Department of Energy 

Quadrennial Technology Review 

Framing Document

http://energy.gov/QTR

3/14/2011

U.S. Department of 

ENERGY
2

The United States Department of Energy (DOE) has initiated a review of its energy technology 

activities (Quadrennial Technology Review, or QTR). This framing document is a principal means of 

facilitating stakeholder engagement in that process. It describes the nation’s energy landscape and 

challenges, identifies important research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) policy choices to be 

made, and summarizes the current status of selected energy technologies and DOE technology program 

goals. It is intended to serve as the common framework for stakeholder engagement through advisory 

committees, workshops, and expert discussion groups. Successive drafts of the DOE-QTR will be 

circulated among U.S. Government stakeholders.

The Department especially seeks input on the questions posed throughout this document, which 

correspond to those in the Request for Information published in the Federal Register (Ref. 2011-5794).

Instructions on submitting comments can be found at http://energy.gov/QTR.
3

Contents

1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................5

2 U.S. Energy Context ..............................................................................................................................7

2.1 Different Fuels for Different Uses.................................................................................................7

2.2 Energy Efficiency ...........................................................................................................................8

2.3 Stationary vs. Transport Supply ....................................................................................................8

2.4 Supply Changes Slowly, Demand Rapidly .....................................................................................9

2.5 Scale ..............................................................................................................................................9

2.6 Private Sector Dominance.............................................................................................................9

2.7 Current Policy Context................................................................................................................10

2.8 The U.S. Energy Industry.............................................................................................................10

3 Challenges Posed by Today’s Energy Landscape ................................................................................11

3.1 Energy Security ...........................................................................................................................11

3.2 U.S. Competitiveness..................................................................................................................12

3.2.1 Innovation...........................................................................................................................12

3.2.2 Manufacturing.....................................................................................................................12

3.2.3 Deployment.........................................................................................................................13

3.3 Environmental Impacts...............................................................................................................13

4 DOE Activities......................................................................................................................................13

5 Crosscutting Questions.......................................................................................................................15

5.1 Mission........................................................................................................................................16

5.2 Technology Policy .......................................................................................................................16

5.2.1 Clean Energy Leadership.....................................................................................................16

5.2.2 Program Definition and Management................................................................................17

5.2.3 Private Sector Partnership ..................................................................................................18

5.2.4 Technology Demonstration.................................................................................................20

5.2.5 Non-Technical Barriers........................................................................................................20

6 Six Strategies.......................................................................................................................................21

6.1 Transport.....................................................................................................................................23

6.1.1 Increase Vehicle Efficiency..................................................................................................23

6.1.2 Progressive Electrification of the Vehicle Fleet ..................................................................24

6.1.3 Alternative Fuels.................................................................................................................26
4

6.2 Stationary....................................................................................................................................28

6.2.1 Building and Industrial Efficiency........................................................................................28

6.2.2 Modernize the Grid.............................................................................................................32

6.2.3 Adoption and Deployment of Clean Electricity Supply.......................................................35
5

1 Introduction

The DOE-QTR will provide a context and framework for the Department’s energy programs, as well as 

principles by which to establish program plans with a five-year horizon. It stems most immediately from 

recommendations in a recent report by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology 

(PCAST), Report to the President on Accelerating the Pace of Change in Energy Technologies Through an 

Integrated Federal Energy Policy, which echo and amplify numerous prior calls for better prioritization 

and planning in DOE’s energy activities1. PCAST recommended a government-wide Quadrennial Energy 

Review. However, recognizing the scope and challenge of that task, they also recommended beginning 

with a more limited review centered on DOE activities. Secretary Chu initiated the DOE-QTR in February 

of 2011, and tasked Under Secretary for Science Steven Koonin with leading the process. 

Given DOE’s mission and capabilities, the DOE-QTR is concerned primarily with activities to develop and 

demonstrate new energy technologies in support of national energy goals. These are multi-year efforts 

in which science, technology, economics, and energy policy intertwine. In view of the multitude of 

technologies that could be developed and demonstrated, analytically-based priorities and coordination 

of RD&D efforts with policy are essential to facilitate deployment by the for-profit sector. 

The scope of the DOE-QTR will include a discussion of the roles of government, industry, national 

laboratories, and universities in energy system transformation, as a function of technological area. It will 

describe summary roadmaps for advancing key energy technologies, systems, and sectors, including 

current status, historical pace of development and market diffusion, technological potential, factors 

affecting their market prospects, and research and demonstration milestones. The objective will be to 

include enough detail to enable the other objectives of the DOE-QTR, not to lay out detailed 

programmatic or technological roadmaps for wider application. The DOE-QTR will also establish 

principles by which the Department can judge the priority of various technology efforts. Rather than an 

ordered prioritization of technologies or activities, these principles will be useful to guide the budget 

process, which is the appropriate mechanism to set priorities. This will include the principles DOE will 

use to determine which demonstration projects to support. Last, the DOE-QTR will describe the

connections between energy technology innovation and energy policy. While the document will be 

focused on the activities within DOE’s purview, it will also identify critical DOE analytical assets that can 

inform policy making by others.

The DOE draft Strategic Plan, which was recently released for public comment, is a coherent plan for all 

of the Department’s activities, including nuclear security, environmental management, and basic 

research. It does not have a singlular focus on the energy porfolio. The Plan does include energy goals:

“Petroleum use will be decreased by raising fuel economy standards, gradual electrification of 

the vehicle fleet, and increasing production of advanced biofuels. Greenhouse gas emissions 

will be reduced through improved efficiency, accelerated deployment of low-carbon energy 

 

1

For example, see the National Academy of Science America’s Energy Future report, the National Commission on 

Energy Policy Ending the Energy Stalemate report, and the American Energy Innovation Council’s Business Plan for 

America’s Energy Future. 
6

generation technologies (including conventional renewable, nuclear, and carbon capture and 

storage), modernization of the electricity grid, and public policy.” 

This DOE-QTR will discuss more deeply the substance and process of DOE energy technology programs 

that can accelerate progress toward those goals; the Department’s nuclear security, environmental 

management, and basic science are addressed to the extent that they relate to and inform the energy 

portfolio.

Coherent multi-year planning through reviews such as the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) has been 

important to success in other government missions. While this DOE-QTR follows the purpose and spirit 

of other federal “QXRs” (beyond the QDR already mentioned, there is the QDDR for Diplomacy and 

Development and QHSR for Homeland Security), it is fundamentally different because defense,

diplomacy, and homeland security are almost entirely governmental functions that are directly shaped 

by public spending decisions and policies. In contrast, the deployment, ownership, and operations of 

energy technologies are almost entirely nongovernmental functions that are determined by government 

policies and investments. Many government agencies beyond DOE have significant roles to play in 

establishing those policies. As a result, broad nongovernmental and intra-governmental engagement is

central to creating the DOE-QTR. In addition, full transparency of input to the drafting team is an 

important guiding principle. 

This framing document and its accompanying Request For Information (RFI) begin a process that the 

Department believes will lead to robust, effective technology portfolio to accelerate energy 

transformation and meet our Nation’s energy challenges. We welcome written comments responding to 

the questions raised in the RFI and in this document throughout the public comment period, lasting 

from March 14 to April 15, 2011. 

Following the close of that comment period, DOE will analyze comments received in preparation for a 

series of workshops. These will draw on the expertise of the private sector, academia, nongovernmental organizations, DOE, and the national laboratories to delve into the questions raised here, 

as well as additional topics as might arise in response to the RFI. Each workshop will bring together 

experts and stakeholders to share their individual views on one or more of the six strategies we have 

described. 

In keeping with the Administration’s commitment to open government, the names, materials discussed, 

and subject matter (including transcripts or detailed notes where appropriate), for all of these meetings 

will be posted on the QTR website. DOE anticipates that vibrant discussion of the technology and policy 

questions relevant to our technology programs will help us produce a better Quadrennial Technology 

Review.

This document is organized as follows. Section 2 is a factual description of the national energy landscape 

and its near-term evolution. Section 3 describes the three challenges that drive the need for a prompt 

and substantial transformation of the nation’s energy system. Section 4 is about the policies and 

capabilities within the Department’s sphere of influence. Section 5 presents crosscutting questions for 
7

comment regarding how to allocate resources for DOE RD&D activities. Section 6 describes six thematic 

strategies that categorize the approaches to transforming our energy landscape. 

2 U.S. Energy Context

Addressing our energy challenges, whether through technology or policy, requires that they be 

understood. This section provides a brief overview of the U.S. energy context, emphasizing those 

aspects most relevant to the challenges we face. A more detailed exposition can be found at the Energy 

Information Administration (EIA) website. 

Figure 1. U.S. energy flow (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory). Data in quadrillion British thermal units (Quads).

The energy sector is a large, complex system that touches every aspect of modern life and comprises 9%

of gross domestic product (GDP) while enabling the rest of the economy. Figure 1 shows the flow of 

energy from supply to demand, scaled to show the relative amounts of energy produced from each 

energy source and consumed by use. Several salient points can be taken from Figure 1 and other data on 

the energy system.

2.1 Different Fuels for Different Uses

Fossil fuels currently provide 83% of U.S. primary energy, with coal used almost exclusively (93%) for 

power and oil used largely (72%) for transport. Natural gas (methane) is a flexible fossil fuel source that 

is used for power and heat across multiple sectors of the economy. Transport is fueled almost 

exclusively by petroleum-derived liquids (gasoline and diesel), while electricity is fed by many sources 
8

beyond fossil fuels, most significantly nuclear fission and hydropower. Other renewable sources supply 

less than 4% of U.S. electricity. 

The energy system divides between transport and stationary (i.e., electricity and power/heat), with each 

further partitioned into the supply, intermediate, and demand sectors. These sectors are a useful 

framework for discussing the energy system and each has its own unique context, challenges, and 

opportunities.

