HomeMy WebLinkAboutRenewable Generation & Storage Project Industry & Laboratory Recommendations 1998SANDIA REPORT
SAND98-0591 « UC-—1350
Unlimited Release
Printed March 1998 APR 15 1998
JIVISION OF ENERGY
Renewable Generation and Storage Project
Industry and Laboratory
Recommendations
Nancy H. Clark, Paul C. Butler, Chris P. Cameron
Prepared by
Sandia National Laboratories
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 and Livermore, California 94550
Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation,
a Lockheed Martin Company, for the United States Department of
Energy under Contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.
Approved for public release; further dissemination unlimited.
(Fh) Sandia National Laboratories
SF29000(8-81)
Issued by Sandia National Laboratories, operated for the United States
Department of Energy by Sandia Corporation.
NOTICE: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an
agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Govern-
ment nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor any of their
contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty,
express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the
accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, prod-
uct, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe pri-
vately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,
process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise,
does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation,
or favoring by the United States Government, any agency thereof, or any of
their contractors or subcontractors. The views and opinions expressed
herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Govern-
ment, any agency thereof, or any of their contractors.
Printed in the United States of America. This report has been reproduced
directly from the best available copy.
Available to DOE and DOE contractors from
Office of Scientific and Technical Information
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
Prices available from (615) 576-8401, FTS 626-8401
Available to the public from
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Rd Springfield, VA 22161
NTIS price codes
Printed copy: A06
Microfiche copy: A01
SAND98-0591 Distribution
Unlimited Release Category UC—1350
Printed March 1998
Renewable Generation and Storage Project
Industry and Laboratory Recommendations
Nancy H. Clark and Paul C. Butler
Energy Storage Systems Department
Chris P. Cameron
SNL Photovoltaic Systems Application Department
Sandia National Laboratories
P.O. Box 5800
Albuquerque, NM 87185-0613
Abstract
The United States Department of Energy Office of Utility Technologies is
planning a series of related projects that will seek to improve the
integration of renewable energy generation with energy storage in modular
systems. The Energy Storage Systems Program and the Photovoltaics
Program at Sandia National Laboratories conducted meetings to solicit
industry guidance and to create a set of recommendations for the proposed
projects. Five possible projects were identified and a “‘three-pronged”
approach was recommended. The recommended approach includes
preparing a storage technology handbook, analyzing data from currently
fielded systems, and defining future user needs and application
requirements.
Acknowledgements
Sandia National Laboratories would like to acknowledge and thank Dr. Christine E. Platt of the
U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Utility Technologies for the support and funding of this
work. We also gratefully acknowledge all of the organizations who participated in this project
and contributed to its success.
These participants include the members of the panel at the Photovoltaic Industry Meeting—Tim
Ball (Applied Power Corporation), Wayne Taylor (Department of Defense), Herb Hayden
(Arizona Public Service), Mike Stern (Utility Power Group), and Jim Drizos (Trojan Battery
Corporation); all of the attendees of the Photovoltaic Industry Meeting and the Energy Storage
Association Meeting; respondents to the survey distributed at the Energy Storage Association
meeting; Jim Rannels, Acting Director of the Department of Energy Office of Photovoltaic and
Wind Technologies for his attendance at and participation in the Photovoltaic Industry Meeting;
Philip Overholt, Photovoltaic Program Manager, Department of Energy for his attendance at and
participation in the Energy Storage Association Meeting; Amber Gray-Fenner for assistance in
the preparation of this report; and the staff of the Energy Storage Systems Program and the
Photovoltaics Program at Sandia National Laboratories for their participation in this project.
Contents
Contents i
Executive Summary iii
Introduction I
Energy Storage Systems Program Overview 3
Background 3
Stakeholder Input 5
Renewables Initiatives 3
Photovoltaic Industry Meeting 5
Panel—Renewables Industry Needs for Storage 5
Tim Ball, Applied Power Corporation 3
Wayne Taylor, Department of Defense, US Navy China Lake Facility 6
Herb Hayden, Arizona Public Service 7
Mike Stern, Utility Power Group 8
Summary of Panel Recommendations 9
New Storage Products for Renewable Systems—Jim Drizos, Trojan Battery 10
Applications Design 10
Perceptions and Issues 10
The Hope for Tomorrow 11
Proposed Project Outline—Garth Corey, SNL Energy Storage Systems Department 11
Advantages of Integrated Systems Over “Mix and Match” Systems 11
Round-table Discussion—Nancy Clark, SNL Energy Storage Systems Department (Facilitator) 11
Structure and Focus of the Round-table Discussion 11
Industry’s Response to Question 1—”What would be the key factors in an SOW for this project?” 12
Government and National Laboratory Representatives’ Responses to Question 1— 13
Discussion of Questions 2 and 3—”How should the winning bids be chosen? (selection criteria)” and “How
should this project be justified as value added?” 14
Key Factors Wrap-Up 14
Key Issues Left Unresolved 15
Should the project be market driven? 15
Should further R&D in battery technology be funded by DOE? 15
How will DOE ensure that the proposed project does not interfere with current industry initiatives? 15
Should the proposed project be combined with current initiatives of the Federal Government and national
laboratories? 15
Should systems that integrate renewables and storage be modular and integrated on site or turnkey and
integrated at the factory? 15
Energy Storage Industry Meeting 17
Round-table Discussion 17
Survey Responses 18
Question 1—What are your recommendations for the structure and implementation of the RGS Project? __18
Question 2—Should the project be market driven? 18
Question 3—Should DOE fund further R&D in batteries and advanced storage technologies now even if this
means postponing systems research? 18
Question 4—How will DOE ensure that the proposed project does not interfere with current industry
initiatives? 19
Contents (continued)
Question 5—Should the proposed project be combined with current initiatives of the Federal Government and
national laboratories? 19
Question 6—Should work focus on factory-integrated, tumkey systems or on modular components that are
integrated by the system suppliers? 19
Question 7—More information on energy storage devices, more emphasis on enhancing the utilization of these
devices, and/or find a better device. 20
Question 8—Government should support either an integrated or a modular system, but the decision should be
market driven. 20
Question 9—Use a contest format to choose who will receive the bulk of the R&D money. The project should
have a component focus, particularly emphasizing system-monitoring components. 20
Question 10—Another group suggested that system designers and integrators would find useful a handbook or
guide that contained detailed specifications for many different types of batteries. Do you feel that such a
handbook is necessary/desirable? If so, and if you represent a battery manufacturer, would your company be
willing to provide batteries for testing to support such a handbook?
SNL RGS Recommendations Meeting
20
21
Potential RGS Projects 21
Prepare a Storage Technology Handbook 21
Analyze (and/or Gather) Data from Currently Fielded Systems and/or Purchase a Limited Number of Existing
Integrated Packages and Perform Field Tests 22
Issue an RFP for the First Phase of a Multi-phase Project to Identify User Needs and Application Requirements
for Improved Integration of Renewables with Storage Systems 22
Research Software Development for Advanced System Control
Perform In-house Battery Testing
23
23
SNL Recommendations 24
Appendix A—ESSP Overview
Appendix B—Photovoltaic Industry Meeting Participants
Appendix C—Photovoltaic Industry Meeting Agenda
Appendix D—Energy Storage Industry Meeting Participants
Appendix E—Energy Storage Industry Meeting Agenda
Appendix F—Energy Storage Industry Survey
Appendix G—Acronyms and Abbreviations
Appendix H—References
A-]
B-1
C-1
D-1
E-I
F-1
G-1
H-1
Executive Summary
The United States Department of Energy (DOE) is planning a series of related projects
(collectively called the RGS Project or simply “the project”) that seeks to better integrate
renewable energy generation and energy storage in modular, turnkey renewable generation and
storage (RGS) systems. To determine if a need for such an effort exists and industry’s level of
interest in such projects, the Energy Storage Systems Program (ESSP) and the Photovoltaics
Program at Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) conducted two meetings to solicit industry
feedback. In addition, a third meeting was held with key personnel in SNL’s Energy Storage
Systems Department and Photovoltaic Systems Application Department to create a set of
recommendations for the focus and scope of the proposed projects.
The first meeting focused on soliciting feedback from the photovoltaic industry. Data was
obtained by having a panel of photovoltaic and energy storage users relate their experience and
recommendations and by a facilitated round-table discussion. General conclusions from this
meeting indicated that batteries were often the weak link in integrated systems that have been
fielded to date with respect to both performance and cost.
Suggestions included (1) funding research in areas considered especially weak, including
advanced storage technologies, improvements in data acquisition for system monitoring, and
system controllers and (2) providing system integrators and other users of energy storage with
detailed information about specific types of energy storage devices so that they may choose the
best storage device for their designs.
If the project were to include designing and prototyping a complete RGS system, the
recommendations included the following:
Build both a large and a small system.
Build systems that focus on integrating modular components.
Use a contest format to choose who will be funded by the project.
Require the system that is designed to be meet well-defined user needs and application
requirements.
e Do not interfere with existing industry initiatives or create competition for already
existing products.
Key issues were identified and showed that while there was not a consensus among industry on
the form the proposed project should take, there was significant interest in the project.
The second meeting was held to obtain feedback from the energy storage industry. Data was
gathered at a round-table discussion and through a survey that was to be returned to the ESSP.
General conclusions from this meeting were (1) that the proposed project should meet well-
defined user needs and application requirements, (2) that the energy storage industry would
prefer an open solicitation to the contest format proposed at the photovoltaic industry meeting,
and (3) that there was little support for funding the development of “turnkey” systems.
Specific suggestions included the following:
e Having an organization such as the California Energy Commission, Electric Power
Research Institute, Solar Energy Industries Association, or Energy Storage Association
Executive Summary (continued)
(CEC, EPRI, SEIA, and ESA respectively) review the request for proposal (RFP) before
it is sent out for bids.
e Co-funding (with industry) test projects at the user’s site.
e Funding projects, such as testing, which create results that can be widely used by all
stakeholders, but that suppliers can’t afford.
Once again there was not a consensus from the energy storage industry as to the scope and focus
of the project, but there was interest in participating in the project.
At the third meeting, staff members from the Energy Storage Systems and the Photovoltaic
Systems Application Departments met to consider the industry feedback and create
recommendations for the scope of the proposed project. They recommended the following five
ideas as potential projects:
e Prepare a storage technology handbook for renewables that summarizes available
information in a way that is usable for system integrators, component manufacturers, and
system maintenance personnel.
e Analyze (and/or gather) data from currently fielded systems and/or purchase a limited
number of existing integrated packages and perform field tests.
e Issue an RFP for the first phase of a multi-phase project. The goal of the first phase
would be to identify future user needs and application requirements for improved
integration of renewables with storage systems.
e Perform research into software development for advanced system control that could be
implemented by industry.
e Perform laboratory battery testing (specifically gel batteries).
Both the software development project and the battery testing project were viewed as beyond the
scope of the initial RGS Project efforts. The meeting participants recommended a “three-
pronged” approach that includes preparing a storage technology handbook, analyzing data from
currently fielded systems, and defining future user needs and application requirements. These
three tasks would be conducted in parallel. Additional research into software development and
in-house battery testing could eventually be added to the Project, as necessary to supplement the
initial efforts. All participants agreed that a significant amount of collaboration between battery
and photovoltaic (PV) manufacturers, and system integrators would be necessary for a successful
project.
Iv
Introduction
The Office of Utility Technologies at the United States Department of Energy (DOE) is planning
a series of related research and development (R&D) projects that would focus on integrating
renewable energy technologies, such as photovoltaics (PV), with energy storage, such as
batteries, flywheels, or supercapacitors, in modular, turnkey systems. This activity has been
designated as the Renewable Generation and Storage (RGS) Project.
