EETD Communications

This article was also published as a press release on the Berkeley Lab Newscenter website (newscenter.lbl.gov).

Today marks the start of a new era for research on energy-efficient buildings at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab). Lab leadership and distinguished guests from the U.S. Department of Energy, the state of California, utilities and the building industry broke ground on the start of construction for the Facility for Low-Energy eXperiments on Buildings (FLEXLAB).

“Our new FLEXLAB facility will open the doors to many new ideas on how we can reduce energy consumed by buildings. Today, buildings are responsible for about 40 percent of our nation’s greenhouse gas emissions,” says Ashok Gadgil, director of Berkeley Lab’s Environmental Energy Technologies Division (EETD).  “Finding new, advanced, building technologies should help us save up to 80 percent on new construction.”

“FLEXLAB will be the most advanced heavily-instrumented facility for developing and validating the performance of new energy-efficient building controls and technologies in the U.S.,” says Cindy Regnier, Technical Manager of the FLEXLAB facility. “By allowing scientists, the building industry, and the architecture and engineering community a chance to change out and combine building components to develop them as integrated systems, FLEXLAB will allow its users to develop low-energy-use building designs whose total energy savings will be greater than the additive savings of the individual components.”

Read the rest: http://eetd.lbl.gov/news/article/30481/berkeley-lab-breaks-ground-on-flexible-design-building-to-test-low-energy-systems

ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects – Energy) has announced 66 research grants to develop transformational energy technologies. Two projects were awarded to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) researchers. Researchers from Berkeley Lab’s Environmental Energy Technologies Division (EETD) will also participate in a third project awarded to the University of California, Berkeley.

Three-dimensional maps of commercial buildings improve energy efficiency

Philip Haves, leader of EETD’s Simulation Research Group will lead a project to develop the sensing and computer hardware for generating physical and thermal maps of the interiors of buildings. The goal of Rapid Automated Modeling and Simulation of Existing Buildings for Energy Efficiency is to reduce the energy consumption of existing commercial buildings through computer simulation of building energy use. The project will receive up to $1.9 million in funding.

Read the rest: http://eetd.lbl.gov/news/article/30468/new-arpa-e-projects-will-advance-efficient-buildings-windows-electric-grid

Open Automated Demand Response (OpenADR)—the standard for open automation of building electricity demand response and price communications—has gained considerable attention since it emerged from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s (Berkeley Lab’s) Demand Response Research Center in 2002. This non-proprietary DR interface facilitates open, standardized communication that enables power providers and managers to securely communicate wholesale and retail price and reliability as well as DR program information with customers using existing electronic communications. Developed as an effective means for DR service providers to maintain grid reliability and for customers to benefit (and profit from) demand reduction, OpenADR is now becoming an integral component of the U.S. and international Smart Grid.

Read the rest: http://eetd.lbl.gov/news/article/30469/openadr-continues-to-move-the-smart-grid-forward

The U.S. Department of Energy today announced that it was awarding a $120 M Energy Storage Hub to a consortium led by Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), with the participation of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab). Scientists in the Environmental Energy Technologies Division (EETD) of Berkeley Lab will play a lead role in the battery research hub.

Read the Department of Energy and the Berkeley Lab press releases below.

Venkat Srinivasan, the Head of EETD’s Energy Storage and Distributed Resources Department, notes that the Hub will take a different approach to developing the next generation of batteries.

“The current practice is to pick a particular set of materials for the anode, cathode and electrolyte, and conduct R&D to see how these materials performs in terms of improving the energy density of the battery, cycle life, and other parameters,” says Srinivasan. “But this has led to an improvement of only about five percent per year in battery energy density. To meet the energy challenges facing us, we need a revolution in battery energy density, cost, and lifetime.”

He adds: “In the hub, we’ll be bringing together a diverse group of scientists in chemistry, materials sciences, engineering, computational science, and others—some with battery research experience and some who are new to the field—and we’ll focus on the mechanisms of energy storage in batteries. Instead of the specific material focus, we’ll look at the mechanism as a whole and ask broad questions that no one has ever asked before.  We hope that answering these questions will lead to new battery materials that no one has dreamed of.“

Here’s the start of the Department of Energy release:

WASHINGTON – U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu was joined today by Senator Dick Durbin, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel to announce that a multi-partner team led by Argonne National Laboratory has been selected for an award of up to $120 million over five years to establish a new Batteries and Energy Storage Hub. The Hub, to be known as the Joint Center for Energy Storage Research (JCESR), will combine the R&D firepower of five DOE national laboratories, five universities, and four private firms in an effort aimed at achieving revolutionary advances in battery performance. Advancing next generation battery and energy storage technologies for electric and hybrid cars and the electricity grid are a critical part of President Obama’s all-of-the-above energy strategy to reduce America’s reliance on foreign oil and lower energy costs for U.S. consumers.

“This is a partnership between world leading scientists and world leading companies, committed to ensuring that the advanced battery technologies the world needs will be invented and built right here in America,” said Secretary Chu.  “Based on the tremendous advances that have been made in the past few years, there are very good reasons to believe that advanced battery technologies can and will play an increasingly valuable role in strengthening America’s energy and economic security by reducing our oil dependence, upgrading our aging power grid, and allowing us to take greater advantage of intermittent energy sources like wind and solar.”

“This new Hub brings together, under a single organizational roof, the world’s leading scientists, engineers and manufacturers in energy storage and provides them with the tools, resources and market reach necessary to produce major breakthroughs,” said U.S. Senator Dick Durbin.  “The large-scale, innovative research and transformational new battery systems that will result from this venture will mean more effective, lower cost and longer life energy storage technologies with real world applications for anything that can use a rechargeable battery.  The project promises to have a significant economic impact across Illinois with the help of towns and businesses who have already agreed to partner on the commercialization of promising technology developed at the Hub.”

http://energy.gov/articles/team-led-argonne-national-lab-selected-doe-s-batteries-and-energy-storage-hub

Berkeley Lab press release: http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2012/11/30/batteries-and-energy-storage-hub/

The California and Council of Science and Technology has released the next in its series of studies documenting the technology required to meet radical greenhouse gas (GHG) emission cuts by 2050 (80 percent below 1990 levels). This report focuses on strategies for reducing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions through energy-efficient technologies and retrofits of the residential and industrial sectors. The report’s authors are Jeffery Greenblatt, Max Wei and James McMahon of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab).

“We found that although we couldn’t solve the entire GHG problem through efficiency alone, we expected that outcome. On the positive side, we were able to conclude that although it will be very challenging, substantial levels of additional efficiency and electrification in buildings and industry are possible, with large GHG benefits,” says lead author Jeffery Greenblatt, a staff scientist in the Environmental Energy Technologies Division (EETD).

