. The team is in
the process of designing and testing various options that incorporate a
desiccant system for humidity control in a residential application.
Humidity control is a large part of the air conditioning load.
Incorporating desiccant dehumidification systems into residential HVAC
systems can impact electrical usage and perhaps even decrease initial
costs by reducing the size of the conventional HVAC system. Part of the
project is to verify the energy usage related to desiccant systems, to
educate the public and to identify the market potential for residential
applications. Homes can be designed to reduce the costs of ownership by
increasing energy-efficiency, conserving water and reducing maintenance
costs through the use of more durable building materials. A key part of
HARC's Building Systems program will be the integration of sensors,
information technology, and modeling software to assess and diagnose
energy performance in buildings.
Superconductivity. As the application of high temperature
superconductivity slowly becomes a reality, incremental progress in the
development of materials will be a key to success. Superconducting
materials must be engineered to meet rigorous specifications, meeting
both safety and quality standards. The design and use of low
temperature and high temperature superconducting materials to store
energy can greatly enhance power utilization. For 18 years HARC has
worked with corporate and university partners in the design,
construction and testing of various energy-storage devices. For
example, HARC assembled a six-coil array micro-superconducting magnetic
energy storage (micro-SMES) unit as part of a State contract to
demonstrate the commercial feasibility of micro-SMES technology.
University of Houston has been researching high temperature
superconducting material for approximately 18 years. HARC and UH have
teamed up to explore and exploit the recent advances in the development
of high temperature superconducting wire. These advances may be the
basis for development of coils that can be used in magnetic energy
storage devices and energy transmission systems that reduce energy
loss.
Power Sources. More than 800,000 small (less than 15kW) generators
are sold in the U.S. each year. Principle uses for these small
generators are as emergency back-up power units (principally
residential) and for use as portable (off-grid) electric power in the
construction industry. The potential to design micro-combined heating
and power (micro-CHP) systems so that they also function as emergency
back-up power systems for residential applications may represent a
significant market opportunity. Residential scale micro-CHP systems may
recover thermal energy for uses such as space heating, space cooling,
dehumidification, domestic water heating, and other HVAC and indoor air
quality (IAQ) functions. HARC is working with potential partners to
demonstrate the value of micro-CHP technology as a way to reduce peak
power demand and raise energy efficiency in residences.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you. That was excellent.
Dr. Smalley.
STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD E. SMALLEY, DIRECTOR, CARBON
NANOTECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, RICE UNIVERSITY; ACCOMPANIED BY DR.
HOWARD K. SCHMIDT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CARBON NANOTECHNOLOGY
LAB; AND DR. ROBERT H. HAUGE, TECHNOLOGY DIRECTOR, CARBON
NANOTECHNOLOGY LAB
Dr. Smalley. Thank you, and welcome to Rice University. In
fact, welcome to the home of the fullerenes. 1985, in a
laboratory just a short distance from where we sit, my
colleagues and I discovered C60, the buckyball, and what has
turned out to be an infinite new class of geodesic materials,
molecules made of carbon, which we call the fullerenes. It was
fundamental research project carried out, in part, with support
from federal grants from the U.S. Army Research Office, Basic
Energy Sciences office of the Department of Energy, and the
National Science Foundation.
The key graduate student involved in this discovery was a
local Texas boy, Jim Heath, who is now a full professor at Cal
Tech and is one of the very top stars worldwide in molecular
electronics and nanotechnology. In a very important way, Jim
Heath's graduate research based in the early '80's was part of
the birth of what we now call nanotechnology.
Yesterday I was privileged to stand in the Oval Office
behind the President as he signed the 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act which you on this
committee did so much to make real. And I thank you for your
efforts. I believe this will be a watershed event for the
vitalization of science and technology in our country.
Energy is the single most important issue facing humanity
today. Within this decade it is likely that world oil
production will peak. Within another decade, unless we are
incredibly lucky, worldwide natural gas production will also
peak, and we will no longer be able to meet burgeoning
worldwide demand for energy as China, India, and Africa
develop. What will be our energy source then? What will fuel
our cars, ships and planes? Will it be hydrogen? We must find
an answer.
Through revolutionary breakthroughs in science, we must
enable the development of new technologies which will be the
basis for energy prosperity for ourselves and for the rest of
the expected to be 10 billion people on this planet. It must be
clean, and most importantly it must be cheap.
I am optimistic that this is possible. We can get there.
But it will take a prodigious effort, and nanotechnology, I
suspect, will be a big part of that effort.
We are engaged here at Rice University in a particular sort
of nanotechnology research that will likely play a major role
in future energy. A tube-shaped member of the fullerene family,
molecularly precise objects we here at Rice lovingly call
``buckytubes'' are the current obsession of my research group
and many others both here at Rice and around the world.
These structures are composed of a single sheet of carbon
wrapped around to form a seamless tube, rather like a soda
straw. But this soda straw is smaller than the diameter of a
molecule of DNA. It is made of the strongest one-atom-thick
membrane that can exit in this universe: the hexagonal
``chicken wire'' network of carbon atoms that you find in
graphite. Capped at either end by a half of a buckyball, these
single-walled carbon nanotubes are perfect fullerenes. They do
deserve the name of tubes.
They have amazing properties. They are the strongest fibers
that can be made, 30-100 times stronger than steel. They
conduct heat along their length better than diamond, which
hitherto was the all-time record holder for thermal
conductivity. They are the best conductors of electricity of
any molecule ever discovered.
We are engaged here at Rice in learning how to make these
buckytubes, in discovering what makes them be what they are,
and in developing applications. We like to think of them as a
new miracle polymer, like Nylon was in its day, or Teflon, or
polypropylene, or Kevlar. And we are convinced that ways can be
found to make buckytubes on a large industrial scale much like
these earlier, now well-established polymers.
These single walled carbon nanotubes are uniquely specified
by two small integers, usually called n and m. The diameter is
roughly proportional to the sum, n+m. The electronic
properties, however, are determined by the difference of these
two integers, n^m. If n and m are the same, then n^m = 0 and
the tube conducts electrons like a perfect metal. In the trade
it is called and ``arm-chair'' tube. Electrons move down this
tube as a coherent quantum particle, traveling down the tube
much like a photon of light travels down a single mode optic
fiber. Individual armchair tubes can conduct as much as 20
micro-amps of current. This doesn't sound like much until you
realize that his little molecular wire is only one nanometer in
diameter. So a half inch thick cable made of these tubes
aligned parallel to one and packed side-by-side like pipes in a
hardware store, would have over 120 trillion conductors packed
side-by-side.
If each of these tubes carried only one micro-amp, only two
percent of what has measured in the laboratory and many places
as being its maximum of 25, only two, one on micro-amp, this
half inch thick cable of carbon, amass a density of one-sixth
of copper, would be carrying one hundred million amps of
current. Fabricating such a cable, we call it the ``armchair
quantum wire,'' is a prime objective of our work.
There are two other types of buckytubes. One is a direct
band-gap semiconductor in one dimension, with a band-gap very
similar to silicon or actually much more similar gallium
arsenide, a direct band-gap semiconductor. We have recently
discovered that these buckytubes emit light, and have worked
out exactly the band gap as a function of n and m.
The other type of buckytube is also a semiconductor, but
has a tiny band-gap similar in energy to microwaves. This
behavior occurs whenever n^m is an exact multiple of three.
There are now four principal ways known for producing
buckytubes. Three of these were discovered here at Rice
University a few block away. Currently these tubes are being
produced here at Rice, in fact right as we speak, by a process
we call ``HiPco'' at a rate of about 25 grams per day in a
research reactor here at Rice, and in pounds per day right now
in a variety of related processes in a small nanotechnology
start up company, Carbon Nanotechnologies, Inc., which was spun
out of Rice about four years ago, and is located near here on
the outskirts of Houston.
At Rice we are developing yet a new process for production
of buckeytubes where we will grow the tubes from seeds, short
lengths of previously selected buckytubes where we have
attached nanocatalyst particles to the open ends. The process
that we are developing produces long tubes which are exact
clones of the tubes from which the seeds were made. This
cloning process should give us control of n and m for the first
time.
When we succeed, the impact on energy technologies may be
immense. Running the cloning reactor with arm-chair seeds we
should be able to make pounds of all armchair buckytubes. Using
a process we have been developing for the past few years with
support from the Office of Naval Research, we expect to be able
to spin these nanotubes into continuous fibers. This process
resembles the spinning of Kevlar. But here instead of forming a
strong electrical insulator like Kevlar, the all-armchair
buckytube fiber will be an electrical conductor. We expect the
conductivity to be extremely high, both because of the quantum
light-pipe behavior as the electrons traveling down the
individual tubes, but also because of facile resonant quantum
tunneling of the electron from tube to an adjacent tube.
To get a feeling for this bizarre quantum tunneling
behavior, imagine that you are sitting on a subway train in New
York City late at night. You're sleepy and for a moment you nod
off. But there is another exactly identical train running
parallel to you and when you wake up you wake up on this other
train. So it is when electrons quantum tunnel from tube to tube
in these arm-chair quantum wires. Welcome to the amazing world
of nanotechnology!
Running a cloning buckytube reactor with seeds having a
direct band-gap of, say, 1 eV, you make pounds of tubes that
are just right for making single molecule buckytube
transistors. Or, more interestingly for energy applications,
you make the tubes so that they are optimized as nanoscale
antenna for the use in the conversion of sunlight.
We have collaborated with the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory and Air Products in a proposal to the DOE to
establish a Virtual Center for Carbon-Based Hydrogen Storage.
Our role in this collaboration, our role here at Rice, is to be
the principal laboratory that develops single walled carbon
nanotubes (buckytubes)----
Chairwoman Biggert. If you could close now.
Dr. Smalley. Stop? Okay. Optimized for storage of hydrogen.
Chairwoman Biggert. We will hear more about buckeytubes in
the questions.
Dr. Smalley. We believe that this cloning process will
provide the tubes that are going to be critical for this
function.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Smalley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard E. Smalley
Welcome to the home of the fullerenes. In 1985, in a laboratory
just a short distance from where we meet today, my colleagues and I
discovered C60, the buckyball, and what has turned out to be an
infinite class of new geodesic molecules of carbon, the fullerenes. It
was fundamental research carried with support from federal grants from
the U.S. Army Research Office, the Basic Energy Sciences office of the
Department of Energy, and the National Science Foundation. The key
graduate student involved in this discovery was a local Texas boy, Jim
Heath, who is now a full professor at Cal Tech and is one of the top
stars worldwide in molecular electronics and nanotechnology. In a very
important way, Jim Heath's graduate research was part of the birth of
what we now call nanotechnology.
Yesterday I was privileged to stand in the Oval Office behind the
President as he signed the ``21st Century Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act'' which you on this committee did so much to make real.
I thank you for those efforts. I believe this will be a watershed event
for the vitalization of science and technology in this country.
Energy is the single most important issue facing humanity today.
Within this decade it is likely that worldwide oil production will
peak. Within another decade, unless we are incredibly lucky, worldwide
natural gas production will also peak, and we will no longer be able to
meet burgeoning worldwide demand for energy as China, India, and Africa
develop. What will be our energy source then? What will fuel our cars,
ships and planes? Hydrogen? We must find an answer.
Through revolutionary breakthroughs in science, we must enable the
development of new technologies which will be the basis for energy
prosperity for ourselves and the rest of what will likely be 10 billion
people on this planet. It must be clean, and most importantly it must
be cheap.
I am optimistic that this is possible. We can get there. But it
will take a prodigious effort, and nanotechnology will be a big part of
that effort.
We are engaged here at Rice University in a particular sort of
nanotechnology research that will likely play a major role in future
energy. A tube-shaped member of the fullerene family, molecularly
precise objects we here at Rice lovingly call ``buckytubes'' are the
current obsession of my research group and many others both here at
Rice and around the world.
These structures are composed of a single sheet of carbon wrapped
around to form a seamless tube, rather like a soda straw. But this soda
straw is smaller in diameter than a molecule of DNA, and it is made of
the strongest one-atom-thick membrane that exits in the Universe: the
hexagonal ``chicken wire'' network of carbon atoms in a sheet of
graphite. Capped at either end by a half of a buckyball, these single-
walled carbon nanotubes are perfect fullerenes. They deserve the name
buckytubes.
They have amazing properties. They are the strongest fibers that
can be made, 30-100 times stronger than steel. They conduct heat along
their length better than diamond, which previously was the all-time
record holder for thermal conductivity. They are the best conductors of
electricity of any molecule ever discovered.
We are engaged here at Rice in learning how to make these
buckytubes, in discovering just what makes them what they are, and in
developing applications. We like to think of them as a new miracle
polymer, like Nylon was in its day, or Teflon, or polypropylene, or
Kevlar. And we are convinced that ways can be found to make buckytubes
on a large industrial scale much like these earlier, now well-
established polymers.
These single walled carbon nanotubes are uniquely specified by two
small integers, n and m. The diameter is roughly proportional to the
sum, n+m. The electronic properties, however, are determined by the
difference, n^m. If n and m are the same, then n^m = 0 and the tube
conducts electrons like a perfect metal. In the trade it is called and
``arm-chair'' tube. Electrons move down this tube as a coherent quantum
particle, traveling down the tube much like a photon of light travels
down a single mode optic fiber. Individual armchair tubes can conduct
as much as 20 micro-amps of current. This doesn't sound like much until
you realize that his little molecular wire is only one nanometer in
diameter. A half inch thick cable made of these tubes aligned parallel
to each other along the cable, would have over 100 trillion conductors
packed side-by-side like pipes in a hardware store. If each of these
tubes carried only one micro-amp, only two percent of its capacity, the
half inch thick cable would be carrying one hundred millions amps of
current. Fabricating such a cable--we call it the ``armchair quantum
wire''--is a prime objective of our work.
There are two other types of buckytubes. One is a direct band-gap
semiconductor in one dimension, with a band-gap very similar to silicon
or gallium arsenide. We have recently discovered that these buckytubes
emit light, and have worked out exactly the band gap as a function of n
and m. The other type of buckytube is also a semiconductor, but has a
tiny band-gap similar in energy to microwaves. This behavior occurs
whenever n^m is an exact multiple of three.
There are now four principal ways known for producing buckytubes.
Three of these were discovered here at Rice University. Currently these
tubes are being produced using a process we call ``HiPco'' at a rate of
about 25 grams per day in research reactor here at Rice, and in pounds
per day by a variety of related processes in a small nanotechnology
start up company, Carbon Nanotechnologies, Inc., spun out of Rice
nearly four years ago, and located near here on the outskirts of
Houston.
At Rice we are developing a new process for production where we
will grow the tubes from seeds, short lengths of previously selected
buckytubes where we have attached nanocatalyst particles to the open
ends. The process then produces long tubes which are exact clones of
the tubes from which the seeds were made. This cloning process should
give us control of n and m for the first time.
When we succeed, the impact on energy technologies may be immense.
Running the cloning reactor with arm-chair seeds we should be able to
make pounds of all armchair buckytubes. Using a process we have been
developing for the past few years with support from the Office of Naval
Research, we expect to be able to spin these nanotubes into continuous
fibers. This process resembles the spinning of Kevlar. But here instead
of forming a strong electrical insulator like Kevlar, the all-armchair
buckytube fiber will be an electrical conductor. We expect the
conductivity to be extremely high, both because of the quantum light-
pipe behavior of electrons traveling down individual arm chair
buckytubes, and because of facile resonant quantum tunneling of the
electron from tube to tube. To get a feeling for this bizarre quantum
behavior, imagine you are traveling on a subway train in New York City
late at night. You're sleepy and for a moment you nod off. But there is
another exactly identical train running parallel to you and when you
wake up you are on this other train. So it is when electrons quantum
tunnel from tube to tube in these arm-chair quantum wires. Welcome to
the amazing world of nanotechnology!