2.2 Energy Efficiency 

Nearly 60% of energy is lost due to waste heat (labeled “Rejected Energy” in Figure 1). Both electrical 

generation and transport make use of less than one-third of their primary energy inputs. While 

efficiency is bound by thermodynamic limits, there is significant potential to reduce energy consumption 

by increasing the efficiency of power plants and vehicles. The movement of goods and people, the least 

efficient energy use, can be made more efficient by technological changes to engines and vehicles, and 

by societal changes (e.g., greater use of public transport). Power generation can be improved by 

progressing to more efficient generating technologies and harnessing the waste heat for useful 

applications, such as heating water. Importantly, the 80% efficiency depicted in Figure 1 for residential, 

commercial, and industrial energy use is misleading; there is no rigorous way to measure absolute 

efficiency in end-use service delivery (relative efficiency can be rigorously measured). Significant 

opportunities also exist to reduce energy consumption in these sectors via improved building, device, 

and industrial process efficiencies. 

Implementation of efficiency measures generally incurs an up-front capital cost that is offset by reduced 

ongoing energy costs, although cases do exist in which significant efficiencies can be achieved with little 

or no capital costs. A number of market failures prevent full utilization of these efficiency measures. For 

example, consumers and professionals alike often lack the necessary information to choose the best 

product to meet their needs at the lowest life cycle cost, and there is ample evidence that investment 

decisions, particularly by individual consumers, are driven by first-cost considerations rather than lifecycle cost analysis. Another notable market failure is the principal-agent problem, which occurs when 

one person acts on behalf of another, but acts contrary to that person’s best interests. For example, this 

commonly occurs in energy use between landlords and renters.

Energy efficiency reduces energy consumption and expense for the service delivered, allowing that 

money to be spent elsewhere, including increased use of the more efficient service (direct rebound). In 

addition, improved energy productivity spurs economic growth, with some associated increase in energy 

demand in all sectors (indirect rebound). The magnitudes of these rebound effects are topics of active 

research.

2.3 Stationary vs. Transport Supply

The energy needs of the residential and commercial sectors of the economy, about 40% of our national 

energy consumption, are met primarily by electricity and natural gas. The industrial sector consumes 

another 30% of the nation’s energy, supplied by diverse feedstocks. New energy technologies that 
9

supply these stationary energy consumers must compete against existing infrastructure that delivers 

energy reliably and at low cost. 

Approximately 94% of transportation services are fueled by petroleum (see Figure 1). The growing price

and price volatility of current fuels provide a significant opportunity for making current technologies 

more efficient, as well as for competing technologies to gain acceptance. However, new fuels must 

compete against the extraordinary energy density and marginal production costs of petroleum-based 

fuels and adapt to, or compete with, the established fuel distribution infrastructure. 

2.4 Supply Changes Slowly, Demand Rapidly

Throughout U.S. history new energy resources have taken many decades to achieve scale and penetrate 

markets, often requiring 50 years or more. The timescale of supply change is dominated by long-lived

infrastructure and the continual growth in energy consumption that has allowed new technologies to 

supplement rather than replace existing energy sources. In addition, energy is a commodity, where 

intermediaries (including refineries, utilities, and other electric power producers) operate on thin

margins. Still, significant opportunities for greater efficiency with existing technologies and the 

introduction of new technologies exist due to the age of current U.S. infrastructure.

In contrast to large, long-lived energy supply assets, energy-consuming devices and vehicles are 

relatively inexpensive and replaced more frequently. Typical lifetimes for vehicles and home appliances 

are under 20 years, while consumer electronics and lighting technologies can have significantly shorter 

lifetimes. New demand-side technologies can therefore enter and dominate the market within a few 

years.

2.5 Scale

For both the transport and stationary sectors, there is a million-fold difference in the number of energy 

users and energy producers. This disparity in scale is at the root of the different challenges in 

transforming the energy system. The current energy supply paradigm is dominated by large, centralized 

supply facilities that are expensive to replace and affect the overall system when taken offline. Energy 

demand is the aggregated result of billions of individual end uses, each a miniscule fraction of total 

demand. Although the cumulative actions of energy consumers are the fundamental drivers of the 

energy system, the actions of any one end user do not materially affect the overall system.

2.6 Private Sector Dominance 

By any measure, the U.S. energy system is in the hands of the private sector, which makes decisions 

based on cost and profit considerations. It designs, constructs, and operates the overwhelming majority 

of energy production and transmission facilities. On the supply side, all domestic refineries are owned by

the private sector. The power marketing administrations, Tennessee Valley Authority, public utilities, 

and cooperative utilities combined are less than 25% of national generating capacity and 20% of 

transmission (and even these generally function like private-sector organizations in striving to serve 

customer loads reliably at lowest cost). On the demand side, while the federal government is the 

nation’s largest single user of energy, it represents less than 2% of total demand (almost 90% of federal 

energy use is in the Department of Defense). 
10

2.7 Current Policy Context

The U.S. energy system is regulated and subsidized by many players including the DOE at all levels of 

government. Incentives, standards, trade policies, and direct government investment shape the markets 

for fuels, electricity, and demand technologies. More than half of U.S. state governments have instituted 

renewable portfolio standards (RPS) that require certain fractions of the electricity sold in their states to 

be generated by renewable technologies. While portfolio standards create a certain level of market 

access for renewable fuels (federal renewable fuel standards) and renewable power (state RPSs), energy 

efficiency standards (set by the Department of Energy) and building codes (set by states) establish 

minimum performance standards that apply to entire markets, with the long-term goal of driving out 

the most wasteful products in a specific set of end-uses.

In addition, providers of energy are subject to a wide range of consumer-protection and environmental 

regulation. The electricity industry is owned and regulated by a diverse set of stakeholders. This 

structure varies across states and regions, and many combinations of roles exist for different entities 

within the system. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulates interstate transmission 

and sale of electricity, natural gas, and oil. Retail electricity regulation and infrastructure siting is largely 

controlled by the states, usually by public utility commissions. Natural gas for commercial and 

residential uses is generally subject to state regulation in a manner similar to electricity. 

Environmental regulation affects both the transport and stationary energy sectors. There are federal 

regulations for criterion air pollutants from both sectors, and since finding that carbon dioxide (CO2) also 

endangers public health, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established standards for CO2

emissions that apply to light duty vehicles. Some states have taken additional action to curb CO2

emissions through a wide range of policies and measures. Federal and state vehicle efficiency and 

emission standards address the emission of CO2 and other pollutants. Federal regulations exist regarding 

the custody and disposition of fuel and waste from nuclear generation.

2.8 The U.S. Energy Industry

The U.S. energy industry is large and multifaceted, with activities that can be broadly categorized as 

deployment, manufacturing, or innovation. In deployment, modest increases in electrical demand and 

replacement of aging capacity resulted in approximately 16.4 gigawatts (GW) of capacity in new 

generators added in 2010, corresponding to some tens of billions of dollars in added capital. This 

deployment is less than 2% of total capacity and will provide an even smaller percentage of total 

electricity given the associated technology capacity factors. In contrast, more than 100 GW of capacity 

was added each year in non-Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

countries from 2004-2008, a 6% annual growth rate. While the petroleum refining capacity in the U.S. 

has plateaued over the last five years, the utilization of that capacity has fallen over the same time 

period, so major investments in fuel refining necessary to transition to new feedstocks or products will 

not happen under business-as-usual. 

The conservatism of the energy system is reflected in research and development (R&D) investments;

U.S. companies invested approximately $3 billion in energy supply R&D in 2010, about 0.3% of total 

revenue, a small proportion compared to non-commodity sectors, such as pharmaceuticals (18.7%) and 
11

computers and electronics (7.9%). Federal investment in energy RD&D was $4.3 billion in 2010, onethird of benchmark commonly articulated target for developed nations (1% of sector’s portion of GDP).

Manufacturing related to energy technologies varies widely. In general, manufacturing facilities for 

mature technologies are built where the cost of manufacturing is lowest, and those for innovative 

technologies are built near the site of invention. Decisions regarding manufacturing capacity are also 

related to the cost of transport of the products. For example, a 2005 study suggested that U.S. suppliers 

will have inadequate production capacity for the predicted nuclear energy deployment, partially due to 

the inactivity in the U.S. nuclear market over the last several decades and the emergence of markets 

abroad. Similarly, while only 6% of solar photovoltaic modules were manufactured in the U.S. in 2008, 

the U.S. dominated production of innovative thin-film modules, which have been the recent focus of 

domestic RD&D. Beyond energy supply, end-use technologies responsible for consumer energy demand 

are manufactured world-wide and subject to vigorous global trade. Manufacturing of energy system

components, including end-use technologies, is itself a significant energy consumer.

3 Challenges Posed by Today’s Energy Landscape

Access to affordable, secure, and reliable energy has been the cornerstone of America’s economic 

growth. However, the nation’s physical and social systems that produce, store, transmit, and use energy 

remain deficient in several important dimensions. 

3.1 Energy Security

The movement of goods and people is essential to our economy, and 94% of the energy used for 

domestic transportation comes from oil. When other sectors of our economy are considered as well, 

37% of all U.S. primary energy is derived from oil, nearly half of which is imported. The crude import 

fraction has dropped from over 60% in 2005 and is expected to drop further to 42% in 2035; absolute 

imports are projected to decrease from 9 million barrels per day in 2009 to 8.5 in 2035.

Crude imports at current prices add nearly $1 billion per day to the national trade deficit. In addition, 

the world relies on OPEC countries for approximately 40% of it oil supply, much of which is produced in 

regions and countries subject to disruptions. This circumstance shapes U.S. foreign policy and 

engenders economic vulnerability. Further, there is effectively one global price for oil set by global 

supply and demand, modulated slightly based on geographic and quality differences in the crude. That 

price may well continue to be higher than historic norms due to increasing demand in developing 

economies and concentration of low-cost supply in a few countries. Continued reliance on 

transportation fuels fungible with oil implies continued U.S. coupling to the global oil price and the 

drawbacks that entails. However, any reduction in oil use through efficiency would diminish the 

economic harm of high prices and price volatility.

