U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

97–565PDF 2015

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OVERSIGHT: 

ENERGY INNOVATION HUBS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

June 17, 2015 

Serial No. 114–25 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

HON. RANDY K. WEBER, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

June 17, 2015 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Randy K. Weber, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 6 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

Statement by Representative Alan Grayson, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

Witnesses: 

Dr. Harry A. Atwater, Director, Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis 

(JCAP) 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 11 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14 

Dr. Jess Gehin, Director, Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water 

Reactors (CASL) 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 21 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 23 

Dr. George Crabtree, Director, Joint Center for Energy Storage Research 

(JCESR) 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 43 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 45 

Dr. Alex King, Director, Critical Materials Institute (CMI) 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 53 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 55 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 64 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. Alex King, Director, Critical Materials Institute (CMI) ................................ 78 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 84 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 86 

(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OVERSIGHT: 

ENERGY INNOVATION HUBS 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:37 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Randy Weber 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

Chairman WEBER. Good morning, and welcome to today’s Energy 

Subcommittee hearing on the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Energy Innovation Hubs. 

This hearing will establish Congressional oversight over the four 

existing Hubs, examining the costs and benefits of the Department’s approach to collaborative research and development. 

DOE Energy Innovation Hubs are designed to coordinate research efforts across the Department, encouraging cooperation between researchers in basic science, applied energy, and engineering, and bringing together researchers from the national labs, academia, and industry into teams focused on solving critical energy 

challenges. With appropriate goals, benchmarks, and oversight, 

this kind of collaborative research and development is just plain 

old common sense. 

Through the national labs, the federal government has the expertise to conduct basic and applied research, while the private sector 

has the ability and the motivation to move the next-generation energy technology into the marketplace. The Department funds the 

four Energy Innovation Hubs at approximately $90 million per 

year. The existing Hubs are focused on a number of energy challenges including extending the life of nuclear power reactors, developing better and more powerful batteries, creating new materials 

for advanced energy technology, and mimicking the ability that 

plants have to create fuels from sunlight. 

The Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors, also known as CASL, brings together our best and brightest 

from industry, academia, and the labs to develop codes to model 

and simulate operations of the U.S. reactor fleet. These cuttingedge tools allow us to increase our return on investment from 

DOE’s supercomputers within the Office of Science’s Advanced Scientific Computing Research program—the subject of a hearing we 

held in the Energy Subcommittee earlier this year. 

One critical application of CASL’s virtual environment for reactor 

applications, known as VERA for short, is to enable the nuclear industry and regulators to predict the performance of reactor components for license renewals by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC). I’d like everyone to take note of the slide on the screen, 

which shows what is at stake—it’s called The Clock is Ticking— 

shows what is at stake for the nation’s base load electricity from 

nuclear power if the operating fleet is unable to secure license renewals to 60 years and 80 years of operating life, respectively, and 

it shows it there on either one of our slides. These NRC license renewals are an important issue for the reliability of our nation’s 

electricity and for my district on The Texas Gulf Coast. 

The South Texas Project, currently operating near my district 

which I used to represent, by the way, as you gentlemen know, provides reliable, zero-emissions electricity to the State of Texas, and 

good-paying jobs for my constituents. It’s pretty clear from this 

graph just how important these licenses are to maintaining reliable, affordable power across the country. I know that Dr. Gehin 

has provided a similar figure in his prepared testimony, so I look 

forward to discussing this important issue today. 

The research and development underway in the CASL Hub is 

just one example of the benefits from this collaborative research 
7 

approach. The technical expertise and scientific facilities in our national labs can provide tremendous impact on the private sector 

through appropriate partnerships. 

However, while the current DOE Hubs program pursues worthy 

research goals, not all collaborative research is a guaranteed success. In the first round of Hubs in the program, DOE established 

a Hub focused on building efficiency. But due to cost, poor performance, and a lack of clear goals, this Hub was dissolved. 

Establishing a new Hub, center, or project is not the answer to 

every problem, and new proposals must be appropriately justified 

to Congress and shown to meet the research and development goals 

for the lead DOE office. Any authorization of new or continuing 

Hubs proposed by DOE must also include the ability to efficiently 

close down projects that are not achieving clear measures of success. 

I want to thank our witnesses today for testifying on their valuable research and the DOE Energy Innovation Hub program. I look 

forward to a discussion about Federal Government’s role in leading 

collaborative research and development, and how to leverage limited taxpayer dollars for the greatest economic impact and scientific 

achievement. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Weber follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

CHAIRMAN RANDY K. WEBER

Good morning and welcome to today’s Energy Subcommittee hearing on the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Energy Innovation Hubs. This hearing will establish 

Congressional oversight over the four existing Energy Innovation Hubs, examining 

the costs and benefits of the Department’s approach to collaborative research and 

development. 

DOE Energy Innovation Hubs are designed to coordinate research efforts across 

the Department, encouraging cooperation between researchers in basic science, applied energy, and engineering, and bring together researchers from the national 

labs, academia, and industry into teams focused on solving critical energy challenges. 

With appropriate goals, benchmarks, and oversight, this kind of collaborative research and development is just common sense. Through the national labs, the federal government has the expertise to conduct basic and applied research, while the 

private sector has the ability and motivation to move the next generation energy 

technology into the market place. 

The Department funds the four energy innovation hubs at approximately $90 million per year. The existing hubs are focused on a number of energy challenges—including extending the life of nuclear power reactors, developing better and more 

powerful batteries, creating new materials for advanced energy technology, and 

mimicking the ability that plants have to create fuels from sunlight. 

The Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors, also known as 

‘‘CASL’’ [Castle] brings together our best and brightest from industry, academia, 

and the labs to develop codes to model and simulate operations of the U.S. reactor 

fleet. These cutting edge tools allow us to increase our return on investment from 

DOE’s supercomputers within the Office of Science’s Advanced Scientific Computing 

Research program—the subject of a hearing we held in the Energy Subcommittee 

earlier this year. 

One critical application of CASL’s virtual environment for reactor applications, 

known as ‘‘VERA’’ for short, is to enable the nuclear industry and regulators to predict the performance of reactor components for license renewals by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

I’d like everyone to take note of the slide on the screen, which shows what is at 

stake for the nation’s base load electricity from nuclear power if the operating fleet 

is unable to secure license renewals to 60 years and 80 years of operating life, respectively.[see slide] 
8 

These NRC license renewals are an important issue for the reliability of our nation’s electricity and for my district. The South Texas Project, currently operating 

near my district, provides reliable, zero-emission electricity to the state of Texas, 

and good-paying jobs to my constituents. It’s pretty clear from this graph just how 

important these licenses are to maintaining reliable, affordable power across the 

country. I know that Dr. Gehin [JEAN] has provided a similar figure in his prepared testimony so I look forward to discussing this important issue today. 

The research and development underway in the CASL hub is just one example 

of the benefits from this collaborative research approach. The technical expertise 

and scientific facilities in our national labs can provide tremendous impact on the 

private sector through appropriate partnerships. 

However, while the current DOE hubs program pursues worthy research goals, 

not all collaborative research is a guaranteed success. In the first round of hubs in 

the program, DOE established a hub focused on building efficiency. But due to cost, 

poor performance, and a lack of clear goals, this hub was dissolved. 

Establishing a new hub, center, or project is not the answer to every problem, and 

new proposals must be appropriately justified to Congress and shown to meet the 

research and development goals for the lead DOE office. Any authorization of new 

or continuing hubs proposed by DOE must also include the ability to efficiently close 

down projects that are not achieving clear measures of success. 

I want to thank our witnesses today for testifying on their valuable research, and 

the DOE Energy Innovation hub program. I look forward to a discussion about federal government’s role in leading collaborative research and development, and how 

to leverage limited taxpayer dollars for the greatest economic impact and scientific 

achievement. 

Chairman WEBER. So, I’m going to recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Grayson, for an opening statement. He’s chomping at the 

bit. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Chairman Weber, for holding this 

hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for joining us today. 

I am pleased to see that we have the Director of each Energy Innovation Hub here this morning. These Hubs seek to accelerate scientific discoveries that address critical energy issues, particularly 

barriers to advancing new energy technology. 

Today’s hearing is well-timed. Two of the four existing Innovation Hubs are up for renewal this year, while the others are just 

beginning. The Energy Innovation Hub Program was established 

only five years ago and this hearing will provide Members an important opportunity to understand further what must be done to 

ensure the successes of existing, and future, Hubs. 

Unfortunately, Congress has yet to provide any authorizing legislation for the important work being performed at each of the Hubs. 

I hope that today’s hearing will provide the insights needed to accomplish that goal. Toward that end, I have already introduced 

H.R. 1870, a bill that would establish merit-based rules governing 

the selection, scope, and composition of future Hubs. Further, the 

Committee hasaccepted the legislative language from that bill as 

an amendment to the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, 

which was considered on the House Floor less than a month ago. 

