Efforts are being made to study fuel cell R&D more cooperatively across the country. These efforts involve the National Fuel Cell Program with DOD, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, EPRI, and GRI. DOE participates with GRI and EPRI on a Fuel Cell Steering Committee to coordinate funding and planning. Still, a more intense interaction between FE, ER, and EE is needed.

One of the most important collaborations across DOE is between the energy technology programs and ER. It is essential to the objective of maintaining the science and technology leadership in the global energy markets. What is required is a creative give-and-take between people doing fundamental R&D and those doing applied R&D on the energy technologies themselves. This linkage between ER and the energy technology offices is not as strong as many believe it should be.

FE has a mechanism for improving the interaction, and it is being applied for Vision 21. Advanced research money is being used to develop a comprehensive strategy of fundamental and applied R&D to address each component of Vision 21. Such a strategy is the basis for joint planning with ER managers. The ER money is leveraged and vice versa. This example may be a model for the energy technology and ER offices to use. A similar mechanism seems necessary to change the ad hoc interactions to more strategic interactions. Continuous cooperation is time consuming and often frustrating. Managers need incentives to invest the effort, and various schemes might work. (See Chapter 7.)

Interagency Collaboration

No regular coordination occurs between FE and DOI, particularly between USGS and MMS. Although committees have operated in the past, they seem to have become very inactive. Now there are reasons for FE to reactivate them. The first is CO2 sequestration and the second is gas production from methane hydrates. The Department of the Navy is an important part of the hydrates issue, and the EPA will be important in both. (See sections above on CO2 sequestration and methane hydrates.). Collaboration with U. S. Agency for International Development is needed to pursue joint R&D on Vision 21 technologies with developing coal-intensive countries.

Table 4.2: DOE Fossil Energy R&D Program: Costs and Impacts on Carbon Emissions Rates and Oil and Gas Production

4-24

4-25

Table 4.3: Potential CO, Emissions Reductions from Advanced Coal and Gas PoweSystems (in millions of metric tons per year MMtpy) of carbon)

*Emission reduction estimates are relative to the average carbon emissions (0.246 kgC/Wh) from fossil generation in 1995, as reported in AEO 97.

* For example, 156 billion kWh/y is the difference in power generation rate due to new gas capacity between 1996 and 2000.

* Alternatively, if the comparison is to a gas turbine with the average efficiency of the current fleet (~36%), the reduction due to advanced combined cycles of 55 to 70% efficiency is about 50MMtpy in 2015.

It should be noted that if advanced combined cycle gas power at 60% and 70% efficiency is compared to the best current gas combined cycle of 55% efficiency, the reduction in emissions from the efficiency improvement in gas power is only about 4 MMtpy by 2015. This indicates the diminishing returns due to more efficient gas systems.

REFERENCES

Collett 1993: T. S. Collett, Natural Gas Production from Arctic Gas Hydrates, USGS Professional Paper 1570, p. 294.

EIA 1996: Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, International Energy Outlook 1996, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, DOE/EIA-0484(96), May 1996).

EIA 1997: Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook for 1997 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office DOE/EIA-0383(97), December 1996.)

FE 1995: Office of Fossil Energy, U. S. Department of Energy, Natural Gas Strategic Plan, DOE/FE-0338, June 1995.

FE 1997a: Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program: Program Update 1996 June 1997.

FE 1997b: Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, Coal and Power Systems R&D Programs, July 1997.

FE 1997c: Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy Oil and Gas R&D Programs, March 1997.

Gibbons 1996: John H. Gibbons, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Science and Government Report 26(17), November 1, 1996

Gray and Tomlinson 1997: David L. Gray and Glen Tomlinson, Fischer-Tropsch Fuels from Coal and Natural Gas: Carbon Emissions Implications, (McLean, VA:Mitretek Systems, August 1997.

Greene and Leiby (1993): D. L. Greene and P. N. Leiby, The Social Costs to the U. S. of Monopolization of the World Oil Market, 1972-1991, (Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL-6744, 1993). Greene, Jones and Leiby (1995): D. L. Greene, D. W. Jones, and P. N. Leiby, The Outlook for U. S. Oil Dependence, (Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL-6873, 1995.

Herzog et al. 1997: H. Herzog, E. Drake, and E. Adams, CO2 Capture, Reuse, and Storage Technologies for Mitigating Global Climate Change, Department of Energy Report DE-AF22-96PC01257, January 1997. Hileman 1997: Bette Hileman, "Fossil Fuels in a Greenhouse World," C&EN 15, pp.34-37, August 18, 1997.

Kvenvolden 1993: K. A. Kvenvolden, "Gas Hydrates as a Potential Energy Resource-A Review of Their Methane Content," in The Future of Energy Gases, D. G. Howell et al., eds., USGS Professional Paper 1570, pp. 555-561.

Senate 1997: Senate Committee on Appropriations Report on H. R. 2107, Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 1998 July 1997.

Serchuk and Means 1997: Adam Serchuk and Robert Means, Natural Gas: Bridge to a Renewable Energy