Security concerns associated with the U.S. energy system extend beyond oil. The security and 

management of the nuclear fuel cycle will be of critical importance to increased deployment of nuclear 

energy technologies in the U.S. and abroad. National policy and international agreements are elements 

of ensuring the availability of the required fuel supply. Effective and credible international nuclear 
12

safeguards, export controls as well as R&D will be required to ensure that future nuclear power systems 

can be deployed safely and securely with appropriate mitigation of risks from terrorism and 

proliferation. The nation’s electric grid must be more secure and reliable to minimize the impact of 

potential natural and man-made disruptions. 

3.2 U.S. Competitiveness

American leadership in clean energy technologies can be a foundation for future economic growth. The 

market for clean energy technologies is expected to grow because of global economic development, 

which is driving dramatic increases in energy demand, and increasing international focus on 

environmental concerns. The economic opportunities in the clean energy technology market are driving 

innovation, manufacturing, and deployment worldwide. To participate in that market, the U.S. must 

have a robust energy technology industry and well-developed supply chains. 

3.2.1 Innovation

Innovation has historically been the nation’s economic engine, and is an area accessible for continued 

U.S. leadership. The U.S. has led in innovation because of a culture of creativity and entrepreneurship 

coupled with investment in basic and applied research by both the government and the private sector. 

However, the U.S. is out-spent in RD&D as a fraction of GDP by Japan, and China’s investments are rising 

steadily. In energy RD&D, the U.S. is out-spent by its major trading partners (i.e., Japan, Korea, France, 

and China). Innovation is correlated with RD&D funds, as illustrated by national statistics for patent 

filings.

3.2.2 Manufacturing

Reversing the decline in domestic manufacturing is often cited as necessary for U.S. economic 

competitiveness. While the U.S. has steadily shed manufacturing jobs since 2000, manufacturing output

and wages have increased over the same period. Although increased manufacturing productivity can be 

a hazard to individual manufacturing jobs, the associated economic growth benefits the economy as a 

whole. Investment in manufacturing facilities not only creates immediate capabilities, it facilitates future 

manufacturing efforts because the existing capital can be updated to accommodate new needs. 

Historically, U.S. leadership in innovation enabled its leadership in manufacturing highly differentiated 

products, since close collaboration between researchers, engineers, and manufacturers is useful for 

burgeoning technologies. However, once a product becomes a commodity in the broader market, 

premiums can no longer be garnered by domestically-produced materials and local pools of talent, and 

manufacturing will shift to where it is economically optimal. Innovation in manufacturing processes, in 

addition to the invention of new and better products, enables increased productivity and output and 

creates competitive advantage. Manufacturers in the developing world are becoming ever-more 

sophisticated; Chinese high-tech manufacturing value-added quadrupled from 1997–2007. Privatesector decisions regarding the location of manufacturing facilities are shaped by a variety of factors, 

including access to capital, tax incentives, regulatory hurdles, market access, and labor force 

productivity. 
13

3.2.3 Deployment

Large developing economies are just now building the bulk of their infrastructure and are well suited to 

adopt new clean energy technologies as they build out a modern energy infrastructure for the first time. 

This rapid growth abroad is a market opportunity for U.S.-developed clean energy technologies. While 

the U.S. is unlikely to lead the world in the absolute numbers of clean energy technologies deployed 

simply because the U.S. energy market is a mature market dominated by replacement and modest 

demand growth, widely deploying clean energy technologies domestically is attractive for economic 

competitiveness for several reasons. These include the benefit of the technology itself (e.g., decreased 

energy costs with efficiency technologies), decreased cost of the technology from lessons learned 

through deployment, as well as the associated jobs that cannot be outsourced for the sale, installation, 

operation, and maintenance of the technology.

The president has set a goal of increasing the share of America’s electricity supplied by clean energy 

sources to 80% by 2035. 

3.3 Environmental Impacts

Conventional energy production and consumption cumulatively can have significant environmental 

impacts. Among these are the emission of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) and other airborne pollutants, the 

production of solid wastes, and ecological impacts due to the use and consumption of significant 

quantities of water.

The use of fossil fuels is a major source of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere, which is perturbing the 

climate. Global temperatures during the last thirty years have risen about 0.6 °C, consistent with 

expectations. Substantial climate change over the next 90 years would have a serious impact on society, 

and could lead to global instabilities if water supplies are threatened or if a substantial rise in sea levels 

displaces populations. Energy and water are linked; the production of energy requires large volumes of 

water while the treatment and distribution of water is equally dependent upon readily available, lowcost energy. Climate changes may affect water run-off in the U.S. and elsewhere. 

Other pollutants have environmental impacts. For example, highly radioactive and toxic used nuclear 

fuel is produced and stored at the current fleet of nuclear plants, and presents a future problem for 

centennial-scale storage. The burning of fuels can lead to other types of solid or airborne waste that

may contain mercury, ozone, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and heavy elements. Extraction of fossil 

fuels can have significant environmental effects at the location of the extraction. 

Significant deployment of any energy technology will have environmental impact simply because of the 

required scale. Some environmental impacts of large wind or solar farms have been discussed; biomass 

production can have both direct and indirect environmental impacts

4 DOE Activities

An effective plan for the Department’s energy technology programs requires both knowledge of the 

energy landscape and challenges reviewed in the previous sections together with a realistic 
14

understanding of the government’s and DOE’s role in shaping the energy system. Since that system is 

largely in the hands of the private sector, the government can effect change through the precompetitive RD&D it supports and through its policies that affect the rate of deployment, including 

market incentives and penalties, regulation, and finance. 

As outlined in Section 2.7, nearly every governmental entity defines some policies related to the energy 

sector. Even within the federal government, many of the regulations and incentives that shape the 

energy system are not administered by the DOE. The EPA is home to emissions and environmental 

regulations; all tax incentives are the purview of the Treasury; the Department of Transportation sets 

the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards; the Department of the Interior regulates fossil 

fuel extraction and siting of energy projects on federal lands; the Department of Agriculture regulates 

and subsidizes the feedstocks for most biofuels; FERC regulates interstate energy transmission; the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulates nuclear power; many federal agencies are involved in 

the siting of off-shore energy projects; the Department of Defense (DoD) funds energy RD&D for its own 

substantial, and often unique, energy needs; the Department of Labor regulates worker safety and 

compensation for energy projects; and the list goes on.

The federal government’s direct participation in the energy system as a provider or purchaser of energy

is limited. Its major influence is instead exerted by joining with state and local governments to modulate 

private-sector decisions through policies that set the terms of operation and trade in the energy sector.

DOE contributes in part to private sector decisions by developing and maturing technology options that 

could be rewarded in evolving market conditions. 

The Department of Energy’s RD&D programs include the Offices of Science, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy, and Nuclear 

Nonproliferation. The Office of Science is the single largest funder of basic research in the physical 

sciences in the country. The other Offices primarily support applied research and development in 

technology-specific areas. In addition, the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) funds

the development of high-risk, high-payoff clean energy technologies. As a whole, the Department’s 

programs are a major U.S. innovation engine, supporting mission-related research in academia, the DOE 

complex of national laboratories and user facilities, and the for-profit sector. The Department is home to 

some of the world’s most powerful scientific computers and leads the world in simulation capabilities 

that couple computer modeling with experimental validation. A strategic combination of applied 

research, test beds and simulation has the potential to decrease risks associated with new technologies, 

accelerate technological progress, and can catalyze private-sector investment for the wide deployment 

of clean energy technologies.

The Department’s core strength lies in its science and technology efforts, which have led to technology 

improvements and breakthroughs, and these efforts are the focus of this DOE-QTR process. However, 

these are not the Department’s only responsibilities and policy tools. DOE has some regulatory (e.g., 

appliance efficiency standards) and financial authorities (e.g., loan guarantees) and its techno-economic 

analyses play a unique role in informing and shaping energy and related environmental policies and 

investments.
15

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) channeled an unprecedented amount of 

funds through the Department in record time. The Recovery Act funding and an increased fiscal year 

2009 appropriation provided the opportunity for new, extensive projects. In energy, projects include tax 

credits, construction of advanced vehicle technology battery manufacturing facilities, and energy 

efficiency grants available to every state, county, and large city. These projects will help inform future 

investments in energy technology research, development, demonstration, and deployment (RDD&D).

The Department serves as a repository and disseminator of technical information and best practices for 

energy consumers, from individuals to industries to the federal government. For example, the Federal 

Energy Management Program (FEMP) facilitates the federal government's implementation of sound, 

cost-effective energy management and investment practices to enhance the nation's energy security 

and environmental stewardship. DOE has the authority to set mandatory minimum energy efficiency 

standards for a range of residential, commercial, and industrial appliances, including lighting, 

refrigerators, heating and cooling systems, and motors. 

The Department works with dozens of foreign governments and international organizations to promote 

best practice policies and programs, including appliance standards, to accelerate technology innovation 

and clean energy deployment. Through leadership in the Clean Energy Ministerial and the Energy & 

Climate Partnership of the Americas, DOE is catalyzing an array of cooperative activities with countries 

that account for the vast majority of the world's energy use. With most of the growth in future energy 

use expected to occur in developing countries, DOE also supports strong strategic bilateral partnerships 

with both China and India, where the rapid speed and large scale of new energy technology deployment 

is an important driver for innovation.

In addition, the Department has a core competency in providing unbiased, technically rigorous 

information for policymakers. The EIA is the nation’s premier source of independent statistical 

information about energy production and use. The power marketing administrations, DOE independent

agencies, offer experience in power generation and transmission activities and can demonstrate and 

deploy new technologies and capabilities into the electrical grid. The Department collaborates with 

other federal agencies to leverage expertise, advance research, development, demonstration, and 

deployment programs, reduce redundancy in energy research programs, and leverage government 

purchasing power to facilitate commercialization and initial deployment. One example is the 

Department’s work with the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Transportation on biofuels 

from farm to certification. The DoD, with whom the DOE has a memorandum of understanding 

regarding early deployment of new energy technologies, will be an important early adopter of new and 

improving clean energy technologies, and the information DoD generates from trials at installations can

inform DOE’s technology programs.