I appreciate the Chairman and his staff’s efforts to work together 

to ensure that this important provision was included in the final 

bill. I also want to thank Ranking Member Johnson for including 

it in the alternative COMPETES legislation, produced by the Minority, that was offered as a substitute amendment both in Committee and on the Floor. 

I am very excited about the possibility of our Committee finally 

producing authorizing legislation for Energy Innovation Hubs. 

There are some issues I look forward to learning about this morning, particularly issues regarding Hub management and length of 
9 

operation. We need develop a plan for Hubs that reach the end of 

their second five-year contract. Presently, the Department is indicating that Hubs will conclude work after a maximum of ten years 

only. I support this guidance in principle because it fosters a sense 

of urgency within Hubs to define and achieve goals as expeditiously 

as possible. 

But what happens when a Hub has been extraordinarily successful? Maybe there should be some process through which, according 

to merit-based review, that Hub is permitted to continue pursuing 

promising research and maybe even profound new discoveries. 

The answers to these questions, and others, are what I’m looking 

forward to hearing from you all today. I also look forward to hearing each of your views as to how your own Hub works in the context of Department of Energy research activities and goals across 

the board. How, specifically, is the research you are performing 

contributing to the larger effort to solve our nation’s pressing energy challenges and needs? 

Each of you is involved in exciting and innovative work. I look 

forward to hearing from you, and watching each of your Hubs as 

they progress. It’s my hope that Congress can provide to you the 

resources that you need to accomplish your goals, and I look forward to working with you, Chairman Weber, toward that end. 

Thank you. I yield the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grayson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

MINORITY RANKING MEMBER ALAN GRAYSON

Thank you, Chairman Weber, for holding this hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for testifying today. 

I am pleased to see we have the Director from each Energy Innovation Hub here 

this morning. These Hubs seek to accelerate scientific discoveries that address critical energy issues—particularly, barriers to advancing new energy technologies. 

Today’s hearing is well-timed. Two of the four existing Energy Innovation Hubs 

are up for renewal this year, while the others are just beginning. The Energy Innovation Hub Program was established only five years ago, so this hearing will provide Members an important opportunity to further understand what must be done 

to ensure the successes of existing, and future, Hubs. 

Unfortunately, Congress has yet to provide authorizing legislation for the important work being performed at each Energy Innovation Hub. It is my hope that today’s hearing will provide the insights needed to accomplish that goal. Toward that 

end, I have already introduced H.R. 1870—a bill that would establish merit-based 

rules governing the selection, scope, and composition of future Hubs. Further, the 

committee accepted the legislative language from that bill as an amendment to the 

America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, which was considered on the House floor 

less than a month ago. I appreciate the Chairman and his staff’s efforts to work 

with me and my staff to ensure that this important provision was included in the 

final bill. I also thank Ranking Member Johnson for including it in the alternative 

COMPETES legislation, produced by the minority, that was offered as a substitute 

amendment—both in committee and on the floor. 

While I am very excited about the possibility of our committee finally producing 

authorizing legislation for Energy Innovation Hubs, there are some issues I look forward to learning more about this morning. Particularly, issues regarding Hub management and length-of operation. 

It is my belief that we must develop a plan for Hubs that reach the end of their 

second five-year contract. Presently, the Department is indicating that Hubs will 

conclude work after a maximum of ten years. I support this guidance in principle, 

because it fosters a sense of urgency within Hubs to define and achieve goals as expeditiously as possible. But what happens when a Hub has been extraordinarily successful? Shouldn’t there be some process through which, according to a merit-based 

review system, that Hub is permitted to continue pursuing promising research? 
10 

Furthermore, how can the Department best make sure that the utility of a Hub 

has been exhausted, and that it is not on the precipice of profound new discoveries? 

The answers to these questions, and others, are what I look forward to learning 

today. I also look forward to hearing each of your views as to how you view your 

own Hub in the context of larger Department of Energy research activities and 

goals. How, specifically, is the research you are performing contributing to the larger effort to solve some of our nation’s most pressing energy challenges? 

Each of you is involved in exciting and innovative work. I look forward to hearing 

from you, and watching each of your Hubs as they progress. It is my hope that this 

Congress can provide the resources you need to accomplish your goals, and I look 

forward to working with you, Chairman Weber, toward that end. 

Thank you. I yield the balance of my time. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman. 

Let me introduce our witnesses. Our first witness today is Dr. 

Harry Atwater, Director of the Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis, or JCAP. In addition to his position at JCAP, Dr. Atwater 

serves as the Howard Hughes Professor of Applied Physics and Material Science at the California Institute of Technology. He specializes in photovoltaics and solar energy as well as plasmonics and optical materials. Dr. Atwater received his bachelor’s degree, master’s 

degree, and Ph.D. in electrical engineering from the Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology. 

Our next witness—and welcome, by the way, Dr. Atwater. 

Our next witness is Dr. Jess Gehin, Director of the Consortium 

for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors, or CASL. Dr. 

Gehin has been with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory for over 

20 years. Prior to his current position, Dr. Gehin was a senior R&D 

staff member performing research primarily in the area of nuclear 

reactor physics. Dr. Gehin received his bachelor’s degree in nuclear 

engineering from Kansas State University, and his master’s degree 

and Ph.D. in nuclear engineering from MIT. And by the way, welcome, Dr. Gehin. 

And I will now yield to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, 

to introduce our next witness. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Chairman Weber, and thank you, 

Chairman and Ranking Member Grayson, for holding this hearing. 

It’s my honor to introduce Dr. George Crabtree, who’s the Director of Joint Center for Energy Storage Research, or JCESR, at Argonne National Lab, which is in my district. He’s also a distinguished Professor of Physics, Electrical and Mechanical Engineering at the University of Illinois at Chicago, serving as a bridge between Argonne and academia. He has won numerous awards for 

his research including the Kammerlingh Onnes Prize for his work 

on vortices and high-temperature superconductors. This prestigious 

prize is awarded once every three years. Dr. Crabtree is the second 

recipient. He has won the U.S. Department of Energy’s Award for 

Outstanding Scientific Accomplishment in Solid State Physics four 

times, which is a very notable accomplishment. 

Dr. Crabtree has served as Director of the Material Science Division at Argonne. He has published more than 400 papers in leading 

scientific journals, has collected over 16,000 career citations, has 

given over 100 invited talks at national and international scientific 

conferences. His research interests include next-generation battery 

materials, sustainable energy, energy policy, material science, 

nanoscale superconductors and magnets, and highly correlated 
11 

electrons and medals. Dr. Crabtree co-chaired the Under Secretary 

of Energy’s Assessment of DOE’s Applied Energy programs. 

I want to thank Dr. Crabtree for joining us today and I look forward to your testimony. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman. Welcome, Dr. 

Crabtree. Did he say 16,000 citations? I don’t know how you can 

afford that. Every time I get a citation, my insurance goes up. 

Yours has got to be astronomical. 

Our final witness is Dr. Alex King, Director of the Critical Minerals Institute (CMI). Before joining CMI, Dr. King served as the 

Director of the Ames Laboratory. Dr. King received his bachelor’s 

degree in physical metallurgy from the University of Sheffield and 

his Ph.D. in metallurgy and science materials from the University 

of Oxford. Welcome, Dr. King. 

At this time I’m going to now recognize Dr. Atwater for five minutes to present his testimony. Dr. Atwater. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. HARRY A. ATWATER, DIRECTOR, 

JOINT CENTER FOR ARTIFICIAL PHOTOSYNTHESIS (JCAP) 

Dr. ATWATER. Okay. Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members, ladies and gentlemen. It’s my pleasure to be here today to tell you 

about the work, the mission and the progress the Joint Center for 

Artificial Photosynthesis. 

So I think it’s fair to say that having a source of renewable fuels 

would be a great source of energy security, economic well-being, 

and environmental protection for the United States, and JCAP, 

which is a partnership that’s led by Cal Tech, but also with major 

partnerships with the national labs, Lawrence Berkeley National 

Labs and Stanford Linear Accelerator Lab, as well as the University of California, is focusing on building the scientific foundation 

for renewable synthesis of transportation fuels directly from sunlight, water and carbon dioxide using a process called artificial photosynthesis, or otherwise known as generating fuels from sunlight. 

So most people are familiar with the idea of generating electricity from sunlight with solar panels that you might put on your 

roof, so what JCAP is working on is the science behind taking 

those charge carriers and directly converting those charge carriers 

that come out of your solar panel into chemical fuels, examples of 

which are hydrogen, which is generated by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen, and generating renewable carbon-based fuels 

by reduction of carbon dioxide. And JCAP was established in 2010, 

and during its first five years had a primary emphasis on hydrogen 

production, and its missionary objective, a sort of overarching missionary objective during that time was to develop a robust solar 

fuel generator for hydrogen generation that operates 10 times more 

efficiently than natural systems like plants and crops. And I’m 

happy to say that JCAP has been able to meet that objective of developing a robust solar fuels generator, and more importantly, really developing the concept of what a solar fuels generator is. That’s 

been an important contribution to the scientific field and to the advancement of technology. 