Because population and economic growth are projected to roughly double the total demand for energy services by 2050, achieving 80 percent GHG reduction from 1990 levels actually requires a 90 percent reduction from 2050 emissions if nothing is done (the business-as-usual case). For the residential and commercial buildings sector, the research team examined the savings achievable through four categories of efficiency improvements: reduced capacity (down-sizing, such as smaller refrigerators, or space conditioning one room rather than the whole building), increased efficiency (often through new technology), reduced usage (a combination of technology-facilitated control and behavior change), and system integration (combining elements of several service categories).

They found that although it was possible to reduce energy use technically to meet California’s 80% GHG reduction goal in the residential and commercial buildings sector, the potential is limited by economic feasibility and finite rates of implementation. However, the report’s analysis provides guidance to the policy community on which energy efficiency strategies, combined with other greenhouse gas reduction policies in transportation, renewable energy, and electrification might move the state more rapidly towards its goal.

By looking at the rate of new construction, retrofit and demolition, and estimating the energy efficiency improvements that are typical of existing homes, the report concludes that a 40 percent efficiency savings is possible in the 2050 California building stock relative to 2010 for both the residential and commercial sectors.

In the area of industrial energy efficiency, the research team estimated that the potential for a 48% overall reduction in energy use relative to BAU was possible by 2050. The analysis included a detailed examination of the oil and gas refining (60% of industrial energy use) and the food industry (17% of energy use), for which extensive data are available. They assumed that oil demand decreases substantially by 2050, replaced by large-scale vehicle and building electrification and the increased use of biofuels.

For other industrial sectors, the research team looked at similar processes (e.g., boiler systems, process heating, motor systems) for savings potential based on commercially available technologies, and then estimated the fraction of total industrial activity involving that process by industry sector.

The study does not examine policies that can realize these reductions in emissions—that is the subject of another study now in progress called California’s Energy Future Policy.

Download the report here. http://ccst.us/news/2012/1129cef.php

The installed price of solar photovoltaic (PV) power systems in the United States fell substantially in 2011 and through the first half of 2012, according to the latest edition of Tracking the Sun, an annual PV cost-tracking report produced by the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab).

The median installed price of residential and commercial PV systems completed in 2011 fell by roughly 11 to 14 percent from the year before, depending on system size, and, in California, prices fell by an additional 3 to 7 percent within the first six months of 2012. These recent installed price reductions are attributable, in large part, to dramatic reductions in PV module prices, which have been falling precipitously since 2008.

The report indicates that non-module costs—such as installation labor, marketing, overhead, inverters, and the balance of systems—have also fallen significantly over time. “The drop in non-module costs is especially important,” notes report co-author Ryan Wiser of Berkeley Lab’s Environmental Energy Technologies Division, “as these costs can be most readily influenced by local, state, and national policies aimed at accelerating deployment and removing market barriers.” According to the report, average non-module costs for residential and commercial systems declined by roughly 30 percent from 1998 to 2011, but have not declined as rapidly as module prices in recent years. As a result, non-module costs now represent a sizable fraction of the installed price of PV systems, and continued deep reduction in the price of PV will require concerted emphasis on lowering the portion of non-module costs associated with so-called “business process” or “soft” costs.

Today (November 16, 2012) marks the opening of the first two testbeds of FLEXLAB, the Facility for Low Energy eXperiments in Buildings at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab). Constructed within an existing building, Berkeley Lab researchers and their partners will study and demonstrate energy-efficient lighting and plug load systems, and collaborate in the design of the next generation of energy-efficient, automatically monitored and controlled buildings.

Researchers in Berkeley Lab’s Environmental Energy Technologies Division (EETD) are holding a series of workshops today for a broad cross-section of industry, utilities, Department of Energy, state and local governments, manufacturers, and the architectural and engineering design community to learn more about FLEXLAB, which will eventually include four additional testbeds in a new outdoor facility.

“These new testbeds will provide the building industry, and architecture and engineering community with a heavily instrumented facility for developing and validating the performance of new energy-efficient technologies, and developing integrated building system solutions for reducing energy and resource use and maximizing human comfort in buildings,” said Cindy Regnier, the Technical Manager of the FLEXLAB facility.

he University of California, Berkeley announced today that Ashok Gadgil, leader of the Environmental Energy Technologies Division at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), will lead the new Development Impact Laboratory (DIL). Gadgil is a Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at UC Berkeley.

The United States Agency for International Development is funding DIL with up to $20 million under its new Higher Education Solutions Network. HESN’s purpose is to apply science and technology to solve key problems in health, food security, chronic conflict, and other global needs. UC Berkeley’s DIL will be one of a network of labs funded by USAID at seven universities to conduct this research. In total, the universities participating in HESN will receive up to $130 million over five years to fund the research.

“DIL is a truly exciting opportunity to bring world class science and technology innovation to bear on some of the most difficult problems of international development in poor societies,” says Gadgil. “We are thrilled to be selected by USAID to be part of this exclusive group, from close to 500 applicant-teams. Our selection also indicate how well our proposal aligns with the vision of the Science and Technology team at USAID seeking to undertake development work in new ways.”

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) is the single largest consumer of energy in the nation, accounting for approximately 1% of national energy demand in fiscal year 2011, which added up to a $20 billion energy bill. Beyond the large expenditure, this level of energy consumption makes DoD vulnerable to energy supply disruptions, both from imported petroleum and the power grid.

To improve its energy security, DoD has expanded its funding for and focus on energy efficiency and distributed energy over the last decade—spurring a strong working relationship between Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), other research laboratories, industry leaders, and military agencies.

During that decade, Berkeley Lab’s particular focus with DoD has been providing military agencies with technical support, research, computer modeling, energy analysis, and technology demonstrations at domestic facilities that have saved money, increased energy security, and provided a proving ground for efficient technologies that can be used in many applications.

But in the last few years, the focus has started to change, according to Rich Brown of Berkeley Lab’s Building Technology and Urban Systems Department. DoD has begun to set its energy-saving sights beyond just its building stock.

“All those domestic, fixed facilities together only represent about a quarter of DoD’s energy use,” said Brown. “The majority of military energy savings potential these days is in what’s called ‘operational energy’,” he said.

Read the rest: http://eetd.lbl.gov/news/article/30423/supporting-the-us-department-of-defense-a-history-of-energy-efficiency-and-nation

Researchers of the Indoor Environment Group are seeking participants for an indoor air quality study. All non-smoking California homes are eligible. Participants are asked to complete 2 phone interviews about their home (10-30 minutes each), and set up a small package of air samplers, which they receive by mail, in their home for a 6-day period. In return, they will receive information about their indoor air quality and $75. Please assist this research group with spreading awareness about this opportunity.

Individuals interested in participating should visit healthyhomes.lbl.gov or call (510) 517-2357.

The following article is by Vi Rapp, a postdoctoral scholar in the Environmental Energy Technologies Division.