To determine if a need for such a project exists, and what direction the project should take, the
DOE-directed Energy Storage Systems Program (ESSP) and the Photovoltaics Program at
Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), hosted two meetings with industry representatives. The first
meeting was held in association with the 26" IEEE PV Specialists Conference and the
participants were mainly representatives of the PV industry. The second meeting was held in
conjunction with the biannual meeting of the Energy Storage Association (ESA) and included
mainly representatives from the battery and energy storage industries. These meetings were held
to solicit industry feedback on the scope and direction the proposed project should take.
A third meeting was held between the SNL representatives to review and discuss the industry
feedback and to make recommendations for the project. This report summarizes the input
received during the first two meetings and the recommendations of the third meeting.
Energy Storage Systems Program Overview
Background
The ESSP’s vision is that “Energy storage will be highly valuable in enabling the 21st century
utility, in a competitive environment, to efficiently provide low-cost, reliable, environmentally-
benign service to a broad spectrum of electricity users.”
Since its origins in the 1970’s the ESSP has evolved with the changing needs of the nation. It
began with an emphasis on developing diverse components, but in the 1980s the emphasis
switched specifically to battery storage subsystems. In the 1990s integration with the utility grid
and demonstrations of tumkey systems were the Program’s focus. The Program is currently
being driven by the need for reliability (ensuring quality power and reliability for end-users),
renewables (enabling the increased utilization of wind and PV power), and productivity
(enhancing productivity by increasing efficiency and cost-effectiveness). Now the emphasis is
focusing on working with users of energy storage to develop integrated storage systems.'? An
overview of the background, mission, and structure of the ESSP is provided in Appendix A.
Stakeholder Input
This emphasis on the users of storage systems resulted in a series of “stakeholder” meetings.
Members of the ESSP met with representatives from investor-owned utilities, electric
cooperatives, manufacturers, industry associations, and independent power producers to discuss
their storage and integration needs and the role that they see storage playing in the future of the
industry.
The following common opinions were expressed during the more than 20 meetings held in 1996:
e¢ Concern about the future in a competitive arena,
e Perception of power quality as the largest near term market,
e Interest in low cost options,
e Interest in storage-based products and services (electricity is becoming a commodity).
Renewables Initiatives
The ESSP is currently pursuing the following initiatives related to integrating energy storage
with renewables:
e Study to identify high-value applications and quantify the benefits of storage with
renewables,
e White paper on the status of storage with renewables for on and off-grid applications,
e Testing advanced hybrid control systems with PV and battery systems at Arizona Public
Service (APS),
e Providing technical expertise to support DOE renewable programs,
e Meetings (such as those described in this report) to gather industry feedback and
guidance.
It is believed that these initiatives will help establish a framework for the proposed RGS Project.
Photovoltaic Industry Meeting
The PV industry meeting on the proposed RGS project was held in conjunction with the
26" IEEE Photovoltaics Specialists Conference at the Anaheim Marriott on Tuesday,
September 30, 1997 from 12:30 - 4:30pm. The meeting was jointly hosted by Chris Cameron of
SNL’s Photovoltaic Systems Application Department and Paul Butler of SNL’s Energy Storage
Systems Department. Attending were approximately 25 participants representing industries
including system integration, PV and electrical component manufacturing, the battery industry, a
utility company and the Department of Defense (DOD) (contributing from the perspective of
end-users of the technology), and several representatives from DOE-sponsored programs at SNL
and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). See Appendix B for a complete list of
the meeting participants.
The meeting was structured as follows. An overview of the ESSP and its relationship with
renewable energy technologies was provided (see Appendix A). A panel of industry
representatives was invited to discuss their needs for integrating renewables, specifically PV,
with energy storage. A battery industry representative was given a chance to address the needs
described in the panel discussion and to discuss the battery industry’s needs from its perspective.
A member of the ESSP presented a proposed outline for the RGS Project. Finally, a facilitated
round-table discussion was held to discuss the issues presented during the first portion of the
meeting. Appendix C contains the agenda for the meeting.
This section summarizes the panel discussion at the PV industry meeting. It also includes the
format and content of the round-table discussion and summarizes the key factors and issues left
unresolved at the end of the meeting.
Panel—Renewables Industry Needs for Storage
Panel Participants: Clay Aldrich, Siemens Solar (Chair)
Tim Ball, Applied Power Corporation
Wayne Taylor, Department of Defense, US Navy China Lake Facility
Herb Hayden, Arizona Public Service
Mike Stern, Utility Power Group
Tim Ball, Applied Power Corporation
Applied Power Corporation (APC) is a systems integrator that has been using batteries in its
systems for 16 years. In the past, their primary focus has been off-grid. They have just recently
expanded into grid-connected systems.
APC’s main markets are telecommunications, remote markets and other isolated areas, and DOD
applications. Wayne Taylor of this panel is one of their customers. According to Tim Ball,
“What Wayne wants, APC should be providing.”
The majority of the systems provided by APC are “small, out-the-door systems” that use lead-
acid or valve-regulated lead-acid (VRLA) batteries. The larger telecommunications systems use
VRLA batteries. APC’s largest system is a 115- to 140-kW PV hybrid system.
Photovoltaic Industry Meeting
ccc rrr rrr
Batteries are the weak link in these systems. Batteries are also the only high-maintenance
components in these systems. For systems used in remote locations, maintenance can be a big
issue because of the cost involved in getting people to the site to do the maintenance. Further, the
life span of the system (and all of the associated components except batteries) is much greater
than that of the battery. In seven years, replacing batteries is a big expense/limitation for the
customer. Tim would like battery life spans to be increased. A twenty-year life span would be
desirable because then the batteries would last as long as the rest of the system.
Additionally, the cost of PV modules and inverters is coming down. The cost of batteries
fluctuates according to the current price of lead. If the costs of batteries cannot be decreased,
batteries will soon become the most expensive part of the system. If batteries do become the
most expensive part of the system, it reflects badly on the batteries and creates a negative
impression of the overall system because the state-of-the-art components (which are generally
thought to be expensive) are actually cheaper than “old technology” components (that is, the
batteries). Finally, the safety issues involved with lead-acid batteries are well documented.
Addressing these safety concerns also adds cost to APC’s systems.
According to APC, improvements in the way systems are packaged can overcome many of the
technology limitations of the batteries used in the systems. If better storage is provided, APC
feels that it can address the integration issues.
Wayne Taylor, Department of Defense, US Navy China Lake Facility
Wayne Taylor defined the following two major needs for the energy storage systems used in his
programs: safety and maintainability. The types of systems used, the negative factors associated
with using the systems, and the priorities for addressing the negative factors were presented.
Safety
Wayne’s safety issues involved energy storage for small remote PV systems (1-20 kWh of
storage) and for PV/diesel hybrids (1-5 MWh of storage; the amount of PV used depends largely
on cost).
For DOD applications, it is difficult to comply with National Electrical Code (NEC) standards at
the voltages currently being used. According to the NEC, steel cases and other metal parts must
be grounded. At 600 V the required grounding is unacceptable because of ground fault paths.
Fires have resulted when leaking electrolyte caused a path to ground. Conductive paths are
created on almost any lead-acid battery. Plastic cases and nonmetal earthquake bracing would
help to alleviate this problem. An additional safety issue is that materials used to make batteries
are hazardous according to material safety data sheets (MSDS) for the products.
Photovoltaic Industry Meeting
—eEeEeEEee————————————eeE
The priorities for creating safer batteries should be as follows:
e Eliminate possibility of ground fault current paths.
e Eliminate possibility of explosions from gas emissions.
e Fund research on alternative storage technologies.
Maintainability
The maintainability issues were related to any PV-powered system. First, replacement electrolyte
for leaking batteries is costly to ship. Second batteries require “excessive” maintenance. For the
PV systems used by DOD, 20% of the initial system cost is for the batteries, but 90% of the
system maintenance cost is for batteries. For example, the battery used for the newest PV/diesel
hybrid required eight man-days per month of battery room maintenance to keep the
manufacturer’s warranty valid.
The short life span of batteries is also a concern. Seven years is the maximum on a “reasonably
rated” battery system. Also, batteries are too temperature dependent. Using batteries for long
periods at high temperatures reduces their life span, and using them at low temperatures reduces
their capacity.
Finally, batteries are difficult to move because they are heavy. Also, there is not any good data
available on standard charge/discharge cycles for PV use.
The priorities for creating more easily maintainable batteries should be as follows:
e Reduce required maintenance by 95% (in other words, substantially).
e Fund research into alternative storage technologies.
The DOD wants 1) the ability to work on batteries with no face shield, safety glasses, apron
gloves, etc. (minimize the hazards associated with batteries and battery maintenance) and 2) an
energy storage system that lasts as long as the PV modules charging it.
Herb Hayden, Arizona Public Service
APS is responsible for the entire life cycle of integrated PV/energy storage systems. APS feels
that the public is being “oversold” on PV as the "ideal" solution to energy production (reducing
emissions from fossil fuels, etc.). Additionally, while energy storage systems can help with short
term peaks (power quality issues) they are not useful on a large scale for long-term (> 2 hours)
peak shaving because they are not economically attractive compared to other options.
Herb reiterated the common concems of lower cost, longer life, transportation cost, and the
environmental concems associated with using batteries for energy storage. Batteries are
considered a liability because of the risk of misuse, especially in high-temperature applications.
However, in his opinion, the battery industry is the only industry “doing anything” in the energy
storage market. “Where are the other industries?” To become a commercially viable storage
technology, there must be multiple suppliers and a volume market.
According to Herb, the government should be focusing its R&D money in two areas—lead-acid
battery information and alternative storage technologies, specifically flywheels.
Photovoltaic Industry Meeting
Lead-Acid Battery Information
DOE should produce and provide information so that a customer can effectively evaluate
different energy storage options. That is “for our operating regime, here are our options.” Right
now, battery suppliers provide different types of information and in different ways. Much of the
material provided by manufacturers is sales and marketing information and is not objectively
presented. Herb recommends screening different battery products every year and finding a way
to say “to get ‘x’ performance out of a battery, do this.”
In addition to performance information, people who use energy storage systems are interested in
the cost per delivered kWh. Performance curve-type information could help to provide answers
to such questions as, “What is the maximum kWh produced per pound of lead for a particular
battery?” “Electricity is a commodity business,” the more costs can be quantified, the better.
Alternative Storage Technologies
“What happened to flywheels?” It is difficult to compete with fossil fuel in terms of cost, but for
a storage technology, can't flywheels be competitive with batteries? Or isn't there another
technology that could compete with batteries?
After funding the collection and presentation of objective lead-acid battery information, flywheel
development should be funded next. In general, the cost/benefit ratio of other storage
technologies should be quantified.
Mike Stern, Utility Power Group
The Utility Power Group (UPG) is an integrator of grid-connected renewable energy systems.
UPG sees energy storage systems comprising one or one thousand batteries as a logistical rather
than a technical problem. Like everyone else, they would like batteries that are safer, have longer
life, and are easier to maintain. He agrees that flywheel technology should be investigated and
pursued—’they have great potential.”
They see two types of markets for grid-connected renewable energy with storage systems, big
(similar to the one in Chino, California) and smaller packages (similar to those described by Tim
Ball earlier in the panel). Batteries are a key issue in the systems UPG designs. What they want
to know is “How does battery energy storage add value to (already expensive) PV for grid-
connected applications?”
Big Systems
These systems are large enough to justify full-time maintenance personnel. They are used for
power quality and peak shaving applications. The cost involved in these energy storage systems
is a big concern. Also, the electrolyte-induced ground faults described by Wayne occur with
plastic as well as steel-cased batteries. However, he does not feel that the batteries are as
hazardous as described by Wayne and feels that the people who are knowledgeable and
experienced in battery maintenance do not want to wear protective gear. As far as battery life-
span is concerned, UPG is interested in number of cycles (rather than years).
Ss
8
Photovoltaic Industry Meeting
Smaller Package Systems
These systems are designed for people who want grid-connected (as opposed to stand-alone) PV
systems to back up their grid power. In other words “when the power goes out, PV takes over.”
The value of these systems is not so much economic, but the perception of value to small
customers. The grid-connected, small residential market is also magnitudes larger than off-grid
applications of the same size.