Running a cloning buckytube reactor with seeds having a direct
band-gap of 1 eV, you make pounds of tubes that are just right for
making single molecule buckytube transistors. Or, more interestingly
for energy applications, you make the tubes so they are optimized as
nanoscale antenna for use in the conversion of sunlight.
We have collaborated with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
and Air Products in a proposal to the DOE to establish a Virtual Center
for Carbon-Based Hydrogen Storage. Our role in this collaboration is to
be the principal laboratory that develops single walled carbon
nanotubes (buckytubes) optimized for storage of hydrogen. The challenge
here is to control the diameter of the tube so that the absorption
energy of hydrogen on the outside and inside of the tube is high enough
to give the desired storage capacity at an acceptable pressure, without
being so high that it takes too much energy to the hydrogen back off
again. If the absorption behavior of the optimized tube is acceptable,
then the challenge is to develop a process cable of producing this
material at a cost of less than $10 per pound. We believe the new
cloning process is the path to accomplish this goal.
Finding an answer to the storage problem for hydrogen-fueled cars
and truck is a crucial challenge. If there exists a material, X, which
we can put in our gas tanks that will act like a magic sponge and allow
us to fill up on hydrogen with the same sort of experience we now have
with gasoline, we need to find it. Single walled carbon nanotubes are
the leading candidate for this material X.
However, we cannot change the laws of physics. Buckytubes, even
with perfectly optimized n and m may not be good enough. And there may
be no better material for the sponge. Material X may not be possible in
our universe.
In that case, there can still be a hydrogen fueled vehicle, but the
gas tank will have to be a pressurized tank for small vehicles, or a
cryogenic liquid hydrogen tank for large vehicles, ships, and planes.
Buckytubes will be critically important to the hydrogen economy
even then. They will be used in super-strong composites in the bodies
of the vehicles to make them lighter. They will be used in the fuel
cells, and batteries, and super capacitors of the electric drive
system. If the arm-chair quantum wire turns out in practice to be as
good a conductor as we imagine, it will be used to replace copper in
the wiring harnesses of cars and airplanes.
The biggest challenge with hydrogen is not storage, it is
production and transport to the place of use. Here too it may well be
that single walled carbon nanotubes will play a pivotal role.
Particularly important would be the use of armchair quantum wires in
long distance electrical energy transmission. If we could efficiently
transmit hundreds of gigawatts of electrical power over continental
distances, and develop low cost local energy storage technologies, we
could transform the electrical power grid and go a long way to solving
our energy challenge. Local storage capable of 12 hour energy buffering
would vastly lower the peak power demands, and enable solar and wind
power to become a dominant provider. Long distance energy transmission
via wire would allow vast solar farms in the great western deserts to
play a big role in the Nation's energy needs. It would also allow power
to be brought from clean coal plants in Wyoming, and nuclear power from
remote sites where the necessary security is assured. Hydrogen would
then be primarily produced locally at homes, businesses, and filling
stations, and converted back into electrical power locally.
All these notions for transformation of the energy grid can only
come into being through revolutionary advances in the underlying
physical science and technology of materials. When after many decades
this is all done and we look back to write the technological history of
the 21st century, I suspect will find that nanotechnology (and
buckytubes) played a central role.
Biography for Richard E. Smalley
Personal
Birth Date: June 6, 1943 U.S. Citizen
Children: Chad R. Smalley (born June 8, 1969), Preston C. Smalley
(born August 8, 1997)
Education
Hope College, Holland, Michigan, 1961-1963
B.S. (Chem.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1965
M.A., Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, 1971
Ph.D., Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, 1973
Industrial Positions
Research Chemist, Shell Chemical Company, 1965-1969
Chairman of the Board and Co-Founder of Carbon Nanotechnologies, Inc.,
2000-present
Academic Positions
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Chemistry, Princeton
University (with E.R. Bernstein), 1969-1973
Postdoctoral Research Associate, The James Franck Institute, University
of Chicago (with D.H. Levy), 1973-1976
Assistant Professor, Department of Chemistry, Rice University, 1976-
1980
Associate Professor, Department of Chemistry, Rice University, 1980-
1981
Professor, Department of Chemistry, Rice University, 1981-1982
Gene and Norman Hackerman Professor of Chemistry, Rice University,
1982-present
Professor of Physics, Rice University, 1990-present
University Professor, Rice University, 2002-present
Honorary Degrees
Doctor honoris causa, University of Liege, Liege, Belgium, 1991
Doctor of Science, University of Chicago, 1995
Doctor of Science, University of Michigan, 1997
Doctor of Science, University of Pennsylvania, 2002
Fellowships, Awards, and Prices
Harold W. Dodds Fellow, Princeton University, 1973
Alfred P. Sloan Fellow, 1978-1980, Fellow of the American Physical
Society, 1987
Irving Langmuir Prize in Chemical Physics, 1991 (Awarded by American
Physical Society)
Popular Science Magazine Grand Award in Science & Technology, 1991
APS International Prize for New Materials, 1992 (Joint with R.F. Curl
and H.W. Kroto)
Jack S. Kilby Award, 1992 (North Dallas Chamber of Commerce)
Ernest O. Lawrence Memorial Award, 1992 (U.S. Department of Energy)
Welch Award in Chemistry, 1992 (Robert A. Welch Foundation)
Auburn-G.M. Kosolapoff Award, 1992 (Auburn Section of American Chemical
Society)
Southwest Regional Award, 1992 (American Chemical Society)
William H. Nichols Medal, 1993 (New York Section of American Chemical
Society)
The John Scott Award, 1993 (The City of Philadelphia)
Hewlett-Packard Europhysics Prize, 1994 (European Physical Society)
Harrison Howe Award, 1994 (Rochester Section of the American Chemical
Society)
Madison Marshall Award, 1995 (North Alabama Section of the American
Chemical Society)
The Franklin Medal, 1996 (The Committee on Science and the Arts of The
Franklin Institute)
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1996 (Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences)
Rice University Homecoming Queen, 1996 (Rice University Undergraduates)
Distinguished Civilian Public Service Award, 1997 (Department of the
Navy)
American Carbon Society Medal, 1997
Top 75 Distinguished Contributors to the Chemical Enterprise, 1998
(Chemical & Engineering News)
Glen T. Seaborg Medal, 2002 (UCLA)
Memberships
American Chemical Society, Division of Physical Chemistry
American Physical Society, Division of Chemical Physics
American Institute of Physics, American Association for the Advancement
of Science
Materials Research Society, Sigma Xi
National Academy of Sciences, 1990
American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1991
Other
Chairman, Rice Quantum Institute, 1986-1996
Scientific Advisory Board, CSIXTY, Inc., 1995-present
Scientific Advisory Board, NanoSpectra Biosciences, 2002
Scientific Advisory Committee, Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences
(CNMS), 2002
Scientific Advisory Committee, Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies'
(CINT), 2002
Director, Rice Center for Nanoscale Science & Technology (CNST), 1996-
2001
Director, Carbon Nanotechnology Laboratory, 2002-present
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you.
Dr. Holtzapple.
STATEMENT OF DR. MARK HOLTZAPPLE, DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL
ENGINEERING, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
Dr. Holtzapple. Well, howdy y'all.
What I would like to talk about two patents that I have
been working on for about 20 years. The first is biofuels and
the other is a StarRotor Engine.
And first I am going to start with the biofuels. This is an
ideal process, an imagine process that would volume as I've
shown here as a tree, put it into some sort of a biodefinery
and make fuels. Now, when you burn that biomass, you do make
CO2, but due to the process of photosynthesis, you
fix that carbon dioxide and it simply cycles. So the idea is to
have your cars run as solar powered cars.
Now currently you are driving solar powered cars, it is
just old solar energy. It is about 100 million years old. The
idea here is to drive new solar energy.
Now let's envision the ideal properties of such a process.
The first thing I'd like to do is focus on the biomass itself.
What we would like to do is be able to use all kinds of biomass
such as trees, grass, agricultural resides, energy crops,
garbage, sewage sludge and animal manure. And it turns out
there is a lot of this stuff around, a lot of waste.
If we took all the biowaste in our states and converted to
alcohol fuels, it is about 135 billion gallons. And to put that
into perspective, U.S. gasoline consumption is about 130
billion gallons and diesel is 40 billion gallons. So it has the
potential to supply a significant portion of our liquid
transportation fuels.
We would also like to be able to use high productivity
feedbacks. Like here I am showing the productivity of corn in
dry times per acre per year. You see that it is only about 3.4.
So if we were to go to something like sweet sorghum, it is 20.
If we go to something called energy cane it is 30. So
significantly more biomass being produced in the form of
sorghum or energy cane.
To look at sweet sorghum, this is a single year's growth.
It grows in about 35 states including Illinois, so it is a very
prolific crop.
An energy cane, this is to me a phenomenal pictures. These
are two full grown men standing next one year's growth of
energy cane. This happens to be in Puerto Rico. It is a
phenomenal productive crop. And to get some sense of how long
it is, here they are standing next to it while it is cut. And
that is a single stock that is stretching along the length of
that truck.
The other thing we would like to do is get the farmer's a
lot of income. I am going to talk of those corn grains, the
lowest is about $340 per acre. But if they grew sweet sorghum,
they could get $730 per acre. And if they energy cane, they
could get over $1,000 per acre gross income. So we could really
up the farmers using this kind of technology.
And if you look at the environment impact of growing
various crops in terms of the water, fertilizer, pesticides,
herbicides and sil erosion, what you see is that sweet sorghum
and energy cane have a low environmental impact compared to
growing corn grain.
Next I would like to talk about the process itself, what
would be the idea properties of the process. And ideally you
would like to have no sterility, because it costs money to have
sterility.
It wouldn't bypass genetically modified organisms.
You want like to be adaptable to different kinds of
feedstocks.
You do not want to have pure cultures.
You would like to be cheap.
You do not want to have enzymes.
You would like high product yields.
You do not want to have to add vitamins.
And you do not want to have co-products that carry the
process.
And next I would like to focus on what are the ideal
properties of the fuel itself. And what I am showing here is
various features of fuels: The octane rating, volatility, the
ability to ship through pipelines, energy content, heat of
vaporization and damages to ground water. And you see that MTBE
is very good on almost all of these, but there is a lot of
concern about ground water damage. But if we go with mixed
alcohols we see that it does not have any of the problems that
are associated with the other fuels.
So we have these ideal properties. Is there a biofuel
technology with those properties? And you probably know the
answer to that question. The answer is yes. It is a process
that I have been working on for 12 years now called the MexAlco
process. And the way it works is you take your biomass and
treat it with lime to make it digestible. And then you ferment
that lime treated biomass with a mixed culture of organisms.
They may call it carboxylate salts, such as calcic acetate,
remove the water. When you heat those salts you get ketones
such as acetones. And if you add hydrogen you get alcohol such
as isopropanol.
So literally think about this. You could take manure and
turn it into a salt with vinegar, nail polish remover and
rubbing alcohol. So the acute alkamine is turning lead into
gold can be done with this kind of process.
Another important point to be made is that hydrogen goes
into process. The hydrogen could be made from coal, let us say
where you sequester the carbon dioxide but the energy content
of the coal shows up in hydrogen. And you can think if this
biofuel as a hydrogen carrier that does not have a negative
impact on the environment.
Just to point out how they do some of these steps. I am
going to go into all the technology. The pretreatment and
fermentation is done this way. You have a rubber lined pit with
about three feet of gravel. You just pile up the biomass with
line and calcium carboxylate. And for the first month you blow
air up through the pile. That takes out the living make it
digestible. And then you literally throw dirt onto the pile, in
fact the best dirt is from Galveston that we have found so far.
And at the bottom the pile just rots, and when it rots it turns
into calcium acetate, which we harvest into liquid and send on
for further processing.
The next step in the process is the dewatering. And here
what you do is you put actmine on your salt solution with steam
that comes out of the compressor, condenses and causes more
water to vaporize.
And I just want to make as a side note, this could also be
used to desalinate sea water economically.
And what are the economics of our process? What I'm showing
here is the feedstock cost, there's that $40 per ton that I
used before. And you see that if we paid the farmers $40 a ton,
you could sell fuels for about .75 a gallon. So it's a very
attractive process.
And notice I have some negative costs if you are using
things like garbage or sewage sludge; people pay to get rid of
that stuff.
The idea is to have an energy plantation. Here we have a
central facility with 15 mile radius. It's 50 percent planted.
It turns out that that factory has the capacity of half an oil
refinery, and it can function forever as long as the sun is
shining.
If we were to satisfy 100 percent of U.S. gasoline needs by
growing energy cane in Brazil at current engine efficiency,
that is the amount of land area required. If we double our
engine efficiency, that's the amount required. And if we
triple, that's the amount required.
And if we were to grow sweet sorghum in the United States,
these are the analogous figures.
So what I would like you to envision is taking this amount
of land area, assuming we can triple energy efficiency, and
kind of stretch it along the coast. That means that the liquid
fuels would be transported maybe 100 miles or so to the coast
by barge. It would go to Houston and then through the pipelines
to distribute the fuels. We could get it to the customer in an
economical way.
Now how do we increase the efficiency of engines? It turns
out that hydroelectrics are already on the market. They've
doubled engine efficiency. And I think through better engines,
we can double or even quadruple the efficiency of engines.
And so what I would like to so is show the StarRotor Engine
which we have been working on now for about five or six years.
The way it works is you take air out of one atmosphere. It
compresses here to six atmospheres. You preheat it, and then
you add your fuel. It expands in this region right here. And
finally you do exhaust one atmosphere of gas. It is still
fairly hot, so you capture the waste energy and cycle it back
into the engine.
Now it so happens that I brought along here--at the end you
are certainly welcome to come up and give it a crank and see
how it goes.
And we have been doing this now for a while. And here is
the prototype which we started testing in September. This
happens this is just the compressor portion. There is an
electric motor at the end. And here it is. You can see it
rotating.
And one of the key points I wanted to make is that there is
no physical contact between these rotating elements, so there's
no tension and wear. It should have an extremely long life this
engine.
The properties of this engine are very efficient. At full
size power you should be able to get about 100 miles per
gallon.
Almost no pollution with low maintenance,long life, low
cost. Very high power density. No vibration to speak of and any
fuel that you want. It does not care what the fuel.
And so the benefits of adopting these technologies are:
That it could reduce waste such as garbage and sewage sludge;
have cleaner air for cities like Houston; develop me markets
for agriculture.; have energy security where we don't have to
import over half our oil; improve our balance of payments.
Currently we're spending $2 billion a week on import of oil. We
could eliminate that.
We could address global warning; address the impending
energy shortage; have more flexible international relations.
I ask why are we such good friends with Saudi Arabia? And
everybody knows the answer to that question.
And then lastly, we can help developing nations pull
themselves up by the bootstraps.
So what I would like to do is propose some legislative
action to make all this happen. The first thing is that the
Energy Bill has a tax credit for ethanol. What I would suggest
is we simply erase the word ethanol and put biofuel there so
that all biofuels could compete on an equal basis with the same
amount of subsidy.
Also if we want to use things like garbage as a feedstock,
I do not know of any chemical company or oil company that would
touch it because they do not want the potential liability that
comes along with handling these. If they could somehow be
protected from liability of handling these wastes, then it is
extremely attractive feedstock.