5 Crosscutting Questions

With the above framework in mind, the Department has a series of questions for which it seeks public 

input. 
16

5.1 Mission

1) What do you think of the following mission statement for DOE energy research?

To facilitate the invention, refinement, and early deployment of meaningful technologies that 

enable options for scaling by the private sector toward national energy goals.

The words in this statement are carefully chosen:

o to facilitate – we convene and fund various entities – as well as support the basic 

research that underpins invention and refinement

o invention, refinement – we work on both revolutionary and evolutionary technologies

o early deployment – we support some activities beyond first commercial demonstration

o meaningful technologies – we pursue technologies that could have a material impact 

when deployed; accordingly, scale, economics, and timeliness are important criteria

o enable options – we do not pick commercial winners and losers; the markets make 

those choices

o scaling by the private sector – we support commercialization as an essential part of 

what we do

o toward national energy goals – we cannot and will not pursue all technologies; only 

those that enhance energy and national security, reduce environmental impacts, and 

increase U.S. competitiveness 

5.2 Technology Policy

5.2.1 Clean Energy Leadership

U.S. leadership in clean energy technologies can help promote their diffusion around the world and 

contribute to the nation’s economic competitiveness. The Department has long supported RD&D to 

catalyze energy innovation. Some programs drive entire clean energy fields, while others are focused on 

specific technical hurdles; we fund individual researchers as well as interdisciplinary teams of 

investigators addressing a common problem; we fund research at national laboratories, universities, and 

in the private sector. The Department supports a broad set of basic research in the physical sciences,

with world-leading programs in materials science and engineering and in simulation, since these areas 

are critical to progress not only in energy, but also in our security, environmental, and science missions. 

The Department has a number of mechanisms to support the manufacturing of clean energy 

technologies. The loan guarantee program supports manufacturing of innovative technologies that will 

avoid, reduce, or sequester GHG emissions. The Industrial Technologies Program funds R&D and 

provides technical assistance to make manufacturing processes more efficient.

The Department has neither the authority nor resources to significantly deploy technologies itself. 

However, DOE can facilitate private investment to deploy clean energy technologies. For example, 

working with the Department of the Interior, DOE is participating in studies to identify resources that 

will help developers of renewable energy generation projects. In addition, the loan guarantee program 
17

leverages private resources to support renewable energy generation projects that have difficulty finding 

traditional financing.

As the greatest energy challenges are global in nature, partnering internationally to develop and 

demonstrate new technologies is both essential and attractive. Other countries can have technical 

capabilities that complement our own, and greater demand, pace, and/or risk tolerance in energy 

innovation. International partnerships could offer more diverse projects to increase learning rates, 

promote the global adoption of clean energy technologies, and perhaps ease foreign market entry for 

U.S. firms. However, international partnerships require careful management of intellectual property and 

competitiveness issues.

2) How can DOE activities best support U.S. leadership in clean energy innovation? In clean 

energy manufacturing? In clean energy deployment? How do we balance international 

competitiveness against international cooperation?

5.2.2 Program Definition and Management

Focusing programs on eliminating the most significant problems and barriers allows the most rapid 

progress toward our goals. All programs have many more good ideas to fund than resources available to 

pursue them, and constantly churning priorities, the pursuit of quick wins, or the dilution of resources in 

the face of too many options sap the effectiveness of our efforts. Programs that ramp up and down 

before the hard work can be carried out to test an idea, develop an essential tool, or prove a technology 

cannot effectively deliver results. 

The active participation of multiple technologies or resources in a market is frequently beneficial. 

Competition exerts downward pressure on prices, while diversity reduces the risks associated with 

technical, economic, or supply chain complications and disruptions. Yet the strategic and economic 

value of diversity is often difficult to balance against other metrics, and a portfolio guided only by 

diversity can dilute investments and diminish the likelihood of success.

Clear-cut, baseline standards for entry into the DOE portfolio are useful tools for program definition. The 

DOE draft Strategic Plan says we will “focus on technologies that can confidently be predicted to enter 

commercial application at a minimum of 1 Quad annually by 2030 (about 1% of current U.S. primary 

energy).” Analogous thresholds for technologies that don’t supply energy (e.g., carbon capture and 

storage or efficiency technologies) are more difficult to capture in this way. However, such standards 

cannot be the sole guide to program definition or budgeting, as mere technical possibility is too low a 

threshold; they do not capture the readiness of the technology for deployment, the maturity of the 

industry involved, or the RD&D involvement of outside parties. Furthermore, such standards do not 

provide guidance for how RD&D efforts should evolve as the technology is deployed and gains market 

share. 

The Department can also use targets to guide its activities in different technologies. For example, the 

SunShot program aims to achieve a $1/Watt cost for installed utility-scale solar power by 2020. ARPA-E, 

too, cites specific parameters that technologies must plan to achieve in their funding opportunity 

announcements. These targets can be useful in that they provide concrete, tangible goals to work 
18

towards without prescribing the specific technological pathway to achieve them. On the other hand, 

finding the right targets is challenging since the relationship between technical targets within an R&D 

setting and scaled production can be difficult to determine rigorously, and inappropriate targets can 

hamper technology development. For example, if DOE targets are underambitious, there is little 

incentive for the private sector to help the Department increase the aggressiveness of its targets. 

However, without input from industry, the Department runs the risk of recalibrating targets to 

unrealistic levels.

These challenges might be addressed by planning that is grounded by rigorous analysis, clear priorities 

established with broad input from stakeholders, and decisions based upon rigorous peer review. In 

addition, achieving even the most ambitious targets does not guarantee adoption and deployment by 

the private sector, as there are many non-technological barriers to technology commercialization.

3) What principles should the Department follow for allocating resources among 

technologies of disparate maturity and potential time to impact?

a) What should be the criteria for including a technology in the DOE portfolio? What 

should be the criteria for removing a technology from the DOE portfolio? How should 

programs be structured and managed to accommodate entry and exit of technologies 

within the DOE portfolio?2

b) How do we balance the diversity of technology options the Department could provide 

for the private sector against timeliness, scale, and cost-effectiveness?

c) How can DOE be more effective at each stage of the innovation chain? 

d) What are useful metrics to guide DOE technology activities?

5.2.3 Private Sector Partnership

Since the Government is not the primary driver of either energy supply or use, all DOE energy activities

must have the ultimate goal of catalyzing action by the private sector. In general, basic research is 

conducted solely at universities and national laboratories with funding by the government. As a

technology moves through development and demonstration and associated risks lessen, it gains more 

attention and support from the private sector. Venture capital and small businesses have a higher risk 

tolerance than large corporations, who deploy technology at scale. To promote commercialization, the 

Department must partner with the private sector and other federal agencies to move technologies from 

proof-of-concept to full-scale deployment. 

Progress towards an improved energy system in the U.S. will require both basic research and applied 

technology development. Historically, the feedback loop between science and technology has been a 

critical part of how progress is made; the more active the feedback loop, the higher the likelihood of 

rapid progress. To this end, we have developed a portfolio of new research efforts that augment our 

base programs to provide integration across disciplinary boundaries as well as across multiple phases of 

 

2

This question appears in the RFI as: “What should the threshold be for entry of a technology into the DOE 

portfolio? Does every technology deserve a program? Conversely, when should we declare ‘mission accomplished’

for a government RD&D effort, or cease efforts on a program whose costs may outweigh its benefits?”
19

RD&D. These include Energy Innovation Hubs, Energy Frontier Research Centers, Bioenergy Research 

Centers, and ARPA-E.

One of the Department’s successful partnering mechanisms is its model of scientific user facilities. These 

facilities allow researchers to do experiments on large, capital-intensive DOE-owned scientific 

instruments. To ensure the Department’s experimental facilities are used most effectively, proposals to 

use these facilities undergo rigorous peer review by researchers in academia and the national 

laboratories. To ensure that the knowledge from experiments is widely disseminated, users must either 

publish their results or pay for the use of the facility. A similar model could be imagined for clean energy 

technologies; for example, the Department could create and operate national technology test beds with 

greater experimental capability than could be developed by the private-sector in order to validate novel 

energy technologies and explore their system-level performance. While DOE national laboratories have 

similar capabilities for some technologies (e.g., the National Wind Technology Test Site and the Biomass 

Process Facility), these facilities are generally not operated under the paradigm described above. In the 

experience of the DOE, the user-facility model of open-calls for proposals and peer-reviewed selection 

have resulted in a diverse, high-quality set of research projects. This model may also apply in the arena 

of technology development. However, the translation of that model to energy technologies may be 

imperfect, as the majority of the users of these facilities will likely be for-profit and more likely to pay for 

their time and want to hold the results proprietary. 

Energy RD&D management and planning will be most effective when fully informed about the actions of 

all relevant parties. The private sector is most knowledgeable about the status of commercial 

technologies and their likely evolution, yet competitiveness concerns may inhibit complete sharing, 

particularly for commodity products. The Department’s current mechanisms to gather information on 

private sector innovation in clean energy technologies include invention disclosures of innovations that 

were made with DOE resources (e.g., through partnering with a DOE national laboratory), and efforts by 

the applied technology programs to hold workshops, read proposals submitted to solicitations, attend 

technology conferences, tour manufacturing plants, read market reports, and commission technology 

studies. However, these are imperfect and incomplete. 

4) What are the optimal roles for the private sector, government laboratories, citizens and 

academia in accelerating technology innovation? 

a) How can DOE best coordinate activities between and among these types of 

organizations (including the wide variety of institutions within each class)? How 

should we gauge the effectiveness of this coordination? How can the basic-applied 

coupling be optimized? Are there examples in other sectors or other countries that 

can serve as models?

b) What are the design principles for an effective ‘technology user facility’?3

 

3

 This question appears in the RFI as: “Are ‘technology user facilities’ analogous to the Department’s scientific user 

facilities possible, or even desirable? If so, what would be the most effective model for their operation?”
20

c) How can the Department best gather technology market information? How can 

information on private sector innovation be captured without compromising 

competitive advantage?