Batteries will allow system integrators to realize the true value of PV for the grid-connected,
small residential market. From an integrator’s perspective steel trays (or cases) are good. They
are durable and sturdy when moving the batteries (plastic trays bend) and their conductivity
becomes a problem only at elevated voltages (as described by Wayne). Maintenance will be a big
issue because the average homeowner does not want to do a lot of maintenance on the system. It
needs to be “user-friendly.” Work also needs to be done on the integration side of the system—
inverter failures are common. The brains of the system are in the power electronics which serve
as a “robotic baby-sitter.” Consequently, the power electronics need to work as well as the
storage technology.
Because this market requires short term storage, supercapacitors may be a preferable alternative
to batteries because they have a longer cycle life. Data on lead per kWh, cycling, and calendar
life would also be helpful in determining which batteries are best suited for this market.
Summary of Panel Recommendations
For battery technology, improvements must be made in the following areas:
e life span
e maintainability
e safety
e cost
The first three items in the above list also directly or indirectly affect cost (the fourth item).
Objective and comparable information on charge/discharge cycles and more useful cost
information (for example costs quantified by kWh) are also necessary to make good decisions
about which battery is best for a particular system. There is a desire for alternative storage
technologies to be developed. It was implied that such alternatives would be widely used if they
were commercially available and competitive with batteries.
Photovoltaic Industry Meeting
New Storage Products for Renewable Systems—Jim Drizos, Trojan Battery
None of the concerns described by the panel are new and, consequently, are well understood by
the battery industry. The battery industry feels that users do not adequately understand the
technology issues associated with choosing and maintaining batteries and that users are basically
“looking for a Lexus at the price of a KIA.”
Applications Design
Lead-acid batteries are designed for a wide variety of uses. The battery industry does not
consider energy storage integrated with PV as a “different type” of application. PV is essentially
the same as an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) or a telecommunications system. One large
difference for stand-alone telecommunications systems is that they have no commercial feeder
(the utility grid). Therefore, providing sufficient current to charge the batteries properly becomes
cost prohibitive. Consequently, users don't charge the batteries properly, which negatively affects
their life span and performance.
According to Jim, the big difference between PV applications and telecommunications or UPS
applications is that in the latter applications batteries are online to generate revenue. When
batteries begin to generate revenue for PV, they will become necessary, rather than the weak
link. The question, then, is ‘What is it going to take to make batteries generate revenue in PV
applications, or what needs to be done to make this happen?”
Technologies other than lead-acid batteries will be more expensive no matter what is done to
make these technologies more commercially viable. Additionally, there is generally a 20 year
gap between the development of a technology and it becoming commercially viable. In the
meantime, lead-acid batteries are the most cost-effective option for energy storage.
As far as the hazardous nature of lead-acid batteries, lead is the most recycled metal in the
country, surpassing both aluminum and steel. This is very important when considering the
widespread use of lead-acid batteries.
Users need to understand the reality of advances in lead-acid battery technology; the
improvements are not visible. Battery technology is 100 years old. To the battery industry, it
appears that all of the big advances in lead-acid technology have already been made. Incremental
advances continue to be made, but they are not as obvious as large advances.
Perceptions and Issues
Users of both telecommunications systems and UPSs have had the same concerns as mentioned
by the panel. However, manufacturers have become more responsive to their customers and the
battery users have been more responsible about properly maintaining the batteries they purchase.
Many of the safety concerns mentioned by the panel occurred because of regulations, and
because of safety inspectors who understand the regulations (but not the technology) mandating
requirements that reduce instead of increase safety. For example regulations and inspectors
require manifolds in circumstances where the installation of manifolds may cause gas emissions
to build up, potentially resulting in an explosion. This situation was mentioned by Wayne earlier
in the panel discussion.
|e me RE RE HE RE TE A SEEN SRE TPIT ES SRE SRE TE
10
Photovoltaic Industry Meeting
Additionally, the NEC may need to be revised to accommodate the kinds of applications being
discussed by the panel. The NEC is written and reviewed largely by alternating current (AC)
experts who, in this case, are writing codes for direct current (DC) applications. What is of great
concern in an AC application may not be so in a similar voltage DC application.
Finally, “price chasing” by end users can cause problems for the users. Users feel that the battery
industry doesn't support them and is unresponsive to their needs, but the battery industry is not
making sufficient profit margins to fund research into large-scale technological improvements.
An increase in profit margins could also fund more testing of standard battery types under a
variety of different circumstances and allow for the distribution of the data gained from such
testing.
The Hope for Tomorrow
Trojan is currently developing a bipolar battery with 30-40% more capacity for the same weight.
They hope to get more use out of the active material, but, in his opinion, this increase cannot be
considered substantial when considering MW of storage and lead-acid batteries.
Proposed Project Outline—Garth Corey, SNL Energy Storage Systems
Department
The proposed RGS project could result in the design, fabrication, and testing of a pre-prototype
integrated system. The emphasis may be placed on developing an “integrated, modular, tun key
system.” These integrated systems are expected to provide advantages over “mix and match”
systems.
The ESSP expects to cost share in the development of the system. The ESSP will also attempt to
partner with the renewables and electronics industries in developing the system if an integrated-
system approach is taken.
Advantages of Integrated Systems Over “Mix and Match” Systems
Integrated, modular, turn key systems can offer a potential cost as low as $500 to $750 per kW
with volume production. Integrated systems improve performance and increase reliability
because the components are designed to optimize performance for the specific system. The
components are also designed to optimize the size of the system. Additionally, these systems can
be designed to incorporate many “standard” parts and will provide “seamless” transfer between
the PV and storage portions of the system.
Round-table Discussion—Nancy Clark, SNL Energy Storage Systems Department
(Facilitator)
Structure and Focus of the Round-table Discussion
A round-table discussion was used to collect industry feedback and ideas. The discussion was
specifically structured so that everyone would have a chance to speak and be heard. The
government and national laboratory representatives present during the meeting were asked to
listen to all of the industry feedback before being invited to give their opinions and comments.
a a eS 11
Photovoltaic Industry Meeting
rrr eee _—_OS_S_O__ eee
As described in the previous section, the ESSP has proposed a project that will integrate
renewables with storage using a modular, factory-integrated, turn key system. This facilitated
portion of the meeting was designed to solicit industry opinions on the proposed project and also
to describe their ideas for how the project could be focused based on the needs described in the
panel.
The facilitator identified the following three questions as the most useful for defining the
structure and scope of the proposed project:
1. What would be the key factors in a Statement of Work (SOW) for this project?
2. How should the winning bids be chosen? (selection criteria)?
3. How should this project be justified as value added?
Industry’s Response to Question 1—”What would be the key factors in an SOW for this
project?”
Many participants felt that a big hardware project was unnecessary and suggested smaller,
incremental projects. They asked that the project emphasize modularity; using systems that are
easily expandable if more power is needed, such as 1kW to 50kW modules that could be
connected in series or parallel.
Many also agreed that the development should meet user needs and application requirements.
Included in this assertion was that bidders should specifically define user needs and application
requirements in their proposals and define the potential customer base. Also, the SOW should
require that the bids be easily comparable. In other words it should provide concrete
specifications on how the bids should be structured and what information should be provided to
the reviewers. Bidders who do not follow the specifications should not be considered.
According to the panel and the participants in the discussion, the focus should be on advanced
storage technologies such as flywheels and superconducting magnetic energy storage (SMES).
Batteries are perceived as the most cost-effective storage technology, but they are becoming the
most expensive part of the system because of required maintenance and replacement costs. By
bringing advanced storage technologies to a more marketable state, the systems could be
improved. Additionally, the industry representatives felt that improvements in battery technology
are generally incremental—small advances are most likely. Focusing on newer technologies
could realize large improvements in usability and cost. Also, the opinion was expressed that
battery improvements should be funded by the manufacturers, not by the government because
they are already a commercially viable storage technology. At least one participant disagreed and
stated that the focus should be on improving existing storage technology and that research should
focus on integration.
Support was given for funding a project (or a portion of the proposed project) that would
regularly publish current and objective information on available battery technology. The
information should be detailed and presented in a single format. It should include results for life
cycle testing, cost per kWh, kWh per pound of lead, etc. Manufacturers’ data is generally sales-
oriented and different manufacturers supply different data depending on their marketing strategy.
The suggested project would be a DOE-funded educational project for battery users. DOE
funding could also be used for testing as well as for publishing the results.
12
Photovoltaic Industry Meeting
————
One participant suggested that the SOW should take the form of a contest with a fixed objective,
for example the development of a 2- to 4-kW home PV system. The SOW would provide a small
fixed-dollar investment to all qualified bidders using concrete criteria to determine who receives
the initial money. Then, the bidder who develops the best system for the initial investment
money would get full funding to further develop and test the product. Many of the discussion
participants liked this idea, however there was some lively discussion as to whether there is
really a market for small home-PV systems. It was also mentioned that a small market already
exists and that the government may not want to “compete in this market.”
It was suggested that a formal educational component be included in whatever project is created.
The educational initiative would be responsible for disseminating the information obtained in the
project to people who can use it. To an extent, the educational component also addresses
Question 3 (how can this project be promoted as “value-added?”). It was felt that taxpayers who
are educated about the project can more accurately determine if it has value to them.
Finally it was suggested that the project focus on providing low-cost data acquisition and control
subsystems that can be interfaced to communication networks for remote dispatch, monitoring,
and reporting. The data acquisition and control subsystem is a fundamental part of the entire
system, without it, users cannot tell what the state-of-charge of the battery is and do not have
access to other important system information. According to one participant, not enough attention
is being paid to creating accurate, easy-to-use data acquisition and control components for these
systems.
Some additional comments made during this part of the discussion included:
e Where batteries are concemed reliability and cost are the main issues.
e The project should address general applicability rather than a specific industry.
Government and National Laboratory Representatives’ Responses to Question ]—
Most of the government and national laboratory representatives agreed that some sort of
education initiative would be a good idea. They stated that the national laboratories should be the
focal point for any educational effort. The national laboratories should also do some testing to
support the educational effort and provide objective performance/cost data. It was suggested that
educational information related to product warranties would be a good idea. Someone asked the
question “How do we educate people if we don’t actually spec and prototype a system?”
In the past, government research has supported work on PV module reliability and future
research should support systems development in the areas of reliability, performance, and cost.
The question of how to get funds where they need to go on an integrated-system proposal was
raised. Additionally, some felt that the government should stay away from backing specific
products. At least one person stated that government should not be totally focused on the market.
Others thought that focusing the project on developing and testing a specific product was a good
idea. If development and testing of a specific product is pursued, the government should “be
discriminating on hardware improvements.” It was also suggested that the project help
supplement industry funding to help create teams.
Jim Rannels, the Acting Director of the DOE Office of Photovoltaic and Wind Technologies, and
Chris Cameron discussed ongoing initiatives in relation to the proposed project. It was suggested
13
Photovoltaic Industry Meeting
that the new project either address an entirely different area than the existing DOE PV
programs—NREL’s “PV Manufacturing Technology” (PVMat) and the DOE/Golden Field
Office’s “Building Opportunities in the US for Photovoltaics” (PVBonus)—or complement the
efforts of these programs. Jim Rannels also suggested creating a project that would further the
cause of the Federal Government’s new “Million Solar Roofs Initiative.” This initiative was
created in June 1997 with the goal of manufacturing and installing one million residential and
commercial solar systems by the year 2010 and to increase US industry’s share of the global PV
market.
Discussion of Questions 2 and 3—”How should the winning bids be chosen? (selection
criteria)” and “How should this project be justified as value added?”
Questions 2 and 3 were never addressed directly. However, some answers to these questions
were suggested by the answers to Question 1. First, concerning Question 2, it was suggested that
the selection criteria be designed so that all bids are structurally similar. Second, most industry
representatives agreed that market research data be included to support the claims made in the
proposals. Third, the ESSP should make sure that the proposed project doesn’t interfere with
existing government or industry initiatives or products. Finally, the idea of using a contest format
to ultimately decide who receives the majority of the funding was popular.
