Five-Lab Study Peer Reviewers Q3. Please provide the name and organization for each person who participated in the "peer review" of the study and indicate which parts of the study were reviewed by that person. Also, please indicate whether each of the peer reviewers is now or has been employed by DOE or DOE contractor, grantee, or subcontractor. For purposes of clarity, a distinction is made regarding the following: A3. (1) (2) (3) Persons who actually worked for the Department of Energy or one of its National Persons who worked in an area of an organization that received a direct grant or Persons who worked for a large organization that had received a contract or grant from the Department in some area of the company wherein the reviewer had limited contact. The following is the list of the reviewers of the Five-Lab study: Dr. William Fulkerson, Chairman University of Tennessee - Dr. Fulkerson was previously employed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Economics Dr. Stephen DeCanio University of California - Santa Barbara -- Dr. DeCanio is employed by the University of California system which has received grants from the Department of Energy. However, he has not: - actually worked for the Department of Energy or one of its National Laboratories; worked in an area of an organization that received a direct grant or contract with the Department; and Dr. Al Link Greensboro, North Carolina Dr. Link indicates that he has never been employed by DOE, DOE contractor, grantee, or subcontractor. Buildings Dr. Morton H. Blatt Electric Power Research Institute EPRI has been a Department grantee. Industry Dr. Daniel E. Steinmeyer Monsanto Chemical Company Was a contractor on a recent study issued by Argonne National Laboratory published in July, 1997, and has a temporary affiliation with Argonne National Laboratory. Transportation Dr. Robert A. Frosch Kennedy School Harvard University Served with the President's Council on Science and Technology as a reviewer, but not otherwise affiliated with the Department. Electricity Dr. Douglas C. Bauer National Academy of Sciences Dr. Bauer was previously employed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory Methodology Hillard G. Huntington Energy Modeling Forum Stanford University Dr. Huntington is currently working on a contract from DOE at the Energy Modeling Forum. Thomas Roose Gas Research Institute GRI has cofunded projects with the Department. He has not been otherwise Cost of Five-Lab Study Q4. Please provide an accounting of any costs that have been or will be încurred in completing the study and preparing the report, including a breakdown of those costs by DOE organization, contractor, grantee or subcontractor. Q5. A5. $95,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000 $10,000 An International Energy Agency report, Technological Solutions for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, concluded that the mitigation of CO2 emissions is feasible but costly. For example, it estimates that the capture of CO2 from flue gas could increase the cost of electricity generation by at least 40 to 50 percent above current levels. Do you agree with this assessment, and what can we do to bring costs down? We agree. The cost of capture of CO2 from flue gas is expensive, and the Department is working with industry to reduce these costs. Research on technologies that capture CO2 after combustion and those which remove CO2 from fossil fuels before combustion look promising as an option which may be cost-effective in the long-term. However, the Five-Lab study did not address the cost of capturing CO2 from flue gas in coal-fired electricity generation, because it examined implementation of technologies which are more cost-effective in the near-term. At this time, it is generally more costly to capture CO2 emissions after a fossil fuel is oxidized than it is to reduce the amount of carbon-based fuel needed to provide a given level of energy service. In other words, compared to coal plant ?scrubbers,? the following strategies are less costly: ⚫ increasing the efficiency of homes, appliances, cars and generating plants, or ⚫ switching from coal to lower carbon fuel sources such as renewables and natural gas. We can do a great deal to lower the costs of climate change mitigation. Indeed, this is one of the major conclusions of the Five-Lab Study. With a vigorous national commitment to develop and deploy energy-efficient and low-carbon technologies, our Nation has the potential to achieve 1990 levels of carbon emissions in 2010 without high cost. In fact, in the high efficiency/low carbon technology scenario of the Five-Lab study, the value of energy saved is roughly equal to or exceeds the costs of deploying "clean" U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Q6. It is estimated that the average American produces more than five times the greenhouse gas emissions of the average person on Earth. Concerning this: Q6.1 How much does the average American produce in economic output compared to the average person on Earth? A6.1 In 1993, the Gross Domestic Product per capita was the following: Source: World Resource Institute, World Resources Guide to the Global Q6.2 Is the U.S. average of CO2 emissions per unit of economic output above, below, or equal to the world average? A6.2 The world average CO2 emissions per unit of economic output is about the same as the U.S. average of CO2 emissions per unit output. Fuel Cells Q7. Sources: Climate Action Report - 1997 (U.S. submission to U.N. Framework The DOE recently announced a breakthrough in the development of fuel cells that can operate on gasoline. Q7.1 How long will it be before automobiles equipped with this technology will be available to consumers? A7.1 Automobiles equipped with this technology are projected to be available commercially between 2005 and 2010. This would achieve one goal of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV). Progress in fuel cell and fuel processing technology has been rapid, both in the United States and in Europe and Japan as well. The PNGV envisions that gasoline-fueled fuel cell vehicles with on-board fuel processors would be the first vehicles to market in the U.S. because of the ability to utilize the existing fueling infrastructure. J Q7.2 How much will this technology add to the cost of a vehicle? A7.2 The goal of PNGV is that the cost of the car is no more than a conventional vehicle. It is projected that the fuel cell technology, when fully developed and with economies of scale resulting from mass production, will not result in any overall cost increase compared to conventional vehicles. PNGV cost targets reflect this philosophy. Great progress has been made in approaching these cost targets, although significant progress remains to be made. Q7.3 When do you expect to see mass production of fuel-cell equipped vehicles? A7.3 As discussed in answer 7.1, automobiles equipped with this technology are projected to be available commercially (and mass-produced) between 2005 and 2010. Q7.4 What do you expect will be the market penetration for this vehicle in the next decade to 15 years? A7.4 If fuel cell technology provides the same vehicle performance and cost that today's consumers demand, but with greater fuel economy and greatly reduced emissions, it is quite likely that fuel cell vehicles will achieve substantial market penetration in all classes of light duty passenger vehicles (which includes light duty trucks). One study, published by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, predicted that after initial market introduction, a penetration of 24% could be achieved in 20 years. Five-Lab Study Carbon Charge Q8. A8. The Five-Lab Study indicates that the only way that carbon emissions in 2010 can return to the 1990 level (i.e., 1.34 billion metric tons) is through the imposition of a $50 per ton "carbon charge." How does such a "carbon charge" differ from a carbon tax? As a point of clarification, the Five-Lab Study does not indicate that the only way that carbon emissions in 2010 can return to the 1990 level (ie., 1.34 billion metric tons) is through the imposition of a $50 per ton “carbon charge." Rather, the study presents one of many possible scenarios that could return carbon emissions to 1990 levels in the year 2010. In the Five-Lab study, a "carbon charge” refers to the market price of a tradable emission permit under a system whereby the U.S. establishes a national cap for CO2 emissions. (There are several different variations of such a system). In contrast to a carbon tax, the Internal Revenue Service collects no tax under a cap and trade system, and only the |