Air sealing of homes to reduce the uncontrolled entry of outdoor air is typically among the most cost-effective retrofit measures to reduce energy consumption and associated greenhouse gas emissions. Airtight envelopes are at the center of energy efficient upgrade practices promoted by the California Energy Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Building America and Low-Income Weatherization programs.

However, tighter houses present potential health hazards to occupants because they depressurize more readily when using exhaust fans, including bathroom fans and those in range hoods and dryers. Depressurization increases the likelihood that the ordinary, upward exhaust flow of a vented combustion appliance—such as a water heater or furnace—will be reversed in a process called “backdrafting.” Backdrafting can cause combustion exhaust products to spill into the home rather than being vented upward and out through the vent. This spillage can expose residents to hazardous air pollutants that are produced by the combustion appliance burners.

Read the rest of this post: http://eetd.lbl.gov/news/article/25365/reducing-barriers-to-residential-building-air-tightness-assessing-safety-diagnost

A first-of-its-kind study of the indoor air quality of 40 childcare centers in California finds that most concentrations of contaminants in the air are well within state and federal guidelines, although a few chemicals such as formaldehyde substantially exceeded guidelines.

Thomas McKone and Randy Maddalena of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) participated in the study, which was led by Asa Bradman and researchers in the University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Environmental Research and Children’s Health, School of Public Health. McKone has a joint appointment at the School of Public Health and in Berkeley Lab’s Environmental Energy Technologies Division (EETD), and Maddalena is a scientist in EETD.

“Although most of the VOCs that we commonly measure indoors are similar in childcare facilities and other indoor environments like homes and schools, our findings suggest that there are a lot more chemicals in the air than what we commonly measure. In addition to the target VOCs in our study, we identified over a hundred other VOCs in the air, many of which do not have reference exposure levels.” says Maddalena.

The study is the first to provide a detailed analysis of environmental contaminants and exposures for children in early childhood education facilities (ECE). ECE facilities include home-based childcare providers, private for-profit or non-profit preschools, and programs run by government agencies and religious institutions.

The study was funded by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which provides guidance on its website about how childcare centers can reduce the concentration of these chemicals in the air. One of CARB’s responsibilities is to regulate the emissions of indoor air pollutants in California.

Volatile organic compounds in the air

The researchers measured more than 40 volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the air of these facilities, although, they say, “most concentrations were usually below levels of concern.” Common sources of VOCs are cleaners and personal care products.

However, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, chloroform, and benzene, or ethylbenzene exceeded child-specific Safe Harbor Levels. Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde are known respiratory irritants and carcinogens.

It is important to better understand the impact of these concentrations. According to the report, “because children exhibit exploratory behaviors that place them in direct contact with contaminated surfaces, they are likely to be exposed to any contaminants present. Children have higher exposures because they breathe more air, eat more food, and drink more water per unit of body weight compared to adults. They are also less developed immunologically, physiologically, and neurologically and therefore may be more susceptible to the adverse effects of chemicals and toxins.”

Formaldehyde concentrations in the air exceeded reference exposure levels in 35 of the facilities. It is typically emitted from furniture containing composite wood products like plywood, fiberboard, or particle board, but it can be emitted from other indoor sources including carpets and carpet pads; paints and coatings; permanent press clothing, furniture fabrics, and draperies; personal care products; and indoor combustion sources such as gas ranges and fireplaces.

“More research needs to be conducted on the understanding the health risks posed by indoor environmental contaminants in these facilities,” says Maddalena. “We also need to identify better strategies to reduce indoor sources of these chemicals.”

Some of CARB’s recommended strategies for reducing formaldehyde in the air include:

• Purchase products containing little or no formaldehyde.
• Use ventilation systems and open windows.
• Clean frequently to minimize dust, using a vacuum cleaner with a HEPA filter or a wet mop for hard surface floors.
• Clean out cabinets and garages to eliminate older pesticides, solvents and cleaning products that may leak, in order to help reduce indoor levels of pesticides and harmful chemicals.
• Assure adequate ventilation to bring in outdoor air.

The study’s authors are Asa Bradman, Fraser Gaspar, Rosemary Castorina, Elodie Tong-Lin, Center for Environmental Research and Children’s Health, University of California – Berkeley, Thomas McKone, School of Public Health and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Randy Maddalena, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

—Allan Chen

California Air Resources Board press release: http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/newsrelease.php?id=357

A detailed factsheet on this study and additional steps child-care centers can take:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/fact_sheets/preschool_exposure.pdf

Information on ARB’s regulation on composite wood and formaldehyde:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/compwood/factsheet.pdf 

Download the report “Environmental Exposures in Early Childhood Education Environments” here:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/08-305.pdf

A team led by Lawrence Berkeley National Lab’s (Berkeley Lab) Ashok Gadgil is the recipient of the 5th Prince Sultan Bin Abdulaziz International Prize for Water. Gadgil, head of the Lab’s Environmental Energy Technologies Division and a Professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, will receive the Creativity Prize on behalf of the team. The prize recognizes his team for developing an innovative technology for affordable arsenic-safe drinking water in Bangladesh and nearby regions.

The bi-annual prize is named after HRH Prince Khaled Bin Sultan Bin Abdulaziz, Saudi Arabia’s Assistant Minister of Defense and Aviation and Inspector General for Military Affairs. The prize comes with 1 million Saudi riyals (about $266,000) and a distinctive trophy.

The award citation noted that Gadgil received his recognition for “research [relating to] one of the greatest problems currently facing the water supply: the arsenic contamination of groundwater.” The citation continues: “The Creativity Prize is being awarded to Dr. Ashok Gadgil’s team at UC Berkley for developing an economical and effective way to treat arsenic contamination and restore the groundwater supply to potability for millions of poor people around the globe. Together, these achievements promise to save countless lives.”

Says Gadgil, “We are pleased that this prize recognizes the depth of our scientific research. This ranges from analysis of materials using synchrotron-generated x-rays, to engineering design, and also the breadth of our work that spans social sciences, economics, consumer and organizational behavior, and financially viable business models.”

Arsenic in drinking water occurs naturally in high concentrations in certain areas of the world, including Bangladesh, and is believed to be poisoning as much as 50-percent of that nation’s population.

“My team members and I are thrilled that the international committee of distinguished water experts for this Prize selected our work,” says Gadgil, “which truly represents a team effort.” Gadgil’s team members for this award are: Susan Addy and Case van Genuchten from UC Berkeley; Professor Joyashree Roy from Jadavpur University in Kolkata, India; and Robert Kostecki from Berkeley Lab.

The awards ceremony will be held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in January of 2013.

The Prince Sultan prize announcement:
http://www.psipw.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=98&Itemid=284

What will California’s energy system look like in 2050 if the state reduces its greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent below the 1990 level? Research conducted by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s Jeffery Greenblatt and Jane Long, California’s Energy Future Committee Co-Chair, answers that question by presenting portraits of a state energy system that achieves these reductions through transitions to low-carbon technologies. Greenblatt is a scientist in the Environmental Energy Technologies Division of Berkeley Lab.