In its next five years in renewal, JCAP is going to focus on the— 

as a main objective, reduction of CO2 and converting reduction of 

CO2 to transportation fuels, direct transportation fuels, and this is 
12 

really also in addition to a strategic objective for making fuels, it 

is really a dramatic scientific grand challenge, the reduction of CO2

selectively, producing exactly one product and not a bunch of byproducts is a true scientific grand challenge. 

So to date, we have, as I indicated, been able to develop solar 

fuels generators that operate 10 times more efficiently than plants, 

and that has really set the stage for a follow-on generation of applied R&D that can develop the scalable generators, and as you 

may know, there is no existing solar fuels industry. While there’s 

a solar panel industry, there is no solar fuels industry, so it is 

these innovations that will really set the stage for U.S. industry, 

a new U.S. industry in this area. 

And in the course of its work in generating solar fuels generators, JCAP also discovered new catalysts for water oxidation and 

reduction, importantly, a method to protect semiconductors against 

corrosion so they can be long-lasting and robust in their operation. 

In addition to these scientific discoveries, JCAP established a 

number of important facilities including two state-of-the-art labs, 

one at California Institute of Technology and once at Lawrence 

Berkeley Laboratory that are purpose-built for solar fuels research. 

It established new methods for rapid high-throughput screening of 

materials so we can do experiments that used to take years in matters of weeks. We developed the first facility for so-called 

benchmarking, or developing standard test conditions for evaluating catalysts so that we can understand how different solar fuels 

materials operator and perform. We developed new methods for 

characterization of solar fuels materials using advanced X-ray light 

source techniques at the Advanced Light Source at Lawrence 

Berkeley labs and Stanford Linear Accelerator Lab. 

Also, to set the stage for a new solar fuels industry, JCAP has 

been very active in developing invention disclosures, a total of 36 

invention disclosures, and 26 patent applications, which are available for licensing to industry, and has an output of scientific results, 200 papers, 60 percent of which are in high-impact journals 

and numerous key note and invited presentations by research scientists at JCAP. 

And so just to highlight some of the things that, you know, why 

is it that a Hub is an appropriate mechanism to carry on and accelerate this kind of research, JCAP has been able to leverage the integrated Hub concept to make significant advances, one of which 

I cited earlier, which is the notion that we could accelerate the development of catalyst materials on a time scale that normally takes 

years in the sort of conventional pace of progress in science, and 

carry out that in a matter of weeks, and so as an example, in 2013, 

JCAP developed by a collaboration between two of the JCAP 

projects, the high throughput experiment project and the heterogeneous catalysis project, new catalyst materials composed of four 

elements, and there are many, many ways you can combine four 

elements together in different compositions, so a very large number 

of samples were made and rapidly screened using high-throughput 

combinatorial synthesis techniques that allowed us to very rapidly 

identify candidates and promising candidates were scaled up and 

tested at the laboratory level, really accelerating that pace of 

progress. 
13 

Another example is the development of a cross-cutting what we 

call process materials and integration team, a group of applied and 

basic research scientists that came together from across JCAP to 

really understand how to put together and design and build very 

rapidly solar fuels generator prototypes so we could understand 

what works and what doesn’t on a rapid time scale. 

So those are many of the key accomplishments, and so for the future, JCAP is going to focus on the grand challenge of—scientific 

grand challenge of reduction of carbon dioxide in generation of liquid fuels directly from the products, reduced products. This is an 

area that takes JCAP, which has a translational mission, sort of 

more upstream in the basic research end, because in the area of 

carbon dioxide reduction, there are many more scientific challenges 

and unanswered questions than I think currently exist for the case 

of hydrogen production. And so it’s the opportunity to really unlock 

the mechanisms and the scientific discoveries that could selectively 

reduce CO2 to fuel products that could generate a new generation 

of generators for liquid fuels, and that’s going to be our missionary 

objective as a scientific grand challenge and setting the stage for 

a new type of solar fuel generator. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Atwater follows:] 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Dr. Atwater. 

Dr. Gehin. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JESS GEHIN, DIRECTOR, 

CONSORTIUM FOR ADVANCED SIMULATION 

OF LIGHT WATER REACTORS (CASL) 

Dr. GEHIN. Thank you very much, Chairman Weber, Ranking 

Member Grayson, and Members of the Subcommittee. It’s my honor 

to be here to provide this testimony on the Energy Innovation Hub 

integrated research approach. 

CASL was the first Hub established by the Department of Energy in July 2010. It’s currently completing its first five-year term. 

It consists of 10 core founding partner institutions from academia, 

national laboratories and industries led by Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory. 

Our focus is on innovations in nuclear commercial power generator, specifically the advanced modeling and simulation of nuclear 

reactors. CASL’s vision is to predict with confidence the performance of nuclear reactors through comprehensive science-based modeling and simulation technology that is deployed and applied 

broadly throughout the nuclear energy industry to enhance safety, 

reliability and economics. CASL is capitalizing on advancements in 

computing and is helping retain and strengthen U.S. leadership in 

two key mission areas of high-performance computing and nuclear 

energy. 

CASL targets R&D in technical areas that have been selected as 

significant current industry challenges where modeling and simulation can provide meaningful advancements, particularly to help 

achieve increases in operating power, life extensions and higher 

fuel utilization. Many of the CASL developments are focused on 

key phenomena that limit power generation and so they can improve operations. Similarly, a significant benefit can be achieved 

through further life extensions by ensuring that reactor life-limiting components can meet their design requirements for longer operating periods beyond the current license renewals. 

CASL’s integrated research model is based on establishing an organization with outstanding researchers with a clear and agile research plan. Let me point out a few of the key features of this integrated model: central integrated management decision making and 

program integration, strong science and engineering applications 

and design leadership, independent oversight and review by an external board of directors, science and industry councils for oversight, review and advice, an agile work process based on 6-month 

planning execution periods. 

In order to achieve our research goals, CSL is developing a virtual reactor that we call VERA, which stands for the virtual environment for reactor applications. Our key research accomplishments in the development of VERA include creating a comprehensive Hub environment that supports a large team of researchers 

working on developing, testing and deploying VERA, the virtual reactor; developing computational methods and computer codes for 

all key physics needed to model reactor operation; applying VERA 

to several—to simulate several nuclear power plants including the 

Watts Bar nuclear plant near Oak Ridge, which is designed by 
22 

Westinghouse and operated by TVA, both partners in CASL; and 

coupling of physics software components and models with initial 

applications providing integrated simulation capabilities not previously available. 

The key metric of the success of CASL’s modeling and simulation 

capabilities is deployment to nuclear industry where these tools 

can be used. In order to achieve this, we have strong engagement 

with our industry partners and a broad connection with private industry through the integration of more than 50 additional contributing partners. CASL also relies an industry-led industry council 

with over 25 members from the broader nuclear energy and modeling simulation industries. 

VERA has already been deployed in industry engineering environments through CASL test stands. This includes, for example, 

the use of VERA at Westinghouse for simulating the AP–1000 reactor to confirm their own engineering calculations. In CASL’s second 

five-year term, VERA will be expanded beyond pressurized water 

reactors to support boiling water reactors, which represent the remainder of our current operating fleet. We will also consider future 

light water reactor designs including small modular reactors. 

In conclusion, Energy Innovation Hubs represent an effective research model that enables CASL to conduct basic and applied research for critical energy application. Through the Hub model, 

CASL has tapped into DOE advanced computing strengths and nuclear energy research capabilities. We have taken advantage of the 

best and brightest university researchers and we have integrated 

decades of industry experience and expertise. This highly integrated, focused R&D partnership has demonstrated accomplishments at a rapid pace, notably including successful deployments to 

several industry end users. As the first Energy Innovation Hub, 

CASL has clearly demonstrated that this research model can be a 

very effective method to deliver targeted research and rapid solutions to address complex issues. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Gehin follows:] 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Doctor. 

Dr. Crabtree. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. GEORGE CRABTREE, DIRECTOR, 

JOINT CENTER FOR ENERGY STORAGE RESEARCH (JCESR) 

Mr. CRABTREE. Thank you, Chairman Weber and Ranking Member Grayson and Members of the Committee for this opportunity to 

testify. I will be talking about the Joint Center for Energy Store 

Research, otherwise known as JCESR, which addresses two compelling challenges: creating the next generation of high-performance, inexpensive electricity storage to transform transportation 

through the widespread penetration of electric cars, and to transform the electricity grid through widespread penetration of clean 

and sustainable wind and solar energy. JCESR concentrates exclusively on next-generation electricity storage beyond the reach of today’s lithium ion technology. 

Transportation and the grid account for 2/3 of all the energy used 

in the United States. Transforming them with high-performance, 

inexpensive storage not only modernizes our energy system but 

also grows the economy, creates jobs and promotes U.S. innovation 

in the global marketplace. 