Concerning Question 3, it was suggested to address issues of technological competitiveness and
then focus on reliability, performance, and cost. Focusing on education was seen as important in
improving the understanding of the purpose of the project and its results.
Key Factors Wrap-Up
The facilitator summarized the round-table discussion and distilled the industry
recommendations and discussions into the following four key points:
1. More information is needed on energy storage devices, more emphasis should be placed
on enhancing the utilization of these devices, and/or research should be directed towards
finding a better device.
2. Government should support either an integrated or a modular system, but the decision
should meet defined user needs and application requirements.
3. Use the contest format, in one or more levels, to help choose who could receive the bulk
of the R&D money.
4. The project should have a component focus, particularly emphasizing system-monitoring
and/or contro] components.
The facilitator then asked meeting participants (both industry and government) to check which of
these key factors they agreed with. They could mark more than one.
uestion Number in Agreement gr
1
2
3 4
14
Photovoltaic Industry Meeting
Key Issues Left Unresolved
Should the project be market driven?
For the most part, the industry representatives agreed that RGS Project should be market driven.
A valid issue was raised as to whether or not the government should be involved in projects that
already have a clearly defined market. Funding research into areas that have clearly defined
markets could be perceived as “corporate welfare.” It was suggested that R&D funding be
provided for markets that are seen as “potential” or “emerging.” This type of funding would
address markets that could be commercially viable in less than 20 years.
Should further R&D in battery technology be funded by DOE?
Battery manufacturers do not want to fund R&D on large-scale utility batteries because right
now this is a small market. The question is, should large-scale utility batteries be considered an
“emerging” market for the purposes of this project. Also at issue is whether or not the
government should be funding research into this market whether it is emerging or not, since
batteries are such an established technology. Who is ultimately responsible for R&D on an
existing technology in a new application with new requirements?
How will DOE ensure that the proposed project does not interfere with current industry
initiatives?
According to the meeting participants, industry is already successfully integrating renewables
and storage. It is important if DOE decides to fund a project to research modular solutions that it
does not encroach on what industry is already doing. Several system integrators were present in
the meeting. Some feel that they are doing the “mix and match” method quite well, however,
there was some disagreement as to how well this was being done. Some industry representatives
disliked the “‘factory-integrated tumkey” model because they felt that it was not as easily
adaptable to customers needs. They considered the “mix and match” method to be extremely
flexible.
Should the proposed project be combined with current initiatives of the Federal Government
and national laboratories?
As stated previously, there are several ongoing government initiatives that focus on PV. It was
not determined whether this project should be an entirely different initiative, a complementary
effort, or possibly combined with one or more of the other programs.
Should systems that integrate renewables and storage be modular and integrated on site or
turnkey and integrated at the factory?
This was the biggest unresolved issue. The project proposed at the beginning of the meeting
specified that the focus of the project should be developing and testing a pre-prototype factory-
integrated system. However, from the panel and the round-table discussion, it was clear that the
majority of the industry representatives preferred a project that focused more on developing
standardized components for use in modular systems (supporting the “mix and match” method).
Nevertheless, at least one industry representative preferred the factory-integrated approach.
15
Photovoltaic Industry Meeting
ore rrr _____———————eEe__
As previously stated, modular systems offer a great deal of flexibility. Even the industry
representative who favored factory-integrated systems admitted that one problem with these
systems is that buyers invariably ask for changes to the system specifications, which sometimes
lead to problems with system integration. It is, however, fair to ask whether the integrators
should be telling customers what to buy or supplying what the customers request.
16
Energy Storage Industry Meeting
The energy storage industry meeting was held in conjunction with the biannual ESA Meeting in
Sacramento, California on November 18, 1997. The meeting was hosted by Philip Overholt of
DOE and Paul Butler of SNL’s Energy Storage Systems Department. Attending were 52
participants representing industries and organizations including battery manufacturers,
government and non-profit organizations (for example SEIA), and electric utilities. See
Appendix D for a complete list of the meeting participants and Appendix E for the meeting’s
agenda.
The meeting was a round-table discussion focusing on some of the issues that were left
unresolved at the photovoltaics industry meeting. To provide additional information, meeting
participants were given a survey to complete and return. A copy of the survey is provided in
Appendix F.
Round-table Discussion
The participants were asked to discuss their agreement or disagreement with the following four
points:
e The RGS Project should provide more information on energy storage devices and more
emphasis on enhancing the utilization of these devices, and/or find a better device.
e The government should support either an integrated or a modular system, but the decision
should meet defined user needs and application requirements.
e The project should use a contest format, in one or more levels, to choose who will receive
the bulk of the R&D money.
e The project should have a component focus, particularly emphasizing system-monitoring
and control components.
There was significant debate as to whether advanced storage components should be developed
and included in the proposed project. Flywheel developers stated that their technology was ready
to be integrated and should be part of the project. However, others believed that commercially-
available technologies (i.e., batteries) should be the focus of the RGS Project and that proper
integration of the storage technology would be the key to the Project’s success. Providing
information on storage, power electronics, and controls was also recognized as a key to
successful implementation of the Project, but there was no consensus on how to efficiently
perform this education.
One idea that was debated was the possibility of developing advanced, microprocessor-based
controllers that could sense the battery type and condition, and adjust or select the proper charge
characteristics and other control parameters to optimize system performance. Batteries could
identify themselves to the controller. Then the controller would perform system control based on
data describing the battery type that had been programmed into the controller’s memory. Or,
control regimes could be updated periodically, similar to the way computer software is updated
today. Thus the RGS Project could focus on the controller, software development, sensor
selection, and battery self-identification technologies.
ae
Energy Storage Industry Meeting
There was support for the Project to be market driven. However, cost implications may
encourage work on advanced components that have the best potential for lower ultimate cost.
There was little support for turnkey, integrated system development. Also, little support was
given for the contest format proposed at the PV industry meeting.
Survey Responses
Six of the approximately 50 surveys distributed at the energy storage industry meeting were
completed and returned. Some respondents, however, did not answer all of the questions. The
responses to each question are summarized below.
Question 1—What are your recommendations for the structure and implementation of the
RGS Project?
It was recommended that an RFP for the project include a well-defined problem related to
integrating storage with renewables “that will be useful to the market.” Then an open solicitation
should be requested. The RFP should not limit the solutions to those involving PV and lead-acid
batteries. One respondent suggested funding ‘“‘one to five demonstrations.” However, “no one
should try to get in the middle of ESA’s storage community and SEIA to resolve all of the RGS
project issues.” It was recommended that DOE facilitate a “face-to-face” meeting between the
stakeholder groups and provide staff to assist in a joint effort to define the RGS project.
One specific recommendation was to identify and document the technological impediments to
more widespread implementation of integrated technology. If this study indicates that the
batteries being used are the primary issue, then undertake a test program and develop a “smart”
battery.
Another specific recommendation suggested focusing on technologies with a “two-to-five year
time horizon,” including non-electrochemical storage technologies (such as flywheels and
SMES). The respondent also stated that cost-sharing should be a requirement for the proposed
project.
Question 2—Should the project be market driven?
All respondents agreed that the project should be market driven, or at least have a potential
market. One respondent cautioned that “in particular it needs to be understood that the end-user,
not the system integrator, is the customer,” when considering the market for the project.
Additionally, some respondents indicated that the market needed to be identified or defined
before the RFP was issued. During the PV industry meeting, representatives indicated that the
proposers should be responsible for identifying the market. An energy storage industry
representative indicated that the market identification/definition should be included as a part of
the proposed project, in other words provided by the RFP’s issuers rather than the proposers.
Question 3—Should DOE fund further R&D in batteries and advanced storage technologies
now even if this means postponing systems research?
Most respondents to this question indicated that systems research should be continued—
“systems integration is critical.” One considered research related to batteries and advanced
RT ETT A RC EE EN EDC APC SRE ORE SEES SFB STEN RE TPR
18
Energy Storage Industry Meeting
storage technologies as “micromanaging the process.” Another mentioned that R&D on batteries
and other storage technologies is already being well funded by programs for electric vehicles.
Some felt that systems research into developing methods to better integrate available
technologies with each other or to better understand which applications work best with each
other (for example, flywheels and motor generators) was especially necessary.
However, one respondent felt that additional battery research was necessary, even if that meant
less systems research—“Imagine if there were battery technologies that were a lot closer to
‘ideal’ (less idiosyncratic and limited)...Imagine a cheap integrated circuit device ‘smart’
charger that could control the interface between any source of supply and any battery.”
Question 4—How will DOE ensure that the proposed project does not interfere with current
industry initiatives?
Most respondents felt that by working closely with industry and with the stakeholder groups,
conflict with current industry initiatives could be avoided. It was suggested that organizations
such as CEC, EPRI, SEIA, and ESA review the RFP before it is sent out for bids. Additionally,
potential conflicts might be avoided by co-funding (with industry) test projects at the user’s site
or by “solely funding projects, such as testing, which create results that can be widely used by all
stakeholders, but that suppliers can’t afford.” However, one respondent felt that there was no
way DOE could avoid interfering with current initiatives if the project “is designed to solve a
problem that the military hasn’t already solved and is offered in an open solicitation.” In other
words an open solicitation probably will produce bids that compete in some way with existing
initiatives.
Question 5—Should the proposed project be combined with current initiatives of the Federal
Government and national laboratories?
Responses to this question were evenly split among the four who answered it. From the
responses, it appeared that a “combination” of programs would not necessarily be the best
approach and that a “‘collaboration” or possibly “coordination” where the projects remain
autonomous, but share information would be better received. One respondent suggested that
“Joint reviews” be used to “verify that the collaboration is taking place.”
Question 6—Should work focus on factory-integrated, turnkey systems or on modular
components that are integrated by the system suppliers?
Again, responses to this question were mixed. It appeared that many supported component
research, but also felt that a “system approach” was necessary to determine which components
work best in specific types of systems. Once respondent voiced strong support for “factory-
integrated turnkey systems that are ‘black boxes’ to users,” but also stated that “module
development may be necessary to get a good ‘black box’.”” Another respondent stated that the
focus should be defined by the problem...in other words, “just have an open solicitation for
solutions to a well-defined problem.”
19
Energy Storage Industry Meeting
For Questions 7 through 9, respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the
statement on a scale of 1 to 5 (strongly disagree through strongly agree) and provide supporting
comments.
Question 7—More information on energy storage devices, more emphasis on enhancing the
utilization of these devices, and/or find a better device.
Most respondents agreed or agreed strongly with this statement (three answered “5”, one
answered “4’’) and one strongly disagreed. The respondent who disagreed felt that EPRI and
storage device manufacturers had already published a substantial amount of information. One of
the respondents who strongly agreed with providing information stated that no effort should be
made to “find a better device.”
Question 8—Government should support either an integrated or a modular system, but the
decision should be market driven.
Most respondents felt that the decision should be market driven, but one disagreed with the idea
of supporting one type of approach or the other and suggested an open solicitation. Additionally,
one respondent felt that a market-needs analysis should be done first and that this analysis would
show that “integrated systems are desirable.”
Question 9—Use a contest format to choose who will receive the bulk of the R&D money. The
roject should have a component focus, particularly emphasizing system-monitorin,
components.
Support for the contest format was minimal. One respondent agreed (“4’”) another made no
comment (“3”). Two respondents disagreed with the statement ( one answered “no” but did not
provide a quantifying number answer, the other answered “1”). Of those who disagreed, one
stated that “there should be no big prize and a few demonstrations.” Of those who agreed, one
stated that there should be “limits” to the contest format. This respondent, however, disagreed
that the contest should have a component focus.
Question 10—Another group suggested that system designers and integrators would find
useful a handbook or guide that contained detailed specifications for many different types of
batteries. Do you feel that such a handbook is necessary/desirable? If so, and if you represent
a battery manufacturer, would your company be willing to provide batteries for testing to
support such a handbook?