And lastly, since I am a professor, I have to say give more
money for research.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Holtzapple follows:]
Chairwoman Biggert. Mr. Hennekes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT HENNEKES, VICE PRESIDENT, TECHNOLOGY
MARKETING, SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Mr. Hennekes. Well, thank you for letting me speak today. I
would like to give my appreciation to both of you for coming
and giving Shell the chance to say a few words to Rice
University and the rest of you ladies and gentlemen for giving
us a few minutes.
What I would like to do is just take a couple of minutes to
tell you about some of the things that we at Shell are doing in
terms of research and development, and let you know about some
of the ways that we are trying to help the environment and
provide fuel and energy for the future.
When I was given the opportunity to speak, we first thought
that because Shell happens to be a provider of things like
gasoline and diesel. Hopefully, most of you have bought some of
our product. Any who have not? Okay. That's a good sign.
And so we can talk a lot about oil and gas and fuels, but
we were asked to talk about non-fuels, non-oil and gas. And so
what I chose to talk a little bit about is those that are
starred. First there's coal gasification. We'll talk a little
bit about that and how it fits in with CO2
sequestration.
Secondly, we are going to talk about metallurgy and
innovation ways of looking at the metallurgy and trying to find
any faults in that metallurgy and make sure that structural
materials stay standing for as long as we desire them to stand.
I would be happy to talk about future fuels, lubricants,
future catalysts, but that really wasn't what the intention of
this was to do.
First of all, Shell Global Solutions, where I happen to
work, maybe nobody's heard of that before. That is okay. We are
a wholly owned subsidiary of Shell Oil Company. Hopefully, you
have heard of Shell Oil. All the folks that are on this diagram
you can see are the customers of Shell Global Solutions. To put
it bluntly, we are the research service and development people
for all of Shell. And so the oil products folks, the
renewables, the exploration production all hire us to come in
and do work and research and development for them.
Shell Global Solutions also happens to do work outside of
the Shell companies. We started doing that about five years
ago. So we can actually be hired out by other oil companies, by
other research institutes in places such as that to do research
and service for the rest of the world.First, let's talk about
coal gasification. It's a shame that our former Governor is not
here, because I was going to send him back to school for a
third time and do a little bit of chemistry.
Everybody understand complete combustion. Complete
combustion is when you burn wood, coal, gasoline or anything
else you choose to burn. You have a lot of oxygen that's in the
air and you go ahead and burn that and its makes CO2
and water.
The idea is to take anything, biomass, coal from the great
state of Illinois. We have worked on some projects there. And
not burn it all the way, but partially oxidize it. So only add
enough oxygen where the fuel is ready to be burned in a large
turbine later one. When you do that, you get a combination of
carbon monoxide and hydrogen. You can then through the same
shift reaction that you talked a little bit about previously,
take some of that CO make additional hydrogen and you get a
very pure stream of CO2. You can take that CO2
and sequester it. Currently for a company like Shell what we
like to do is put it into a well some place where we're using
CO2 for tertiary recovery, those sort of things. You
could even take the CO2 and put it in Coca Cola or
other products such as that. But if you do want to take the
CO2 and sequester it, Shell Global Solutions is
working on a very large program with other industry folks to
try and figure out how to sequester for reasonable price and
minimize the amount of CO2 going to the atmosphere.
Okay.
Everybody understand the chemistry upon the board? Anybody
who doesn't, raise their hand. Okay.
This is a gasification reactor. Just so you get a feel for
it. Why is it so complex looking? Very simple. This process
runs at about 2700 degrees Fahrenheit. 2700 degrees Fahrenheit
is not something I have any concept of what it is. I've been by
the reactors. I've seen them operate. But 2700 degrees is so
high, it is absolutely phenomenal to me. So we have very
talented metallurgist, people such as that to design this
reactor so it is able to contain those reactions and give us
the carbon monoxide and hydrogen that we need.
When we do the gasification of either the biomass, the
municipal waste, the coal, those sort of things it is a very,
very clean process. That is because it is still in a reduced
state. We have not really oxidized it. It is in a reduced
state. And we can clean up the sulphur almost completely. We
can get rid of the NOXs. When a typical material burns, it will
make NOX of hundreds of parts per million. When you burn sin
gas, it comes down to 10 to 20 PPM. We have almost no
particulates because of the process at all.
The things that we are trying to do in terms of research
still is how can we minimize the CO2 and how can we
sequester it? How can we grab the mercury out of the coal so
that we do not pollute the lakes and streams? How do we make
the burners, the gasifiers and the quench systems all more
reliable. Those are all the kind of research that we are doing
to try and make this process better. Okay.
I will take questions later on the gasification process.
For metallurgy, one of the things that is very important to
a company like Shell is that our plants run and run as long as
we desire them to run, and then shut down when we want them to
shut down. So one of the devices we have developed is what is
called a pulsed eddy current device. And we actually can use it
outside of the refinery system.
This, for example, was a bridge and you could not tell
where the cracks in the under carriage were occurring. But
using this pulsed eddy current device you can actually find all
of the cracks, okay. And that's the device. And that's a
gentleman looking at the surface to determine the cracks, where
they are and you can tell if that bridge or oil refinery or rig
has corrosion and has problems and needs to be shut down.
What does this do? It allows us to avoid shutdowns when we
do not want. It allows us to keep from flaring and putting
hazards material into the atmosphere.
And what you see in front of you is simply a gentleman who
is trying to find all the cracks that have already been found
by the bridge company. So what they did is they gave us a
challenge. They said we do not believe you Shell. We do not
think you can do this. They went in, and all we were allowed to
do was stay on the top and move our device and find the cracks.
We found all of them. After we proved that out, we went back to
the bridge that was in place, showed them where all the cracks
were. Those were repaired, and we were back in shape. Okay.
That's the kind of research that Shell is doing. And we are
more than happy to answer questions later on about that or any
other item Shell might be asked about.
Thanks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hennekes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Hennekes
Introduction
Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Robert
Hennekes. I am Market Development Manager, Gas & LNG, for Shell Global
Solutions (U.S.) Inc. and a Vice President of Technology Marketing for
Shell Global Solutions, a network of independent technology companies
that specialize in cutting-edge technologies. I would like to talk a
little more about some of those technologies and how they might
contribute to meeting the Nation's energy needs in an efficient and
environmentally responsible way.
Shell Global Solutions (U.S.) Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Shell Oil Company, is located at the Westhollow Technology Center in
Houston, Texas.
The Shell Global Solutions network is comprised of Shell Global
Solutions (U.S.) Inc., Shell Global Solutions International B.V.
(operating out of The Hague and Amsterdam (Netherlands), and with
sister companies in Thornton (England), Petit Couronne (France),
Hamburg (Germany), Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) and Singapore). Each
specializes in its own areas of expertise, and, through service
agreements, support each other with research data, operational
experience, technical know-how and staff who are top professionals in
their own disciplines. When a client contacts any of the companies in
Shell Global Solutions, it benefits from the resources of all of them.
Our Experience
I am delighted to have the opportunity to share a little of what we
do here in Houston as a center of excellence for technical service in
non-traditional energy issues. Shell Global Solutions (U.S.) Inc.
provides technical services to third parties, Shell-owned companies and
Shell joint ventures including gas transmission companies, chemical and
LNG plants, hydrocarbon distribution companies and oil exploration and
production facilities.
Shell Global Solutions (U.S.) Inc. provides services in three
different areas:
First, we offer Shell technology and successful practices through
comprehensive Technical Service Agreements (TSAs). This comprehensive
set of services takes the Shell know how, experience, and successful
practices and brings it to a company to help increase its margins and
efficiencies and to lower its cost structure.
Second, we provide specific services designed to satisfy a
companies' individual needs. One example would be providing assistance
in a companies' review of its LNG facilities.
Finally, we license industry-leading technologies in gasification,
and risk based pipeline assessment methodology.
Shell Licensed Gasification
Gasification is a very versatile process that converts a variety of
carbon-containing feedstocks like coal, petroleum coke, lignite, oil
distillates, residues and natural gas into synthesis gas by partial
oxidation with air or oxygen. Shell has developed two dedicated
gasification technologies, the Shell Gasification Process (SGP) for
liquid and gaseous feedstocks and the Shell Coal Gasification Process
(SCGP) for solid feedstocks, such as coal, lignite and petroleum coke.
Both processes have been successfully applied commercially.
Gasification projects select Shell technologies due to their high
efficiency, versatile applicability, and performance, in addition to
the technological know-how and operational experience of Shell Global
Solutions.
Shell Gasification Process
Shell originally developed the Shell Gasification Process (SGP) to
provide syngas for the chemical industry, e.g., for the production of
fertilizer. The syngas can also be used for its combustion value. Feed
flexibility, environmental performance, and the ability to use low cost
feedstock are important drivers that support further application of
this technology for power generation and hydrogen manufacturing in
refineries.
In the early years, feeds were usually rather light distillates,
but residues became more attractive due to their low cost. Adjustments
to the process, such as the development of an improved Soot & Ash
Removal Unit, extended the technology to the application for the
manufacture of syngas from refinery-derived heavy residues such as
those from vacuum distillation, visbreaking and solvent de-asphalting.
The main processes in a gasification system are the gasification,
in which the feedstock is reacted with oxygen and steam to raw syngas,
the syngas cooling, the sour syngas treatment, and the carbon handling
system.
The non-catalytic partial oxidation of hydrocarbons by SGP takes
place in the gasifier equipped with a specially designed burner. This
design provides for more efficient gas-liquid mixing and a better flame
temperature control.
Figure 1 shows a typical structure of an SGP gasification plant for
hydrogen production. Presently, 82 SGP reactors are producing about 62
million Nm3 syngas per day in 26 plants worldwide. This is equivalent
to 23,000 tons of residue per day or nearly 8 million tons of residue
per year.
Shell Coal Gasification Process
For gasification of solid feedstocks, a dedicated development
program has resulted in the commercially marketed Shell Coal
Gasification Process (SCGP). The process is characterized by the
following features:
Dry feed of pulverized coal,
Compact gasified and other equipment due to the
pressurized, entrained flow, oxygen blown concept,
Slagging, membrane wall gasifier which allows high
temperatures because of insulation and protection of wall by
solid inert slag layer,
Multiple, opposed burners resulting in good mixing of
coal and blast, large turndown, and large scale-up potential.
The typical syngas product consists of 25-30 percent of hydrogen
and 60-65 percent of carbon monoxide. High-pressure steam is produced
in the gasification and heat recovery section and can be used, e.g., to
generate electricity in the IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined
Cycle) application, thus increasing the efficiency of the whole
process. Other by-products are inert slag, elemental sulfur, and
relatively small amounts of clean water effluent. As an alternative to
discharging the effluent water, it may be evaporated to give a zero
water discharge and salts as byproducts. The slag and sulfur can
readily be marketed.
The process can handle a wide variety of solid feedstocks, ranging
from lignite, brown coal, sub-bituminous coal, bituminous coal,
anthracite, to petroleum coke. Coal types can be switched during
operation. Over the wide range of coal properties processed, the SCGP
process has proven to be insensitive to the size, condition, or other
physical properties of the raw coal.
Shell Global Solution's operational experience with coal
gasification started with a 6 t/d pilot plant in Amsterdam, followed by
a 150 t/d unit in Harburg, Germany. A third unit in Houston with a
capacity of 250-400 t/d fully demonstrated the capability of the
gasifier to process a wide range of solid fuels from lignite to
anthracite and to petroleum coke. These experiences have led to the
successful design, construction and operation of the 2000 t/d coal
gasification unit of the Demkolec plant in The Netherlands. Various
SCGP plants are at different stages of implementation.
ASSET
The ASSET technology was developed internally for Shell projects
and evolved over a period of about 15 years to facilitate improved
equipment engineering in the creation of a comprehensive information
system for alloys that become corroded by contact with complex, high-
temperature gases. ASSET finds wide applications for equipment used in
thermal stimulation of heavy oil formations, oil refining,
petrochemical processing, and coal gasification.
Joint industry programs are being developed and led by Shell Global
Solutions to further advance the technology with the involvement of
about 70 other companies, including energy companies, chemicals
companies, metals producers, engineering companies, research
establishments, and universities from both U.S. and non-U.S.
organizations. Financial support and technological co-operation has
been achieved from these companies and the U.S. Department of Energy--
Office of Industrial Technologies, as summarized in the table here.
Project Objectives
Provide industry-enhanced use of technology in
application of metals and equipment design for high temperature
processes.
Enhance/commercialize an information system which
assists in predicting the rates of degradation of commercial
alloys in complex, corrosive, high-temperature gases.
Gather corrosion data with the participating
companies and add to ASSET.
Generate corrosion data and add to ASSET.
Use new data to expand the envelope of corrosive
conditions and alloys to more fully cover the diverse needs of
equipment.
Enhance thermochemical computations.
Enhance the capability to predict corrosion behavior.
Reduce energy consumption in various industrial
processes.
Commercialization Plan
The potential users of the product of this project will be chemical
process industries that operate processes which involve high-
temperature gaseous environments that are capable of causing rapid
degradation of the process equipment by oxidation, sulfidation,
sulfidation/oxidation, or carburization attack, or by combinations of
these modes. Examples can be found in base chemical production, sulfur
removal process, and hydrogen production. Since the trend to increased
efficiency typically involves the operation of chemical processes at
higher temperatures and the creation of increasingly corrosive
environments, the application of an advanced alloy selection and
service life prediction system such as ASSET could be very wide.
The commercialization of the project's results will be a constant
process over the life of the project. Each company participating in the
project will have ready access to the most recent version of ASSET and
will be trained in its use. Membership of MTI in the project allows
more than 55 companies to access the software as it develops and after
it is finished. The initial users of the ASSET technology will be the
current ASSET member companies, as well as any other companies that
join the project. Additional member companies will be sought throughout
the life of the project.
Energy Saving Estimates
The estimated energy savings resulting from the successful
implementation of the results of the ASSET project are as follows. One
installed unit or unit production = an equivalent chemical facility
utilizing in one year, one one-thousandth of the energy used by the
entire U.S. chemical industry. A two percent improvement is assumed for
the impact of the new technology.
The technology to be developed may apply in many processes in the
chemical industry in addition to the examples cited here. In order to
estimate the impact throughout the chemical industry, an OIT GPRA
spreadsheet was used. The project can significantly benefit the
chemical industry, including improved energy efficiency, reduced cost
and improved productivity, and enhanced environmental benefits in the
U.S., which will result from the use of the ASSET computational
software. The development and use of the ASSET information system will
enable enhanced selection and use of optimal materials for utilization
as materials of construction in chemical processes.
Chemical Industry Corrosion Management Project
Project Objectives:
Improved accuracy in equipment lifetime predictions
Energy savings of 18.5 trillion Btu by 2020
Improved process safety and operations
Reduced maintenance costs and expenses
Reduced emissions of CO2 and other pollutants
Applications
Data for corrosion by Cl2 and HCl gases and corrosion
prediction methods will benefit the forest products and chemicals
industry, with applications in chemical processes, incinerators,
burning chlorinated materials, and bleaching operations in paper
manufacturing. Cyclic oxidation data will be applicable to the
chemicals, steel, heat treating, and petroleum industries. Metal
dusting data will be applicable to the steel, chemicals and petroleum
industries.
Improved Corrosion Management Could Provide Significant Cost and Energy
Savings for the Chemical Industry
In the chemical industry, corrosion is often responsible for
significant shutdown and maintenance costs. Shutdowns are costly in
terms of productivity losses, restart energy, and material costs. These
shortcomings could be reduced by improving the capability of engineers
to better predict corrosion of alloys under different conditions.