JCSER brings a new paradigm to battery R&D, integrating four 

functions into a single highly interactive organization, and those 

four functions are discovery science, battery design, research prototyping, and manufacturer collaboration. It is close interaction spanning across these four functions that accelerates the pace of discovery and innovation and shortens the time from 

conceptualization to commercialization. So JCESR’s new paradigm 

is a model not only for battery R&D but also for other critical national energy challenges. 

Using our new paradigm, JCESR intends to create two additional 

outcomes or legacies: a library of fundamental science of energy 

storage, applying the remarkable advances of nanoscience of the 

last 15 years to the materials and phenomena of energy storage at 

atomic and molecular levels, and the second outcome, using this 

new understanding to develop two prototype batteries, one for 

transportation, one for the grid, that when scaled to manufacturing 

have five times the energy density and one-fifth the cost of today’s 

commercial lithium ion batteries. Although the two batteries may 

look very different, they will be based on the same library of fundamental science. 

JCESR has already made substantial progress toward its goals. 

Soon after launch, we established our new paradigm spanning 150 

researchers at 14 partner institutions. We began building the personal relationships that enable intense and effective communication, and we put in place the strategic objectives and the daily 

meetings that drive our program. In its first year, JCESR established three distinguishing tools so materials genome approaches 

for crystalline electrodes and liquid electrolytes that simulate tens 

of thousands of materials on the computer to find the most promising ones before they are ever made in the laboratory. 

We also put together a unique electrochemical discovery lab to 

synthesize and explore these materials with state-of-the-art tools 

and the third distinguishing tool is techno-economic modeling to 
44 

simulate the performance and cost of complete battery systems on 

the computer before they’re prototyped. 

So JCESR used these tools to make foundational progress in all 

four of its functional areas. We identified four promising directions 

for transportation and grid prototypes. We used our tools to converge these four battery prototypes so techno-economic modeling 

revealed the ultimate performance of each of the four prototypes 

and in an inverse process provided performance and cost thresholds 

for the materials that would make up the components of those batteries. The materials genomes found promising materials to meet 

these thresholds and the synthesis and prototyping teams began to 

build partial and complete prototypes to test the compatibility of 

the materials as complete battery systems. So we’ve met extensively with the private sector to discuss the size and performance 

of JCESR’s prototypes that would be required to translate them to 

commercialization. 

In our 2–1/2 years of operator, we’ve learned the critical importance of continuous improvement of our new paradigm. We worked 

closely with our 14 partners, our 150 researchers and our sponsor, 

the Office of Basic Energy Sciences in DOE, to refine our management practices, to refine our strategic directions, and to balance 

our exploratory divergent research to identify promising solutions 

with focused convergent research to implement and complete the 

selected solutions and prototypes rapidly. 

During this time, we’ve terminated research on one candidate 

prototype—that would be lithium oxygen batteries—and initiated 

research on other promising opportunities including metal anodes 

for lithium and magnesium, and membranes for flow batteries. 

Nimble response to management and strategic challenges and opportunities as they arise is essential for completing our mission in 

a timely manner. 

So thank you again for the opportunity to testify and I’m happy 

to answer questions later on. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crabtree follows:] 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Dr. Crabtree. 

Dr. King. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. ALEX KING, DIRECTOR, 

CRITICAL MATERIALS INSTITUTE (CMI) 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Chairman Weber, Ranking Member Grayson, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity 

to testify at today’s hearing on innovation Hubs. 

I’m Director of the Critical Materials Institute, which is led by 

the Ames Lab in Ames, Iowa, the U.S. Department of Energy Office 

of Science National Lab operated by Iowa State University. CMI’s 

team includes more than 300 researchers and support staff across 

six corporations, seven universities and four national labs. 

CMI exists primarily to mitigate the challenges posed to the 

manufacturing sector by materials that provide essential functions 

or capabilities but are subject to supply risks. The Hub focuses on 

materials used in clean energy technologies, but many of these 

have broader uses, notably in the area of defense. Prominent 

among the Hub’s research targets are the rare earth elements, 

which are used in magnets, lighting and displays, and lithium, 

which is used in today’s rechargeable batteries. 

CMI follows the critical materials strategic developed by the U.S. 

Department of Energy, addressing opportunities in three areas: 

One, diversification of supply; two, development of substitute materials; and three, improving the efficiency of materials used in reducing waste in our access of the currently available materials. 

Within its first five years, this Hub will develop and have adopted by industry at least one technology in each of these three areas. 

In its first two years of operation—we just celebrated our second 

anniversary—CMI has developed 34 inventions with significant potential for impact, has made four patent applications. It is very 

close to having one replacement material adopted by an industrial 

and is within a year or two of a second. Materials development of 

this kind typically takes 20 years, and we’ve succeeded in two. 

Maybe I’ll explain how later. CMI-developed technology for solvent 

extraction is being considered for licensing by two mining companies as we speak. 

These results have strong potential for providing financial returns on the investments made by the U.S. taxpayer. The Hub has 

earned an international reputation and has been described as the 

gold standard in its field. Several other countries are modeling 

their own efforts after CMI. 

How does this integrated research model advance the goals of the 

Office of Science and Applied Programs at DOE? Let me offer an 

example. In pursuit of new magnet models, we combine, as other 

Hubs do, computer simulations, experimental exploration of candidate alloys, rapid analysis and testing. These methods are all 

founded upon tools previously developed among CMI’s partners 

largely with DOE Office of Science Support, but we have advanced 

them and made them specific to our own purposes. So the Hub has 

in its first two years developed the first successful theory and computer models for predicting what is called magneto-crystalline anisotropy—maybe I’ll explain if you ask—for proposed new materials. 

This is something that hadn’t been possible before. It’s a contribu-
54 

tion from fundamental condensed matter physics in support of developing new magnetic materials. 

We’ve developed a tool based on additive manufacturing technologies for the rapid production of target magnet compositions, allowing us to produce arrays of materials that can then be tested. 

We’ve built new capabilities actually in collaboration with JCAP for 

rapid analysis of materials that take advantage of our additive 

manufacturing tool, and we have added high-throughput magnet 

testing capabilities. All of these capabilities work together to 

produce new materials, make them, test them, and meet the needs 

of the Hub. They are also enhancing the capabilities of other Office 

of Science and EERE programs, bringing them together. We have 

created a range of candidate materials for new high-performance 

magnets. 

Effectively, what we have done is to orchestrate diverse scientific 

efforts and enhance them so that we’re able to meet technological 

needs of the day in short order. We’re able—we’ve demonstrated 

the ability by doing that to go from zero to having new materials 

invented in two years, a process that typically takes up to 20. 

How does the private sector interact with CMI? We are very 

flexible. We seek—we have always sought to be flexible and responsive to industry needs. We find that our research goes faster when 

we speak to industry because speaking first we listen. We foster increasingly intensive collaborations as companies move from informal interactions to membership in our affiliate program to full engagement as research team members. Some companies have also 

expressed interest in engaging CMI for proprietary pre-commercial 

research, and we are considering that opportunity. 

Technologies developed by the Hub using its federal funds must 

be pre-competitive, must have high potential for impact on the supply chain, must be cost-effective, timely and have potential for 

adoption by U.S.-based companies. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:] 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Dr. King. I thank the witnesses 

for your testimony. I now recognize myself for questions for five 

minutes. 

Dr. Gehin, as I noted in my opening statement, CASL’s support 

for NRC license renewals is an issue of particular importance to my 

district and my adjoining Matagorda County, Blake Farenthold’s 

district. The South Texas Project Units 1 and 2 are currently under 

review by the NRC to operate for an additional 20 years, which 

means 20 more years of safe, reliable, and, I might add, zero-emission power for Texans. Can you explain to us generally how CASL’s 

simulation capabilities uniquely allow the use of supercomputers to 

model the integrity of a reactor pressure vessel and other components and why this is important for license extensions for the reactor fleet to operate up to 80 years. Doctor? 

Dr. GEHIN. Thank you very much for the question. So in a life 

extension of a reactor, you need to consider the aging of the materials, and so this is being done for the current 20-year life extensions. What we’re interested in is informing the next 20-year extension which, as you have noted, 60 to 80 years. So it will not impact 

the current—CASL will not impact the current license renewal, 

which is already in process. 

When you look at the extension to 60 to 80 years, there are critical components in the reactor that can’t easily be replaced. One of 

these is the reactor vessel. There’s others that are concrete and 

other materials. 

Chairman WEBER. Let me ask you real quick right in here because I read that in your comments. Why is it that the reactor core 

cannot be replaced? Is it just cost prohibitive? 

Dr. GEHIN. It’s cost prohibitive. It’s very—it would be very 

invasive to extract the vessel, or the reactor vessel, which is right 

in the center of the reactor. So it’s not deemed as being cost-effective to replace. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. That’s strictly based on cost considerations? 

Dr. GEHIN. Yes. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. 