Of the respondents who answered this question, only one stated that it would be “a waste of time
and effort.” The other responses were lukewarm at best—‘maybe this is desirable,” “I think such
a handbook would be nice...” One respondent suggested “providing a number of case
studies/post-mortems of actual field experiments for lessons learned, identifying actual problems
that need to be addressed, and education.” Another felt that having battery suppliers/experts
participate on a system development team would be more useful. The suggestion was made to
include ultracapacitor information if the handbook was prepared.
20
SNL RGS Recommendations Meeting
A meeting was held in Albuquerque, NM on January 5, 1998 to develop a set of options for
defining the RGS Project. Attending were Paul Butler, Chris Cameron, Nancy Clark (facilitator),
John Stevens, Garth Corey, and Tom Hund of SNL and Amber Gray-Fenner (technical
writer/report editor). The meeting was a facilitated round-table discussion to consider the
recommendations and feedback described in the previous two sections of this report. The goal
was to use industry’s recommendations and the available expertise to create potential directions
for the proposed RGS Project. The resulting potential projects are presented below, followed by
SNL recommendations for the proposed RGS Project.
Potential RGS Projects
The meeting participants proposed the following five ideas as potential tasks for the RGS
Project. Each idea will be discussed below:
e Prepare a storage technology handbook for renewable systems.
e Analyze (and/or gather) data from currently fielded systems and/or purchase a limited
number of existing integrated packages and perform field tests.
e Issue an RFP for the first phase of a multi-phase project. The goal of the first phase
would be to identify user needs and application requirements for improved integration of
renewables with storage systems.
e Perform research into strategies and software development for advanced system control.
e Perform in-house testing on improved storage components.
Prepare a Storage Technology Handbook
The idea for a handbook was originally suggested at SOLTECH 97 and at the PV industry
meeting. The handbook would be a “living document,” published on the World Wide Web, with _
print copies available by request. The target audience for the handbook would be renewables
system integrators, component manufacturers, and system maintenance personnel. The purpose
of the handbook would be to:
e Define renewable applications and the issues involved with integrating storage
technologies with renewables,
e Provide detailed characterization of a variety of available batteries and other storage
devices in an unambiguous manner, and
e Function as a guide that can be used by system integrators to assist in system design.
It was agreed that information on all storage technologies should eventually be included in the
handbook but, because batteries are the most common near term solution for integrating storage
with renewables, the handbook should initially focus on providing information about batteries.
For the initial publication, it was recommended that the emphasis be on collecting and publishing
battery data currently available. Some of this information exists in manufacturers’ marketing
material and must be restructured in a way that is useful for comparison. Once the available data
has been collected it will be supplemented with test data specific to renewable applications.
Ideally, the handbook would address the most common battery types: flooded lead-acid and
VRLA (glass mat and gel). It would address safety issues, specifically the safe use and
21
SNL Recommendations
LEE EEE
maintenance of batteries (watering, venting, cleaning, etc.) and provide information on which
batteries are best/worst suited for particular applications (beginning with the manufacturers’
recommendations for appropriate use of the battery). The handbook should also provide
information on the load profiles, depth-of-discharge, and proper operating temperatures for the
various batteries; the environmental effects on battery efficiency and life; and charging options
available for the batteries, including the effect of particular charging regimes and duty cycles on
the batteries’ efficiency and life.
Analyze (and/or Gather) Data from Currently Fielded Systems and/or Purchase a Limited
Number of Existing Integrated Packages and Perform Field Tests
This option would identify where integrated RGS systems exist and where they are located, then
go to the site and gather data or obtain data from existing monitoring systems. The results of the
data analysis would be used to provide an assessment of systems that have been in the field for a
while. The systems would not be tested under similar conditions, but the data obtained would be
based on how the systems are actually being used (or abused).
If existing systems are not appropriate for this purpose, another approach would be to purchase a
limited number of existing integrated packages and perform systems tests in the field under
controlled conditions. This testing would facilitate an “apples to apples” type comparison of
different integrated RGS systems. If the systems perform adequately, the results would be
published. If not, the results would still be published, but they would include an identification of
the problems and shortcomings of the various systems. The results of the tests would also be
analyzed to identify possible development ideas for addressing the problems and shortcomings.
Issue an RFP for the First Phase of a Multi-phase Project to Identify Future User Needs and
Application Requirements for Improved Integration of Renewables with Storage Systems
The work identified in the RFP would have two goals—First, to define the present and future
needs of existing users of RGS systems and second to determine application requirements of
RGS systems that would meet these needs.
The RFP will define work that will be considered Phase One of an RGS project that could
eventually include issuing an RFP for developing and testing an integrated renewable system,
should a need and application be identified. It is thought that by including and funding this
“needs analysis” as part of the entire RGS Project, rather than requiring that bidders for future
phases of the Project supply (and fund) the needs analysis themselves, a larger number of bidders
will be encouraged to compete for the RFP. It will also help those who are reviewing the
proposals to determine if a particular bid or system competes with established products (which
was a major concer of industry). Finally, it will also help to determine the potential number of
users for the products that are found to not compete with existing products. The ability to
estimate the number of potential users for the proposed products is essential to ensuring that the
system developed by the final RFP be “market driven” as expressed in the earlier meetings.
To adequately define user needs and application requirements, Phase One must consider the
maintainability of existing systems, the most common operating environments for the systems,
and the load characteristics of the present applications. It would describe what would be
considered ideal for “cookie cutter” systems that could be provided to the widest segment
oS RES RR AE TERESA HEY SAAT ATE SAB IEE ADO
22
SNL Recommendations
potential users. It is possible that a few different systems may be required depending on the
environment and load issues. The work should also identify the competition that already exists
for the users and applications being described. Identifying the competition will allow program
management to decide if funding additional R&D in these areas would provide an unfair
advantage to competitors or interfere with initiatives that are already funded, or products that are
being sold by industry. Once the users’ needs and applications requirements have been defined,
the work should then identify where certain needs are not being adequately addressed and
provide recommendations (system design) on how these needs could be filled. The work could
also discuss and provide ideas for solutions to what is seen as lacking or the major problems in
certain existing applications.
Specific recommendations for Phase One were also discussed. It was suggested that small grants
or contracts be awarded for work on Phase One, then additional funding for later phases would
be awarded to a small number of teams that had exceptional insights and recommendations. It
was also suggested that the RFP for Phase One require bidders to focus on entry into a new
application or area, rather than on an area that already has “healthy competition” or is already
being funded by another program. For example, small-residential and telecommunications
applications are already being funded by the PVMat program. The new project could address
village-scale applications. By focusing on village-scale projects, additional funding for the
project might be available from the World Bank, which is apparently looking for support from
the national laboratories for small, remote systems.
Research Software Development for Advanced System Control
Another idea was for the project to address the issue of remote system monitoring and control.
Currently, individual manufacturers or system integrators provide the software used for
monitoring and controlling the systems and it is different for each system. One participant
thought that with appropriate research and planning, “one-size-fits-all” software could be
developed that could be used by all systems.
Ultimately, the software would be developed to accommodate all possible types of storage
technologies, renewable energy sources, and the sensors used for remote monitoring and control
of the system. When a system is manufactured or integrated, the appropriate parameters would
be entered into the software which would then provide the appropriate level of remote control
and monitoring for those components.
Perform In-house Battery Testin,
Testing could be performed to supplement the data available in the handbook or it could be
funded as a separate project. Any testing performed would likely have to be cost-shared by
participating manufacturers. One participant suggested that data on gel batteries would be
especially useful. The question was asked “how do we facilitate testing and communicate the
results.” This question essentially brought the group back to the idea of a handbook (for
communicating the results).
23
SNL Recommendations
SNL Recommendations
The meeting participants recommended a three-pronged approach for the RGS Project. The three
areas of emphasis are as follows (in priority order): prepare the handbook, provide an analysis of
existing field test data, and issue an RFP for work to define the present and future needs of
existing users and application requirements. These three efforts should be started in parallel.
Based on the output of these projects, it might be expected that some laboratory testing, field
testing, or software development may follow as a result, but not until justified by the “up front”
work and not until such testing and/or development could be more accurately specified as
meeting an industry need. These recommendations will be presented to DOE for consideration
before initiating the RGS Project.
24
Appendix A—ESSP Overview
Slide 1—
Slide 2—
U.S. Department of Energy
Overview of the
Energy Storage Systems
Program
DOE RGS Project Meeting
September 30, 1997
Paul C. Butler for
Christine E. Platt, Ph.D.,
DOE/ESS Program Manager
@ Vision
Energy storage will be highly valuable in enabling
the 21st century utility, in a competitive
environment, to efficiently provide low-cost,
reliable, environmentally-benign service to a
broad spectrum of electricity users.
A-1
Appendix A—ESSP Overview
Slide 3—
Slide 4—
@ ESS Program History
1970s
1980s
1990s
NOW
Development of diverse components
Emphasis on battery storage subsystems
Integration and demonstration of turnkey
systems
User focus in development of integrated
storage systems
@ ESS Program Drivers
VW @ =
May S 4 2 > 4, fis
az
RELIABILITY...
ensuring quality power and reliability for end-users
RENEWABLES...
enabling the increased utilization of wind and
photovoltaic power
PRODUCTIVITY...
enhancing productivity by increasing efficiency and
cost effectiveness
Appendix A—ESSP Overview
Slide 5—
Slide 6—
@ ESS Program Scope
Broad Technology Base
o Batteries v Power Electronics
» Component & System v SMES
Controls » Ultracapacitors
v Flywheels
Applications Focus
v Power Quality v Transportable Systems
v Telecommunications v Renewable Generation
v Peak Shaving
@ ESS Program Elements
Integration Components
Transportable Systems Storage Component Development Renewable Systems
Mid-Voltage Systems
Field Evaluations
Power Electronics Research
Component Evaluation
Analysis
Benefits and Applications Studies
Renewables Studies
Technology Studies
Appendix A—ESSP Overview
Slide 7—
@ Focus on Integration
Integrated, modular, turnkey systems:
v Offer potential cost reduction as low as
$500-750 / kW with volume production
v Improve performance and increase reliability
v Provide seamless transfer
v Use components designed to optimize cost, size, and performance
v Can incorporate standard parts
v Directly address utility & customer applications
Slide 8—
PV / Energy Storage Integrated Systems
v Three ranges represent many applications
« 1-4 kW (residential)
e 10-30 kW (telecom)
¢ 100-300 kW (village)
v Standard integrated systems offer potential cost
and reliability advantages with well matched
components
v Interest by industry is critical to product
development
A-4
Appendix A—ESSP Overview
Slide 9—
Slide 10—
@ ESS Renewables Initiatives
The Following Ongoing ESS Renewables Initiatives:
v Study to Identify High Value Applications and
Qualify the Benefits of Storage With Renewables
v White Peper on the Status of Storage With Renewables for on and off-grid Applications
v ESS Sandia Technical Expertise Supporting
DOE Renewable Programs
v Meetings to Gather Industry Feedback and
Guidance
. .. Establish a Framework for the RGS Project
Renewable Generation and
Storage (RGS) Project
RGS will result in the:
v Design
v Fabrication
v Testing
Of a Pre-Prototype, Integrated System
The ESS Program Expects To:
v Cost-Share Development
v Partner with the Renewables and Electronics
Industries
Appendix A—ESSP Overview
Slide 11—
Slide 12—
A-6
Stakeholder Input
Common opinions expressed during more than
20 meetings with industry executives in 1996:
v Concern about future in a competitive arena
v Perception of power quality as largest near-term market
v Interest in low-cost options
v Interest in storage-based products and
services
Stakeholder Meetings
Executives from the following industries
provided valuable input:
Investor-owned utilities: Electric cooperatives: Industry associations:
Potomac Electric Power Allegheny Electricity Consumers
Northem States Power Oglethorpe Resource Council (ELCON)
in Power & Li It Ri International Lead Zine Indianapolis Power & Light Salt River Project ot ee
Southern California Edison Manufacturers: Netlansal Raval Mectiic
Central & South West AC Battery Cooperative Association
Public Service of New Mexico Exide Electronics Solar Energy Industries
Southern Company GNB Technologies Cat ee ise! Independent Power
Superconductivity Inc -
Trace/Kenetech
Appendix B—Photovoltaic Industry Meeting Participants
Name Organization Phone/ E-mail
Fax
Paul Butler Sandia 505-844-7874/ pcbutle@sandia.gov
505-844-6972
Tim Ball APE 360-438-2110 tball@appliedpower.com
Herb Hayden APS 602-250-3012/ hhayden@aps.com
602-250-3872
Steve Hester UPVG 202-857-0898/ shester@ttcorp.com
202-223-85537
Byron Stafford NREL 303-384-6426/ byron_stafford@nrel.gov
303-384-6490
Mike Stern VPG 818-700-1995/ utilpwrgrp@aol.com
818-700-2518
Juris Kaless ASE Americas 978-667-5900 jpkasepv@aol.com
x 293
Tom Hund Sandia 505-844-8627 tdhund@sandia.gov
Holly Thomas NREL 303-384-6400/ thomash@tcpiink.nrel.gov
303-384-6490
Clay Aldrich Siemens Solar 805-388-6256/ caldrich@solarpv.com
805-388-6395
Hans Meyer Omnion 414-642-7200/ hmeyer@omnion.com
414-642-7760
Chris Cameron Sandia 505-844-8161/ cpcamer@sandia.gov
505-844-6541
Jim Drizos Trojan Battery 800-423-6569 tbcemrtg@aol.com
x 300
Jim Rannels DOE 202-586-1720/
202-586-8148
Bill Brooks N.C. Solar Center 919-515-7147/ bill_brooks@ncsu.edu
919-515-5778
Jim Trotter S.ES. 805-963-9667/ trotter_ses@aol.com
805-963-9929
Michael Orians The Solar 805-772-8601/ solar.connection@thegrid.net
Connection 805-772-8722
Wayne Taylor U.S. Navy 760-939-2323 wayne_taylor@chinalake.navy.mil
Mike Behnke Trace 510-455-3269/ mrbehnke@aol.com
Technologies 510-455-3323
Ward Bower Sandia 505-844-5206/ wibower@sandia.gov
Shiva Swaminathan
Edward Kem
Rob Wills
Pete Eckert
Garth Corey
Nancy Clark
Sentech, Inc.