We have a significant opportunity to increase the accuracy used in
predicting equipment lifetimes when this equipment is subject to
corrosion in high-temperature gases. Researchers are developing
corrosion data for commercial alloys, thermochemical models, and
increased understanding, which will be delivered to plant designers and
operators via an information system to allow industry to
comprehensively and reliably predict corrosion. This includes an
extensive list of commercial alloys exposed to complex and corrosive
gases at temperatures ranging from 200+C to
1,200+C.
Anticipated benefits from improving corrosion management are
extensive in the chemical industry, many other industries, and for the
U.S. economy. Examples are improvements in process safety, reduction in
maintenance costs of process operation, more cost-effective use of
expensive alloys in equipment designs, reductions in energy use,
moderation in the release of CO2 and other pollutants to the
atmosphere, and more confident use of alloys in progressively more
extreme operating conditions. With improvements in corrosion
management, equipment maintenance will be better scheduled, and
unplanned outages due to unexpected corrosion will be reduced. The
estimated annual energy savings by 2020 are 18.5 trillion Btu of
CH4.
Corrosion Project Description
The goal is to develop corrosion technology and to deliver it via
an information system that will allow industries to better manage
corrosion of metals and alloys used in high-temperature process
equipment through improved prediction of corrosion-limited lifetimes
and corrosion mechanisms. The project effort in corrosion technology
combines comprehensive corrosion databases and thermochemical models
and calculation programs to predict the dominant corrosion process.
Metal losses by corrosion can then be calculated for commercial alloys
over wide ranges of corrosive environments. The corrosion modes to be
studied include corrosion by Cl2/HCl gases, cyclic
oxidation, and metal dusting.
The effort will generate several different types of corrosion data.
Data for corrosion by Cl2/HCl gases will be measured under
conditions relevant for this mechanism, including temperature, time,
gas composition, alloy composition, and mass transport characteristics
as influenced by gas flow over metal surfaces. Thermal cycling
generally influences oxidation behavior, but it can also promote
additional forms of degradation, such as thermal fatigue. Generation of
meaningful cyclic oxidation data poses a difficult challenge, due to
the diversity of the many potential thermal challenges.
Researchers also intend to create a capability to compile all
available data to help in assessments of the tendencies for alloys and
metals towards metal dusting in commercial conditions. The aim is to
predict metal dusting-limited lifetimes, as defined either by
incubation times before onset of metal dusting or by metal loss rates
once metal dusting begins.
Milestones
The four main tasks are as follows:
Software development
Thermochemical modeling
Corrosion testing/corrosion technology development
Commercialization
Commercialization
Developed technology will be transferred to industry through the
project's member companies. The effort will be assisted with semi-
annual meetings, electronic communication, software updates and
presentations to industry conferences. The Materials Technology
Institute (MTI) will distribute the technology to more than 50 chemical
companies and their suppliers.
Pulsed Eddy Current Technology
Shell Global Solutions originally developed the Pulsed Eddy Current
(PEC) technology as an assist for detecting corrosion under insulation
(CUI) through insulation material and metal insulation covers. A number
of `spin-off' PEC applications were also identified over the past few
years during this research effort.
The basic principle of operation of PEC is the induction of eddy
currents in steel by a magnetic field in the sensor. The PEC probe acts
both as magnetizer and detector of the induced eddy currents. A PEC
probe is placed above a coated steel object. An electrical current is
then introduced in the transmitter coil, which magnetizes the steel
surface beneath the probe. Subsequently, the current is switched-off,
causing the steel to de-magnetize. The sudden change in magnetic field
strength generates eddy currents in the steel, which diffuse inwards
from the steel, decaying in strength as they propagate. The induced
magnetic field of these decaying eddy currents is detected by a set of
receiver coils in the PEC probe, and the signal detected relates to the
wall thickness.
PEC wall thickness is an average over the area of the probe's
footprint, i.e., a roughly circular area where eddy currents flow. In
practice, this means that PEC is well suited for measuring general wall
loss. PEC is less suited to detect localized damage such as isolated
pitting.
When is PEC suited for an inspection problem?
PEC is particularly suitable for the following situations:
No direct access to the metal surface, due to a layer of
insulation, thick coatings, fireproofing, road surface or marine growth
that is expensive or impossible to remove and for which removing would
serve no other purpose.
Surface preparation: PEC does not require surface preparation,
which is a crucial advantage in splash zone and underwater
applications.
Access: Conventional methods are often not applicable if access is
difficult or restricted. PEC is more suited than alternative techniques
for deployment by remote access via jigs, suspension on cables,
abseilers, ROVs and `key hole probes.' This relates to the tolerance
against misalignment of the PEC probes with respect to the steel
surface.
Monitoring, especially at high temperature: PEC is uniquely suited
for in-service monitoring of steel.
The technical feasibility of PEC relates to:
Nature of the degradation PEC can detect and size
general corrosion, but often fails to detect more localized
corrosion.
Complexity of the geometry: PEC is best suited for
`simple' geometries, i.e., straight sections of pipes without
any nozzles and supports. It is possible, but more difficult,
to apply PEC around more complex geometries.
Thickness of the insulation: the thicker the
insulation, fireproofing, etc., the more difficult it is to
apply PEC.
Based on the utility and technical feasibility, the PEC
applications can be categorized as follows:
Regular Applications
Corrosion monitoring
Splash zone inspection of coated risers and caissons
Under water inspections of caissons by remote operated vehicle
(ROV)
Measurements through coatings and fireproofing
Well tubular inspections (offshore)
Key-hole inspections (e.g., annular rings storage tanks)
Measuring remaining wall thickness through corrosion products
Corrosion under insulation
High temperature inspections of a vessel (not corrosion
monitoring)
Niche Applications
Delamination (few applications only)
Detection of cracks in welds (e.g., for inspection of
orthotropic steel bridges)
Detection of geometrical anomalies (e.g., frame detection of
sunken ships)
Technical Progress Over the Last Three Years
The Research and Development of the PEC team of Shell Global
Solutions has led to a number of improvements to the PEC technology.
This program also led to seven patent applications.
The main technical improvements are:
Patents have been filed for the focused probe design. This design
reduces the footprint by about a factor of five with respect to other
probe designs.
PEC profiling is being developed. PEC profiling further enhances
the defect sensitivity for external corrosion.
Keyhole probes have been developed. These probes allow inspection
in locations with restricted access.
A method has been developed to make PEC highly reproducible. A
patent application has been filed on PEC corrosion monitoring.
Directional Pulsed Eddy Current is being developed for crack
detection applications.
Portability
A unique feature of PEC is its portability. With PEC, a single
sensor can be used to monitor many different locations. Positioning
frames and center pop marks are used to ensure that the PEC probe is
accurately located in the same monitor position each measurement.
The portability of PEC has important advantages over alternatives:
Robustness. No fixed parts.
Economical. Costs are saved by using just one set of
equipment for many different locations.
No problems with high temperature (tested up to
420+C).
Installation: can be done while the equipment is
running; no need for welding.
PEC probes are also available to monitor wall thickness at fixed
positions. These are used to determine corrosion rates in areas where
it is difficult to use the mobile PEC probe (e.g., in areas where
scaffolding is required). The method is illustrated with Figures 3 and
4.
In the photo (Figure 3), data collection is shown in progress on an
insulated pipe operated at 320+C. The operator places the
PEC probe on a measurement position that is defined by a positioning
frame or by center pop points on the pipe surface. The result of six
such measurements recorded over a time span of 200 days is displayed in
the accompanying graph (Figure 4). Note the expanded wall thickness
scale.
PEC corrosion monitoring probes can also be fixed to pipes. For hot
insulated pipes, the probes are strapped to the insulation; otherwise,
probes are simply and directly strapped to the pipe.
Environment Remediation and Sustainability
Shell Global Solutions has active applied research underway in the
Houston area for environmental remediation and sustainability. At the
Shell Westhollow Technology Center, we continue to create more
efficient and cost-effective site remediation methods for petroleum in
the environment, including low-intensity biological remediation
processes.
To promote sustainability concepts, Shell established Rice
University's new Shell Center for Sustainability last fall through a
$3.5 million endowment from the Shell Oil Company Foundation. Building
on the Environmental and Energy Systems Institute's interdisciplinary
program of education, research and outreach, the Shell Center focuses
on the role of the private sector in implementing a sustainable future.
Royal Dutch/Shell Chairman Sir Philip Watts spearheaded the
development of the center and also addressed the first conference held
in March of this year. One of the primary goals of the new research
center is to develop established methods or practices that industry can
follow in order to foster sustainability.
Biography for Robert Hennekes
Bob Hennekes is currently Vice President, Technology Marketing, for
Shell Global Solutions (U.S.) Inc. Bob manages a group of sales
professionals to gain technology business for Shell. Bob has a BS
degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of California at
Davis. Bob has a 22-plus year history in downstream (refining) for
Shell and currently works with companies that need technology solutions
in the midstream (Gas), namely LNG, Gasification, and Gas to Liquids.
Bob's prior work has been in technology, operations, project
management, sales and marketing. Bob has worked in Gas, Refining,
Pipeline and Distribution and Lubricants.
Bob is married to Kelley Hennekes for 18 years and has three
adopted children: Bud, born in California, A.J., born in New Orleans,
and Sammie Jo, born in Katmandu, Nepal.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you.
Last but not least, Dr. Chang-Diaz.
STATEMENT OF DR. FRANKLIN CHANG-DIAZ, NASA ASTRONAUT AND
DIRECTOR OF THE ADVANCED SPACE PROPULSION LABORATORY, JOHNSON
SPACE CENTER
Dr. Chang-Diaz. Thank you very much.
Thank you for the opportunity to come and present this, and
I'll go fast because I want to stay within your time.
As a way of introduction, I'd like to include some personal
experiences that over many years have shaped my perspective on
the subject of energy and space; my two most favorite subjects.
I was fascinated by the topic of nuclear energy as a young boy.
Since early childhood I remember an important event In Costa
Rica as a boy in the late 1950's.
A traveling scientific exhibition was sponsored by the
United States and was set up in a very large inflatable dome at
the airport in San Jose. It was entitled ``Atoms for Peace``
and it was sent throughout the whole Latin America region to
educate the public about atomic energy.
The exhibition spent several days in the country and, while
it was there, every day after school I delighted myself in
examining the new universe of atomic particles, their magical
and amazing power for converting their mass into energy,
according to Einstein's famous formula. The exhibitors talked
about our growing energy needs and of the great future
potential of this new power source. So it appeared halfway
through the 20th century.
Like many children of my day, I was captivated by space and
the flight of Sputnik; but, as a young child, nurturing dreams
of space exploration, the relationship between space and atomic
energy was the central notion that guided my chosen career. In
my mind, the ships that would carry humans to the stars would
be nuclear powered. The later news of the USS Nautilus opening
a new sea route under the north polar cap was only a natural
first early step.
This progression would eventually lead to similar ships
traveling far and fast, not just through the ocean depths, but
through the depths of space.
As a young high school student in Costa Rica I came across
a NASA brochure written by Dr. Van Brown which was entitled
Should You Be A Rocket Scientist. Immediately I sent in my
response with a resounding yes. This NASA response that I got
was a form letter, which you have in the testimony here. I have
kept it over all these years, 36 years. In fact I have the
whole envelope right here which has been with me since I came
to this country.
[The letter referred to follows:]
The message was very simple. To pursue a career in space I
would have to come to the United States, and so I did. I had
arrived in the United States in the fall of 1968 dreaming of
NASA, space exploration and of working on the rockets that
would carry us to the planets. Yet, while I watched landing on
the moon as a college freshman, it was the energy crises of the
1970's that really provided the immediate imputes for my
pursuit of a career in nuclear power, and ultimately the power
of controlled fusion, the power of the stars.
It has been my belief since then that space exploration and
fusion energy research are closely linked together and have a
strong synergistic relationship which is embodied in the field
of space propulsion. Controlled fusion power has been very
elusive, but the pace of world research in this field has been
steady, has been relentless.
It was during my graduate studies in plasma physics and
nuclear power at MIT that I came to fully comprehend the
awesome magnitude of the technical challenge. To heart a gas to
temperatures of millions of degrees, greater than the interior
of the sun and maintain this plasma in that container that
wouldn't melt and the bear nuclei of the plasma would smash
into each other fusing into heavier elements and releasing
large quantities of energy. The energy would be captured,
converted into electricity to power the engines of our
civilization. The fuel would be hydrogen, the most abundant
element in the university, and plentiful in our oceans.
The physics and engineering challenges to bring about
controlled fusion conditions are daunting, yet such conditions
are gradually be reached in multiple fusion experiments
throughout the world today. The use of electromagnetic waves
similar to those that we use everyday to heat our lunch as a
quick meal are used to heat plasma to thermal nuclear
conditions. Million degree plasma is suspended in strong force
fields away from any physical structure so nothing can melt.
Some of these magnetic bottles are just like gigantic donuts
that have no holes and nothing can escape.
In this decade several major experiments in Europe, Asia
and the Americans will be posed to demonstrate the conditions
needed for a power producing reactor. The large world
investment, investment in fusion research has spawned a host of
new technology which can have immediate pay off. It is here
that NASA through the development of plasma rock, it has come
into the picture.
Through our research in plasma and controlled fusion, we
can now consider rockets with exhaust temperatures in the
millions of degrees, with a carefully shaped magnetic nozzles,
the plasma accelerates, without melting anything, to velocities
which are unthinkable with our present chemical rockets. The
use of these plasmas for rocket propulsion has opened a new
realm of technology within the existing field of electric
propulsion.
We utilize the same plasma heating techniques and employ
the same diagnostic sensors, which have been developed through
years of difficult and expensive research in fusion. So, even
before fusion becomes a reality, we can now reap a handsome
benefit from the high investment.
Plasmas are the key to our future space transportation
needs, but, as the name implies, electric propulsion depends on
the availability of large amounts of electrical power in space.
The synergism between power generation and space propulsion is
again highlighted.
I often say that in space, power is life. As we reach the
orbit of Mars and beyond, the rays of our Sun become too feeble
to power human expeditions. At these distances, even our
miniature robots rely on nuclear electric generators and
heaters to stay alive. Future human expeditions will do so as
well.
Recognizing this important technical requirement, NASA has
embarked on the development of advanced nuclear power systems
for these deep space exploration. These are extremely important
for the development of a robust human and robotic exploration
program. The cornerstone of this initiative is Project
Prometheus, which is presently focusing on the definition of a
very exciting mission: the radar exploration of three of the
moons of Jupiter.
Propelled by nuclear electric rockets and equipped with
much higher power instruments than the earlier Galileo probe,
the robot will search for hidden oceans, and perhaps life,
beneath the icy crusts of Jupiter's moons.
Our research group at the Johnson Space Center has been
engaged in the development of the VASIMR engine, a new concept
in high-power plasma propulsion, which embodies many of the
concepts and techniques I have described. Our rapid progress
has benefited greatly from a strong government inter-agency
collaboration, involving the Oak Ridge and Los Alamos National
Laboratories and three NASA centers. Several universities are
also involved as well.
We are also stimulating the private sector, through small
innovative research opportunities in superconductivity,
advanced materials and other areas.
The synergistic relationship I describe between energy
research and space propulsion plays in both directions. For
example, a key component of the VASIMR rocket is a high-power
plasma source known as a ``helicon,'' which produces efficient
high-density plasma. This plasma we then boost in energy to
produce the propulsion that we need. This was invented by
Australian physicist Dr. Roderick Boswell, and it was not
addressed in a very large way in the early '60's, but it has
now taken a much stronger effort.