Dr. GEHIN. And so—but the integrity of that vessel is really very 

important, of course, for safety and operation reasons so it’s important to look at its integrity, and which was done extensively, and 

renewals. What we’re doing in CASL by using our supercomputing 

capabilities is be able to do a very precise calculation of the neutron interactions on that vessel. So the vessel surrounds the fuel 

and so neutrons, you know, move around in the core, hit the vessel, 

and affect its material properties. So by being able to better follow 

the operation of the reactor over its lifetime and calculate the neutron interactions in a better way, three-dimension, higher fidelity, 

you can combine that improved material models that are being developed to understand the condition of that vessel and ensure that 

it can be extended another 20 years. 

Chairman WEBER. We were talking earlier when I came out to 

introduce myself to you all about criticality. 

Dr. GEHIN. Yes. 

Chairman WEBER. How long does it take to reach criticality, for 

example? 
65 

Dr. GEHIN. You know, they load the fuel, and it might take, you 

know, a day or two to become critical and then there’s an escalation of power over a couple days, and then the intention is to operate at full power. Critical means operating exactly steady state 

power. That’s where you want a reactor to operate for 18 months. 

That’s the goal. Then you shut down for refueling. 

Chairman WEBER. So once you reach criticality, and you’ve got— 

forgive me, this is very technical—neutrons. Explain that process. 

Dr. GEHIN. So the goal in achieving criticality or steady state operation is to have a self-sustaining neutron chain reaction, and so 

you get neutrons that are produced by fission and you have those 

in balance such that they cause additional fissions that create more 

neutrons so you maintain a steady state. 

Chairman WEBER. Right, and of course, I’m a layman in this, but 

it just seems like once you reach criticality, you know the effect on 

the reactor core. 

Dr. GEHIN. Well, you know—so when you reach criticality, you 

are impacting the fuel. You’re depleting the fuel. You’re irradiating 

the vessel, irradiating the components, and most importantly, generating power, which is the whole reason you’re doing this. So 

while you’re doing that, you do not know the full three-dimensional 

distribution of fluids on the vessel. You make measurements in selected locations to confirm the material behaviors is as expected. 

But what we can add with CASL is a lot more detail on what can 

actually be measured. 

Chairman WEBER. Are you measuring inside and outside the vessel? 

Dr. GEHIN. Yeah. They insert what’s called coupons. They’re 

metal samples that they can then take out of the reactor and interrogate. So one thing is really important. Simulation alone can’t provide this information, simulation combined with this type of data 

and experiments that can give the complete picture. 

Chairman WEBER. Are you able to anticipate new materials? I 

know we talked about graphite being used, heavy water, light 

water. 

Dr. GEHIN. Yeah. 

Chairman WEBER. Are you able to extrapolate that to what those 

effects would be on the reactor core itself? 

Dr. GEHIN. Yes, and the tools we’re developing are based on more 

fundamental principles than typical design tools so they’ll accommodate different material—consideration of different materials. It’s 

particularly valuable in scoping calculations, what if we did this, 

how would it perform, so you could down-select the most promising 

concepts that you could then take forward. You know, this is looking at fuel designs and how you operate the reactor can give you 

a lot more additional information. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. Forgive me, I’m way over my time, but 

I did have a question for Dr. Crabtree. I think you’re working on 

the batteries. All I want to know is, can you make it where my 

iPhone battery doesn’t run down while I’m watching the grandkids 

on videos? 

Mr. CRABTREE. Great question, and I have the same challenge. 

I wish my iPhone lasted twice as long. 
66 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you very much, and I’ll now yield to 

the Ranking Member. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you. I have some questions for Dr. Atwater. 

I’m going to try to understand better how the research that you’re 

doing fits into the bigger picture of energy production and storage. 

What you described as an effort to create solar fuels as opposed 

to the more typical effort to create electricity from solar power. Is 

that correct? 

Dr. ATWATER. That’s right, yeah. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. So is that similar, would you agree, to 

something like ethanol production, or is that different? 

Dr. ATWATER. Well, so ethanol is an example of a chemical fuel. 

It’s a liquid fuel that’s suitable as a liquid fuel, and that is indeed 

what—ethanol is normally produced by, for example, fermentation 

of feedstocks from crops and plants and so forth, and that’s a process that is established but it’s limited by the efficiency of natural 

photosynthesis. So what artificial photosynthesis or fuels from sunlight as the—in the research objectives at JCAP is focused on the 

same process of chemical fuel production but with a much higher 

efficiency. So the efficiency potential for fuel production rivals that 

of the efficiency potential for photovoltaic systems. For example, if 

you put solar panels on your rooftop, you can expect that the solar 

panels will operate with an efficiency for electricity production of 

something like 20 percent of the total sunlight falling on your rooftop. For example, natural photosynthesis is less than one percent 

efficient for most plants and photosynthetic organisms. So there’s 

a big gap there. And so JCAP is working to develop processes that 

can make fuels very selectively. We want to make one fuel, say, 

ethanol or methanol or hydrogen, and not a bunch of byproducts. 

Nature does this, of course, very well. But nature’s not particular 

efficient. And so to make an economical source of fuel generation 

that can generate and foster a new industry focused on efficiency, 

and like the nuclear Hub, I would mention we’re focused on reliability because if you think about the return on investment for any 

solar panel that you would put on your roof, it has to last for a long 

time. It has to last for 20 or 30 years in order to get that return 

on investment. Similarly, we want to make devices that are robust 

and reliable and that last for a long time. 

Mr. GRAYSON. So are you trying to basically do what biology does 

through only chemical and physical means or are you trying to take 

biological processes and tweak them and improve them? 

Dr. ATWATER. Yeah. In JCAP, we have a very sharply focused research program that’s focused on chemical catalytic processes and 

physical processes for the charge generation. So we’re using actually for the source of energy generation semiconductors very much 

like the semiconductors that are used in solar panels to generate 

electricity. But the charge carriers are then driven to chemical 

catalysts, not biological, so we’re working on non-biological routes, 

and as I indicated, we’ve already been able to achieve efficiencies 

for hydrogen production that are of the order of ten percent and 10 

times greater—more than ten times greater than that for natural 

photosynthetic processes. 

Mr. GRAYSON. So the fuel that you’ve created so far is hydrogen, 

not a traditional transportation fuel? 
67 

Dr. ATWATER. That’s right. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Now you’re going to try to branch out into something that you could actually put into a car—— 

Dr. ATWATER. That’s right. 

Mr. GRAYSON. —these days like octane or ethanol or methanol or 

something. 

Dr. ATWATER. That’s right, exactly, so the grand challenge is 

under mild chemical conditions very much like the way a solar 

panel would operate, can we generate directly a chemical fuel without having to build another large plant to do the downstream distillation and refinement. 

Mr. GRAYSON. One of the more interesting things about solar 

power production is that there are arguments in favor of largescale production, arguments in favor of small-scale production. Are 

you finding any sort of economies of scale that would tilt you toward large-scale production for this purpose, or not? 

Dr. ATWATER. So we have done—the best way to answer that is 

to look at the record of an industry, and we don’t have an existing 

solar field industry. However, JCAP has done some studies of the 

scalability. So what would it look like and what would be the key 

drivers for improved efficiency and cost reduction if you were to 

build, say, a 1-gigawatt-scale plant. That’s a very large-scale plant. 

For example, a conventional power reactor would be of the order 

of hundreds of megawatts to a gigawatt. And what you see is that 

the primary drivers of the cost and the economic return are the efficiency and the durability of the solar fuel generator itself. It’s not 

the tanking and the piping and other infrastructure. 

So the preliminary analysis shows that, you know, the investments that we’re making in the research on the technology advancement itself are key drivers. So to answer your question directly, it looks like there’s not a big sensitivity to scale. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. Last question. Do you have any judgment yourself about the possibility or the prospect of actually taking biological processes that exist and tweaking them, improving 

them to the point where they can become commercially viable? 

Dr. ATWATER. Yeah, that’s a very interesting question. The wonderful thing about nature is that it’s regenerative, you know, in our 

bodies and in plants and so forth, cells are regenerated, and the 

typical photosynthetic organisms only last for, you know, minutes 

to hours before they die and then nature has the benefit of regeneration. So we’ve really focused in our effort on non-biological 

routes because we want to make—because we know that we want 

to make things that last for tens of years. So JCAP really is focused on chemical and physical processes, which we think, you 

know, demonstrated by, you know, the record of durability of conventional solar photovoltaic panels that have the prospect of being 

durable for a very long time without regeneration. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thanks. I yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman. 

I now recognize the gentleman from California. Dana, you’re up. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

A couple of specific questions, and Mr. Gehin, is that how I pronounce it? Am I correct in that? 

Dr. GEHIN. Close. Gehin. 
68 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. I didn’t quite get that. A little louder? 

Dr. GEHIN. Gehin. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Gehin. Okay. 