5.2.4 Technology Demonstration

Reducing the risks associated with new technologies is a critical component of government engagement 

with the private sector. The commercialization, broad diffusion, and regulatory approval of a new 

energy technology require high confidence in its performance. Uncertainty in operation at scale or in 

system-integrated operation increases early adopter risk and slows market penetration.

The DOE collaborates with industry on demonstration projects to help catalyze large-scale adoption of 

promising energy technologies. In order to ensure these efforts have the largest possible impact, DOE is 

interested in ideas to improve the process for selecting when and under what circumstances to sponsor 

technology demonstrations with industry, as well as how to best disseminate the results so as to have 

the largest market impact. To ensure relevance and application beyond the direct participants, learning 

must be widely disseminated so that test bed and demonstration activities can benefit entire industries. 

Such practices will require a careful balance of promulgating information for broadest impact against 

non-disclosure agreements and intellectual property protection necessary for private sector 

participation. However, specifics of how to chose and operate demonstration projects are unclear. 

Failure is a common, and beneficial, fact of experimentation. The Department’s R&D programs expect a 

certain proportion of failed research ideas, although contingency plans are integral to good program 

management. In contrast, the Department’s Loan Guarantee Program is operated such that every 

funded project has a high likelihood of success (defined as a reasonable prospect of loan repayment). 

The risk associated with demonstration projects falls somewhere between R&D and commercial 

viability. Assessing and planning for risk will be essential to demonstration projects the DOE undertakes.

5) What are principles and best practices in performing large-scale demonstration projects?

a) How close to commercial viability does a demonstration have to be? What are the 

optimal cost sharing arrangements? How might demonstrations be coordinated with 

DOE financing activities?

b) How can demonstration projects better benefit all stakeholders beyond the 

immediate participants? How are lessons-learned best captured and promoted, and 

how is intellectual property best handled?

c) How should DOE determine whether demonstrations adequately address technical 

and operation risks?

d) What defines failure or success in the demonstration phase?

5.2.5 Non-Technical Barriers

DOE is but one of the many entities whose actions impact the energy system; while the energy sector is 

heavily regulated, few of those regulations are in the control of the Department. Integrated planning at 

the federal and international levels is essential to accelerating the deployment of new energy 

technologies. Standards, siting, and permitting are examples of the many issues that require multiple 
21

agency participation. Establishing common understanding and prioritization regarding land or other 

resource use, and accelerating the process by which applications are considered across multiple 

agencies, would enable more rapid deployment of clean energy technologies. Other methods for 

addressing non-technical barriers include voluntary technical standards (like the work of ASTM 

International and the American National Standards Institute), dissemination of information crucial to 

market function, and support for workforce skills and availability.A comprehensive discussion of federal 

policies for addressing non-technical barriers to deployment would be the subject of the governmentwide Quadrennial Energy Review suggested in the PCAST report, not this DOE-QTR. However, the 

Department is interested in comments regarding its role in addressing these barriers.

6) A number of non-technical barriers—including federal, state, and local regulations, market 

failures, and non-technical risks—impact the rate of deployment of energy technologies. 

What, if any, role should the Department have in addressing these barriers?

6 Six Strategies

The recently released DOE draft Strategic Plan (February, 2011) outlines three important Departmental 

goals: 

Catalyze the timely, material, and efficient transformation of the nation’s energy system and 

secure U.S. leadership in clean energy technologies.

Maintain a vibrant U.S. effort in science and engineering as a cornerstone of our economic 

prosperity, with clear leadership in strategic areas.

Enhance nuclear security through defense, nonproliferation, and environmental efforts.

President Obama has articulated broad goals for reducing our dependence on oil, reducing pollution, 

and investing in RD&D of clean energy technologies in the United States to create jobs. These include: 

Reduce energy-related greenhouse gas emissions by 17% by 2020 and 83% by 2050, from a 2005 

baseline.

By 2035, 80% of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources.

Support deployment of 1 million electric vehicles (EVs) on the road by 2015.

There are six more or less independent strategies that are both necessary and sufficient to address the 

Administration’s goals (see Figure 2) and enhance our energy, economic, and environmental security. 

These six divide into two trios: one for stationary energy (heat and power), and another for transport. 

Each trio has supply, efficiency, and “intermediate” strategies. 

Implementation of any one of these strategies is a complex undertaking involving policies, economics, 

and technologies; this DOE-QTR is concerned with DOE’s efforts in the latter.
22

Figure 2. Six Strategies

7) Have we correctly identified and structured these six strategies?

The remainder of this framing document describes each strategy and its context, together with 

summaries of technologies we believe are important to that strategy. In each of the transportation and 

stationary sectors we begin with end-use efficiency, since improvements here will have the most 

immediate impact. 

These sections are meant to solicit input on state-of-the-art, learning curves, and potential of each 

technology. In developing technology and policy priorities, future opportunities must compete on the 

quality of their ideas, the rigor of their technical approach, and the value of their knowledge return. 

Because of their importance in prioritization, technology assessments must be made within a systems 

context under realistic assumptions of scale, technology headroom, and economics. We believe the 

technologies and strategies discussed below meet the criteria of timeliness, and scale and should be 

central to DOE efforts going forward. Since we believe DOE’s efforts best leverage the private sector in 

immature industries, our selection deemphasizes established energy sources such as conventional 

hydroelectric power and fossil fuels without carbon capture and sequestration. We welcome comment 

on our technology selection. 

For each strategy or technology, we list source documents we intend to draw upon in assessing a 

technology’s potential and in developing summary roadmaps towards its realization. In addition to the 

technology-specific reports listed in each section below, we will draw upon a number of cross-cutting 

reports and data: the National Academies of Science America’s Energy Future reports, historical data 

from the EIA, the European Commission on Energy’s Strategic Energy Technology Plan, and the Global 

Energy Assessment, when it becomes available. 
23

8) We welcome comment on the selection of these technologies and sources, as well as 

suggestions of alternate technologies and sources, and updated technology, cost, and forecast data, 

particularly in rapidly-moving fields.

6.1 Transport

6.1.1 Increase Vehicle Efficiency

Powered almost exclusively by petroleum, U.S. road vehicles travelled three trillion miles in 2009 and 

consumed more than 150 billion gallons of liquid fuel. Vehicle miles traveled are projected to increase 

by 50% through 2035, although energy consumption by the fleet is projected to grow by only 20%.

U.S. fuel-economy in cars and light trucks (Light Duty Vehicles, or LDV) has been constant for 25 years,

with continuously improving engine efficiency offset by growth in vehicle size, performance, and 

accessories. During this same period, European and Japanese fuel economics have improved steadily, so 

that their fleets are now 60% more fuel efficient than the U.S. fleet. 

Significant opportunities remain for improving vehicle efficiency and fuel economy without adversely 

impacting performance, size, and other characteristics. Advanced internal combustion engines (ICEs) 

could improve efficiency by nearly 50% over today’s gasoline engines, and additional opportunities to 

improve the fuel economy of vehicles with conventional ICEs abound (e.g., improved transmission 

gearing and reduced vehicle weight). 

Beyond the fuel consumption by LDVs, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs)—particularly freight 

trucks—consume an additional 30 billion gallons of diesel fuel per year. There are opportunities to 

reduce fuel consumption by up to 50% in these vehicles using conventional technologies, at a breakeven fuel price of just over $1 per gallon. Given the rapid turnover of HDV stock, the freight sector can 

effect a significant near-term reduction of petroleum consumption.

The cross-cutting questions described in Section 5 should be considered while reviewing these 

technologies. DOE is particularly interested in feedback on the resources and reports that are listed with 

each technology, as well as the technology roadmaps described in the America’s Energy Future reports. 

Although DOE does continuously track new information emerging from the field, we welcome all data 

that updates these references on questions of cost, projections, and non-technical barriers to 

deployment.

In developing roadmaps for all vehicle efficiency technologies, we will draw upon the following sources:

DOE Vehicle Technologies Program, Multi-Year Program Plan, 2011-2015, 2010

DOE EERE, 2008 Vehicle Technologies Market Report, 2009

National Research Council, Assessment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles, 2011

National Research Council, Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of 

Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, 2010
24

6.1.1.1 Light-weight Materials

Light-weight materials like magnesium, aluminum, high-strength steel, and polymer composites can 

replace the cast-iron and traditional steel in vehicles to significantly increase fuel economy while 

maintaining safety, performance, and reliability. A 10% reduction in vehicle weight can increase fuel 

economy by 6–8%. Moreover, replacing traditional components with lightweight materials allows 

vehicles to carry advanced emissions control equipment, safety devices, power systems, and integrated 

electronic systems without an overall increase in weight.

For passenger vehicles, DOE is working to validate a cost-effective weight reduction of 50% in body and 

chassis systems by 2015 compared to a 2002 baseline, while maintaining safety, performance, and 

reliability. DOE funds research on a variety of lightweight materials, focusing on carbon fiber composites 

and magnesium. Through these activities, DOE aims to lower the cost of carbon fiber from the current 

$10–20 per pound to less than $5 per pound.

In developing roadmaps for lightweighting technologies, we will draw upon the following source:

DOE Vehicle Technologies Program, 2009 Annual Progress Report for Lightweighting Materials, 2009

6.1.1.2 Internal Combustion Engine Performance

ICEs power 240 million cars and light trucks on our nation’s roads, and nearly all of the 10–17 million 

new vehicles sold each year. Many vehicles of the future, whether traditional combustion, hybridelectric, or plug-in hybrid, will continue to rely on ICEs because of their relatively low cost, high 

performance, and ability to use diverse liquid fuels. Increasing the efficiency of ICEs is one of the most 

promising and cost-effective approaches to improving the fuel economy of our nation's vehicle fleet in 

the near- to mid-term. ICE thermal efficiency and emission reduction are being driven by innovations in 

low temperature combustion strategies, emission controls, and fuel injection. Key developments in 

combustion and emission controls plus low-sulfur fuel have enabled manufacturers to achieve the 

necessary emissions levels and introduce additional diesel-powered LDV models to the U.S. market.