Ascension
Technology
Advanced Energy
Systems
PB Specialties
Sandia
Sandia
505-844-6541
301-654-7224/
301-654-7832
781-684-6101/
781-890-2050
603-654-9372/
603-654-9324
602-587-7445/
602-587-7470
505-844-1722/
505-844-6972
505-845-8056/
505-844-6972
shiva@sentech.org
ekern@ascensiontech.com
twills@advancedenergy.com
peckert@goodpet.com
gpcorey@sandia.gov
nhclark@sandia.gov
Appendix C—Photovoltaic Industry Meeting Agenda
Note: This appendix was recreated from the original document.
12:00
12315
12:45
1:45
2:00
2:15
4:15
4:30
RENEWABLE GENERATION AND STORAGE MEETING
Tuesday, September 30, 1997
Agenda
Introductions (with lunch)
ESS Program Overview & Renewables Tasks
Panel- Renewables Industry Needs for Storage
New Storage Products for Renewable Systems
Proposed RGS Project Outline
Round-table discussion to collect industry
feedback and ideas
Wrap-up and summary of key issues
Adjourn
Chris Cameron, SNL
Paul Butler, SNL
Clay Aldrich, Siemens Solar,
Chair
Tim Ball, APC
Sam Edwards, DOD
Herb Hayden, APS
Mike Stern, UPG
Jim Drizos, Trojan Battery
Garth Corey, SNL
Nancy Clark, SNL, Facilitator
Nancy Clark, SNL, Facilitator
C-1
Appendix D—Energy Storage Industry Meeting Participants
Name Organization Phone/ E-mail
Fax
Abbas Akhil Sandia 505-844-3353/ aaakhil@sandia.gov
505-844-6972
Ed Beardsworth UFTO 650-328-5670/ edbeards@ufto.com
650-328-5675
James Beck SEIA 202-383-2603/ jbeck@seia.org
202-383-2670
Michael Behnke Trace 510-455-3269/
Technologies 510-455-3323
Paul Butler Sandia 505-844-7874/ pcbutle@sandia.gov
505-844-6972
Dr. Jerome Cole ILZRO 919-361-4647/ jcole@ilzro.org
Gene Cook
Garth Corey
David DaCosta
Doug Danley
Craig Driscoll
Steven Eckroad
Les Fairchild
Robert Flemming
Robert Hall
Brian T. Highsmith
George Hunt
Jonathan Hurwitch
Joe Iannucci
Kurt Klunder
Pramod Kulkami
Jody Lenihan
Howard Lowitt
Nick Magnani
Mark McGough
Mark Mcllyar
Yuasa-Exide
Sandia
Ergenics
Orion Energy
Beacon Power
EPRI
Georgia Power
AC Battery
Holec Power
Protection
SWITCH
Technologies
GNB
Technologies
SWITCH
Technologies
Distributed Utility
Associates
SENTECH
California Energy
Commission
Atlas Engineering
Energetics, Inc.
Yuasa-Exide
Maxwell Energy
Products
Active Power
919-361-1957
215-941-3700/
215-941/2304
505-844-1722/
505-844-6972
973-962-4480/
973-962-4325
301-831-1212/
301-831-1337
617-349-0839/
617-661-3373
415-855-1066/
415-855-8997
404-526-7312/
404-526-2669
414-652-7416/
414-642-2836
281-240-5335/
281-240-4744
301-951-3223/
301-951-3235
630-69 1-7813/
630-691-7827
301-951-3223/
301-951-3235
510-447-0604/
510-447-0601
301-654-7224/
301-654-7832
916-654-4637/
916-653-6010
714-994-5639/
714-994-8610
410-290-0370/
410-290-0377
610-208-1857/
610-208-1630
619-996-4109/
619-576-7972
512-836-6464
cookejr@aol.com
gpcorey@sandia.gov
dacosta@warwick.net
drdanley@orionenergy.com
driscoll@satc.com
seckroad@epri.com
les.s.fairchild@gpc.com
rohall@aol.com
bhighsmi@switch.smart.net
geohun@gnb.com
jwitch@switch.smart.net
dua@ix.netcom.com
kklunder@sentech.org
pkularn@energy.ca.us
jplen@aol.com
mmcgough@maxwell.com
D-1
Appendix D—Energy Storage Industry Meeting Participants
Name Organization Phone/ E-mail
Fax
Ben Mehta Mehta Associates 408-446-3982/ bhupen.mehta@mailexcite.com
408-446-2417
Hans Meyer Omnion Power 414-642-7200/ omnion@execpc.com
Engineering 414-642-7760
Benjamin Norris Gridwise 510-838-2448/ bnorris@gridwise.com
Engineering 510-838-2622
Company
Donald Osbourn Sacramento 916-732-6679/ dosborn@smud.org
Municipal Utility 916-732-6243
District
Philip Overholt USDOE 202-586-8110/ philip.overholt@hq.doe.gov
202-586-8148
Anthony Price National Power 011-44-1793- anthonyprice@natpower.com
896255/
011-44-1793-
896321
John Price Texas Energy 512-471-4496/ jprice@mail.utexas.edu
Coordinating $12-471-0781
Council
Brad Roberts AC Battery 414-642-7416/
414-642-2836
Rex Roehl Commonwealth 630-663-5728/ roehira@ccmail.ecco.com
Edison 630-663-5265
Dr. David A Rohy California Energy 916-654-4930/ drohy@sna.com
Commission 916-654-4420
Chaim Salamon Gridwatch.Com 510-558-0514/ hsalamon@gridwatch.com
510-838-2622
Greg Sasser SAFT America 912-245-2836/ greg.sasser@saftamerica.com
912-247-8486
Susan Schoenug Distributed Utility 510-447-0604/
Associates 510-447-0601
Richard Schweinberg = Southern 818-812-7631/ schweirn@sce.com
California Edison 818-812-7646
Rajat Sen SENTECH 301-654-7224/ tksen@sentech.org
301-654-7832
R.B. Sloan Crescent Electric 704-878-5100/
Membership 704-924-9120
Corporation
Mike Stern Utility Power 818-700-1995/
Group 818-700-2518
Shiva Swaminathan SENTECH 301-654-7224/ shiva@sentech.org
301-654-7832
Philip Symons EECI 408-778-8516/ philsymons@aol.com
408-778-8526
Rao Thallam Salt River Project 602-236-5481/ rsthalla@srp.gov
Laura Waltemath
Charles Ward
Eugene Weaver
Richard O. Winter
SWITCH
Technologies
Oglethorpe Power
Corporation
International
Computer Power
Powercell Corp.
602-236-5529
301-951-3223/
301-951-3235
770-270-7815/
770-270-7535
626-443-7557/
626-443-8189
617-374-9444/
617-374-9036
genew@rotoups.co
rwinter@powercell.com
Appendix D—Energy Storage Industry Meeting Participants
Name Organization Phone/ E-mail
Fax
Henry Zaininger Power 408-270-0955/
Technologies, Inc. 408-452-1838
Denise M. Zurn Northern States 612-330-6896/ denise.m.zurn.@nspco.com
Power Company 612-330-6590
Appendix E—Energy Storage Industry Meeting Agenda
Note: This appendix was recreated from the original document.
Energy Storage Association—Fall Meeting
“The value of energy storage in a restructured utility market.”
Tuesday, November 18 (continued)
Technology Forum (continued) __1:45 pm — 3:15 pm
Robert Hall, Holec, Incorporated
An Integrated Continuous Power Quality Solution
Mark Mellyar, Active Power
Lee McLane, Precise Power Corporation
Mike Stern, Utility Power Group
UPG Renewable/Storage Projects
ESA Business and Products 3:30 pm — 5:00 pm_
e Board Summary/Board Elections — Phil Symons, ESA Chairman
e ESA Business Plan ’98 — Jon Hurwitch, ESA Executive Director
Laura Waltemath, ESA Projects Director
e ESA Products — Jon Hurwitch/ Brian Highsmith, ESA Coordinator
-ESADinner sCi(‘(CCSCé 00 pm = 8:00 pr “Opportunities for Industry in the US Department of Energy/
Sandia National Laboratories Renewable Storage (RGS) Project”
GUEST SPEAKERS
Mr. Philip Overholt, Program Staff (Energy Storage and Million Solar Roofs Initiative)
US Department of Energy
ESS Overview
Mr. Paul Butler, Program Manager, Energy Storage Systems
Sandia National Laboratories
RGS Feedback
Appendix F—Energy Storage Industry Survey
Energy Storage Systems Program
Renewable Generation and Storage Project
Energy Storage Association Questionnaire
Background and Instructions
The Office of Utility Technologies at the United States Department of Energy is considering
funding an R&D project that would focus on integrating renewable energy technologies, such as
photovoltaics, with energy storage systems, such as batteries.
The Energy Storage Systems Program at Sandia National Laboratories would like your
assistance in determining if a need for such a project exists, and, if so, what direction the project
should take. Please complete the following survey and return it to Paul Butler. The staff of
Energy Storage Systems Program appreciate your input and encourage comments and discussion
on all of the survey questions. Use additional pages if necessary.
RGS Project Survey Questions
1. What are your recommendations for the structure and implementation of the RGS
Project?
2. Another group made suggestions that included a set of questions to be resolved. Please
answer the following questions and provide supporting comments.
Should the project be market driven?
Appendix F—Energy Storage Industry Survey
Should DOE fund further R&D in batteries and advanced storage technologies now even if
this means postponing systems research?
How will DOE ensure that the proposed project does not interfere with current industry
initiatives?
Should the proposed project be combined with current initiatives of the Federal Government
and national laboratories?