Recent experiments have opened new applications of these
devices for terrestrial use in plasma processing of advanced
semiconductors and in the elimination of highly toxic waste. We
are driving helicon discharges to ever higher plasma densities
and power levels, consequently, knowledge of the physics of
helicons continues to improve.
Let me just advance toward the end, because I wanted to
point out to you that we believe we are also leaving a strong
imprint in the development of fundamental plasma science at
both the experimental and theoretical level. I know you are
very interested in education, so doing so we are nurturing the
education of our young and the training our future scientists.
Since we began research operations at the Johnson Space Center
in 1995, we have trained a total of 56 graduate and
undergraduate students.
In strengthening our educational mission and in a matter
reminiscent of that traveling science demonstration ``Atoms for
Peace`` I mentioned earlier, our team initiated an educational
experiment with the Odyssey Academy, a predominately Hispanic
middle school in Galveston, Texas. The project involves the
teaching of an 11-week curriculum in plasma rockets to a class
of 20 selected students from 6th to 8th grades. It has been a
great success.
To end, I just want to say that humans began exploring
space the day they chose to walk out of their caves in search
for food. Space exploration is nothing less than human
survival. You probably have heard us say that the first human
being to set foot on Mars is alive today and living now
somewhere on planet Earth, a young girl or boy sitting in one
of our classrooms at this very moment. Will they be discouraged
or encouraged by their elders?
I was blessed with the best parents anyone could ever have
and perhaps fortunate to find a display on atomic power and a
NASA brochure on rocket science to keep me going.
The opportunities we offer our young in these exciting
fields of energy research and space exploration are key to our
technological growth and the preservation of our way of life. I
am indebted to this great nation for it has allowed me to
partake in the greatest of human adventures. I hope we can
continue to inspire our future generations to carry out our
human legacy into the vastness of space.
I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to appear before the
Subcommittee today, and I look forward to answering your
questions. Thanks.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Chang-Diaz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Franklin Chang-Diaz
Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today regarding energy research and
its relationship to our current activities in advanced propulsion at
NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC).
As a way of introduction, I would like to include some personal
experiences that over many years have shaped my perspective on these
subjects. I was fascinated by the topic of nuclear energy since early
childhood. I remember an important event as a young Costa Rican boy in
the late 1950s. A traveling scientific exhibition, sponsored by the
United States, was set up in a large inflatable dome at the national
airport in San Jose. It was entitled ``Atoms for Peace'' and was sent
throughout Latin America to inform and educate the public about atomic
energy. The exhibition spent several days in the country and, while it
was there, every day after school I delighted myself in examining the
new universe of atomic particles, their magical and amazing power for
converting their mass into energy, as predicted by Einstein's famous
formula. The exhibitors talked about our growing energy needs and of
the great future potential of this new power source. So it appeared
half way through the 20th century.
Like many children of my day, I was captivated by space and the
flight of Sputnik; but, as a young child, nurturing dreams of space
exploration, the relationship between space and atomic energy was the
central notion that guided my chosen career. In my mind, the ships that
would carry humans to the stars would be nuclear powered. The later
news of the USS Nautilus opening a new sea route under the north polar
cap was only a natural early step. This progression would eventually
lead to similar interplanetary ships traveling far and fast, not only
through the ocean depths, but also through the depths of space.
As a young high school student in Costa Rica, I came across a NASA
brochure, written by Dr. Werner Von Braun and entitled ``Should You Be
a Rocket Scientist?'' I immediately sent him a letter with a resounding
``yes.'' The NASA form letter response, which I have kept and enclose
with this testimony, came months later and had a simple message: to
pursue such a career I would have to come to the United States. So I
did.
I had arrived in the United States in the fall of 1968, dreaming of
NASA, space exploration and of working on the rockets that would carry
us to other planets. Yet, while I watched the landing on the Moon as a
college freshman it was the energy crisis of the 1970s that provided
immediate impetus for my pursuit of a career in nuclear power and
ultimately the promise of controlled fusion, the power of the stars.
It has been my belief since, that space exploration and fusion
energy research are closely linked, and have a strong synergistic
relationship, which is embodied in the field of space propulsion.
Controlled fusion power has been elusive, but the pace of world
research in this field has been steady and relentless. It was during my
graduate studies in plasma physics and nuclear power at MIT that I came
to fully comprehend the awesome magnitude of the technical challenge:
To heat a gas to temperatures of millions of degrees, greater
than the interior of the Sun, and maintain this so-called
``plasma'' in a container that would not melt. In doing so, the
bare nuclei of the plasma smash into each other, fusing into
heavier elements and releasing large amounts of energy. The
energy is captured and converted into the electricity that
powers the engines of our civilization. The fuel is hydrogen,
the most abundant element in the universe and plentiful in our
oceans.
The physics and engineering challenges to bring about controlled
fusion conditions are daunting, yet such conditions are gradually being
reached in multiple fusion experiments throughout the world today. The
use of electromagnetic waves, similar to those we now use to heat a
quick meal, are used to heat plasmas to thermonuclear conditions. The
million-degree plasma is suspended in strong force fields, away from
any physical structure, so nothing can melt. Some of these magnetic
``bottles'' resemble gigantic doughnuts, with no openings for the
plasma to escape. In this decade, several major experiments in Europe,
Asia and the Americas will be poised to demonstrate the conditions
needed for a power-producing reactor.
The large world investment in fusion research has spawned a host of
new technologies, which can now have immediate payoff. It is here that
NASA, through the development of plasma rockets, has come into the
picture.
Rockets work by the ejection of high speed gases through a nozzle.
The faster the exhaust, the better the rocket. To make the exhaust
fast, we generally make it very hot. Our best chemical rockets of today
produce exhaust temperatures of thousands of degrees, right at the
limit of the melting point of the materials, which hold the rocket
together.
Through our research in plasmas and controlled fusion, we can now
consider rockets with exhaust temperatures in the millions of degrees,
with a carefully shaped magnetic nozzle, the plasma accelerates,
without melting anything, to velocities unthinkable with our present
chemical rockets. The use of these plasmas for rocket propulsion has
opened a new realm of technology within the existing field of electric
propulsion. We utilize the same plasma heating techniques and employ
the same diagnostic sensors, which have been developed through years of
difficult and expensive research in fusion. So, even before fusion
becomes a reality, we can now reap a handsome benefit from the high
investment.
Plasmas are the key to our future space transportation needs, but,
as the name implies, electric propulsion depends on the availability of
large amounts of electrical power in space. The synergism between power
generation and space propulsion is again highlighted.
I often say that in space, power is life. As we reach the orbit of
Mars and beyond, the rays of our Sun become too feeble to power human
expeditions. At these distances, even our miniature robots rely on
nuclear electric generators and heaters to stay alive. Future human
expeditions will do so as well.
Recognizing this important technical requirement, NASA has embarked
on the development of advanced nuclear power systems for deep space
exploration. These are extremely important for the development of a
robust human and robotic exploration program. The cornerstone of this
initiative is Project Prometheus, which is presently focusing on the
definition of a very exciting mission: the radar exploration of three
of the moons of Jupiter. Propelled by nuclear electric rockets and
equipped with much higher power instruments than the earlier Galileo
probe, the robot will search for hidden oceans, and perhaps life,
beneath the icy crusts of Jupiter's moons.
Our research group at the Johnson Space Center has been engaged in
the development of the VASIMR engine, a new concept in high-power
plasma propulsion, which embodies many of the concepts and techniques I
have described. Our rapid progress has benefited greatly from a strong
government interagency collaboration, involving the Oak Ridge and Los
Alamos National Laboratories and three NASA centers (Johnson, Marshall
and Goddard). Our team includes scientists and engineers from MIT,
University of Michigan, University of Alabama at Huntsville, University
of Texas at Austin, Rice University and University of Houston. We are
also stimulating the private sector, through small innovative research
opportunities in superconductivity, advanced materials and innovative
thermal management systems.
The synergistic relationship I describe between energy research and
space propulsion plays in both directions. For example, a key component
of the VASIMR rocket is a high-power plasma source known as a
``helicon.'' It efficiently produces high-density plasma, which we
subsequently boost in the VASIMR to a much higher energy state suitable
for propulsion. Australian physicist Dr. Roderick Boswell, and his team
at the Australian National University, invented the helicon in the late
1960s. However, the technology of these devices did not develop beyond
discrete low-power uses in the field of plasma processing of
semiconductor chips.
Recent experiments have opened new application of these devices for
terrestrial use in plasma processing of advanced semiconductors and in
the elimination of highly toxic waste. We are driving helicon
discharges to ever higher plasma densities and power levels,
consequently, knowledge of the physics of helicons continues to improve
today, driven partially by the renewed interest in plasma propulsion. A
strong collaboration with Dr. Boswell's group in Australia is also
developing and NASA is drafting a collaborative Space Act Agreement
with the Australian team, to jointly continue the development of
helicon physics. More recently, also in the experimental arena, our
collaborators at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, working under U.S.
Department of Energy sponsorship, discovered an intriguing high-density
helicon mode of operation, which would greatly enhance VASIMR
performance. We are planning to utilize these advances in our high-
power experiments next year.
Another important area where the NASA research component enhances
the originally borrowed technology is in the field of
superconductivity. Powerful superconducting magnets are used in fusion
research to generate the strong fields required to contain the hot
plasma. However, in their familiar fusion application, these magnets
are generally heavy and bulky and not suitable for space flight. We are
extending the technology to the new lightweight superconducting
materials, which are now coming of age and incorporating cryocooler
technologies developed for the Hubble Space Telescope. The end result
is lightweight and compact superconducting magnets, which operate at
higher temperatures. In this form, they become attractive for other
terrestrial applications, such as transportation, medicine and energy
storage and distribution.
We believe we are also leaving a strong imprint in the development
of fundamental plasma science at both the experimental and theoretical
levels. In doing so, we are nurturing the education of our young and
the training our future scientists. Since we began research operations
at the Johnson Space Center in 1995, we have trained a total of 56
graduate and undergraduate students.
One of our most recent Ph.D. graduates, Dr. Alexei Arefiev of the
University of Texas at Austin, was awarded the prestigious Marshall
Rosenbluth Outstanding Thesis award for 2003 by the American Physical
Society. This is the first time this National award was given to a NASA
project and the first time it was given in the field of propulsion
research. Alexei's thesis described the fundamental physics responsible
for the energy boost imparted to the plasma in the VASIMR engine. Our
team at JSC has recently verified experimentally these theoretical
predictions.
In strengthening our educational mission, and in a manner
reminiscent of that traveling science demonstration ``Atoms for Peace''
I mentioned earlier, our team initiated an educational experiment with
the Odyssey Academy, a strongly Hispanic middle school in Galveston,
TX. The project involves the teaching of an 11-week curriculum in
plasma rockets to a class of about 20 selected students from 6th to 8th
grades. The pilot course involved our entire research group, in teams
of two for each of the 11 classes. The investigators conducted lectures
and experimental demonstrations at the school on the basic physics of
energy production and plasma rockets. The pilot course was highly
successful and we are now endeavoring to apply it to other schools in
the local area.
Humans began exploring space the day they chose to walk out of
their caves in search of food. Space exploration is nothing less than
human survival. You probably have heard us say that the first human
being to set foot on Mars is alive now somewhere on planet Earth, a
young girl or boy sitting in one of our classrooms at this very moment.
Will they be discouraged or encouraged by their elders? I was blessed
with the best parents anyone could ever have and perhaps fortunate to
find a traveling display on atomic power and a NASA brochure on rocket
science to keep nudging me on.
The opportunities we offer our young in these exciting fields of
energy research and space exploration are key to our technological
growth and the preservation of our way of life. I am indebted to this
great nation for it has allowed me to partake in the greatest of human
adventures. I hope we can continue to inspire our future generations to
carry our human legacy into the vastness of space.
I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to appear before the
Subcommittee today, and I look forward to responding to any questions
you may have.
Biography for Franklin R. Chang-Diaz
PERSONAL DATA:
Born April 5, 1950, in San Jose, Costa Rica, to the late Mr. Ramon
A. Chang-Morales and Mrs. Maria Eugenia Diaz De Chang. Married to the
former Peggy Marguerite Doncaster of Alexandria, Louisiana. Four
children. He enjoys music, glider planes, soccer, scuba diving, and
hiking. His mother, brothers, and sisters still reside in Costa Rica.
EDUCATION:
Graduated from Colegio De La Salle in San Jose, Costa Rica, in
November 1967, and from Hartford High School in Hartford, Connecticut,
in 1969; received a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical
engineering from the University of Connecticut in 1973 and a doctorate
in applied plasma physics from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) in 1977.
SPECIAL HONORS:
Recipient of the University of Connecticut's Outstanding Alumni
Award (1980); 7 NASA Space Flight Medals (1986, 1989, 1992, 1994, 1996,
1998); 2 NASA Distinguished Service Medals (1995, 1997), and 3 NASA
Exceptional Service Medals (1988, 1990, 1993). In 1986, he received the
Liberty Medal from President Ronald Reagan at the Statue of Liberty
Centennial Celebration in New York City, and in 1987 the Medal of
Excellence from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. He received the
Cross of the Venezuelan Air Force from President Jaime Lusinchi during
the 68th Anniversary of the Venezuelan Air Force in Caracas, Venezuela
(1988), and the Flight Achievement Award from the American
Astronautical Society (1989). Recipient of four Doctorates ``Honoris
Causa'' (Doctor of Science from the Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica;
Doctor of Science from the University of Connecticut, Doctor of Law
from Babson College, and Doctor of Science from the Universidade de
Santiago de Chile. He is Honorary faculty at the College of
Engineering, University of Costa Rica. In April 1995, the government of
Costa Rica conferred on him the title of ``Honorary Citizen.'' This is
the highest honor Costa Rica confers to a foreign citizen, making him
the first such honoree who was actually born there. Recipient of the
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 2001 Wyld Propulsion
Award for his 21 years of research on the VASIMR engine.
EXPERIENCE:
While attending the University of Connecticut, he also worked as
research assistant in the Physics Department and participated in the
design and construction of high energy atomic collision experiments.
Following graduation in 1973, he entered graduate school at MIT,
becoming heavily involved in the United States' controlled fusion
program and doing intensive research in the design and operation of
fusion reactors. He obtained his doctorate in the field of applied
plasma physics and fusion technology and, in that same year, joined the
technical staff of the Charles Stark Draper Laboratory. His work at
Draper was geared strongly toward the design and integration of control
systems for fusion reactor concepts and experimental devices, in both
inertial and magnetic confinement fusion. In 1979, he developed a novel
concept to guide and target fuel pellets in an inertial fusion reactor
chamber. More recently he has been engaged in the design of a new
concept in rocket propulsion based on magnetically confined high
temperature plasmas. As a visiting scientist with the M.I.T. Plasma
Fusion Center from October 1983 to December 1993, he led the plasma
propulsion program there to develop this technology for future human
missions to Mars. In December 1993, Dr. Chang-Diaz was appointed
Director of the Advanced Space Propulsion Laboratory at the Johnson
Space Center where he continues his research on plasma rockets. He is
an Adjunct Professor of Physics at Rice University and the University
of Houston and has presented numerous papers at technical conferences
and in scientific journals.
In addition to his main fields of science and engineering, he
worked for 21/2 years as a house manager in an experimental community
residence for de-institutionalizing chronic mental patients, and was
heavily involved as an instructor/advisor with a rehabilitation program
for hispanic drug abusers in Massachusetts.