DOE aims to facilitate improvement of LDV gasoline fuel economy by 25% by 2015 and of LDV diesel by 

40% compared to a baseline 2009 gasoline vehicle. The program also aims to improve heavy truck fuel 

economy by 20% by 2015 and by 30% by 2018.

In developing roadmaps for combustion engine technologies, we will draw upon the following source:

DOE Vehicle Technologies Program, 2009 Annual Progress Report for Advanced Combustion Engine 

Research and Development, 2009

6.1.2 Progressive Electrification of the Vehicle Fleet

Electrification of the transportation sector is a significant opportunity to reduce petroleum 

consumption, lower GHG emissions, and reduce air pollution. Degrees of electrification range from mild 

and strong hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), through plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), to battery 

electric vehicles (BEVs). More than 1.5 million HEVs have been sold in the U.S. since their introduction in 

2005 and new hybrid models are introduced every year.
25

HEV powertrains are at least 50% more efficient than current gasoline internal combustion engines 

(ICEs), and do not require infrastructure upgrades. Grid-connected vehicles (PHEVs and BEVs) that 

further minimize fuel consumption have recently come to market. The first mass produced PHEV (Chevy 

Volt) and BEV (Nissan Leaf) began delivery in late 2010, and DOE has estimated that auto manufacturers 

will have the capacity to produce more than one million EVs by 2015. DOE is also supporting large 

demonstrations of 13,000 PHEVs and BEVs and 23,000 chargers in more than 20 cities around the 

country.

Partial electrification of the vehicle fleet combined with improvement in conventional vehicles could 

reduce domestic fuel consumption by more than 80 billion gallons per year in 2035. Estimating GHG 

reductions becomes more problematic as integration with the electric grid grows and the carbon 

footprint of future electric power becomes important.

The principal challenge to vehicle electrification continues to be the cost, performance, and physical 

characteristics of batteries. Other challenges include the supply of rare-earth elements for motors, local 

barriers to installing charging infrastructure, long charging times, and standardization of chargers and 

the grid interface. PHEVs and BEVs are both a challenge and opportunity for the grid. Large numbers of 

EVs could burden residential distribution transformers and reduce grid reliability. High EV penetration 

combined with smart charging could also provide distributed grid storage that enhances grid operability 

and reliability and allows for greater integration of renewable power.

As you review these technologies, please keep in mind the cross-cutting questions described in Section 

5. DOE is particularly interested in feedback on the resources and reports that are listed with each 

technology, as well as the technology roadmaps described in the America’s Energy Future reports. 

Although DOE does continuously track new information emerging from the field, we welcome all data

that updates these references on questions of cost, projections, and non-technical barriers to 

deployment.

In developing roadmaps for all vehicle electrification technologies, we will draw upon the following 

sources:

National Research Council, Assessment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles, 2011 

DOE Vehicle Technologies Program, Multi-Year Program Plan, 2011-2015, 2010

6.1.2.1 Batteries

The cost and performance of batteries are key factors determining the growth of electric drive. In 2010, 

more than 95% of lithium-ion batteries were made in Japan, China, and South Korea. The worldwide 

market for EV batteries is projected to grow to $8 billion by 2015. The Recovery Act included grants that 

are enabling companies to build the capacity to produce 50,000 EV batteries annually by the end of 

2011 and 500,000 EV batteries annually by December 2014. This represents capacity sufficient to meet 

the requirements for projected U.S. EV production.

DOE’s goal is to drive reduction in the cost of battery storage to $300 per kilowatt hour (kWh) by 2014, 

roughly half of current costs. This is being done through investments in RD&D of battery chemistries, 
26

including both the mature family of lithium-ion batteries and other less mature chemical systems such 

as lithium metal polymer batteries and lithium sulfur batteries. ARPA-E supports 14 battery projects. The 

Recovery Act supported 30 new battery, electric drive, and electric vehicle manufacturing plants, and 

supported construction of more than 10,000 charging locations.

In developing roadmaps for battery technologies, we will draw upon the following source:

International Energy Agency, Technology Roadmap: Electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, 2009 

6.1.2.2 Motors

Electric propulsion components can add significant price to vehicles that require 80–180 kilowatt (kW)

motors. An electric motor and inverter, critical components of the electric drive power train, use the 

energy in the battery to move the EV. Permanent magnet motors are the most popular for EVs because 

of their high power density, specific power, and efficiency. These permanent magnets require rare earth 

metals, the supply and cost of which present a potential barrier to wide deployment of EVs.

The DOE aims to facilitate a reduction in the cost of an electric drive system to $12/kW ($7/kW for the 

motor) in 2015 and $8/kW ($4.70/kW for the motor) in 2020 with specific requirements and targets 

including power density, efficiency and lifetime. To achieve these metrics, DOE is supporting research, 

development, and demonstration to decrease cost, weight, volume, and improve thermal management 

of power electronics (inverters and capacitors) and electric motors. 

In developing roadmaps for electric motor technologies, we will draw upon the following source:

DOE FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership, Electrical and Electronics Technical Team Roadmap, 2010 

6.1.3 Alternative Fuels

For reasons of energy density, cost of production, and ease of transport and use, petroleum-derived 

gasoline and diesel dominate both domestically and globally. Despite improving vehicle efficiencies and 

progressive electrification, the U.S. is projected to continue to rely on liquid fuels for the foreseeable

future, and certain segments of the transportation sector (e.g. HDVs, airplanes, and civilian ships) 

require the energy density of liquid fuels for effective operation. Use of alternative (non-crude-derived) 

liquid or gaseous fuels is therefore another strategy to reduce oil consumption. 

The existing petroleum fleet is supported by an extensive infrastructure. Substitution of other fuels for 

petroleum products is therefore a significant challenge, as diverse alternative chemistries face a range of 

complications. Certain fuels are incompatible with existing infrastructure, and so require new 

infrastructures to be deployed, an expensive proposition for a sector that includes 250 million vehicles. 

Other fuels require significant resources and technology advances to achieve production at scale, and 

still others suffer from low energy density relative to petroleum-derived incumbents. Drop-in 

compatible alternative fuels (i.e., fuels that can be easily blended with or substituted for their 

petroleum-derived counterparts) therefore have a structural advantage. 

As you review these technologies, please keep in mind the cross-cutting questions described in Section 

5. DOE is particularly interested in feedback on the resources and reports that are listed with each 
27

technology, as well as the technology roadmaps described in the America’s Energy Future report on 

liquid fuels. Although DOE does continuously track new information emerging from the field, we 

welcome all data that updates these references on questions of cost, projections, and non-technical 

barriers to deployment.

6.1.3.1 Advanced Biofuels

Biofuels are substitutes for petroleum-based transportation fuels made by biologically or chemically 

converting renewable biological feedstock. In 2010, the U.S. produced an estimated 13 billion gallons of 

ethanol from corn grain, an 800% increase from 2000. The total global ethanol supply was estimated to 

be 22.5 billion gal in 2010. Biodiesel produced from oilseed crops peaked in 2008 at 691 million gallons 

and has declined since. These first-generation commercial biofuels total less than 5% of the fuels 

consumed for U.S. transportation, and interact significantly with food and feed markets.

Lignocellulosic biomass, on the other hand, derives from agricultural and forestry residues or dedicated 

energy crops. It is estimated that over 400 million tons of U.S. biomass annually is sustainably available 

today, and that the sustainable resource potential is over 1 billion tons annually. This estimate does not 

include potentially significant sources of non-terrestrial biomass such as algae. More than 35 

biorefineries for lignocellulosic biomass are being designed and/or constructed in the U.S at pilot-, 

demonstration-, and commercial scales. 

Possible biofuels include alcohols, other oxygenates, and drop-in hydrocarbons. There are multiple 

conversion pathways, including biochemical approaches that use a combination of chemical 

pretreatment, enzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation; gasification to convert biomass to synthesis gas 

intermediates; and pyrolysis and other liquefaction that convert biomass to liquid bio-oil intermediates.

DOE’s program supports R&D to make cellulosic biofuels cost competitive with petroleum-based fuels.

The Energy Independence and Security Act set a goal of 36 billion gallons per year of renewable 

transportation fuels by 2022, of which at most 12 billion may be corn ethanol. The Recovery Act 

supported the construction of 19 pilot, demonstration, and commercial-scale bio-refineries. 

In developing roadmaps for advanced biofuel technologies, we will draw upon the following sources:

DOE and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and BioProducts 

Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply. ORNL/TM-2005/06, 2005

DOE, Biomass Program Multi-Year Program Plan, 2010

6.1.3.2 Alternative Fossil Fuels

Both coal and natural gas can substitute for petroleum in transportation applications. The abundant 

domestic supply of both fossil fuels can address challenges associated with oil, although as with all forms 

of energy, there are environmental aspects to be managed and balanced.

In 2008, 150,000 vehicles (mostly buses and corporate-fleet vehicles) were powered by compressed 

natural gas (CNG) in the U.S. Natural gas must be compressed to meet the volume requirements of 

mobile applications, but even CNG takes considerable space in vehicles. Advantages for CNG as a 
28

substitute for petroleum include engine efficiencies greater than those for gasoline and and the existing 

natural gas infrastructure for domestic and industrial applications. 

Coal (with or without added biomass) and natural gas can be converted to syngas, which can be 

subsequently catalyzed into gasoline components, alternative diesel components, methanol, or dimethyl 

ether (DME) through a variety of proven chemical processes. Commercial deployment of methanol 

would require considerable new infrastructure, and methanol’s corrosive and toxic properties raise 

environmental and health concerns. DME is a clean-burning drop-in substitute for diesel, but like other 

alternative fuels would require upgrades in infrastructure. Coal can also be liquefied directly to synthetic 

crude oil for subsequent refining.

The primary barriers to all of these conversion processes are scale, capital intensity, and environmental

impact. Opportunities for technical improvement include gasification units, separation processes, 

catalysts, and CCS.

DOE currently has no activities related to alternative liquid transportation fuels from fossil feedstocks.

