A metallographic sample under examination at Argonne National Laboratory’s Battery Post-Test Facility.
(Image credit – Argonne National Laboratory)
Science Committee Examines National Labs’ Role in Technology Development
MAR 21, 2018
At a House Science Committee hearing dedicated to the national laboratories, committee members probed the role the labs play in developing and commercializing technologies. Members also announced two bills directing DOE to conduct demonstration projects in nuclear energy and energy storage, respectively.
Spencer R. Weart Director of Research in History, Policy, and Culture
On March 14, the House Science Committee held a hearing to discuss the role of the Department of Energy’s national laboratories in promoting “innovation in science.” Leaders from five of the labs appeared as witnesses: Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Director Mark Peters, Argonne National Laboratory Director Paul Kearns, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory Director Chi-Chang Kao, Sandia National Laboratories Chief Research Officer Susan Seestrom, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Associate Director for Biosciences Mary Maxon.
The hearing focused mainly on the labs’ efforts to facilitate technology development, with only fleeting attention paid to their basic scientific research. This focus reflected committee members’ concerns about the Trump administration’s large proposed cuts to DOE’s applied R&D programs for fiscal year 2019 as well as their enthusiasm for next-generation technologies in fields such as nuclear energy and energy storage.
Witnesses testify on effects of proposed applied R&D cuts
For nearly a year, the administration’s policy of privileging “early-stage” research while cutting back on technology development and commercialization assistance has been under critical scrutiny. At the hearing, Committee Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) assailed the policy again, saying,
By all credible accounts, American industry will not fund the activities that are proposed for elimination, no matter how much the administration would like to think so. The department could have heard that from industry directly, but, the second year in a row, we heard from department officials that they did not formally engage with the private sector in deciding what activities they would cut.
Peters said that, if enacted, about 10 percent of INL’s workforce would be affected. Maxon said Berkeley Lab would perhaps have to cut 100 full-time employees. She also said there would be “serious” consequences for the Agile BioFoundry, which develops capabilities for biomanufacturing, and FLEXLAB, which tests building technologies. Later in the hearing, she also stressed that proposed cuts to the Biological and Environmental Research program in the Office of Science would curtail research bearing on issues such as drought resilience.
Seestrom reported that Sandia receives about $140 million through the applied energy offices but that affected personnel could likely be absorbed into the labs’ national security portfolio. Kearns said Argonne receives about 10 percent of its funding from the applied energy offices, which helps it work more closely with industry. Kao remarked that the impacts on SLAC would be minimal as it receives little funding through the applied energy programs.
As DOE had not released its full budget justification for fiscal year 2019 at the time of the hearing, the witnesses said they were unable to offer additional details. The two labs that would be most affected by the funding cuts to applied R&D programs, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the National Energy Technology Laboratory, were not represented at the hearing.
Members from both parties back labs’ role in commercialization
Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA) further questioned the administration’s distinction between early-stage and late-stage research, asking the witnesses to weigh in on its validity for making funding decisions.
Seestrom replied, “I do not see that it’s useful to talk about defunding any research based on that distinction.”
Peters, whose lab focuses mainly on nuclear energy, said he feels the federal government might have a stronger role to play in bringing new nuclear technologies to commercialization than other energy technologies.
Two committee Republicans showed a strong interest in the government taking a more forceful role to advance nuclear energy.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) expressed frustration that no advanced reactor prototypes had yet appeared and said,
What we are interested in making sure is that the money that we are spending on research actually is not done for the sake of research but instead is done to make sure we’re doing things that improve the life of the people on this planet.
Historically, DOE’s research programs have had the greatest impact when resources are focused on completion of certain goals and missions. Our national debt certainly leads us to righteous funding restrictions at the federal level, and that should lead us to focus on result and mission-oriented research. In my opinion, this is particularly true of advanced nuclear power.
Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX) took a different tack on commercialization assistance, questioning the Obama administration’s establishment of DOE’s Office of Technology Transitions and the associated Technology Commercialization Fund. He said,
I’m concerned that we’re consolidating funding decisions in Washington instead of giving more flexibility to our national labs, which tend to have direct relationships with industry and better understand the technology needs.
Bipartisan support expressed for energy storage R&D
In addition to nuclear energy, which has been a perennial interest, several committee members also expressed support for the development of energy storage technologies. Committee Chair Lamar Smith (R-TX) said, “I think we all know that the key to success for encouraging the use of alternative fuels and energy is a better battery, a more efficient battery, a lighter battery, and a battery with greater storage.”
Smith encouraged Kearns to talk about the efforts of the Joint Center for Energy Storage Research, based at Argonne, to develop batteries delivering five times the energy of current models at one-fifth the cost. Pressed on when such batteries might arrive, Kearns was noncommittal but suggested, “Certainly within the next five years we’ll see a very dramatic change in the field of energy storage, both in terms of grid and transportation technology.”
Reps. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) and Paul Tonko (D-NY) also posed friendly questions about the benefits of energy storage, while Rohrabacher asked the witnesses about the prospects of a new kind of battery promoted by John Goodenough, coinventor of the lithium-ion battery.
Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL) announced that he and Rep. Steve Knight (R-CA) are planning to introduce new legislation to “set up demonstration programs for grid-scale energy storage.” He solicited the witnesses’ opinions on three-to-five-year technology goals for the battery projects supported by the bill, mentioning three capabilities specifically: an installed energy capital cost of $100 per watt, a minimum of one charge and discharge cycle per day, and a lifetime of 5,000 charge cycles. The witnesses said the goals seemed reasonable but promised to provide additional input later.
Foster said he is eager to set goals that are challenging but realizable. He remarked, “There is a bipartisan interest, including by our committee chair, in making the transition to an energy economy that doesn’t dump large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and energy storage is crucial there.”