NASA EXPERIENCE:
Selected by NASA in May 1980, Dr. Chang-Diaz became an astronaut in
August 1981. While undergoing astronaut training he was also involved
in flight software checkout at the Shuttle Avionics Integration
Laboratory (SAIL), and participated in the early Space Station design
studies. In late 1982 he was designated as support crew for the first
Spacelab mission and, in November 1983, served as on-orbit capsule
communicator (CAPCOM) during that flight.
From October 1984 to August 1985 he was leader of the astronaut
support team at the Kennedy Space Center. His duties included astronaut
support during the processing of the various vehicles and payloads, as
well as flight crew support during the final phases of the launch
countdown. He has logged over 1,800 hours of flight time, including
1,500 hours in jet aircraft.
Dr. Chang-Diaz was instrumental in implementing closer ties between
the astronaut corps and the scientific community. In January 1987, he
started the Astronaut Science Colloquium Program and later helped form
the Astronaut Science Support Group, which he directed until January
1989.
A veteran of seven space flights, STS 61-C (1986), STS-34 (1989),
STS-46 (1992), STS-60 (1994), STS-75 (1996), STS-91 (1998) and STS-111
(2002), he has logged over 1,601 hours in space, including 19 hours and
31 minutes in three space walks.
SPACE FLIGHT EXPERIENCE:
STS 61-C (January 12-18, 1986), was launched from the Kennedy Space
Center, Florida, on the Space Shuttle Columbia. STS 61-C was a six-day
flight during which Dr. Chang-Diaz participated in the deployment of
the SATCOM KU satellite, conducted experiments in astrophysics, and
operated the materials processing laboratory MSL-2. Following 96 orbits
of the Earth, Columbia and her crew made a successful night landing at
Edwards Air Force Base, California. Mission duration was 146 hours, 3
minutes, 51 seconds.
On STS-34 (October 18-23, 1989), the crew aboard Space Shuttle
Atlantis successfully deployed the Galileo spacecraft on its journey to
explore Jupiter, operated the Shuttle Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet
Instrument (SSBUV) to map atmospheric ozone, and performed numerous
secondary experiments involving radiation measurements, polymer
morphology, lightning research, microgravity effects on plants, and a
student experiment on ice crystal growth in space. STS-34 launched from
Kennedy Space Center, Florida, and landed at Edwards Air Force Base,
California. Mission duration was 119 hours and 41 minutes and was
accomplished in 79 orbits of the Earth.
STS-46 (July 31-August 8, 1992) was an 8-day mission during which
crew member deployed the European Retrievable Carrier (EURECA)
satellite, and conducted the first Tethered Satellite System (TSS) test
flight. Mission duration was 191 hours, 16 minutes, 7 seconds. Space
Shuttle Atlantis and her crew launched and landed at the Kennedy Space
Center, Florida, after completing 126 orbits of the Earth in 3.35
million miles.
STS-60 (February 3-11, 1994) was the first flight of the Wake
Shield Facility (WSF-1), the second flight of the Space Habitation
Module-2 (Spacehab-2), and the first joint U.S./Russian Space Shuttle
mission on which a Russian Cosmonaut was a crew member. During the 8-
day flight, the crew aboard Space Shuttle Discovery conducted a wide
variety of biological materials science, Earth observation, and life
science experiments. STS-60 launched and landed at Kennedy Space
Center, Florida. The mission achieved 130 orbits of Earth in 3,439,705
miles.
STS-75 (February 22 to March 9, 1996) was a 15-day mission with
principal payloads being the reflight of the Tethered Satellite System
(TSS) and the third flight of the United States Microgravity Payload
(USMP-3). The TSS successfully demonstrated the ability of tethers to
produce electricity. The TSS experiment produced a wealth of new
information on the electrodynamics of tethers and plasma physics before
the tether broke at 19.7 km, just shy of the 20.7 km goal. The crew
also worked around the clock performing combustion experiments and
research related to USMP-3 microgravity investigations used to improve
production of medicines, metal alloys, and semiconductors. The mission
was completed in 252 orbits covering 6.5 million miles in 377 hours and
40 minutes.
STS-91 Discovery (June 2-12, 1998) was the 9th and final Shuttle-
Mir docking mission and marked the conclusion of the highly successful
joint U.S./Russian Phase I Program. The crew, including a Russian
cosmonaut, performed logistics and hardware resupply of the Mir during
four docked days. They also conducted the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer
experiment, which involved the first of its kind research of antimatter
in space. Mission duration was 235 hours, 54 minutes.
STS-111 Endeavour (June 5-19, 2002). The STS-111 mission delivered
a new ISS resident crew and a Canadian-built mobile base for the
orbiting outpost's robotic arm. The crew also performed late-notice
repair of the station's robot arm by replacing one of the arm's joints.
It was the second Space Shuttle mission dedicated to delivering
research equipment to the space platform. Dr. Chang-Diaz performed
three EVAs (space walks) to help install the Canadian Mobile Base
System to the station's robotic arm. STS-111 also brought home the
Expedition-Four crew from their 61/2 month stay aboard the station.
Mission duration was 13 days, 20 hours arid 35 minutes. Unacceptable
weather conditions in Florida necessitated a landing at Edwards Air
Force Base, California.
Discussion
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you very much.
And thank you all for your excellent, excellent testimony.
I really appreciate it.
And we have been joined by the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms.
Sheila Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Madame Chair. Thank you, Mr.
Lampson.
Chairwoman Biggert. We will now proceed with our questions,
and we will keep those to five minutes. And so if the answers
do not stretch out too far, we can ask more questions. And I
will start.
Let me just make a comment to Dr. Chang-Diaz.
Thank you very much for all that you do. I think it is not
rocket science that we need more scientists and engineers, and
those in the field of research and for what you do. I hope that
you carry your NASA brochures with you so that you can
encourage more and more students to enter into these fields. It
is very important for what you do, and really appreciate it.
I know I go into schools and talk about the Science
Committee and how important it is for young people, and
particularly young women I think. You know, once they get into
a--and you do this for 6th through 8th grade. But about that
age the girls say what? I am not supposed to do math. I am not
supposed to do science. And so we could keep those minds active
and I feel it is a very important. Thank you.
My first question is for Dr. Holtzapple. The StarRotor
engine and your testimony sounds very promising, almost too
good to be true, as they say. But what are the remaining
barriers and why are not the auto companies not beating down
your door to get a hold of this?
Dr. Holtzapple. It is interesting you mention that. I have
had actual conversations with two automobile companies over the
years. It is still early stage technology, so they are
skeptical. I think their attitude is that we will be here in
five or 10 years and when you have got a working engine, let us
know. I think that is the basic attitude.
Chairwoman Biggert. Yes.
Dr. Holtzapple. But I think many companies are risk adverse
and when you are just getting started, they do not feel it is
their role to develop new technology. Their role is to
commercialize things that have been brought to a semi-
commercial state.
Chairwoman Biggert. Okay. Thank you.
Then Dr. Smalley, could you comment on the importance of
energy storage and its challenges, and then the transmission of
energy, how that is going to change and what you see as the
challenges?
Dr. Smalley. If we were able through research,
technological innovation to come up with technologies that
would give the equivalent of an interpretable power supply that
we could not just use for our computers, but use for our houses
and our small businesses and not just for five to minutes, but
in fact critically about 12 hours, that has a transforming
effect on the electrical energy grid. Because now homes and
businesses that really care about having guaranteed stable
dependable power will go out and they will buy these units, and
increasingly this will remove from the electrical energy grid a
huge variation of between the low point of use in the middle of
the night and the peak in the late afternoons which causes the
energy industry to have to put in these peaking power supplies
that take up a significant fraction of our total capital
investment.
In addition, it gets you in a way that's gradual and
innovated by small and big businesses year by year to a
situation where you have an extremely robust electrical energy
grid that is very hard to disrupt by terrorism or accidents.
And it also gives you the ability now to use energy,
primary energy sources coming onto the electrical grid which
are not dispatchable. Wind, for example. In Texas we have a lot
of wind power. We have a hard time handling that much power on
the grid because when the wind stops blowing we have to
generate that power from some other source. If you have the
storage, you can handle that.
Well given the two options of doing storage in vast amounts
with big plants, the handling a gigowatt or more storage or in
little places; it is much better to do it little because of all
the innovation that can handle that and when you decide that,
oops, I made a mistake and it was the wrong technology, so you
cry and so forth but a year later you can buy the right answer
and get rid of the old. Kind of like we drop off our computers
these days.
Sounds great. We do not have that technology now. But it is
a place I think that it would be very worthwhile for us to put
effort, ten to 20 years. It seems to me there must be many
technologies that are possible that would work on the small
scale, that are out of the question on a large scale. And I
think we ought to push them.
The final ingredient in the electrical energy grid is if we
could have a transforming affect in our ability to at low cost
transmit tens to hundreds of gigowatts of power over thousands
of miles distance. That makes the whole thing work. Because now
we can bring primary power into the grid from any source, no
matter how remote. So nuclear power from not only in not your
back yard, not your friend's back yard, but from someplace that
you have not got a clue where it is.
Clean coal from places where we really have convinced
ourselves we can stick the CO2 and it is not going
to come back at us for a 100 years.
Hydro power from northern British Columbia, stranded gas,
solar from vast solar farms in the great western deserts. If we
can bring them in at a net cost to the customer no more than a
penny or two extra per kilowatt hour for having gotten your
power from 2000 miles away, now it makes the whole thing work.
And so in fact you look at the plant and pretty much every
continent has enough energy in it to handle it, to give you a
very robust thing. And if you had to describe this energy
system with one word, like for many years in the world we
described energy as a one word ``oil,'' what would that word be
in this new technology? It would be electricity. It would not
be so much hydrogen. It would certainly be hydrogen being used,
but it is the electrical grid that I find so intriguing.
I think this is an area where we should direct major
frontier research efforts to see if we can bring this about so
in batteries in T-cells, anyway you could figure out to store
energy. Something that looks kind of like your ashing machine
in your house. Something that ultimately GE or Sears or Shell
would sell. Be a very fertile area. There is a market for this
right now and there will always be a market for it.
And then anything we can do to have a transforming affect
on the cost of electrical transmission over very large
distances, I think is a very fertile area for our research.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you for your premise.
Mr. Lampson.
Mr. Lampson. Thank you, Madame Chair.
Keep talking for just a minute, Dr. Smalley, about your C-
60. I think you were telling me once how you could use it as a
storage facility for hydrogen. Is that part of the plan or the
hope, and can you talk for just a second about it and what--
because we do not have the infrastructure that is necessary to
use hydrogen if we do develop hydrogen powered vehicles. Is
that the potential of something we can expect?
Dr. Smalley. Yes, we would love to find a material X that
we can put in our gasoline tanks that allows us to go up to our
friendly Shell stations, since we have Shell as our key concept
today, and drive away five minutes or later with 300/400 miles
of energy in our tank. But instead of having put gasoline in
there or ethanol, we put in hydrogen gas. We would like that
experience.
Well, you cannot do it just with an empty tank. You can do
with a pressurized tank. Actually one can imagine using
buckytubes to make these even stronger and lighter. But would
it not be wonderful if we had some sort of magic sponge that we
can put in there that would absorb the hydrogen, holding the
hydrogen molecules close enough to the surface of whatever this
material X is made out of that you can get enough density in
there so we do not have to take that much larger volume of the
car. But then be able to get it off reversibly as you drive the
car.
So we and quite a number of people around the country since
the President's announcement of his hydrogen fuel program have
agonized over just what could that material X be, what would it
look like? Having every atom of material X have an exposed
surface, the maximum possible closed surface so that you can
get as much hydrogen close to that atom of material X as
possible, it sounds like the right answer. Sounds like a
buckytube which has every atom with a surface on the top and
the bottom on the inside. But in addition, the hydrogen has to
have a reason to want to be there.
So in the absorption of hydrogen on carbon surfaces there
is really two ways of doing it that we know about. There is
fisabsorption, which is not enough, and there is chemisorption
to make basically hydrocarbons, which is way too much. The
challenge is to find some way to adjust the diameter of a
buckytube and add electrons to it, do something that will get
you to that magic place in the middle which is the sort of
binding energy we need.
So we have together with Air Products and NREL, the
laboratory, together with about 11 other universities, proposed
to the DOE to set up a virtual center to explore the
possibilities one can find an answer material X made out of
carbon in the thought that we have buckytubes are the best
single guess. But remember, we cannot change the laws of
physics. So we will go and we will make the best possible
buckytube and we will find out what gets----
Mr. Lampson. Are you making progress toward achieving that?
Is that an expectation and if so, what kind of time period
might you be looking at?
Dr. Smalley. I believe within three to five years we can
give you a pretty firm answer whether or not the laws of
physics will allow us to do it.
If it turns out the answer is yes, there is a good answer
here with buckytubes or some other carbon thing, then we have
to take on the next challenge of make that, you know, large
amounts cheaply because there is a lot of volume in those
gasoline tanks out there. We would need to be able to produce
these optimized carbon nanotubes in the structure necessary for
a cost of something like $10 a pound. And that means an
innovation in the production scheme.
Well, it turns out we need an innovation in the production
scheme anyway. So it is an area that we are very happy to
pursue. But we cannot guarantee that there is a magic sponge.
The advantage of the sponge would be so great, it would be
foolish for us or the Nation to not look to see if the sponge
can exist.
I will take that as my----
Mr. Lampson. No. But you will give me time now to squeeze a
question to Dr. Chang-Diaz before I give up my time. And you do
not have much time to answer.
But you are going to be doing some experiments at Oak Ridge
Laboratory next year. What do you expect to learn from them,
and maybe you can give us some scenarios, if you would, that
would describe how some of the work you are doing could be
applied to solve problems on Earth?
Dr. Chang-Diaz. Sure. The work at Oak Ridge centers on the
production of plasma efficiently. And plasma has applications
much beyond the propulsion application we have chosen.
Obviously infusion, that is an application that we all know
about. But plasmas are used today to etch, for example,
microchips. You can make micro computer memories without using
those very toxic chemicals that are used today to etch the
little wafers. You use the plasma discharge and the plasma
makes the microchip even better. So the waste is virtually
eliminated. That is one area.
And now they are talking about plasma being used to
separate the nuclear waste as well, to be able to take
advantage of the plasma state to be able to separate the
elements by weight. This is also a very interesting
possibility.
So there is lots of applications that permeate I think all
of our society.
Mr. Lampson. Thank you very much.
My time has expired. Thank you.
Chairwoman Biggert. Sheila Jackson Lee is recognized for
five minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Madame Chair. And let
me, if I might, give a portion of my opening statement and then
ask two questions. And I would simply like to ask that the
statement in its entirety, ask unanimous consent that the
statement in its entirety be submitted into the record.
Chairwoman Biggert. Without objection.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much.
First of all, allow me to welcome you to Houston. I know
that you have been welcomed by my colleague and Ranking Member
Congressman Lampson. And to say how pleased and proud I am to
be able to participate with the House Science Committee that
all of us are Members of, and to be able to cite the House
Science Committee as having an excellent tradition of
bipartisanship, first of all, but also tackling tough
scientific and policy problems in an effective bipartisan
manner. And so this is certainly a very prime example of that.
I thank the Chairman Biggert for her leadership. We have
worked together on issues before. And I thank Congressman
Lampson as the Ranking Member for his invitation, an invitation
to Houston and as well, the kind of insightfulness and
enthusiasm he brings to the Committee on the myriad of issues
under his responsibility. And so thank you, Congressman Lampson
for this hearing.