In developing roadmaps for alternative fossil transportation fuel technologies, we will draw upon the 

following source:

California Institute for Energy and the Environment, Natural Gas Vehicle Research Roadmap, 2008

6.2 Stationary

6.2.1 Building and Industrial Efficiency

Industry consumes some 30% of U.S. energy, with residential and commercial buildings accounting for a 

further 40%. Energy efficiency improvements, whereby the same or better services are provided to the 

end user while consuming less energy, could therefore dramatically reduce energy demand, often with 

net economic benefit to the end user. 

Changes in electrical energy demand directly affect the entire grid system, and can have benefits well 

beyond the economic value of reduced energy consumption for the consumer. By reducing energy 

demand, efficiency improvements enable utilities to serve more customers with the same infrastructure, 

thereby deferring large-capital upgrades to the bulk and distribution power systems. Demand response, 

where device power consumption is adjusted in response to the state of a larger system, can target 

efficiency to periods of peak stress where the operational value is often highest and opportunities for 

revenue generation are greatest.

As you review these technologies, please keep in mind the cross-cutting questions described in Section 

5. DOE is particularly interested in feedback on the resources and reports that are listed with each 

technology, as well as the technology roadmaps described in the America’s Energy Future report on 

efficiency. Although DOE does continuously track new information emerging from the field, we welcome 

all data that updates these references on questions of cost, projections, and non-technical barriers to 

deployment. The many and varied end uses of energy present a challenge to prioritization, and DOE 
29

particularly welcomes input on Question 3 in Section 5.2.2 with respect to efficiency technologies and 

priorities.

6.2.1.1 Efficiency in Buildings

Residential and commercial buildings currently use about 40% of U.S. primary energy and 72% of U.S. 

electricity each year. Building energy use is dominated by heat generation (for air or water), moving 

heat from one place to another (air conditioning or refrigeration), and lighting. However, end-use 

devices account for a growing fraction of building electricity use. Direct fossil fuel (primarily natural gas

and fuel oil) use in buildings is overwhelmingly for conditioning air and heating water.

Significant energy savings (likely over 20%) would be possible by deploying currently cost-effective 

technologies. However, the interdependence of building components makes it harder to estimate the 

potential for energy efficiency. For example, the building envelope, windows, and control systems 

impact the energy use required for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), and windows have 

a direct impact on lighting demand. 

Building codes and standards govern building construction and have historically been concerned 

primarily with safety. Recent building codes and voluntary programs have increased attention on 

energy-efficient design and building operation. Equipment and appliance standards set minimum energy 

efficiency limits. Technology development and building codes and standards can work together to create 

beneficial feedback loops.

Building energy use can have two key interactions with the other stationary energy strategies described 

in this DOE-QTR. Some clean electricity technologies (particularly solar PV) can be installed in or on 

buildings to provide energy directly. This distributed energy generation changes the nature of the 

demands on the transmission and distribution grids. In addition, a modern grid system could implement 

demand response technologies that shed load rather than increase generation at times of high demand 

or decreases in production (such as from intermittent sources). Many building loads are well suited to 

participate in demand response. 

DOE has identified five key technologies and loads in improving building efficiency.

6.2.1.1.1 Whole Building Design

Integrated approaches to whole building design that incorporate architecture/design, engineering, and 

construction for new commercial buildings have demonstrated up to 50% energy savings compared with 

current building codes. In 2006, the U.S. market for the construction and renovation of new and existing 

residential and commercial buildings was estimated to be approximately $1.22 trillion, which is over 

69% of the value of all U.S. construction and over 9% of U.S. GDP. 

DOE uses a systems engineering approach to assess and improve the efficiency of residential homes 

through its Building America program. Additionally, DOE is working with the American Society of 

Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) and other stakeholders in commercial 

buildings to develop advanced energy design guides for commercial buildings that are 50% more 

efficient than minimum code requirements.
30

6.2.1.1.2 Energy Management Systems

A system-wide approach to reducing a building’s energy consumption combines sensors, controls, 

feedback loops, and software that integrate information from smart end-use technologies with an 

intelligent grid. The building control systems market grew from $3.1 billion in the U.S. in 2001 to $4.3 

billion in North America in 2008, while remaining approximately one third of the global market for 

building controls.

Within the U.S., centralized energy management and control systems operate in about 33% of 

commercial building floor space, all of which is contained within about 10% of commercial buildings.

Automated demand response (ADR) allows smart buildings to adjust energy consumption in response to 

changing energy prices from a smart grid. ADR has been enhanced by open protocols and wireless 

technologies, both of which have contributed to the ability of service providers to integrate systems and 

provide clients with valuable data. ADR has been successfully demonstrated.

DOE is supporting work across several technical pathways including commissioning, standards 

development, sensors, algorithms for automation systems, integration with existing buildings, and 

integration with the design and construction of new buildings.

6.2.1.1.3 HVAC and Water Heating

HVAC accounts for 32% of building energy use. U.S. shipments of central air conditioners and air-source 

heat pumps make up about 10% of the global market. Unitary air conditioners and heat pumps have 

improved in energy efficiency by more than 13% since 2005. DOE has a goal of driving a reduction of 

80% in the energy consumption of commercial HVAC between 2004 and 2020.

Water heating accounts for 9% of building energy use. Efficient water heating includes solar and heat 

pump devices. These currently comprise about 0.25% of the 8–10 million water heaters installed each 

year, and about 1% of the 100 million installed in the U.S. Heat pump water heaters have very low global 

penetration. In solar water heating, however, China leads the world, followed by Australia and New 

Zealand, Europe, Japan, and the U.S. and Canada. DOE has a goal of driving a reduction of energy use for 

hot water service by 50% between 2005 and 2015.

6.2.1.1.4 Lighting

Lighting accounts for 14% of building energy use. Compact fluorescent (CFL) shipments increased from 

about 21 million units in 2000 to 400 million units in 2007, causing CFLs to account for the majority of 

“light service” sold in 2007. Though light-emitting diodes (LEDs) are still in early deployment stages, DOE 

projections indicate that a 1000-lumen LED source could cost $2 in 2015. DOE is supporting 

development of solid state lighting across two main pathways—LEDs and organic LEDs—and across the 

innovation chain via core technology research, product development, and manufacturing support. DOE’s 

goal is to improve lighting costs from 22 to 118 lumens per dollar and increase lighting output from 78 

to 154 lumens per watt by 2015. The Recovery Act supported 17 projects that advanced core technology 

research, product development, and manufacturing of solid-state lighting.
31

6.2.1.1.5 Building Envelope and Windows

The windows, roofs, attic, and insulation of a building forms an envelope that determines about 36% of 

overall building energy use through loss of heating and cooling energy. Efficient windows can reduce a 

building’s heating and cooling demand by up to 35%. From 2005 to 2009, energy efficient windows with 

low-e (R-3) glass increased from 58% to 74% of all units sold in the residential market and from 37% to 

54% of the commercial market. R-5 windows, as well as dynamic windows, are available and could 

enable system effects such as downsizing HVAC capacity. DOE is supporting activities to lower the cost 

of R-10 windows to $3/ft2price premium by 2020, as well as aiming to improve foam insulation 

performance by 25-40% by 2015 and enable dynamic thermal response of attics and walls at no extra 

life cycle cost by 2015.

Cool roofs can reduce a building’s heating and cooling demand by up to 15%. Cool roofs for commercial 

buildings have achieved widespread use in California and will be mandatory in hot climates (zones 1-3) 

after upcoming changes to the ASHRAE 90.1 standard. Cool roofs for residential buildings currently have 

a very low market share due to high price premiums. 

In developing roadmaps for building efficiency technologies, we will draw upon the following sources:

Interlaboratory Working Group, Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future, ORNL/CON-476 and LBNL44029, 2000

Dirks, J.A., et al., Lost Opportunities in the Buildings Sector: Energy-Efficiency Analysis and Results, 

PNNL-17623, 2008

6.2.1.2 Industrial Efficiency

The energy requirements of the industrial sector are significant and diverse, consuming about one-third 

of all energy produced in the U.S. Approximately two-thirds of the end-use energy is consumed by

relatively few energy intensive subsectors including chemicals, refining, pulp and paper, iron and steel, 

glass, aluminum, metal-casting, and cement. Manufacturing remains a leading contributor to the U.S.

economy; in 2009 it accounted for 11% of GDP and directly employed 14 million people, supplied 60% of 

U.S. exports, and produced nearly 20% of the world’s output.

Best practices and deployment of commercially-available state-of-the-art manufacturing technologies to 

improve efficiency are the fastest routes to improved industrial efficiencies. There is significant 

headroom both to improve the efficiency of existing processes and technologies (such as through the 

use of high-efficiency motor systems and combined heat and power) and to develop new processes and 

technologies that require significantly less energy to perform the same service (such as new fiber or 

plastic that can replace metals in some applications). 

Many cost-effective energy efficient technologies have not been widely adopted due to barriers that

include insufficient access to industry-specific energy efficiency expertise and workforce, slow capital 

stock turnover and uncertainty of energy prices, which deter corporate energy efficiency investments. 

The National Academies has surveyed a range of studies that estimate industrial energy savings of more 

than 16% through deploying existing and emerging technologies by 2020. Including the energy-savings 

potential of combined heat and power increases these estimates to more than 20%.
32

Next-generation materials and associated production technologies are intended to reduce costs, reduce 

energy use, reduce pollution, and improve product quality. DOE’s industrial technology program 

includes efforts in coatings, thin films, electrochemicals that require functional surface interactions; 

ceramics, engineered polymers, and metallics that operate in extreme environments; composites and 

smart materials integrated in energy systems; and substitutes for magnetic materials containing rare 

earth elements.

Next-generation manufacturing processes improve efficiency by reducing steps required, developing 

alternative low-energy pathways, and developing entirely new processes and unit operations. Novel 

methods are required to produce such energy-intensive materials as steel, chemicals, titanium, and 

carbon fiber. DOE supports development of new production systems, including innovative bioprocessing 

techniques, high-performance catalysts and separations, nano-scale manufacturing and processing, 

next-generation computational tools (including simulation), advanced characterization, integrated 

sensor and process control systems, and smart process manufacturing.