Should work focus on factory-integrated, turnkey systems or on modular components that are
integrated by the system suppliers?
Appendix F—Energy Storage Industry Survey
———z{[———————E—EEE——E——E——————EEE
3. The previous group made the following four key points. Please indicate your level of
agreement with each point and provide supporting comments.
1—Strongly Disagree
2—Disagree
3—No Comment
4—Agree
5—Strongly Agree
More information on energy storage devices/more emphasis on enhancing the utilization of
these devices, and/or find a better device.
Government should support either an integrated or a modular system, but the decision
should be market driven.
Use a contest format, to choose who will receive the bulk of the R&D money.
The project should have a component focus, particularly emphasizing system-monitoring
components.
Appendix F—Energy Storage Industry Survey
4. The other group suggested that system designers and integrators would find useful a
handbook or guide that contained detailed specifications for many different types of
batteries. Do you feel that such as handbook is necessary/desirable? If so, and if you
represent a battery manufacturer, would your company be willing to provide batteries
for testing to support such a handbook?
Thank you for your participation. Please return your completed survey to Paul Butler.
F-4
Appendix G—Acronyms and Abbreviations
AC: alternating current
APC: Applied Power Corporation
CEC: California Energy Commission
DC: direct current
DOD: Department of Defense
DOE: Department of Energy
EPRI: Electric Power Research Institute
ESA: Energy Storage Association
ESSP: Energy Storage Systems Program
MSDS: material safety data sheet
NEC: National Electric Code
NREL: National Renewable Energy Laboratory
PV: photovoltaic(s)
PVMat: “PV Manufacturing Technology” (NREL-sponsored PV program)
PVBonus: “Building Opportunities in the US for Photovoltaics” (DOE/Golden Field Office-
sponsored PV program)
R&D: research and development
RFP: request for proposal
RGS: renewable generation and storage
SEIA: Solar Energy Industries Association
SMES: superconducting magnetic energy storage
SNL: Sandia National Laboratories
SOW: statement of work
G-1
Appendix G—Acronyms and Abbreviations
UPG: Utility Power Group
UPS: uninterruptible power supply
VRLA: valve-regulated lead-acid
Appendix H—References
1. Paul C. Butler. Energy Storage Systems Program Report for FY96. SAND97-1136,
April 1997.
2. Energy Storage Systems Program Multi-Year Program Plan FY1998-2002. DRAFT.
3. Dr. Christine Platt, Paula Taylor, Laura Charles, and Paul C. Butler. Report on the Energy
Storage Systems Program Executive Meetings Project. SAND97-2700, November 1997.
ABB Power T&D Co., Inc.
Atm: P. Danfors
16250 West Glendale Drive
New Berlin, WI 53151
American Electric Power Service Corp.
Attn: C. Shih
1 Riverside Plaza
Columbus, OH 43215
Applied Power Corporation
Attn: Tim Ball
Solar Engineering
1210 Homann Drive, SE
Lacey, WA 98503
Ascension Technology
Attn: Edward Kern
Post Office Box 6314
Lincoln Center, MA 01773
Anchorage Municipal Light & Power
Atm: Meera Kohler .
1200 East 1* Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
Bechtel Corporation
Attn: W. Stolte
P.O. Box 193965
San Francisco, CA 94119-3965
Berliner Kraft und Licht (BEWAG)
Attn: K. Kramer
Stauffenbergstrasse 26
1000 Berlin 30
GERMANY
Business Management Consulting
Attn: S. Jabbour
24704 Voorhees Drive
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
C&D Charter Power Systems, Inc. (2)
Attn: Dr. Sudhan S. Misra
Attn: Dr. L.Holden
Washington & Cherry Sts.
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Distribution
Argonne National Laboratories (2)
Attn: W. DeLuca
G. Henriksen
CTD, Building 205
9700 South Cass Avenue
Argonne, IL 60439
Arizona Public Service (2)
Attn: R. Hobbs
Herb Hayden
400 North Fifth Street
P.O. Box 53999, MS-8931
Phoenix, AZ 85072-3999
AVO International
Attn: Gary Markle
510 Township Line Rd.
Blue Bell, PA 19422
Babcock & Wilcox
Attn: Glenn Campbell
P.O. Box 785
Lynchburg, VA 24505
California State Air Resources Board
Attn: J. Holmes
Research Division
P.O. Box 2815
Sacramento, CA 95812
Calpine Corp.
Attn: R. Boucher
50 W. San Fernando, Ste. 550
San Jose, CA 95113
Chugach Electric Association, Inc. (2)
Attn: T. Lovas
J. Cooley
P.O. Box 196300
Anchorage, AK 99519-6300
Consolidated Edison (2)
Attn: M. Lebow
N. Tai
4 Irving Place
New York, NY 10003
Corn Belt Electric Cooperative
Attn: R. Stack
P.O. Box 816
Bloomington, IL 61702
Delphi Energy and Engine
Management Systems (3)
Attn: J. Michael Hinga
R. Galyen
R. Rider
P.O. Box 502650
Indianapolis, IN 46250
Alaska State Division Of Energy (3)
Attn: P. Frisbey
P. Crump
B. Tiedeman
333 West Fourth Ave, Suite 220
Anchorage, AK 99501-2341
EA Technology, Ltd.
Attn: J. Baker
Chester CH1 6ES
Capenhurst, England
UNITED KINGDOM
Eagle-Picher Industries
Attn: J. DeGruson
C & Porter Street
Joplin, MO 64802
Electrosource
Attn: Michael Dodge
P.O. Box 7115
Loveland, CO 80537
Eltech Research Corporation
Attn: Dr. E. Rudd
625 East Street
Fairport Harbor, OH 44077
Energetics, Inc. (3)
Attn: H. Lowitt
P. Taylor
L. Charles
7164 Gateway Drive
Columbia, MD 21046
Energetics, Inc. (4)
Attn: M. Farber
R. Scheer
J. Schilling
P. DiPietro
501 School St. SW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20024
Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc.
Attn: Greg J. Ball
353 Sacramento St., Suite 1540
San Francisco, CA 94111
International Energy Systems, Ltd.
Attn: G. Barker
Chester High Road
Nestor, South Wirral
L64 UE UK
UNITED KINGDOM
East Penn Manufacturing Co., Inc.
Attn: M. Stanton
Deka Road
Lyon Station, PA 19536
Electric Power Research Institute (3)
Attn: S. Chapel
S. Eckroad
R. Schainker
P. O. Box 10412
Palo Alto, CA 94303-0813
Electrochemical Engineering Consultants, Inc.
Attn: P. Symons
1295 Kelly Park Circle
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
Electrochemical Energy Storage Systems, Inc.
Attn: D. Feder
35 Ridgedale Avenue
Madison, NJ 07940
Energy Systems Consulting
Attn: A. Pivec
41 Springbrook Road
Livingston, NJ 07039
Firing Circuits, Inc.
Attn: J. Mills
P.O. Box 2007
Norwalk, CT 06852-2007
General Electric Company
Attn: N. Miller
Building 2, Room 605
1 River Road
Schenectady, NY 12345
General Electric Drive Systems
Attn: D. Daly
1501 Roanoke Blvd.
Salem, VA 24153
GE Industrial & Power Services
Attn: Bob Zrebiec
640 Freedom Business Center
King of Prussia, PA 19046
Giner, Inc.
Attn: A. LaConti
14 Spring Street
Waltham, MA 02254-9147
Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc.
Attn: S. Haagensen
Box 71249
758 Illinois Street
Fairbanks, AK 99701
GNB Technologies (3)
Industrial Battery Company
Attn: G. Hunt
J. Szymborski
R. Maresca
Woodlake Corporate Park
829 Parkview Blvd.
Lombard, IL 60148-3249
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (3)
Attn: E. Cairns
K. Kinoshita
F. McLarnon
University of California
One Cyclotron Road
Berkeley, CA 94720
Longitude 122 West
Attn: S. Schoenung
1241 Hobart St.
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Lucent Technologies
Attn: C. Mak
3000 Skyline Drive
Mesquite, TX 75149
Lucent Technologies, Inc.
Attn: J. Morabito
Director, Global Research and Development
P.O. Box 636
600 Mountain Avenue
Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636
GNB Technologies
World Headquarters
Attn: S. Deshpande’
375 Northridge Road
Atlanta, GA 30350
Hawaii Electric Light Co.
Attn: C. Nagata
P.O. Box 1027
Hilo, HI 96720
ILZRO (3)
Attn: J. Cole
P. Moseley
C. Parker
P.O. Box 12036
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Imperial Oil Resources, Ltd.
Attn: R. Myers
3535 Research Rd NW
Calgary, Alberta
CANADA T2L 2K8
Innovative Power Sources
Attn: Ken Belfer
1419 Via Jon Jose Road
Alamo, CA 94507
Metlakatla Power & Light
Attn: H. Achenbach
P.O. Box 359
Metlakatla, AK 99926
Micron Corporation
Attn: D. Nowack
158 Orchard Lane
Winchester, TN 37398
ZBB Technologies, LTD.
Attn: Robert J. Parry
Managing Director
16 Emerald Tce.
West Perth
Western Australia 6005
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (6)
Attn: L. Flowers
J. Green
S. Hock
R. DeBlasio
B. Stafford
H. Thomas
1617 Cole Blvd.
Golden, CO 80401-3393
New York Power Authority
Attn: B. Chezar
1633 Broadway
New York, NY 10019
NC Solar Center
Attn: Bill Brooks
Comer of Gorman and Western
Box 7401 NCSU
Raleigh, NC 27695-740
Northern States Power
Attn: D. Zurn
414 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, MN 55401
NPA Technology
Attn: Jack Brown
Suite 700, Two University Place
Durham, NC 27707
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (3)
Attn: B. Hawsey, Bldg. 3025, MS-6040
J. Stoval, Bldg. 3147, MS-6070
J, VanCoevering, Bldg. 3147, MS-6070
B. Kirby, Bldg. 3147, MS-6070
P.O. Box 2008
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
Public Service Company of New Mexico
Attn: J. Neal
Manager, Premium Power Services
Alvarado Square MS-BA52
Albuquerque, NM 87158
PEPCO
Attn: Brad Johnson
1900 Pennsylvania NW
Washington, DC 20068
Oglethorpe Power Company
Attn: C. Ward
2100 E. Exchange Place
P.O. Box 1349
Tucker, GA 30085-1349
Chief Technology Officer
Attn: Robert Wills
Advanced Energy Systems
Riverview Mill
Post Office Box 262
Wilton, NH 0308
Omnion Power Engineering Corporation
Attn: H. Meyer
2010 Energy Drive
P.O. Box 879
East Troy, WI 53120
Orion Energy Corp.
Attn: Doug Danley
10087 Tyler Place #5
Tjamsville, MD 21754
Public Service Company of New Mexico
Attn: R. Flynn
Senior Vice President
Alvarado Square MS-2838
Albuquerque, NM 87158
International Business and Technology
Services Inc.
Attn: J. Neal
Administrator Research and Development
9220 Tayloes Neck Rd.
Nanjemoy, MD 20662
Gridwise Engineering Company
Attn: B. Norris
121 Starlight Place
Danville, CA 94526
Pacific Northwest Laboratory (2)
Attn: J. DeSteese, K5-02
D. Brown
Battelle Blvd.
Richland, WA 99352
Power Technologies, Inc.
Attn: P. Prabhakara
1482 Erie Blvd.
P.O. Box 1058
Schenectady, NY 12301
Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority
Attn: W. Torres
G.P.O. Box 4267
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00936-426
Solar Electric Specialists Co.
Mr. Jim Trotter
232-Anacapa St.
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
ENERTEC
Attn: D. Butler
349 Coronation Drive
Auchenflower, Queensland, 4066
P.O. Box 1139 Milton BC Qld 4064
AUSTRALIA
Southern Company Services, Inc. (2)
Research and Environmental Affairs
14N-8195
Attn: B. R. Rauhe, Jr.