Your focus on advanced simulation for light water reactors, we 

have a light water reactor in Orange County, and it’s shut down 

now, and we have found all over the world where light water reactors have made things—have been put public—the public around 

those light water reactors in danger, and so now there is a danger 

associated with every energy source, but don’t we have other potential sources of nuclear energy that are less dangerous that what 

light water reactors will be? And why are we stuck on light water 

reactors? I mean, I must have been briefed on three or four different alternatives to light water reactors that are safe and will not 

leave plutonium behind and can’t melt down, whether they’re pebble-based or thorium or high-temperature gas-cooled reactors. Why 

are we still putting money into light water reactors rather than 

going to a new generation of a different concept that wouldn’t be 

dangerous? 

Dr. GEHIN. Yeah, so that’s a very good question. I think, you 

know, my response will be, we need to look at both. I mean, we 

have a large current fleet generating a lot of clean, low-cost energy 

that the safety record is quite good on. And so CASL’s goal is to 

improve upon that, so—and I think we’re doing that as well. 

There are other—there are other advanced reactor concepts. 

DOE is doing research on these with expectations of deployment 

later on in this century. And so hopefully that will be a possibility. 

CASL’s, though, focus is, we have the existing fleet of 99 reactors. 

We’re going to be adding five more. Let’s operate those the best 

that we can and get all the benefits that we can. 

Chairman WEBER. Will the gentleman yield for just a second? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I certainly will. 

Chairman WEBER. I’ll give you some extra time. 

In somebody’s testimony, I read where the nuclear reactors we 

use on subs are safe because they’re designed to shut down in the 

event of a military incident. Whose—was that yours, Dr. Gehin? Do 

you remember? 

Dr. GEHIN. No, it wasn’t me. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. What kind of reactors are those? Are 

they light water reactors? 

Dr. GEHIN. Yeah, that’s my understanding, although that’s technology that the Navy protects very closely, but, you know, they put 

a lot of effort in the design of those reactors to ensure that they’re 

safe. 

Chairman WEBER. All right. Thank you. Reclaiming your time. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Thank you. 

What we’re talking about is research that was done back in the 

1940s and 1950s, and light water reactors are old technology. This 

is like trying to improve the steam engine. I mean, we spent a lot 

of money improving steam engines, and in fact, I believe light 

water reactors are based on steam engines. 

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that focusing our limited research dollars on light water reactors is a terrible waste and misuse of limited dollars that we have here. At the very least if we 

are going to use nuclear energy, let’s focus on those very promising 
69 

technologies that we have not invested in yet rather than trying to 

perfect something that we’ve been basically researching for 40 and 

50 years. I’m dismayed about this, and I’ve been talking to the Department of Energy about this for a number of years, and we just 

can’t get them to invest. As I say, there’s at least three or four alternatives that I know about, and I’m not a scientist. So with this, 

let me ask about batteries, Mr. Crabtree. 

Again, are we researching old methods of batteries or do we have 

some new methods? I understand that, I think it’s Dr. Goodenough 

has got some sodium base. I’m not an expert on any of this stuff. 

Pardon me. You guys know much more about it than I do, but what 

about Dr. Goodenough’s research into sodium batteries and what’s 

your reaction on that? 

Mr. CRABTREE. So that’s a great question. JCESR looks exclusively beyond lithium ion. Lithium ion is the technology we have 

now that powers cell phones, although not long enough. They go 

out at 4 o’clock in the afternoon when you want to make a call. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Mr. CRABTREE. And we’re looking beyond that. We’d like to get 

a factor of five in performance and higher and a factor of five lower 

in cost. So this is definitely next generation. 

None of the batteries that we’re looking at are related to lithium 

ion in their concepts or in their performance. So there—many people don’t realize this, that beyond lithium ion space is very much 

better and richer than the lithium ion space. So lithium ion is one 

battery technology, been around for 25 years nearly. We know it 

pretty well. It can get incrementally better, but just as you were 

saying, we’re looking for a transformative change, not an incremental change. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So let me just point out what we’re—that 

was the right answer for nuclear energy, and so thank you very 

much. I’m glad that you’re doing what we expected our Hubs to be 

doing. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WEBER. The preceding comment was an editorial 

statement, not necessarily reflecting the view of the management. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m not sure I can even 

add anything more. I was going to ask Dr. Crabtree some questions 

but what more than an endorsement from Dana Rohrabacher could 

there be? But I’ll go ahead anyway. 

Battery technology in so many ways we know is critical for a real 

clean, affordable energy future, and certainly, as Mr. Rohrabacher 

said, it is a—what’s being done at JCESR is certainly what we 

need to be reaching for. I mean, right now we have Tesla, Google 

and Apple making investments in energy storage. Tesla announced 

its giga factory to be completed next year, but we really need to 

find that breakthrough technology, and I think you did a good job. 

My first question was going to be, you know, how the Hub works, 

it helps towards making a breakthrough but I think you did a very 

good job of explaining how the Hubs give you the—your Hub gives 

you the opportunity to be very nimble in what you’re doing, so that 

was a great example of one of the advantages of a Hub. 
70 

I want to ask about the connection to industry because I know 

JCESR has partnered with companies like Dow, Johnson Controls, 

and Applied Materials. Can you explain how these partnerships 

help JCESR to span the whole innovation ecosystem and help, you 

know, look to the future to bring these technologies to the market? 

Mr. CRABTREE. Yeah. Great question, and indeed, this was one 

of the things that when we made our proposal and launched our 

project that we had in mind. What do you do after you make the 

technology? How do you get it out to the marketplace? So JCI, otherwise known as Johnson Controls, happens to be right across the 

state line in Wisconsin from Argonne, so we go up there quite 

often. We spent three full days talking with them about what a 

prototype would look like that would interest them in manufacturing it. So this is something that certainly on the basic science 

side almost never happens. We think about the new ideas in the 

basic sciences but we don’t think about how to bring them to market. On the applied side, it does happen. I think JCESR is unique 

in that it combines both the basic science discoveries and the guidance from industry, for example, JCI, what would it take to actually be manufactured. So they can advise us, for example, don’t use 

any materials in a certain class, they’re too corrosive. We will know 

that from the very beginning, and at a discovery science stage, we 

won’t be pursuing those kinds of materials. So their guidance is actually very, very important. 

We have another group that works with us and our affiliates, 

which now number 80 plus. They’re start-up firms. They’re big 

companies. They’re research organizations. And we talk with them 

all the time about their interest. So the ones that are startups, we 

talk about what kind of battery would you like to have, and I think 

it’s this connection to the marketplace which is one of the unique 

things about JCESR that was missing before. So Toyota will look 

to its own research and development organizations with its own 

marketing needs in mind but they won’t go outside their own 

house. We make it possible to go outside individual organizations. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. So have you seen companies make these connections set up locally to have the access? Does that make a difference? 

Mr. CRABTREE. Oh, it does. So we—there are several battery 

firms, usually small companies, that we work with extensively already. We—this does two things. It makes us familiar with what 

their needs are so we can address them better, and it makes them 

familiar with what we can do. So they can address a question or 

a challenge to us that in fact we can respond to. 

So it’s spilled out. You know, Argonne has a very extensive traditional battery program, lithium ion and other things, that’s not 

part of JCESR but we interact with that group as well, and when 

we—through our affiliates and other industrial connections, we actually direct them to the right place. If it’s within JCESR, that’s 

great. If it’s not, then we’re part of that interaction as well. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I have a very quick question—I have 

little time—for Dr. Atwater. I was—it was probably now about 7, 

eight years ago now, I was at JBEI. So are you working completely—something different than they are? 

Dr. ATWATER. Yeah, that’s good—— 
71 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Because—go ahead. 

Dr. ATWATER. Thank you for your question, Mr. Lipinski. So we 

actually have Dr. Jay Keasling, who’s the Director of JBEI, as a 

member of our board of governors and so there’s close coupling and 

communication between JBEI and JCAP. JBEI takes a focus on 

using alternatives to the traditional biofuels feedstocks to generate 

a new generation of biofuels. As I was alluding to in my response 

to Mr. Grayson, JCAP’s focus is on using physics and chemistry to 

achieve the same outcomes as natural photosynthesis using artificial photosynthesis with greater—such that the generator has 

greater durability and greater efficiency, so that’s the primary distinction between the two. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. The gentleman yields back. 

The gentleman from Georgia is recognized. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Dr. Gehin, I 

want to circle back over to the light water reactors. I’ll take a little 

different approach here, but in Georgia, Plant Vogtle is bringing 

online hopefully very soon two Westinghouse AP–1000 reactors. 

We’re actually taking a CODEL trip to visit Georgia Power here 

next month to view those. 

In light of what Mr. Rohrabacher said, can you elaborate a little 

bit how CASL and VERA have been useful in licensing, ensuring 

the safety operations of the AP–1000s and should the people in 

Georgia be concerned or is the technology sound? Can you elaborate a little bit on these two new reactors coming online? 

Dr. GEHIN. Yeah, so thank you. It’s very exciting to have these 

two reactors coming online in the South. I’m from the South so it’s 

great to have that more power there. 