The research is reported in the fifth in a series of reports on the state’s energy future by the California Council on Science and Technology. “California’s Energy Future: Portraits of Energy Systems for Meeting Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets” summarizes the potential of various technology strategies to meet the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. The report was released by the California Council on Science and Technology.

A combination of technological approaches offers the potential to meet the GHG reduction mandates. These include energy efficiency, electrification, low-carbon electricity (from sources such as renewables, natural gas with carbon sequestration, or nuclear power) and low-carbon fuels derived, for example, from biomass.

Through modeling and scenario building, the authors identify a mix of strategies that can reduce the state’s GHG emissions by 60 percent. They then calculate the impacts of ten additional individual strategies that could provide the extra 20 percent reduction the state needs to get to 80 percent reduction in emissions.

For example, one group of three strategies in combination could bring emissions down to the 2050 target:

• Develop zero-emission load balancing technologies for the electricity sector; produce biomass with net-zero GHG emissions; and encourage widespread behavior change to reduce demand.

The application of additional strategies beyond these three could result in emissions below the target or even net negative emissions:

• Produce and use hydrogen fuel wherever possible; burn domestic biomass (with CCS, carbon capture and sequestration) for electricity rather than making biofuels; and double the biomass supply.

The report also examined several other strategies. It concluded that many combinations are possible to lower emissions, but implementing these changes to the state’s energy system will be challenging for a number of reasons. One reason is that biomass for energy must be implemented to avoid unwanted social, economic, and environmental impacts (such as reductions in food supply). Another major challenge is that the technologies to widely enable CCS, large-scale biofuel production, and other strategies have yet to be developed and deployed.

Download “California’s Energy Future—Portraits of Energy Systems for Meeting Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets” here.

The National Science Foundation has announced that it is funding the Building Efficiency for a Sustainable Tomorrow at Laney College, Oakland California, with a four-year four million dollar grant. The BEST Center will develop curricula for two-year colleges throughout the U.S. to educate building control technicians, incorporating energy-efficient technologies and practices.

Scientists at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory will contribute to the BEST Center by providing the latest research in energy-efficient building technologies. Berkeley Lab’s Environmental Energy Technologies Division will provide technical information, as well as webinars or guest lectures to Laney College students.

“The focus will be on infusing energy efficiency wherever possible into the curricula for building technicians in two-year community college programs,” says Kristen Parrish, former Post-Doctoral scholar at Berkeley Lab, now an Assistant Professor at Arizona State University’ School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment. “Berkeley Lab’s participation in the project will allow Laney College students to connect with Berkeley Lab’s research community and learn about cutting edge research,” adds Parrish.

The Center will leverage Laney’s NSF-sponsored work to create certificate and degree programs to prepare technicians to maintain and optimize the performance of commercial buildings. BEST will provide its curricula to community colleges across the U.S.

Laney College has offered courses in building technician education for more than 40 years. With the support of the National Science Foundation, Laney has expanded its Environmental Controls Technology program to include building automation systems, energy efficiency, and commercial building technician education. A goal of Laney’s ECT program is to prepare technicians to be “change agents” in implementing cost-effective energy efficiency measures in commercial and residential buildings.

EETD’s Mary Ann Piette, Head of the Building Technologies and Urban Systems Department, and James O’Donnell will work with Laney College staff on the BEST Center.

As clouds pass in front of the sun, incoming daylight is reduced in the interior of a section of the fourth floor of an office building at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab). In this new lighting and plug load testbed, light sensors read the change in light levels, and energy-efficient ceiling fixtures gradually increase their light output to compensate.

Sensors on every light fixture report power consumption data in real time for recording, while other sensors measure ambient and desk-height light levels. The clouds drift away, incoming sunlight intensity increases, and the louvers of motorized blinds automatically re-align themselves to maintain a comfortable, glare-free light level in the fourth floor’s interior while the automated control system dims the overhead lights.

Sensors measure every significant variable and send data continuously for recording and later analysis by building scientists in the Environmental Energy Technologies Division (EETD). Office workers in the space are aware of the dynamics taking place around them but pleased the conditions are always maintained in the comfort zone.

This is a time of tremendous creativity and innovation in the buildings industry. The buildings industry is working to meet the economic and social goals of designing and constructing buildings that use far less energy than today’s conventional buildings. Manufacturers of lighting, HVAC equipment, building envelope products, and energy management systems are developing new technologies. Their work promises greater energy efficiency, more comfortable interiors, and more knowledge about and control over building energy use and interior environment than ever.

But the building industry will not adopt new technologies and systems without proof that these technologies actually save energy under real conditions, and make building interiors more comfortable and easier to control. New commercial buildings cost tens to hundreds of millions of dollars and have service lives lasting for decades. Owners and builders won’t take a chance and install unproven technologies whose performance may fall short.

Now under construction at Berkeley Lab is a unique research and demonstration facility that will help industry develop, and fine-tune new building technologies. The facility will also generate accurate, unbiased performance data. The Facility for Low Energy eXperiments in Buildings (FLEXLAB) will consist of four new outdoor test modules, as well as several testbeds within an existing building. It will be operated by the Lab’s Environmental Energy Technologies Division, which is seeking industry partners for cooperative research. [Read more about it here.]

In FLEXLAB, Berkeley Lab and its partners will conduct research and product development on single components or whole-building systems integration. They’ll be able to replace any building system such as exterior building envelope, windows and shading systems, lights, HVAC, energy control systems, roofs and skylights, or interior components such as furniture, partitions, and raised floors.

While construction of the new outdoor facilities gets underway, another part of FLEXLAB is completing construction: the lighting and plug load testbed, and a virtual design lab.

Unmatched control of lighting and plug loads

The lighting and plug loads testbed will have the most densely instrumented and minutely controlled building space anywhere in the United States—a stretch of building so finely regulated that every power outlet is individually monitored and can be turned on or off, every light fixture in the office cubicles is individually metered and controlled. “This is more advanced than any other facility in the buildings industry,” says Steven Lanzisera, one of the researchers on the testbed’s design team.

This 4,000 square foot floor area has room for 15 cubicles plus a row of perimeter offices along both sides of the building (eight in all). Francis Rubinstein, who helped designed the lighting system and controls of the testbed says “every single light fixture in the testbed will be individually monitored. We can control the lights in the four rows of overhead fixtures in eight-foot segments. We’ll also be able to measure the input power along each eight-foot segment.”

“The ability to control and measure each fixture individually is unique to this testbed,” says Rubinstein. “You don’t get this level of control in any other test facility.”