K. Vakhshoorzadeh
600 North 18” Street
P.O. Box 2625
Birmingham, Al 35202-2625
Trace Technologies (2)
Attn: Michael Behnke
W. Erdman
6952 Preston Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550
TRACE Engineering
Attn: B. Roppenecker
President
5916 195" Northeast
Arlington, Washington 98223
RMS Company
Attn: K. Ferris
87 Martling Ave.
Pleasantville, NY 10570
Powercell Corporation (2)
Attn: Reznor I. Orr
Rick Winter
10 Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Raytheon Engineers and Constructors
Attn: A. Randall
700 South Ash St.
P.O. Box 5888
Denver, CO 80217
Siemens Solar
Attn: Clay Aldrich
4650 Adohn Lane
Post Office Box 6032
Camarillo, CA 93011
R&D Associates
Attn: J. Thompson
2100 Washington Blvd.
Arlington, VA 22204-5706
California Energy Commission
Attn: Jon Edwards
1516 Ninth Street,.MS-46
Sacramento, CA 95814
Sentech, Inc. (2)
Attn: R. Sen
K. Klunder
4733 Bethesda Avenue, Suite 608
Bethesda, MD 20814
Sentech, Inc.
Attn: Robert Reeves
9 Eaton Road
Troy, NY 12180
Santa Clara University
Attn: Charles Feinstein, Ph.D.
Department of Decision and Information
Sciences
Leavey School of Business and
Administration
Santa Clara, CA 95053
SAFT Research & Dev. Ctr.
Attn: Guy Chagnon
107 Beaver Court
Cockeysville, MD 21030
Salt River Project (2)
Attn: H. Lundstrom
G.E. “Emie” Palomino, P.E.
MS PAB 357, Box 52025
Phoenix, AZ 85072-2025
Southern California Edison
Attn: R. N. Schweinberg
6070 N. Irwindale Ave., Suite I
Irwindale, CA 91702
Soft Switching Technologies
Attn: D. Divan
2224 Evergreen Rd., Ste. 6
Middleton, WI 53562
Solarex
Attn: G. Braun
630 Solarex Court
Frederick, MD 21701
The Solar Connection
Attn: Michael Orians
P.O. Box 1138
Morro Bay, CA 93443
Trojan Battery Company
Attn: Jim Drizos
12380-Clark Street
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
U.S. Department of Energy
Attn: C. Platt
EE-12 FORSTL
Washington, DC 20585
U.S. Department of Energy
Attn: K. Heitner
Office of Transportation Technologies
EE-32 FORSTL
Washington, DC 20585
U.S. Department of Energy
Attn: R. Brewer
EE-10 FORSTL
Washington, DC 20585
SEIA
Atm: S. Sklar
122 C Street NW
4" Floor
Washington, DC 20001-2104
SRI International
Attn: C. Seitz
333 Ravenswood Ave.
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Stored Energy Engineering (2)
Attn: George Zink
J.R. Bish
7601 E. 88" Place
Indianapolis, IN 46256
Stuart Kuritzky
347 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Superconductivity, Inc. (2)
Attn: Jennifer Billman
Michael Gravely
P.O. Box 56074
Madison, WI 53705-4374
Switch Technologies
Attn: J. Hurwitch
4733 Bethesda Ave., Ste. 608
Bethesda, MD 20814
Trace
Attn: Michael R. Behnke
6952 Precision Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550
U.S. Department of Energy
Attn: P. Patil
Office of Transportation Technologies
EE-32 FORSTL
Washington, DC 20585
U.S. Department of Energy
Attn: T. Duong
EE-32 FORSTL
Washington, DC 20585
U.S. Department of Energy
Attn: J. Daley
EE-12 FORSTL
Washington, DC 20585
U.S. Department of Energy
Attn: N. Rossmeissl
EE-13 FORSTL
Washington, DC 20585
U.S. Department of Energy
Attn:. Jim Rannels
Photovoltaic Program
EE-11 FORSTL
1000 Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, DC 20585-0121
U.S. Department of Energy
Attn: J. P. Archibald
EE-90 FORSTL
Washington, DC 20585
U.S. Department of Energy
Atm: M. B. Ginsberg
EE-90 FORSTL
Washington, DC 20585
U.S. Department of Energy
Attn.: G. Buckingham
Albuquerque Operations Office
Technology Development Division
P.O. Box 5400
Albuquerque, NM 87185
TU Electric
R&D Programs
Attn: James Fangue
P.O. Box 970
Fort Worth, TX 76101
University of Missouri - Rolla
Attn: M. Anderson
112 Electrical Engineering Building
Rolla, MO 65401-0249
U.S. Department of Energy
Attn: R. Eynon
Nuclear and Electrical Analysis Branch
EI-821 FORSTL
Washington, DC 20585
R. Weaver
777 Wildwood Lane
Palo Alto, CA 94303
U.S. Department of Energy
Attn: A. Jelacic
EE-12 FORSTL
Washington, DC 20585
U.S. Navy
Attn: Wayne Taylor
Code 83B000D
China Lake, CA 93555
U.S. Department of Energy
Attn: A. G. Crawley
EE-90 FORSTL
Washington, DC 20585
U.S. Department of Energy
Attn: P. N. Overholt
EE-11 FORSTL
Washington, DC 20585
U.S. Department of Energy
Attn: J. Cadogan
EE-11 FORSTL
Washington, DC 20585
U.S. Department of Commerce
Attn: Dr. Gerald P. Ceasar
Building 101, Rm 623
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
Virginia Power
Attn: Gary Verno
Innsbrook Technical Center
5000 Dominion Boulevard
Glen Ellen, VA 23233
Walt Disney World Design and Eng’g.
Attn: Randy Bevin
P.O. Box 10,000
Lake Buena Vista, FL 32830-1000
Yuasa-Exide, Inc. (3)
Attn: N. Magnani
F. Tarantino
G. Cook
P.O. Box 14145
2366 Bernville Road
Reading, PA 19612-4145
U.S. Department of Energy
Attn: A. Hoffman
Office of Utility Technologies
EE-10 FORSTL
Washington, DC 20585
U.S. Department of Energy
Attn: R. Eaton
Golden Field Office
1617 Cole Blvd.
Building 17
Golden, CO 80401
Westinghouse
Attn: Tom Matty
P.O. Box 17230
Baltimore, MD 21023
Westinghouse STC
Attn.: H. Saunders
1310 Beulah Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15235
W. R. Grace & Company
Attn.: S. Strzempko
62 Whittemore Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02140
Yuasa-Exide, Inc.
Atm: R. Kristiansen
35 Loch Lomond Lane
Middleton, NY 10941-1421
Crescent EMC
Attn: R. B. Sloan
Executive Vice President
P.O. Box 1831
Statesville, NC 28687
HL&P Energy Services
Attn: George H. Nolin, CEM, P.E.
Product Manager Premium Power Services
P.O. Box 4300
Houston, TX 77210-4300
UFTO
Attn: Edward Beardsworth
951 Lincoln Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301-3041
The Technology Group, Inc.
Attn: Tom Anyos
63 Linden Ave.
Atherton, CA 94027-2161
ZBB Technologies, Inc.
Attn: P. Eidler
11607 West Dearborn
Wauwatosa, WI 53226-3961
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Attn: Danielle Jaussaud
Competitive Issues Division
7800 Shoal Creek Boulevard
Austin, TX 78757
ECG Consulting Group, Inc.
Attn: Daniel R. Bruck
Senior Associate
55-6 Woodlake Road
Albany, NY 12203
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
Attn: Gerald J. Keane
Manager, Venture Development
Energy Management Division
4400 Alafaya Trail
Orlando, FL 32826-2399
The Brattle Group
Attn: Thomas J. Jenkin
44 Brattle Street
Cambridge, MA 02138-3736
Exide Electronics
Attn: John Breckenridge
Director, Federal Systems Division
8609 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27615
Northern States Power Company
Attn: Gary G. Karn, P.E.
Consultant Electric Services
1518 Chestnut Avenue North
Minneapolis, MN 55403
Frost & Sullivan (2)
Attn: Steven Kraft
Dave Coleman
2525 Charleston Road
Mountain View, CA 94043
Distributed Utility Associates
Attn: Joseph Iannucci
1062 Concannon Blvd.
Livermore, CA 94550
SAFT America, Inc.
Attn: Ole Vigerstol
National Sales Manager
711 Industrial Blvd.
Valdosta, GA 13601
American Superconductor Corporation
Attn: S. Amanda Chiu, P.E.
Manager, Strategic Marketing
Two Technology Drive
Westborough, MA 01581
University of Texas at Austin
Attn: John H. Price
Research Associate
Center for Electromechanics
J. J. Pickel Research Campus
Mail Code R7000
Austin, TX 78712
U.S. Department of Energy
Attn: W. Butler
PA-3 FORSTL
Washington, DC 20585
U.S. Department of Energy
Attn: J. A. Mazer
EE-11 FORSTL
Washington, DC 20585
VEDCO Energy
Attn: Rick Ubaldi
12 Agatha Lane
Wayne, New Jersey 07470
Intercon Limited (2)
Attn: David Warar
6865 Lincoln Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60646
Utility PhotoVoltaic Group
Attn: Steve Hester
1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-5802
Amber Gray-Fenner
7204 Marigot Rd. NW
Albuquerque, NM 87120
C&D Powercom
Attn: Larry S. Meisner
Manager Product Marketing
1400 Union Meeting Road
P.O. Box 3053
Blue Bell, PA 19422-0858
Tampa Electric Company
Attn: Terri Hensley, Engineer
P.O. Box 111
Tampa, FL 33601-0111
U.S. Department of Energy
Attn: R. J. King
EE-11 FORSTL
Washington, DC 20585
U.S. Department of Energy
Attn: A. O. Bulawka
EE-11 FORSTL
Washington, DC 20585
Southern California Edison
Attn: N. Pinsky
P.O. Box 800
2244 Walnut Grove Ave., Rm 418
Rosemead, CA 91770
U.S. Department of Energy
Attn: D. T. Ton
EE-11 FORSTL
Washington, DC 20585
U.S. Department of Energy
Attn: J. Galdo
EE-10 FORSTL
Washington, DC 20585
Queensland Department of Mines and Energy
Attn: N. Lindsay
Senior Project Officer
Energy Planning Division
GPO Box 194 Brisbane 4001, Qid. Australia
Utility Power Group
Attn: Mike Stern
9410-G DeSoto Avenue
Chatsworth, CA 91311-4947
MS-0513, MS-0953, MS-0953, MS-0741, MS-0212, MS-0340, MS-0343, MS-0613, MS-0613, MS-0614, MS-0613, MS-0614, MS-0613, MS-0614, MS-0614, MS-0614, MS-0614, MS-0613,
R. Eagan (1000)
W.E. Alzheimer (1500)
J.T. Cutchen (1501)
S. Varnado (6200)
A. Phillips, (10230)
J. Braithwaite (1832)
W. Cieslak (1832)
A. Akhil (1525)
D. Doughty (1521)
E. Binasiewicz (1522)
G. Corey (1525)
G.P. Rodriguez, (1523)
I. Francis (1525)
J.T. Crow (1523)
T. Unkelhaeuser (1523)
D. Mitchell (1522)
K. Grothaus (1523)
N. Clark (1525)
MS-0613 R. Jungst (1521)
MS-0704,
MS-0708,
MS-0752,
MS-0753,
MS-0753,
MS-0753,
MS-0753,
MS-1193,
MS-0614,
MS-0537,
MS-0613,
MS-0613,
MS-0619,
MS-0899,
MS-9018,
P.C. Klimas (6201)
H. Dodd (6214)
M. Tatro (6219)
C. Cameron (6218)
R. Bonn (6218)
T. Hund (6218)
W. Bower (6218)
D. Rovang (9531)
A Jimenez (1523)
S. Atcitty (2314)
J.D. Guillen (1525)
P. Butler (1525) (20)
Review & Approval Desk For DOE/OSTI (12690) (2)
Technical Library (4916) (2)
Central Technical Files (8940-2)