I also point out, Southern Company is part of our industry council we’ve got interactions as well with the folks working on that 

plant as well, Westinghouse, the designer of that plant. 

You know, the AP–1000 design has been worked on by Westinghouse and evolved and very rigorously reviewed through, you 

know, the NRC licensing process, and so it has got a well-founded 

safety basis. It enhances the safety of our current fleet, incorporates lessons from Fukushima. So I think these are very impressive designs, very safe reactors. So I would not hesitate living near 

a reactor like that. 

As far as CASL, CASL insofar as the timing was not in place to 

impact the licensing. AP–1000 received its design certification several years ago, and the construction operating license was in place 

several years ago. But what we are doing working with our Westinghouse partner, applying our tools so they can actually use these 

to compare to and confirm their own results and help improve their 

tools for future operations and when those reactors start up so they 

have more information. So we expect there will be usefulness from 

our tools going forward but they’ve not played a direct role in the 

current licensing of those reactors. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. With reactors such as the AP–1000, we’re 

bringing these on, they’re the first new reactors we’ve brought on 

in how many years? 

Dr. GEHIN. So Watts Bar One came online in 1996. Watts Bar 

Two which was started, you know, a couple decades ago will be on-
72 

line next year, and so these will be the second reactor online in this 

century in the United States. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Are there obstacles that are in the way of expanding nuclear power in the nation that this body can work on? 

Dr. GEHIN. You know, so one of the areas that we’re focused on 

helping, and it’s broader than just CASL, is the economics of nuclear power. It does provide low-cost economics but in competitive 

markets with variations, it can be rather difficult. You know, it’s 

not a—it has a technical aspect that we’re working on to reduce the 

operating costs, fuel costs. There are other non-technical areas as 

well that probably need to be addressed. This works very well in 

the South where there’s a regulated electricity market where you 

can plan long-term, so that’s why you’re seeing these built in the 

South. I think continue to improve the economics, improve the benefits that we’re getting from it but also looking at some of these 

non-technical issues might be worthwhile. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. And one last question back on something that 

Mr. Rohrabacher brought up is other plants that had safety concerns. Can you elaborate on what were those, why were those 

plants shut down, and why is Plant Vogtle different? 

Dr. GEHIN. Yeah, you know, as far as I know, you know, there 

are some plants that have been shut down in the United States. 

I don’t—I wouldn’t attribute necessarily that shutdown to safety 

concerns. There have been issues that have resulted in economic 

evaluation to not, you know, address like replace stream generators 

or address steam generator issues. When you do the economic analysis, you find out, you know, the business decision is not to do that. 

These could be addressed. They could have been brought back but 

the economic decision was not to do so. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you. The gentleman from Colorado is 

recognized. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thanks, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank the 

panelists for being here today. This is fascinating. And I’m going 

to ask more general questions, not as specific as some of my colleagues have asked. 

And Dr. King, I’d like to start with you. The purpose of these 

Hubs in my estimation, and as policymakers, we’re trying to decide 

are they working, are they not working, are they doing the kinds 

of things that you might expect as an experienced scientist and an 

administrator. Do you see these Hubs as beneficial to the future of 

this country? And it’s going to be that broad, so go for it. 

Mr. KING. Short answer, yes. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Okay. Why? 

Mr. KING. Because among many things the Hubs can do is, they 

bring an intense focus on a particular technology or scientific challenge, and they put resources in the hands of scientific leaders who 

are able to, as I said in my earlier remarks, orchestrate the immense talent and tools that we have around the country to actually 

solve problems in very much shorter order in time than has typically been the case. So in the case of CMI, we’ve achieved in two 

years what typically takes 20 in a few well-selected cases. I’m not 

saying we can always do it. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Well, but that’s the nature of science too. 
73 

Mr. KING. Yes. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. I mean, if there weren’t some errors to go with 

the trial and errors, you wouldn’t be learning much. If you knew 

the answer before you started, then, you know, what’s the point. 

So—— 

Mr. KING. I agree completely. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. So I appreciate that. 

So Dr. Crabtree, my question to you is, how do you determine 

what the question is, what the mission is, and how do you put the 

team together? 

Mr. CRABTREE. Great questions, and that’s exactly what JCESR 

faces. I was mentioning that the beyond lithium ion space is really 

rich, big and complex, and there’s really a challenge to find out 

where are the promising directions. So we spent about a year and 

a half doing that. We call that divergent research because maybe 

it’s the solution, maybe it’s that one, maybe it’s that one. We’ve 

now switched in the last year to convergent research where we’ve 

picked four directions and we’re going to implement them and 

make them work. But I’m sure that we’re going to leave things on 

the table. So there will be things, even when we’re done, assuming 

we get renewed—let’s be optimistic—you know, eight years from 

now, there will still be wonderful challenges to be addressed in a 

similar way. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. How did you put your team together? How did 

you determine which industry partners, which academic institutions would be part of your Hub? 

Mr. CRABTREE. Great question. So the first requirement is they 

have to be good. They have to be the best. If we can get the best, 

we go for the best. If we can’t, we go down a notch. And we have 

to be diverse. So we want to be able to look at the entire beyond 

lithium ion space, not just a piece of it, but all of it so that we can 

make a judgment about where are the best opportunities. And so 

we have universities, national labs and industry, and that’s critical 

that it be that diverse. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. I mean, if I raised my hand and I said gee, 

Doctor, I’d like to be part of your team, how do you vet me? I mean, 

I’m just a lawyer so I wouldn’t add much other than I’d try to keep 

you out of trouble. 

Mr. CRABTREE. We have lots of lawyers on the team too. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. All right. Good. 

Mr. CRABTREE. First we would ask, is it covered by somebody 

that we already have or is there somebody better than you—excuse 

me for asking that question, but—because we want to go for the 

best, and we don’t want to duplicate. Our resources are limited so 

we have to spread them around just as taxpayer dollars, you always do, in the best way. So we don’t want to duplicate and we 

want to cover everything. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. So Dr. Gehin, how long should these Hubs remain in operation? Is it in perpetuity or is there a finite time period? What do you expect as the administrator of your Hub? 

Dr. GEHIN. So we’re expecting, and we’ve already done this to 

some degree, of having capabilities that we’re deploying to industry 

for their use in the short term. We’ve done that in the first five 

years. We will continue to do that with our renewal. 
74 

With that said, there are—these technologies require sustainability. We’re looking to that as far as through our industry partners and other means of maintaining something that we develop so 

we don’t lose it as soon as the Hub ends. We’re looking towards industry to do that because they’re the ones who will take this technology forward. 

Means of performing additional research is uncertain at this 

time. I think we’ll learn things that will lead to additional questions and insights that could be carried forward but our current approach is within the ten years have expanded simulation capabilities that we can hand off and have those be applied in a reactor 

operation. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Okay. And my time’s up. I’ll get to you, Dr. 

Atwater, next go-around, okay? I yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. Would the gentleman like an additional 

minute? 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. No, no, go ahead, because I’ve got to go downstairs and ask questions—— 

Chairman WEBER. Because I was going to take it from the 

gentlelady from Massachusetts. 

The gentlelady from Massachusetts is recognized. 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all the 

panelists. 

I have—I also have a sort of general question for all of you, but 

it’s been a theme that’s come up. Dr. Crabtree, you referred to it. 

This—we tend to talk about basic and applied research in two different buckets and, you know, really silo that, and I think it has 

an impact in not only how we look at science and the way the Hubs 

are working but also in other areas in the way we fund things and 

prioritize. What I’m hearing from your testimony—and we had a 

hearing last month where Dr. Whittaker also referenced that this 

is sort of a false dichotomy that we have put together, and I would 

love to hear in your experience in the Hubs how you see this and, 

you know, do you see any potential dangers in really looking at 

these as two very different siloed ways of looking at science and research? 

Mr. CRABTREE. Great question, and I would hark back to maybe 

25 years ago, the time of the great industrial labs such as Bell 

Labs and Xerox and IBM where they were integrated and indeed 

the basic science was done right along with the application development. We’ve lost that, and part of that is the pressure of Wall 

Street. Business has to look at the next 6 months, not the next 20 

years. That’s hard. 

JCESR is one of the few organizations, brand-new one, that 

bridges that gap and it looks at a very specific problem unlike the 

old industrial labs that looked at many, many problems. We’re 

looking at next-generation energy storage only. So we’re able to 

focus, we’re able to bring—attract the best, and we’re able to integrate across that spectrum, and I believe that this paradigm, this, 

as we call it, our next paradigm of doing business, doing research, 

may be the most important outcome of JCESR, that it may be a 

model for not only the battery community but lots of other critical 

challenges where you combine the basic and the applied and actually the transition to market. So I’m actually excited about that, 
75 

and I feel that we’re learning now how to do it. It can be done 

much better than we are now doing. I’m sure of that, and if we can 

develop this model, we’ll be way ahead of the game. 