Rubinstein adds that there will also be occupancy sensors to control the energy-efficient LED task lighting fixtures in each cubicle. The occupancy sensors will turn them off when the occupant leaves. Fifteen ceiling-mounted photosensors will measure the illumination distribution throughout the study space. Additional photocells will be installed at the tops of partitions separating the cubicles as well as at the desk surface as required to adequately sample the daylight conditions as these vary across the day.

Researchers will test different control algorithms for dimming electric lighting up or down to balance the daylight in the space as well as controlling automated fenestration systems.

“A lot of flexibility is built in to the algorithm to allow for individual control,” says Rubinstein,“ with the end result that we have a densely instrumented living laboratory that we can use to test real-life situations, mixing a variety of automated control strategies with manual control by occupants.”

Control is in the software

“A unique feature of the testbed,” says Lanzisera, “is that all control is done in the software of the control algorithm—outside of the hardware.

“Traditionally,” he continues, “controls are internal to the hardware, but here, all the control algorithms are on the outside, and the sensor data is logged continuously, and viewable using Labview software. If someone has a control methodology they want to test, it’s easy to implement in the software.”

This arrangement lets teams of researchers study how individual decisions are made about light levels and equipment energy use, and what sensory input went into the decision-making process. Their observations will lead to better algorithms for controlling system-wide energy use.

Protocols for maximum performance

“We envision a series of experiments in cooperation with private-sector partners to study the performance of new lighting controls and plug load technologies involving lighting fixtures, power supplies, plug strips, and software technologies for shedding load [reducing power consumption during periods of heavy demand],” says Rubinstein.  “We hope to conduct experiments that will allow us to test several different technologies at the same time, and develop control strategies to maximize the energy savings and maintain comfortable conditions within the space.”

Another goal of the testbed is to study how design intent behind use of technologies matches up to their actual performance, and to work out the control strategies that allow building operators to get maximum performance. “We’ll be documenting the installation of systems, the commissioning procedures we used to ensure they meet their design intent, and how to operate the systems for highest performance,” says Rubinstein.

Discussions underway now with potential partners

While the outdoor testbeds are designed for use as unoccupied spaces with simulated occupancy, the lighting and plug load test lab will be fully occupied by EETD staff. Construction on the lighting and plug loads testbed has been completed, commissioning is underway and the facility will be reoccupied by staff in early October.  The first team of industry partners is currently planning a test program to be implemented starting in late 2012.

FLEXLAB staff are now in discussions with other potential partners to develop a program of cooperative research in the lighting and plug loads testbed, as well as the rest of FLEXLAB, whose centerpiece is the four-module facility, which will be finished in the winter of 2013.

Berkeley Lab invites interested partners to contact FLEXLAB staff for more information about how to perform research with us in the new facility and demonstrate new technologies and systems that will help achieve aggressive new performance goals for America’s building stock.

—Allan Chen

For more information:

Lighting controls: Francis Rubinstein, FMRubinstein@lbl.gov

Plug load controls: Steven Lanzisera, SMLanzisera@lbl.gov

Partnering opportunities: Oren Schetrit, oschetrit@lbl.gov, 510-486-5649

Facility for Low Energy eXperiments in Buildings (FLEXLAB) website.

FLEXLAB PDF.

This facility is funded by the U.S. Department of Energy.

In 2020, if all goes according to plan, the state of California will get 33 percent of its electricity from renewable power, including solar and wind, as required by the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard. But wind doesn’t blow all the time, and the sun doesn’t provide as much power on cloudy days—renewable power is intermittent. This poses a problem for the electric grid’s operators, who need to be able to exactly match the generation of electrical power with the demand for it at any given moment.

Because swings in the amount of available renewable power don’t match the total demand for power from moment to moment, the balance has to come from somewhere, while the total power from clean energy sources must average out at 33 percent.

Another solution is to store renewably generated electricity in large, stationary grid-connected batteries, and supply power from them when renewable sources aren’t providing enough in the moment. With current technology, this would be expensive, although research efforts are under way to develop less expensive energy storage technologies for the grid.

Scientists at the Environmental Energy Technologies Division (EETD) of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) have developed another solution that can help deal with intermittency: adjusting the power demand of large buildings automatically to more closely match the conditions on the electric grid. Their technological approach is called automated demand response (AutoDR), and their research was supported by the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research program, California utilities, the Bonneville Power Administration, and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.

Demand response is a set of activities usually carried out in commercial, industrial, and sometimes residential buildings that change, shed, or shift electricity use with the goal of improving electric grid reliability and managing costs. When demand for and the cost of electricity is high, building managers in large commercial and industrial facilities can, for example, dim lights, or turn them off in unused areas, temporarily raise a building’s temperature setpoint by a degree or two to reduce air conditioning use without impacting the building’s occupants, or defer the use of certain industrial equipment until later, when power is cheaper. This reduces electric demand, or “load,” and the possibility of grid failure.

“Our study suggests that fast-acting automated demand response in the commercial and industrial is more cost-effective than grid-scale battery storage,” says EETD scientist Sila Kiliccote, principal investigator of the research. “It offers grid operators a less expensive tool for managing the grid than battery storage. The infrastructure for demand response already exists and is growing in California in elsewhere.”

Automated demand response makes inroads on a grid near you

Since the 1990s, EETD scientists have been working with California utilities, the state’s Public Utilities Commission, commercial and industrial power consumers, and utilities around the world to test and deploy AutoDR technologies. AutoDR is a significant element of the “Smart Grid,” an expression meaning that the operators, utilities, power generators, and customers on an electrical grid can respond in real-time to changes in the cost and availability of power with the help of software and hardware that monitors the state of the grid continuously.

The benefits of AutoDR and the Smart Grid include reduced chances of the grid failing during periods of high demand (a more reliable grid), lower power bills for customers who can reduce demand during these periods, and in the long run, greater energy efficiency and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Research by EETD scientists in cooperation with California electric utilities and large industrial and commercial customers has demonstrated that AutoDR reduces peak power use during periods of high demand. In response, the California Public Utilities Commission mandated the use of AutoDR by California’s investor-owned electric utilities as a tool for managing the grid. Currently, there is more than 250 MW of AutoDR in California. Electric power authorities globally are also beginning to add AutoDR to their grid management toolkits.

EETD scientists developed OpenADR, an Internet-based communications specification used by utilities, their customers, and electric grid authorities to implement automated demand response in practice. It is one of the early Smart Grid standards. An organization of private sector companies, utilities, and research institutions called OpenADR Alliance is supporting OpenADR’s adoption as a Smart Grid standard by providing certification for the devices that use OpenADR standard.

Can automated demand response substitute for batteries on the grid?

To address the intermittency of renewable power, a group of EETD researchers set out to determine whether automated demand response could substitute for batteries or other forms of energy storage to balance the grid. Today, grid operators balance the demand for electricity exactly by purchasing power one day beforehand from sources such as hydroelectric plants, and gas-powered combustion turbines.