I believe this is an important historic hearing in what we
call the oil capital of the world. And it begins to encourage
us to look at the many options that we have, not only to
balance our oil and gas needs in particular, and Congressman,
you remember that one of our battles on the Energy Policy Act
was to focus people on the Gulf and to do an ascertainment of
what kind of oil and gas resources we had in the Gulf to be
able to focus. Everyone was focused on ANWR and other places,
but to focus on the clean technology that we had been
utilizing. Shell, who is present here today, has utilized
technology in the Gulf, and I think it has been very
successful. And so we included that recognizing that we have to
balance the use of oil and gas along with finding alternative
needs.
I might also cite my colleagues to an amendment that I
offered in the Science Committee that was passed that wanted to
see a relationship develop between the Department of Energy and
NASA to be able to find and use the technology that NASA has
utilized, discovered to help the Department of Energy in their
research on alternative fuels.
So I think we can work in cross pollenization.
[The prepared statement by Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Sheila Jackson Lee
Thank you.
First, I would like to echo the remarks of my colleague Congressman
Lampson in welcoming Chairwoman Biggert to Houston. The Science
Committee has an excellent tradition of tackling tough scientific and
policy problems in an effective bipartisan fashion. Today's hearing is
a perfect example of that cooperation. How to lay the groundwork, so
that America can continue to lead the world in energy research and
development, is one of those tough problems that the Science Committee
and the Energy Subcommittee are grappling with these days. I commend
the Chairwoman for taking the time to come down to see the great talent
and experience that Houston have to offer.
I would also like to commend Mr. Lampson for his great leadership
on Energy issues, and for being such an excellent ambassador of Houston
in the House of Representatives. The fact that Congressman Lampson is
serving as the Ranking Member on the Energy Subcommittee while only in
his 4th term in Congress, is truly a testament to just how much his
work and his ideas on this subject are respected in the Science
Committee. I look forward to working with both Chairwoman Biggert and
Ranking Member Lampson in the New Year.
And a special thanks to our hosts here at Rice University. They
have been great partners in the endeavor to secure the energy needs of
this nation for generations to come.
Houston is often called the energy capital of the world--and when
people think of Texas, they think of oil. Oil and fossil fuels deserve
much credit for driving our economy and prosperity over the past
centuries. I know that oil and natural gas will continue to play a
large role over the next century at meeting our energy needs. However,
we all know that fossil fuels are not the wave of the new millennium.
We need to balance our use of fossil fuels with other fuels if we are
ever going to clean up the air that our children are breathing, or if
we hope to reverse the course of the climate change that is threatening
to change life as we know it on this planet. Furthermore, we are overly
dependent on foreign sources of oil, bought from people that we would
prefer not be reliant on. For many reasons, we must be thinking ahead
to a future less dependent on fossil fuels.
Of course moving away from oil and gas will have a large impact on
Houston, but I believe that the transition will create wonderful
opportunities for the people and the businesses in Houston. There is no
city in the world with a greater depth of expertise on all things
energy: production, transmission, trading, the policy, the politics,
the needs, and the markets. Houston is poised to continue its
leadership in the energy sector.
From our quality universities like Rice, to R&D facilities over at
NASA Johnson Space Center, to our huge multi-national energy
corporations, to dozens of small and medium-sized businesses on the
cutting-edge of technology--Houston has much to offer. I think they
will all benefit from the fact that Houston is such an energy hub.
There is a synergy here, where these great minds feed off of each
other, and do spectacular things. To promote that kind of fruitful
activity, I authored one provision of the Energy bill that just passed
that will create a cooperative effort between NASA and the Department
of Energy, as well as several other agencies. The effort should spur on
the development of alternative energy sources and industry from
technologies that may already exist in federal labs.
We have an excellent cross-section of the Houston energy research
community here today. It is always impressive to me to hear of the
progress they are making in the field of energy. More importantly
though, I am glad that we are getting their comments on the record so
that our colleagues back in Washington can get a glimpse into the
exciting developments here in Houston.
Again, I thank you all for taking the time to be here today. I look
forward to the discussion.
Thank you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And with that, I would like to pose some
questions along that line that here in Texas we do not want to
talk about exclusion in totality, we want to talk about
compromise and cooperation between the uses of fuel.
With respect to the question of NASA, if you would Dr.
Chang-Diaz, is the work that NASA does compatible with, among
other things, I know it does great work in health research, but
is it compatible in finding alternative fuels? And I certainly
agree with the issue that space exploration equates to human
survival. But do we have in NASA the amount of diversity and
the amount of the ability to sort of change its mold to be able
to be helpful in the research on alternative fuels?
Dr. Chang-Diaz. I would say the answer is most definitely
yes. We have now begun a very strong collaboration with Los
Alamos and also with Oak Ridge in the field of plasma physics
as it applies thermonuclear research, controlled thermonuclear
research. That is a direct application.
Now the technology that has been developed over many years
of United States investment in energy research it has immediate
applications in many other areas. One of them is medicine, for
example.
Here in Houston/Galveston we have very big medical centers.
These super conducting magnets that are used to hardness, to
hold together this high temperature plasmas are the same
magnets where they put people inside to do an MRI. And these
are the same technology. We are trying to make them less bulky,
less expensive, easy to transport because all of this
technology has to be sent up into space and it has to be light
weight and it has to be very compact. This will allow people
then to be able to have access to this technology all over the
world.
So these are direct applications that I would say that the
high investment the United States has made in energy research
has already there is a handsome payoff.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Excellent. I am not sure if my time has
been far spent, but if there is anyone that would answer
quickly how we can emphasize the public/private partnerships on
this whole issue of alternative fuels. Anyone want to
contribute to that?
Dr. Holtzapple. I would just like to reiterate that there
is a lot of interest in subsidizing ethanol, for example, as a
biofuel. And if you could generalize that to any biofuel, not
just ethanol, I think that would be very helpful.
I would say that the government is not good at picking the
winners. That is not really the role of the government.
Industry is supposed to be smart at figuring out costs and so
forth.
Ms. Jackson Lee. That is a good point.
Dr. Holtzapple. So what the government should be doing is
setting the goals.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes.
Dr. Holtzapple. And putting the incentives in place, but
let the industry figure out the details and how to get there.
Mr. Mitchell. Could I also comment?
From the standpoint of institutions, one of the things I am
comparing Houston Advanced Research Center to some of the
either institutions or individuals here at the table. We
intentionally position ourselves not to do the basic and
theoretical work. We actually position ourselves in that sort
of middle ground where technologies often fail, which is a
wonderful laboratory concept not yet commercially scalable. And
institutions like Houston Advance Research Center, a non-profit
that works with both government resources and university
resources and corporate resources we intentionally position
ourselves to be sort of a bridging institution.
So I think it is important not just to think about
individual technologies, but literally think in terms of the
institutions that will help carry those forward. You cannot go
to a venture capital company and always expect them to come in
at the very seed levels of very first generation technologies.
There is a role which is often not quite as well supported by
our society for the institutions that will carry the
technologies to the next step.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madame Chair.
Dr. Holtzapple. Just I would like to add they call that the
valley of death.
There is a lot of money out there for basic research on the
order of $100,000 or so. And, of course, industry has money at
the tens of millions of dollars to do things. But that in
between area we do not do a very good job of bridging it. And
among the scientific community it is called the valley death.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you for that. That has been very
instructive. And I think we can find a very good balance.
And thank you very much for allowing me to share.
Chairwoman Biggert. We will do another round then.
Mr. Mitchell, you state in your testimony that Houston
Advanced Research Center has been working for about 18 years?
Mr. Mitchell. Yes.
Chairwoman Biggert. On various energy storage devices. Have
any of these been successful, are they moving on or what has
happened?
Mr. Mitchell. Not so much exactly--I'm sorry. Are you
talking the micro technologies, yes.
Chairwoman Biggert. Yes.
Mr. Mitchell. We were funded by the State of Texas to work
on significant energy storage technology. At that time we felt
that our technology was among the leading technologies that had
been developed. But, again, maybe it is the same valley of
death like comment. It did not see a commercial market, but
interestingly we turned that same technology and worked with a
variety of partners, actually in magnetic resonant imaging. So
there are transitions where technology may not have been ready
for prime time. We successfully partner with others to take a
technology into commercial product in MRI devices. Now what we
are finding is that the world is kind of coming back to the
timing is right for us again, so we are actually working very
actively with University of Houston right now in looking at
both superconductivity and energy storage. And it is that sort
of a story that is still in progress.
Chairwoman Biggert. Are there obstacles that remain for the
use of energy storage devices?
Mr. Mitchell. I wish I were a physicist to be able to give
you the details, and I am really not. But I do know that the
superconductive materials, the big sort of holy grail and
superconductivity is to get materials that are superconductive
at higher and higher temperatures. And that is the basis of our
project with University of Houston. It is a partnership with a
U.S. Navy Research Lab and the initial results are very
intriguing.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you.
Then Mr. Hennekes, in your testimony you mentioned the
Shell gasification research program. And you talked about that
it can produce extremes of carbon dioxide that could be
sequestered. Is your company looking into carbon sequestration?
Mr. Hennekes. Absolutely. We are not only trying to develop
a gasification process in order to develop this very pure form
of CO2 that can be sequestered. More importantly
used in tertiary recovery for wells or other as with
CO2, but we are in a joint agreement with several
other oil companies to determine how CO2
sequestration can be best done, how it can be kept for the 100
years that is needed so that it is not popping out, how can it
be monitored for that length of time. And there is an industry
group that is doing that.
So Shell is jointly spending research money with others to
develop how that can best be done and kept properly for the
very long period of time that this is envisioned.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you. Thank you.
We have reached 3:15, and I still do not have a way to beam
myself up to the airport. I guess I could stay longer. But I am
going to have to excuse myself and head for the airport. But
certainly enjoyed this.
I am going to turn it over to Mr. Lampson. Now do not get
too carried away.
Mr. Lampson.
Mr. Lampson [presiding]. Thank you. Thank you for your
time.
Madame Chair, let me express my appreciation for you taking
the time. It is not easy for you to come down here, I know
that. And we really have had a good relation on that Committee,
and I appreciate the effort you made to come here.
Chairwoman Biggert. And I am sorry I have to leave. Because
this has been an excellent--I wish that it was in Washington so
that there could be more people that would hear this from the
Committee.
Mr. Lampson [presiding]. Which some of them might come up.
Chairwoman Biggert. I think that we will have to do that at
some point. So thank you very much.
Mr. Lampson [presiding]. It is fascinating stuff, and I
think that they have suggestions on which we can do to improve
our policy.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thanks. Thank you.
Mr. Lampson [presiding]. Thank you very much. Have a safe
trip home.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you.
Mr. Lampson [presiding]. My turn.
Let me start, I guess, with Mr. Hennekes, and maybe follow
up a little bit with what she has asked about. I know that some
of the work that is being done on that is at the West Hollow
Technology Center.
Mr. Hennekes. Yes. It is here in Houston.
Mr. Lampson [presiding]. So tell us a little bit about
their work and how it relates to the research that is being
done in both gasification and corrosion reduction.
Mr. Hennekes. I'm sorry. I did not quite hear the last
part. The gasification I understand.
Mr. Lampson [presiding]. And corrosion reduction.
Mr. Hennekes. Okay. Actually, the corrosion reduction, let
me separate that, is just a totally separate event. And I
brought that to people's attention so they could understand the
non-energy business that we deal with.
But when you do gasification you actually can make if you
desire this very pure form of CO2 in a gaseous
state. It is usually at very, very low pressure. So that it
requires some pressurization through very standard types of
compression devices, a compressor from GE or Westinghouse or
Siemens. And then that material is taken and actually brought
down, burrowed into the Earth where it is then closed in and
allowed over a very long period of time to seep into the
different structures of the Earth rather than going out into
the atmosphere and rather than creating green house gases.
The work that we are doing is to understand how the
CO2 will react as it sits in the Earth for long
periods of time, what will need to be done to keep it in? What
kind of instrumentation do you use to monitor how that CO2
is doing down in the Earth for that long period of time.
So it is all about what will it take and what is the most
efficient way to capture and hold for that extended time. That
is the work that we're doing at West Hollow.
And for those that do not know, West Hollow is a stone's
throw, if I had a good arm, a little bit longer than that from
here about 20 miles almost due west from here.
Mr. Lampson [presiding]. Okay. And while you are talking,
let me ask you one other question. How much contribution would
you expect full deployment of the Shell and the GTL fuels to
make in reducing air emissions from mobile sources in the
Houston/Galveston area?
Mr. Hennekes. The gas to liquids materials, it will be very
dependent on which type of pollutant you are talking about. But
there is absolutely no sulphur whatsoever in gas to liquid
materials. In fact, when you are running an engine, if you are
an engineer that is worried about an engine and the long-term
operation of it, you actually have to put lubricants back in.
Because sulphur itself is a lubricant. We measure something
called lubricity. And because the gas to liquids have
absolutely no sulphur whatsoever, you actually lose lubricity
and you have to put some sort of lubricant back into the fuel.
So when you talk about SOX and those sort of things to the
atmosphere, there is none. Okay. It is absolutely at a zero
level. Not because of rocket science, but because of the fact
that the catalyst that is required to make the gas to liquids
will die if sulphur is present. So you have to do an absolute
brilliant job of removing it.
In terms of other things, gas to liquids in all the other
pollutants NOX, and those sort of things, because of the
material that is being burned it is a very impact energy type
of material the gas to liquids is, it is lower in NOX, it is
lower in particulates. CO2 in the end, from what I
have seen and the research we are doing, is kind of marginal.
It depends on how you measure, it depends on who is doing the
measuring and it is a plus or minus. But for the other things,
the sulphur, the NOX, the particulates all are significantly
lower with gas to liquid material.
Mr. Lampson [presiding]. Dr. Holtzapple, you talked some
about MOX. And one of the things that you mentioned, I believe
you said that there was a dramatic reduction, it would go down
to zero. How?
Dr. Holtzapple. Yes.
Mr. Lampson [presiding]. Because that is a problem, is it
not?
Dr. Holtzapple. Absolutely.
Mr. Lampson [presiding]. All of these fuels.
Dr. Holtzapple. In the StarRotor engine the combustion is a
continuous combuster rather than the batch-wise combustion that
occurs in an internal combustion engine. So you design the
combuster to do a really good job of combustion.
So one issue is that all the fuel has to go through a flame
front. None of it slips by. So all the fuel gets burn. There is
no hydrocarbon emissions at all.
And in this hypo-engine that we are using air is an excess
whereas in an internal combustion engine it is on an exact
balance. When you have air in excess, you do not get CO, you
get CO2, we do not get the carbon monoxide.
And then in terms of nitrogen oxides, the resonant time in
the burner is so short there is not enough time to make very
much nitrogen oxide. So you can almost pollution free
transportation with the StarRoto engine.
Mr. Lampson [presiding]. That could be done. But maybe Todd
or somebody else make some comments. What are we doing with the
other fuels that are going to be burned in the engines that we
have today? How do we go about reducing?
Dr. Holtzapple. Well, in terms of nitrogen oxides, if you
can lower the flame combustion temperature that helps. So when
you put alcohols into fuel, it has a higher latency to
vaporization which cools the combustion process. So you can get
the height and the maximum temperature in the combuster down a
little bit, and that helps reduce some of the NOX.
Mr. Hennekes. We would agree also. When you burn a
gasification product, you will find that the BTU content is
something on the order of 10 ten 25 percent of that of natural
gas. Again, exactly as he suggested, the flame temperature then
is significantly lower and that is the big push in terms of
NOX. So you can end up with very, very low levels of NOX.