Ms. CLARK. And one of my concerns is that as we look at innovation as a pipeline, if we don’t start using the model that you are 

using, you know, where are we going to be as we pull back? And 

I don’t know if any of the other of you have concerns or want to 

comment on that. Dr. Atwater? 

Dr. ATWATER. Yeah, let me just respond to your comment, and 

thanks very much for your insightful question. So JCAP I would 

say has—if you think about spanning the spectrum from fundamental research to deployment and development and scale-up sort 

of furthest upstream and has activities that start on the basic research but do in fact span all the way through applied research, 

and we provide the insights that create the deployment decisions 

that have yet to be made as we operate in an environment where 

there is no existing industry. 

But I did want to say that the progress that we’ve made in defining just the basic question of what does a solar fuel generator look 

like. We have a now well-defined model concept of what a generator is. It has a cathode and an anode, very much like a fuel cell 

or a battery. It has an electrolyte. It has various components that 

five years ago before an integrated team of scientists and engineers 

came together from across the applied and basic research spectrum 

really didn’t exist, and it’s that collective synthesis of ideas and 

then execution of potential prototypes that led to the concepts of 

the solar fuels generator. So while we don’t address through applied research and development yet an existing industry, the acceleration of progress that we’ve made actually depended on the interaction with applied researchers as well. 

Ms. CLARK. Great. Dr. King? 

Mr. KING. Yeah, I think the old model is fading. We certainly 

work with a lot of researchers who have spent their career working 

in fundamental research and publish a paper and worry not about 

how it will be commercialized. We started the process where every 

time we take on a fundamental research topic, we have industrial 

potential users come in and talk with the researchers about it. But 

first we were desperately worried that this would not work. What 

we have found is two things. One is that the academic and national 

lab researchers actually enjoy it very much indeed. They come out 

of the room saying why didn’t we do this 20 years ago, and the research has accelerated considerably. Case in point: We are trying 

to develop new red and green emitting compounds, used very fundamental physics and computer models in a materials genome type 

of campaign, came up with a dozen different compounds that could 

emit green light and presented those instead of just publishing 

those and then going on to work on producing all 12, testing them, 

refining them, et cetera. We went to our industry partner, and our 

industry partner looked at the 12 compounds and said only three 

of those would ever be considered in our company, and they gave 

different reasons for rejecting the other nine. When you think that 

testing 12 pounds is typically a 20-year campaign, we have just 

saved 15 years of research. So getting constant feedback from in-
76 

dustry is enriching, enlivening, and it’s inspiring to the researchers 

but it’s also a huge accelerator for the research itself. 

Ms. CLARK. Great. Thank you. 

Chairman WEBER. The gentlelady yields back. Ranking Member 

Grayson would like to ask at least one more question, so we’re 

going to give him time to do that. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Gehin, we have something like 300-plus light water reactors 

in the world. They’re very expensive, something like half a trillion 

dollars in replacement value for those reactors. In the United 

States at least, energy production facilities are privately owned. I 

have to wonder, as much as I’d like to see the advancement of 

human knowledge in general, why is the industry not trying to add 

20 years of life to a half-a-trillion-dollar asset? Why does this fall 

upon the taxpayers to do this? 

Dr. GEHIN. You know, so the—so that’s a very good question. So 

I think industry is very interested in this. I think where the value 

comes in with the government-sponsored research is enabling this 

through the tools that we’ve already invested in advanced computing, the leadership-class computing capability that we have, the 

fundamental science, speaking to Ms. Clark’s question, taking some 

of the basic technology we have and improving that national investment into our reactor systems. So I think it adds value to things 

that they’re already motivated and doing that they wouldn’t otherwise do or have access to. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Are they doing it? Are there private research facilities that actually are trying to do what you’re trying to do and 

making any progress? 

Dr. GEHIN. Not at the scale that we’re doing it with the science 

that we’re using. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Is the industry willing to come together and try 

to fund those facilities since it’s for their benefit? 

Dr. GEHIN. Well, they already are, so one thing that’s important 

to understand about the Hub is, or at least Hub, is that the industry partners cost share. So they’re already making investments into 

the Hub through cost sharing and data that we could otherwise 

have access to. 

Mr. GRAYSON. I yield back. Thank you. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. I want to thank the witnesses for their 

valuable testimony and the Members for their questions. The 

record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and 

written questions from the members. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(77) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
78 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Alex King 
79 
80 
81 

(83) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
84 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY FULL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN

LAMAR S. SMITH

Today, the Subcommittee on Energy will examine the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Energy Innovation Hubs and provide important oversight for the Department’s approach to collaborative 

research and development. 

DOE Energy Innovation Hubs encourage cooperation across basic 

science, applied energy, and engineering research and development 

programs. The hubs represent a new model for integrating basic research and development with applied research to create new technologies. 

Through the hubs, DOE brings together teams of researchers 

from the national labs, academia, and industry to solve specific energy challenges. 

Currently, the Department operates four hubs—two with a focus 

on applied energy challenges and two using basic research to advance technology development. 

The Department first established the innovation hub model within its Office of Nuclear Energy in 2010 with the establishment of 

the Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors, 

or CASL [CASTLE]. CASL’s diverse team of experts in reactor 

physics and materials sciences use super computers to model and 

simulate nuclear reactors. 

This work will help make reactors safer, improve their performance, and increase their operational lifetime, which is critical to 

sustainable zero-emission nuclear energy in our country. 

Funded through the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, the Critical Materials Institute was established in 2011 to 

address domestic shortages of rare earth metals and other materials critical for American energy security. 

Led by the Ames National Lab, a leading center for materials 

science and technology, researchers work to solve critical materials 

challenges. These include the development of new material sources, 

the increase in efficiency in manufacturing, and better methods to 

recycle and reuse materials. 

The Office of Science sponsors two hubs that focus on basic research directed at how energy is produced from sunlight and ways 

to advance battery storage. 

The Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis, led by the California Institute of Technology, conducts basic research with the 

goal of designing efficient energy conversion technology that can 

generate fuels directly from sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide. 

This research presents the opportunity to recreate the energy potential of natural photosynthesis. 

The research and development conducted at the Joint Center for 

Energy Storage Research hub, commonly known as JCESR [JayCaesar] and led by Argonne National Lab, develops new battery 

storage technology. Researchers at JCESR study how different materials perform at the atomic and molecular level inside a battery. 

By examining materials, these researchers are able to develop 

batteries that have more capacity, power, and a longer-life 

span.This energy storage research could have groundbreaking impacts on not just the solar industry, but also on all forms of energy 

and on the reliability of our electric grid. 
85 

As DOE pursues new ways to conduct research and development, 

benchmarks to measure progress and the responsible use of American taxpayer dollars must be a top priority. With a price tag of approximately $90 million per year for the 

existing DOE hubs, Congress should conduct appropriate oversight 

to ensure that limited research dollars are well-spent. 

I thank our witnesses today for testifying on their important research. And I look forward to a productive discussion on the research goals of the four DOE hubs. 

I also want to thank the ranking member of this subcommittee, 

Rep. Grayson, for working with me to include targeted authorization language for the hubs in the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015, which passed the House last month. 

The Department of Energy should prioritize the ongoing cooperation between the national labs and academia in order to solve basic 

scientific challenges. It should also partner with American entrepreneurs to solve energy challenges through new technologies. 

Leveraging limited resources through partnerships will keep 

America at the forefront of cutting-edge science. 
86 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY FULL COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Chairman Weber for holding this hearing, and thank 

you to the witnesses for being here today. 

First established in 2010, the Energy Innovation Hubs are modeled on legendary research institutions like Bell Laboratories, 

which unfortunately no longer exist to any great extent in the private sector due to an increased emphasis on shorter-term returns. 

Each of these large multiinvestigator, multi-disciplinary Hubs is focused on addressing major challenges to advancing new energy 

technologies. In short, these centers of excellence are tackling a variety of areas that may well be vital to our clean energy future. 

They include: dramatically reducing the costs for new energy 

storage technologies; advanced computer modeling to improve the 

safety and efficiency of nuclear reactors; addressing our limited 

supply of critical materials that are essential to a wide range of 

clean energy technologies; and learning from the world of plant biology so that we can find new, far more efficient ways to create a 

usable fuel from three simple ingredients—sunlight, water, and 

carbon dioxide. 

I believe it is long past time for Congress to authorize and provide legislative guidance for the Hubs model—which is why I included language to do this as part of the America Competes Reauthorization Act of 2014, and again in 2015, both of which were cosponsored by every Democratic Member of the Committee. I particularly appreciate Ranking Member Grayson’s good work in introducing and advancing a bill to finally authorize the Hubs this year. 

I want to thank all of you again for being here today. Your work 

in these key technology areas is a clear example of why we need 

to not just sustain, but significantly increase federal investments 

in research across the board, and not just in research areas that 

have partisan support. 

If the past is any guide, these investments in fundamental and 

applied research, including energy efficiency, renewable energy, 

and yes, even social and behavioral sciences, will have a major impact on both our nation’s economic competitiveness and our quality 

of life. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Æ