These sources provide the peak load needed by the grid to meet the extra demand that shows up on hot summer afternoons (for air conditioning) or cold winter evenings (for heat). Grid operators make power purchases to meet peak load based on forecasts of how much demand is expected the following day.

Balancing the load on a grid supplied by a high percentage of intermittent renewables is a different problem from managing peak load, which can be estimated in advance. Power availability from renewable generation can ramp up or down rapidly, and requires grid operators to respond much faster than what the day-ahead market can provide—usually within minutes. Gas-fired power plants can provide fast response now, but because they emit air pollution, they do not meet the 33 percent renewable power requirement. Can demand response help?

The answer is yes, according to a scoping study just published by EETD researchers David Watson, Nance Matson, Janie Page, Sila Kiliccote, and Mary Ann Piette, and colleagues at KEMA.

The research team looked at the hour-by-hour electric demand in California in the commercial and industrial sectors, estimating what percentage of their electric load could be shed through automatic demand response programs, and how long these loads could be shed. The study looked at loads that could be shed for two-hour durations and for twenty-minute durations. These intervals give grid operators a range of flexible resources to match fluctuations from renewable sources. They used data from the California End Use Survey 2004 to determine what commercial and industrial loads were suitable for demand response, and currently or potentially controllable through energy management and control systems (EMCS) or system control and data acquisition systems (SCADA).

The study shows that these “fast AutoDR” sheds currently could provide between 0.18 and 0.90 gigawatts of load shedding. “With modest investments to upgrade and expand use of automated control systems in commercial and industrial facilities,” says Kiliccote, “the estimated shed potential could approximately double to between 0.42 and 1.8 gigawatts.” One gigawatt is one billion watts of power.

The load shedding they identified is substantially less than what would be required to balance out the load fluctuations from intermittent renewable sources providing 33 percent of the state’s power needs.

However, the study also found that the cost of using AutoDR to shed load is roughly one-half to one-quarter of the deployed cost of grid-scale battery storage using current battery technologies.

“Automated demand response has the potential to balance renewable intermittency in a cost-effective way,” says Kiliccote. “Combined with grid-scale energy storage and other methods, it could be an important element of a suite of tools to help operators manage the grid.”

Buildings as energy storage devices

Thinking of buildings as energy storage devices is a key to understanding how demand response can be an active player in a Smart Grid system. Just as batteries store energy chemically, buildings (including refrigerated warehouses) store heat (or retain coolness) in their thermal mass.

The building operator can reduce a building’s HVAC load—the energy required to heat, ventilate, or air-condition the building—temporarily, because a building will (within limits) retain its temperature for some period of time that depends on its mass, outside temperature, and other factors. The EETD researchers estimate that some buildings can shed 60 percent of HVAC-related electric demand for two-hour load shed events and 80 percent for 20-minute events for facilities with rooftop chiller units that can turn off compressors. These buildings usually include small offices, office areas within warehouse facilities, schools, lodging, and other facilities. Large office and college buildings that can make setpoint adjustments to reduce demand can shed 50 percent for both two-hour events and 20-minute events.

From previous studies, researchers know that buildings can dim or turn off lighting to reduce lighting electricity demand averaging 33 percent for a demand response event of up to four hours. Studies of retail facilities have shown a shed of 25 percent of their lighting electricity demand—display lighting requirements reduce their ability to shed load slightly compared to other commercial facilities.

Refrigerated warehouses are known from prior research to be able to reduce their loads by at least 25 percent or more for two hours without a serious change in temperature. Data centers can temporarily reduce their HVAC and lighting use as well, and water pumping for agriculture can be shifted to off-peak hours to respond to automated demand response events.

Together, these load sheds are a resource that can give grid operators one tool they need to manage an electric grid with intermittent supply resulting from a high percentage of renewable power. The grid will still need other tools for storing energy, such as grid-connected batteries and compressed air or pumped water storage. But the low cost of AutoDR makes it an attractive option for supplying some of the slack the grid will need as the state’s and the world’s renewable power generation capacity grows.

Follow-up research is planned. Says Kiliccote, “We need to better understand what percentage of each of these types of load sheds is available to address intermittency throughout the year. Also needed is a quantitative economic analysis of the scale up of AutoDR as a grid resource integrated with renewable and energy storage.”

—Allan Chen

More information:

Contact Sila Kiliccote, SKiliccote@lbl.gov

http://drrc.lbl.gov

References

D. S. Watson, N. Matson, J. Page, S. Kiliccote, M. A. Piette (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory); K. Corfee, B. Seto, R. Masiello, J. Masiello, L. Molander, S. Golding, K. Sullivan, W. Johnson, D. Hawkins (KEMA). Fast Automated Demand Response to Enable the Integration of Renewable Resources. California Energy Commission. Publication number: LBNL-5555e. http://eetd.lbl.gov/publications/15222/fast-automated-demand-response-to-enable-the-integration-of-renewable-resources.

S. Kiliccote, M. A. Piette, G. Ghatikar, E. Koch, D. Hennage J. Hernandez, A. Chiu, O. Sezgen, and J. Goodin. Open Automated Demand Response Communications in Demand Response for Wholesale Ancillary Services. November 2009. Presented at the Grid-Interop Forum 2009, Denver, CO, November 17–19, 2009. LBNL-2945e. http://drrc.lbl.gov/publications/open-automated-demand-response-communications-demand-response-wholesale-ancillary-servi.

S. Kiliccote, P. Sporborg, I. Sheikh, E. Huffaker, and M. A. Piette. Integrating Renewable Resources in California and the Role of Automated Demand Response. November 2010. LBNL-4189e. http://drrc.lbl.gov/sites/drrc.lbl.gov/files/lbnl-4189e.pdf.

This research was supported by the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research program, California utilities, the Bonneville Power Administration and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.

Once the domain of guesswork and intuition, the field of developing new materials for advanced batteries and other applications is taking a turn towards a more systematic and predictive approach. Predicting the properties of new materials from “first principles” has become a scientific reality, thanks to the growth in computing power, a deeper understanding of how materials work, and databases of materials properties.

This will mean faster development of materials for high-energy batteries for electric vehicle applications, as well as better materials for many other applications, such as fuel cells and solar panels, high-strength materials, and catalysts.

Kristin Persson, a scientist in the Environmental Energy Technologies Division of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, is moving forward on several fronts to predict the behavior of materials from first principles. In 2011, she and Gerbrand Ceder at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) launched the Materials Project—a materials design gateway that allows users to browse existing materials (more than 20,000 currently) and their properties, modify them, and predict new materials using data-mining algorithms. [Read more about the project here.]

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is supporting the hunt for new materials through computation. Earlier this year, it announced that it would fund a new DOE Center for Functional Electronic Materials Design at $11 million over five years. Persson will be the Center’s director, and Ceder, its associate director. The Center’s purpose will be to conduct large-scale data generation, data-mining, and benchmarking for new materials. Scientists at Berkeley Lab; the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC); the University of California (UC), Berkeley; MIT; Duke; UC San Diego; and elsewhere will participate in the research.