If you clean up the sulphur, you can then actually go into
selective catalyst reduction systems that again use a similar
concept and you can be down into single digit NOX from burning
in large production turbines for many, many gigowatts. So if
you put the right section together that has a low flame
temperature, low sulphur, able to use another separate
catalyst, you can get phenomenal low NOX levels from those
fuels.
Mr. Mitchell. I will just a comment, which is that the role
that our organization would play would not be so much to come
up with a new approach or an approach similar to what they are
doing, but to work with organizations or individuals like these
to take those technologies, run through testing validation,
field trials, demonstrations. But more importantly, put it into
the context of the regional air sheds, air emissions and in a
sense do forward modeling and projections to try to figure out
what would be the impact. Because the role that we look to pay
is sort of that link between science and policy. How do you
take a technology that may be at the commercial stage, but then
really to model over five years, over 10 years with certain
adoption rates what are the impacts within the regional air
shed. And that is not just sort of a model looking at, you
know, so many devices times the air emissions reductions, but
actually using the more sophisticated air shed modeling
approaches to really try to make it useful for policy
discussion.
Mr. Lampson [presiding]. I am not going to keep you all
much longer, but I have a couple of areas of questioning that I
want. I am going to ask everybody at the very end to again
think about any suggestions that you would have for our
subcommittee or committee about what we can do to further any
of the activities that you are in that deals with legislation,
changes of policy. Anything whatsoever. But before I get to
that, you can be thinking about it.
But Dr. Holtzapple?
Dr. Holtzapple. Yes.
Mr. Lampson [presiding]. The area, this general area here
has lost it is the process, I guess I should say, of losing an
industry. And that is agriculture. We grew a huge amount of
rice here. And over time the rice markets have gone away and a
lot of the farming activity on rice has dried up.
We have looked at some alternative crops. We looked at
producing sugar cane. We have looked at producing soybeans. We
have looked at producing other kinds of things.
Would you talk a little bit about what capabilities we have
to, we have already said significantly reduce our dependence on
particularly foreign oil, but tell us more about that and maybe
you can focus on some of the things that we can do to find the
types of crops that may be specific to this area and make good
cash crops?
Dr. Holtzapple. Absolutely. I have had some contact with
the LCRA, the Lower Colorado River Authority. And they are
actually worried about the loss of rice farming because they
supply water to the rice farmers and they get money for that
money. So they are also looking for alternative crops.
We could grow the sweet sorghum that I mentioned. And, in
fact, one of my students has been growing energy cane in----
Mr. Lampson [presiding]. What is energy cane? Energy cane
compares to sugar cane?
Dr. Holtzapple. Energy cane is a more of a wild type
variety of sugar cane. You know, sugar cane is a wild plant,
just like everything that we have is. But as mankind has grown
these things, they select for certain properties.
For example, wild corn does not make a huge ear of corn.
They are little tiny things. And we select for things that make
more corn, in that case.
In the case of sugar cane, we've selected for high sugar
concentrations but the plant has suffered and it is not growing
as much. So the genes in the current commercial varieties of
sugar cane enhance more sugar production, but not the fiber
production.
And what energy cane is, is it going back more to the wind
strains that just want to grow prolifically and take over. So
it is just kind of a cross between a modern high sugar variety
and the wild type variety.
Mr. Lampson [presiding]. And part of the problem that we
found in this area to promote the production of sugar cane was
its processing or as being able to process that into the energy
that's necessary that you're proposing, what will it take, what
kind of infrastructure would it take both in terms of cost and
anything else that you can think of?
Dr. Holtzapple. Well, sugar is actually a very capital
intensive process because you harvest only about three or four
months out of the year and you have to process all of that
sugar in a three or four month period. So the factory is very
large in size for this maximum production rate. But a single
squeezing mill that squeezes the sugar out of sugar cane is $2
million, and you need four of those. That is just to buy them.
And then you have to install them and so forth.
So the problem is that there is a huge amount of capital
required to take the sugar cane, squeeze out the juice and
process it in that three to four month period.
In the case of our process, you are actually processing it
over the course of a year so you do not have to have that very
expensive capital that is sized for a short harvest season. But
even having said that, it is still going to take a lot of
capital.
That energy plantation that I showed where you have half an
oil refinery. My estimate is the capital would be about $400
million to build that facility. But you would have to put that
in perspective. I mean, a full oil refinery you could probably
tell me more, but a full oil refinery is about a billion or two
billion dollars I would think.
Mr. Lampson [presiding]. Certainly more than 400.
Dr. Holtzapple. Certainly more than 400. So it certainly
takes a lot of capital, but in perspective of an oil refinery
or a coal gasification or any of these things, it is actually
fair low capital.
I think the major cost is this rubber lined pit with gravel
on the bottom and a tarp on top of the biomass pile. So we
purposely over the year engineered it to be really simple and
low tech so that it can be implemented in the United States and
all over the world.
Mr. Lampson [presiding]. Thanks.
That is all fascinating.
Dr. Holtzapple. You are welcome.
Mr. Lampson [presiding]. Everything that all of you are
doing are absolutely fascinating things.
I will let you give your last comment to us as far as any
legislation that you might want us to give consideration to, or
any other thoughts that you might have and we will end this.
We will start with you, Todd.
Mr. Mitchell. Sure. How long can I go on this topic?
Mr. Lampson [presiding]. Listen, I could listen to it
forever. It truly it fascinating and there is a lot that we
have to do to put this stuff into place.
Mr. Mitchell. If I grant to sort of the summary or the
highest concept level, I would say from a legislative
standpoint from my perspective, the recognition of the role of
organizations like Houston Advanced Research Center. If you
look at the life cycle of technologies, there is never enough,
as you can ask any of my colleagues to the left. There is never
enough research money, but there is research money that we
provide to institutes of higher education. And a great portion
of that goes to the basic and theoretical research, and some
component gets put into the applications.
At the other end of the cycle, you have venture capital
dollars and eventually more mature investment capital going
into these companies. It is that role in between that things
tend to fall through. And Houston Advance Research Center, for
example, has literally intentionally positioned itself in that
middle ground where we can take technologies look at their
applicability to energy and the relationships to other things,
for instance air quality or other environmental unintended
consequences and so forth. That is typically a sparsely funded
sector, but my view it is no less important than the whole life
cycle and the qualifications and skill of the people are no
less--the qualifications are no less required to do that job
well.
So I guess from what we would look for, you know, from the
standpoint of the government recognizing--it's understanding
that critical role and finding ways that organizations like
HARC could partner with universities, with companies and with
the government to be sort of the place where these technologies
get picked. The winners should not be picked on Capitol Hill.
The winners should be picked in a forum in which all these
parties are working together where testing and evaluation and
implementation are being done in a rigorous and scientific
fashion.
Thanks.
Mr. Lampson [presiding]. Rick?
Dr. Smalley. Well, I have two answers to this. One just a
broad issue is I believe that this challenge that we have of,
well, basically finding a new oil; getting an answer for
ourselves on this continent to energy prosperity as we get into
the middle of the century. And since we are not disconnected in
our business and dealings with the rest of the people in the
world, the same time developing the technology that allows out
continents, other peoples to find energy prosperity is a huge
issue that is going to take, frankly, miraculous scientific
discoveries before we can enable that.
At the rate that miraculous discoveries of that magnitude
have occurred over the past 50 years, I do not think we are
going to get there fast enough to avoid a pretty unpleasant
future. So I think we need to take this much more seriously.
I'm very concerned, as I know many of us are, with the health
of the physical science as an engineering, the number of
American boys and girls entering these critical fields that
must be the areas out of which these miracles will come.
And I suspect that there is nothing short of Apollo level
sort of program that happened in the '60's that will really
address that issue. If we could recapture the magic of Apollo
and get a new generation of scientists and engineers in the
2010 to 2020 region as we did the 1960, all sorts of things
will work out just fine. But short of something involved with
that, I do not think we are going to get there. So that is my
concern.
The second point is more locally if I cannot have $10
billion a year for the next 20 years, which is what it is going
to take to do this, let us focus on electrical energy storage
and transmission. I believe we are going to have a big effect
with some concentrated efforts in those directions.
Mr. Lampson [presiding]. Mark?
Dr. Holtzapple. What I would like to do is kind of give a
history of how I tried to get my biomass technology out into
the world.
It is always about investor confidence. You are trying to
find a route that you can get the next level of funding, the
next level of investment. So one of the roads that I thought
was in New York City they are spending $125 a dry ton to get
rid of garbage. And I said well I could use that garbage. I can
turn it into fuels and chemicals and so forth. But then when I
talked to the garbage companies, they do not know anything
about running a chemical plant. They know how to haul garbage.
And then I talked to oil companies, they do not want to
garbage. So there is this huge resource there which for an
institutional reason is not being tapped.
The reason the oil companies do not want to get involved is
that there is this perception of liability that, you know,
garbage is dirty and some of it is going to have be landfilled,
and they are the last ones that touched it. And so if something
bad is in there, they are going to be liable and they are
risking the whole rest of their business for that.
So if somehow we could say it is actually for the Nation's
better good to figure out how to use these waste materials and
turn them into something useful, let us put those petty
liabilities issues aside. Let us deal with those in some
legislative way. That will be the instant way that we could get
this technology moving.
The second road to getting the technology out of the
laboratory is through subsidies. When I say I think I can make
it for .75 a gallon, that is my best guess using standard
engineering practices to estimate capital costs and so forth.
But when I talk to big companies, they are very risk adverse.
So what they intend to do is double all the costs. They say,
you know, it is probably going to be twice what you are saying
or three times what you are saying, so right now it looks like
of marginal.
Well, if it we get the subsidy, then it can work. So what
the subsidies do is get the comfort level there. It can get it
started, people working with it and, you know, there is
something called a learning curve. If you look at computers,
what's happened with computers over the years; I mean the first
computer I bought was in 1981 and I paid $3,000 for it. It had
65k of memory. And now for $3,000 you can get almost a super
computer.
The reason we can do that is we are on the learning curve.
You get a bunch of engineers around a process, they keep
engineering the costs around. So one of the ways to get it
kicked off is to have a subsidy. But the roadblock I ran into
was the ethanol lobby has amassed these huge forces. You know,
the Corn Growers Association, they have this massive effort to
say give us our subsidy. Well, I am just one person. I cannot
amass that effort and how can I make Congress people listen
that, hey, you know ethanol is kind of neat but there is other
ways to do it that I think are more economical if you give us a
chance.
So if you could just broaden the horizon a little bit, say
we reasonably want ethanol as the benefits of biofuel, just do
not use the work ethanol, just broaden it.
And then third thing it relates to research, and I am in
that valley of death. We have done research on this process now
for 12 years. We have had laboratory studies and so forth. We
are actually in the piloting stage of development. And, in
fact, some of the people that have been supporting us in that
piloting effort are here. A venture capital group that over the
eight years they have been putting out maybe $2 million. And
they deserve a medal for funding eight years without a penny
return $2 million for us to keep developing the research. But
they are kind of getting tired of this. And they need some
help. And when we go to the government, the problem is their
entrenched ways of doing things.
I mean, when people talk to me about making biofuels from
cellulosics, they always say well ethanol. And what they want
to do is use enzymes and genetically engineered organisms and
so forth, and the cost come out to be like a $1.40 a gallon.
And if only we had more research and more time, we could get
that cost down. And what I am saying is I do not need any
scientific breakthroughs; I just need to do it. And if we can
somehow get the government to say let us open up the field to
new ideas, let us not keep putting money into the same old
thing where there is vested interests out there. The DOE has
been around for a long time, the people that are working in it
have their pet projects and so forth. I represent an outside
process, out of the box thinking. And when we go to the
government, I do not fit into their paradigm so I am denied. It
is extremely frustrating and some way to break out of that
would be very, very helpful.
Mr. Lampson [presiding]. Thank you.
Mr. Hennekes. Just a couple comments for you. One, I very
much appreciate your work on the Energy Bill and your
colleagues. It was the House of Representative that was ready
to pass it. It was your colleagues in the senior house, the
Senate, that kept that from going here in the not too distant
past.
I would put your arm around your buddies that are senators
and say we really need this and see if we can put the partisan
bickering aside and figure how to make this thing pass. And so
I congratulate you and look for your help with your colleagues
in the Senate.
The second thing is I'll agree most adamantly. I might take
it a step forward. We talked about gas to liquid fuels. Rather
than just saying ethanol has a credit or rather than biofuels,
I would say synthetic fuels. So you take the gas to liquids and
put them on the same level as the ethanol and all those sort of
things. And, again, let every one of them compete to see which
one can make the fuel and compete and allow them to work on
their own merits with an even baseline.
The third item that I would like to put forward is
gasification as a whole competes differently than combustion of
coal in large burning plants. Because coal burns directly and
you simply put it into the atmosphere, it has a set of
standards that are conducive to a burner, to a furnace. Because
we actually make a synthetic fuel and then burn it in a
turbine, the gasification technology is held to the same level
as natural gas. And so the coal burners can continue to pollute
at one level, yet this very clean way to take our nation's
very, very favorite asset. In fact, if you add up the United
States, China and India, we have something on the order of 45
percent of the world's population in coal and it will take us
many generations into the future. We have a technology that can
bring us energy very quickly, but we are having to compete on a
different environmental basis.
So if you put the coal burner on the same environmental
basis as the gasification plants, you would have, I think, a
very clean and very economic way to take our natural resource
of coal and bring it to energy that can then be distributed
through the grids, the electrical grids and that sort of thing.
Mr. Lampson [presiding]. Thank you.
Mr. Hennekes. Thank you.
Mr. Lampson [presiding]. Franklin?
Dr. Chang-Diaz. I just have one thing. What I would like to
see happen is a much greater real collaboration across
government agencies. You know, NASA and the DOE tend to be
rather insular in the way they do business. And we have noticed
that in our relationships that we struggle to build across the
national lab and the research here at Johnson Space Center is
something that is out of the ordinary. It is not the common
process.
But I would like to see a more proactive action on the part
of the government to integrate the various agencies that are
working on projects that are of synergistic value together. And
I think that certainly as a taxpayer, I think that we would get
a lot bigger bang for the buck. So this would be my wish.
Mr. Lampson [presiding]. Thank you very much.
We are, I think, living in a funny time as far as
government is concerned to accomplish some of what you said. It
would be great if we could work in a truly bipartisan or maybe
I should say nonpartisan way; that we put these things that we
have been discussing here today up front as our drop priorities
because of what it can do for all of our communities and all
the people within our society, but we seem to get bogged down
in our politics. And that seems to take the priority away from
what we truly have the needs that Dr. Smalley said. If we do
not address these things or find a miracle quickly, then we may
be too late.
Hopefully we are not. I know that the work that you all are
doing are pushing us to get there in time. We appreciate that.
If there are things that--you have given us suggestions. I will
try to follow through with those.
Now several of you mentioned money. You know, I certainly
do not want to be known as a tax and spend liberal Democrat.
Judy probably would not be known as a borrow and spend
Republican.
We have got to make sure that we put things in the right
kind of priority and understand that some of what we need in
this country is going to cost us and we need to pay for those
in this generation and not the next to make sure that we
achieve those opportunities for the next generation to be able
to survive, and to live the quality of life or aspire to the
quality of life that we have.
So, thank you all for coming. Thank you for sharing your
knowledge. Thank you for doing the work that you are doing. And
I hope that we can do something that will strength that and
make it happen quicker.
Thanks very much.
And for all the rest of you for taking the time to come
out, thank you. And you all have a happy holiday.
Thanks for the staff.
We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
----------
Additional Material for the Record