Computation Can Accelerate Materials Innovation

Using the computational approach, researchers can apply first-principle calculations and great computing power to many materials at a time, to search out one whose properties may meet the needs of the application they are developing. “It takes 15 to 18 years to develop a material the traditional way, from the laboratory to commercial application,” Persson says. “The lack of organized, comprehensive information about materials can cause delay during the scale-up to manufacturing.”

As a result, materials innovation has been dependent on single investigators and intuition. Now, with high throughput first principles calculations on the properties of many materials, the Materials Project team has developed an organized, searchable database of materials properties. “This is assisting researchers in predicting the properties of new compounds, and it creates a new materials design environment,” she adds.

Using the Materials Project database and tools, a researcher can ask a question such as, “are there any fluoride materials out there that would work as a cathode in a lithium ion battery?” The Materials Project database could screen “nature and beyond,” as Persson puts it, for materials that have the desirable properties such as voltage, capacity, diffusivity, and stability, among other things.

As of July 2012, the Materials Project includes more than 20,000 compounds, as well as a materials explorer, a reaction calculator, a phase diagram application, a lithium battery explorer, a crystal toolkit, and a structure predictor. It has more than 2,500 registered users, has predicted more than 8,000 new structures using the structure predictor, and has generated more than 10,000 phase diagrams for its users.

Applying First Principle Calculations to Basic Research

Persson also uses these methods to solve basic scientific problems, focusing on one material at a time. The aim of the research is developing better materials for higher power, or more stable advanced batteries. For example, lithium-ion batteries, destined for such applications as plug-in hybrid and all-electric vehicles, need to have higher energy densities for greater range, lower cost, longer lifetimes, and a higher safety factor before they will be economical to use in vehicle applications.

“When I started, you couldn’t do more than calculate very basic properties of materials,” she says. “In the last 15 years, there has been an explosion of computing power, and advances in analytical methods. You can now submit a quantum mechanical calculation to a supercomputer with much less tuning and manual labor.”

Persson has used first-principle calculations to answers questions about why certain experimental battery materials thought to have the ability to solve some of these problems have not yet lived up to their potential.

Graphitic carbons, for example, form a class of carbons that are most commonly found as the anode (the negative electrode) in a lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery. The material has been used since the commercialization of the first Li-ion battery by SONY, and its properties are thought to be relatively well understood. For example, it is well-known that the rate capability of graphitic carbons deteriorate significantly at lower temperatures, causing the battery to degrade and lose capacity to store energy. Loss of rate capability is usually tied to lowered lithium diffusivity (its ability to move through graphite) but measurements of lithium’s diffusivity varies widely from one experiment to the next, making the root cause of the performance loss difficult to identify.

Calculating Graphite’s Properties

In 2010, Persson and her colleagues Robert Kostecki at Berkeley Lab and Gerbrand Ceder of MIT teamed up to elucidate the problem. Persson and Ceder calculated the inherent diffusivity of lithium ions in carbon using first principles and found that the lithium’s diffusivity was extremely high, suggesting that the diffusivity of the graphite was not the problem.

“We can take the pure graphite and calculate how fast the lithium moves around in there. This is inherent diffusivity. We were able to show that the graphite is really fast, she says. “This tells us that the graphite in itself is an extremely fast material.” In fact, lithium ions could enter and leave a micron-sized graphite particle in less than 0.2 microseconds.

At a molecular level, graphite is made of carbon atoms in stacked sheets (see figure). The solution is to engineer the graphite material so that lithium ions can travel parallel to the sheets of graphite, instead of at grain boundaries.

With the proper materials engineering, it should be possible for the graphite to live up to its potential. “We would like to engineer the material so that the Li can travel along the fastest route,” she says.

In parallel, a group led by Robert Kostecki at Berkeley Lab was able to measure the speed of lithium ions diffusing parallel to graphite’s sheets of carbon, and perpendicular to it. The experimental results independently demonstrated that lithium ions diffuse rapidly through the graphite when traveling in between the graphene sheets, and slowly when traveling along the boundaries of graphite domains.

This concerted work pointed to a way of engineering a graphite anode to exploit the fastest pathway of diffusivity for lithium ions: creating graphite particles which are aligned radially, so that the planes of graphite’s molecular structure are parallel to each other.

Other Research Directions

Persson has studied other battery materials as well, looking for such properties such as faster ionic diffusivity, and greater stability and energy storage capacity. For example, replacing five to ten percent of the cobalt (another candidate for cathodes in lithium batteries) in the layered materials with aluminum leads to a material with higher voltage, greater thermal stability, lower electronic conductivity, yet higher rate capability. Why? Persson and her colleagues found, using first principle calculations, that the aluminum lowers barriers to the migration of lithium ions when concentrations of lithium are low. Because cobalt is an expensive material, substituting cheaper aluminum would not only improve performance, but also lower material costs.

Persson’s research continues to address materials for improved lithium ion batteries, even as she maps out other areas for future research. “We would love to look more at the surface properties of materials,” she says. “First principle calculations can give you a very good handle on their bulk properties, which is the starting point. But surface properties are more difficult because they are more amorphous.”

Persson, Kristin et al. “Thermodynamic and kinetic properties of the Li-graphite system from first-principles calculations.” Physical Review B 82.12 (2010): c2010 The American Physical Society.

Persson, Kristin et al. “Lithium Diffusion in Graphitic Carbon.” Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters. 1 (8) 11767-1180 (2010).

This research is funded by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

New Study Finds the U.S. Wind Power Market Riding a Wave That Is Likely to Crest in 2012

The expiration of key federal incentives could bring that wave crashing down in 2013, despite a significant decline in the cost of wind energy

  Allan Chen (510) 486-4210 a_chen@lbl.gov (media contact)

Ryan Wiser (510) 486-5474 RHWiser@lbl.gov (technical contact)

Mark Bolinger (603) 795-4937 MABolinger@lbl.gov (technical contact)

Facing looming policy uncertainty beyond 2012, the U.S. remained one of the fastest-growing wind power markets in the world in 2011—second only to China—according to a new report released by the U.S. Department of Energy and prepared by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab). Roughly 6.8 gigawatts (GW) of new wind power capacity were connected to the U.S. grid in 2011—more than the 5.2 GW built in 2010, but below the 10 GW added in 2009.  Driven by the threat of expiring federal incentives, new wind power installations are widely expected to be substantially higher in 2012 than in 2011, and perhaps even in excess of 2009’s record build.

Other key findings from the U.S. Department of Energy’s “2011 Wind Technologies Market Report” include:

• Wind is a credible source of new generation in the U.S.  Wind power comprised 32% of all new U.S. electric capacity additions in 2011 and represented $14 billion in new investment. Wind power currently contributes more than 10% of total electricity generation in six states (with two of these states above 20%), and now provides more than 3% of total U.S. electricity supply.

• In spite of the lack of policy clarity, wind turbine manufacturers and their suppliers continued to localize production domestically in 2011.  As a result, a growing percentage of the equipment used in U.S. wind power projects is being sourced domestically:   67% in 2011, up from just 35% back in 2005-2006.  However, Ryan Wiser, a Staff Scientist at Berkeley Lab and co-author of the report, notes, “behind these positive headline numbers, the domestic wind industry supply chain is currently facing severe pressure, due to uncertain prospects after 2012.”  Specifically, profit margins have been declining and concerns about manufacturing overcapacity have deepened, potentially setting the stage for significant layoffs if demand for turbines (for post-2012 delivery) does not pick up.

• Turbine scaling has boosted wind project capacity factors.   Since 1998-99, the average nameplate capacity of wind turbines installed in the U.S. has increased by 174% (to 1.97 MW in 2011), the average turbine hub height has increased by 45% (to 81 meters), and the average rotor diameter has increased by 86% (to 89 meters).  This substantial scaling has pushed average capacity factors among new wind projects higher over time, though the increase has been mitigated in recent year by significant curtailment of wind energy output in some regions, along with a trend towards wind developers building out lower wind speed sites.

• Falling wind turbine prices have begun to push installed project costs lower.  Wind turbine prices have fallen 20 to 30% from their highs back in 2008, but this decline has been slow to show up in installed project cost data, which only began to turn the corner (on average) in 2011.  Data from a preliminary sample of wind power projects being built in 2012 suggest further reductions in installed project costs.

• Lower wind turbine prices and installed project costs, along with improved capacity factors, are enabling aggressive wind power pricing.  Grouping projects according to the year in which they signed a power purchase agreement (PPA) makes it clear that wind power pricing peaked among those projects that executed contracts in 2009 and has fallen substantially since. Among a sample of wind power projects with contracts signed in 2011, the capacity-weighted average levelized price is $35/MWh, down from $59/MWh for projects with contracts signed in 2010, and $72/MWh for projects with contracts signed back in 2009.

“Wind PPA prices—particularly in the central U.S.—are now approaching previous lows set back in 2003,” notes Berkeley Lab Research Scientist and report co-author Mark Bolinger. “But even with today’s much lower wind energy prices, wind power still struggles to compete with depressed natural gas and wholesale power prices in many parts of the country.”

• Looking ahead, projections are for continued strong growth in 2012, followed by dramatically lower but uncertain additions in 2013.  With key federal incentives for wind energy (including bonus depreciation and a choice of the production tax credit, investment tax credit, or Section 1603 Treasury cash grant) currently slated to expire at the end of 2012, new capacity additions in 2012 are anticipated to substantially exceed 2011 levels—and perhaps even the record high set in 2009—as developers rush to commission projects.

At the same time, the possible expiration of these incentives at the end of 2012, in concert with continued low natural gas prices, modest electricity demand growth, and existing state policies that are not sufficient to support continued capacity additions at the levels witnessed in recent years, threatens to dramatically slow new builds in 2013 and beyond, despite recent improvements in the cost and performance of wind power technology

Berkeley Lab’s contributions to this report were funded by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energ.

Additional Information:

The full report (“2011 Wind Technologies Market Report”), a presentation slide deck that summarizes the report, and an Excel workbook that contains much of the data presented in the report, can all be downloaded from: http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl-5559e.pdf

Electricity Markets and Policy Group publications:

http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/re-pubs.html

A new software tool from scientists at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) will help architects, engineers, and urban planners better assess and manage the environmental impacts of structural materials in commercial buildings.

The software tool, called the B-PATH model (Berkeley Lab Building Materials Pathways), allows designers and builders to estimate the energy, resources, and environmental impacts associated with the manufacture of structural materials; their effects on the energy use of a building during operation; and their impacts when the building is ultimately demolished and its constituent materials are reused, recycled, or disposed of.  The Berkeley Lab’s development of the B-PATH model was sponsored by the Portland Cement Association (PCA).

“Minimizing the environmental impacts of a building throughout its entire lifecycle is a promising way of reducing the energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of buildings,” says Eric Masanet, the leader of the team that developed B-PATH. “The key is having a tool grounded in sound science to perform a lifecycle analysis—the data analysis and systems mass and energy balance modeling techniques to estimate the inputs of fuels, materials, and resources (and outputs of pollutants and waste) associated with all relevant processes in the lifecycle of a product or service.”

In 2009, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, commercial buildings accounted for nearly 20 percent of U.S. primary energy use, more than one-third of U.S. electricity use, and about 15 percent of U.S. direct natural gas use. There are more than 4.6 million commercial buildings in the United States, with more than 64 billion square feet of floor space. According to a 2010 National Research Council report, the human health damages associated with the amounts of electricity and natural gas consumed by U.S. commercial buildings may be on the order of $20 billion per year.

The structure of a commercial building, such as its concrete or steel frame, uses a larger quantity of materials that require high energy per weight to manufacture than any other element of the building. A building design that uses the optimum amount of these building materials minimizes the energy required to manufacture them and helps to keep building costs down.

In the final phase of a building’s lifecycle, demolition and materials removal, the B-PATH model can help determine how improved reuse and recycling can reduce the energy costs of the structural materials in new buildings. Using the correct structural materials to maximize reuse and recycling helps minimize energy use, because using recycled building materials requires less energy than manufacturing new materials.

B-PATH allows users to model the use of a range of typical structural building materials like concrete, steel, and lumber from their production, transportation, and construction until their end-of-life processes. Users can define which fuels and how much electricity is used in each of these processes, throughout the lifecycle.

The method B-PATH uses to calculate results is transparent and public, so that its users can understand how the calculations were made. Users can model variations in production pathways that occur as a result of supply-chain configurations, geographical locations of plants, plant technology vintages, fuel mixes, logistics, and other materials pathway characteristics that can be unique to local and regional supply chains. The model incorporates both current practice and best practice methods of manufacturing and construction to determine how they affect energy use. The user can tailor results to specific U.S. regions, which vary by climate, local and regional characteristics in materials supply chains, construction practices, and end-of-life pathways, as well as in the mix of fuels for electrical power supply sources and volume of water consumption.

Model results provide users with an estimate of a building materials’ lifecycle energy use and greenhouse gas footprint. By modeling different scenarios, users can identify the optimal strategy to better reduce the energy use and long-term environmental effects of a commercial building before even breaking ground.

—Allan Chen

Download the report Life Cycle Evaluation of Concrete Building Construction as a Strategy for Sustainable Cities, by Alexander Stadel, Petek Gursel, and Eric Masanet at http://energy.lbl.gov/staff/masanet/bpath.html.  A copy of the report is also available through PCA at http://www.cement.org/DC/SN3119.pdf.

The model is available as a download.