In developing roadmaps for industrial efficiency technologies, we will draw upon the following sources:

The Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society, Linking Transformational Materials and Processing for 

an Energy-Efficient and Low-Carbon Economy: Creating the Vision and Accelerating Realization, 

Vision Report of the Energy Materials Blue Ribbon Panel, 2010, and Opportunity Analysis for 

Materials Science and Engineering, 2011

Science and Technology Policy Institute, The White Papers on Advanced Manufacturing Questions,

April 2010 draft 

6.2.2 Modernize the Grid

The electrical grid is a large and complex system that moves 4 trillion kWh of electricity in the U.S.

annually from more than 40,000 individual generating units through more than 150,000 miles of high 

voltage transmission lines to distribution systems that service more than 140 million customers. The 

physical nature of electricity links components together requiring real-time system balancing and every 

technology and action on the grid affects the rest of the system. Indeed, the utilities, independent 

power producers, system and transmission operators, and consumers all affect the same system, 

making forecasting the function, value, operation, and integration of new technologies in the system 

challenging, and leading to conservatism in the deployment of new technologies.

Much of the grid is based on an historical paradigm of large centralized generators connected to a bulkenergy transmission system, in which the distribution circuits that bring electricity into our homes and 

businesses are considered simple loads rather than integral components that contribute to overall 

system health. The system is designed for minimally acceptable operation at the extremes rather than 

the most efficient use of capital-intensive infrastructure. It is thus under-utilized and requires 

infrastructure upgrades despite having capacity to spare on most days. Additionally, because the grid 

evolved to accommodate generation and consumption technologies with physical characteristics 

different than those of today’s technologies, power quality and reliability are compromised. The 

changing supply mix, increased demand requirements, and emerging vulnerabilities present 
33

unprecedented challenges to grid operation. Any transition toward the energy resources and 

technologies of the future will be enabled, or limited, by the grid.

The introduction of plug-in EVs will conjoin the transportation and stationary energy systems in an 

unprecedented manner (see 6.1.2), and distributed generation and actively managed distribution 

networks will require increased connectivity in both the electrical and telecommunications realms. 

Smart grid technologies are allowing system operation and engagement all the way to the customer, 

creating a distribution system with a level of flexibility not previously attainable. The ability to 

understand and control aspects of both the bulk power and distribution systems in real time will allow 

full exploitation of new technologies ranging from renewable generation, to efficiency and dynamic 

response of distribution networks, to EVs, all while supporting the power quality and reliability that is 

required by modern loads and consumers.

The broader objectives of “grid modernization” are to provide access to new energy resources while 

simultaneously increasing system utilization and flexibility. While specific needs may vary between the 

bulk power and distribution systems, the overall needs for improved system control and protection are 

common. 

As you review these technologies, please keep in mind the cross-cutting questions described in Section 

5. DOE is particularly interested in feedback on the resources and reports that are listed with each 

technology, as well as the technology roadmaps described in the America’s Energy Future reports. 

Although DOE does continuously track new information emerging from the field, we welcome all data

that updates these references on questions of cost, projections, and non-technical barriers to 

deployment.

In developing roadmaps for all grid technologies, we will draw upon the following sources:

DOE, National Transmission Grid Study, 2002, and associated the Issue Papers, particularly Section F:

Advanced Transmission Technologies, 2002

DOE Electricity Advisory Committee, Keeping the Lights On in a New World – A Report by the 

Electricity Advisory Committee, 2009

6.2.2.1 Monitoring, Modeling, and Control

Improving system flexibility across multiple timescales is important to enable system-wide 

improvements in asset utilization and to accelerate the integration of new technologies. New smart grid 

technologies that enable monitoring and control of critical electric system parameters are dramatically 

expanding visibility and flexibility throughout the system.

Phasor measurement units (PMUs) with data sampling rates in excess of 30 Hz, a 100x improvement of 

over legacy supervisory control and data acquisition systems, will allow users to observe and analyze the 

bulk power system in real-time. The deployment of advanced metering infrastructure could eventually 

turn each point of consumption into an active informational stream, thereby enhancing real-time grid 

monitoring capability. The Recovery Act supported the installation of 18 million smart meters and more 

than 850 PMUs.
34

The wealth of operational data provides significant opportunity to improve our models and 

understanding of the grid. The complexity and interdependencies associated with the electric system 

result in system-wide dynamic engagements that require improved knowledge and prediction of 

performance beyond today’s capabilities. Modeling, simulation, and forecasting enable improved 

understanding of issues from operation through planning, and especially the interaction of the 

interconnected elements.

Leveraging advances in both monitoring and modeling to enable control points across the system will 

improve reliability and asset utilization. New real-time analysis tools and control protocols will be 

required, although attention must be paid to concerns over privacy and consumer preference.

In developing roadmaps for grid monitoring, modeling and control technologies, we will draw upon the 

following source:

DOE and FERC, Steps to Establish a Real-time Transmission Monitoring System for Transmission 

Owners and Operators Within the Eastern and Western Interconnections: A Report to Congress 

Pursuant to Section 1839 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 2006

6.2.2.2 Power Electronics

New developments in power electronics devices, such as voltage control equipment and volt ampere 

reactive compensators will provide utilities with the ability to more effectively deliver power to their 

customers while increasing reliability of the bulk power system. Power electronics enable power flow 

control and energy conversion, critical to the efficient movement of electricity from generation resource 

to the consumer. Advances in power electronic devices include both technologies that are new to the 

grid and evolutionary improvements in existing technologies, both involving the development and 

deployment of new materials. Overcoming the limitations of silicon-based semiconductors (which 

include low voltage blocking capability, low switching speeds at high power, and limited junction 

operating temperature) would enable new technologies. DOE is supporting research in large-bandgap 

materials.

In developing roadmaps for power electronics technologies, we will draw upon the following source:

L. M. Tolbert et al., Power Electronics For Distributed Energy Systems and Transmission and 

Distribution Applications, ORNL/TM-2005/230, 2005.

6.2.2.3 Energy Storage

The core function of energy storage is to bridge the gap between the characteristics of the generation, 

load, and control technologies. The physical characteristics of energy storage technologies govern their 

most useful applications, and despite the large number of technologies available for storing energy, 

each technology is best suited to a limited subset of applications and services.

Optimal deployment of storage will require assessment and analysis of technology characteristics, 

possible system configurations, and service value. Departmental goals in energy storage are to 

understand how to optimize system integration, to improve performance of storage systems relevant to 
35

their most appropriate application, and to develop the manufacturing innovations necessary for costeffective storage technologies. The Recovery Act supported the development of two utility-scale energy 

storage facilities.

In developing roadmaps for energy storage technologies, we will draw upon the following sources:

DOE Electricity Advisory Committee, Bottling Electricity: Storage as a Strategic Tool for Managing 

Variability and Capacity Concerns in the Modern Grid – A Report by the Electricity Advisory 

Committee, 2008

DOE, Electric Power Industry Needs for Grid-Scale Storage Applications, 2010

Electric Power Research Institute and DOE, EPRI-DOE Handbook of Energy Storage for Transmission 

and Distribution Applications, 2003, and its supplement, EPRI-DOE Handbook Supplement of Energy 

Storage for Grid Connected Wind Generation Applications, 2004 

DOE, Advanced Materials and Devices for Stationary Electrical Energy Storage, 2010

6.2.3 Adoption and Deployment of Clean Electricity Supply

Approximately 50% of our electricity is generated from coal, 20% from nuclear, 20% from natural gas, 

and a further 10% from renewable resources such as hydropower and wind. The conventional fossil 

energy technologies that dominate the system (i.e. coal and natural gas) provide a variety of services, 

including base-load and grid regulation, and are simultaneously consistent and dispatchable to respond 

to changing loads. However, their environmental impacts can include particulate, mercury, and GHG 

emissions, and consumption of 27% of non-agricultural fresh water.

There are many alternative generation technologies, each with benefits and challenges relative to the 

incumbent mix. Renewable technologies such as wind and solar are non-polluting and require little 

water; successful deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies would dramatically 

reduce the emissions associated with coal and gas. Because the final product of a new generation 

technology (power into the grid) is indistinguishable from that of legacy technologies, clean energy 

technologies face considerable hurdles in displacing incumbent technologies, ranging from cost to 

performance. Recent innovations in extraction, partially driven by DOE research contributions a decade 

ago, have made natural gas a low-cost power method, and it will likely set cost benchmarks going 

forward. The low energy density (both per unit area and per project) of renewable resources relative to 

fossil or nuclear plants requires expansive deployment, often elevating costs and regulatory hurdles 

beyond conventional technologies. The opportunity to deploy generation in a distributed manner 

presents opportunities to lower cost burdens to entry of new technologies and provide resilience 

compared to centralized energy generation, but will require substantially different deployment 

strategies. New technologies using conventional resources (e.g. CCS and nuclear) are often more 

expensive to build and operate than their legacy counterparts, with uncertain technical performance. 

Beyond cost, the overall conservative and regulated nature of our utility sector places a very high 

burden on entry of new technologies. The variability of renewable resources, with fluctuations on 

timescales ranging from seconds to years, is in tension with the desire of system operators to control 

generator output. A properly designed power system incorporating distributed generation will be 
36

fundamentally more robust than the current system, thereby providing significant benefit and resilience 

to operators and consumers alike. Given the great projected rise in power demand in non-OECD nations, 

domestic development and deployment of alternative generation technologies can enhance the global 

competitiveness of the U.S. economy.

As you review these technologies, please keep in mind the cross-cutting questions described in Section 

5. DOE is particularly interested in feedback on the resources and reports that are listed with each 

technology, as well as the technology roadmaps described in the America’s Energy Future reports. 

Although DOE does continuously track new information emerging from the field, we welcome all data

that updates these references on questions of cost, projections, integration into the grid, land and water 

use, and non-technical barriers to deployment.

6.2.3.1 Nuclear Energy

Nuclear power plants use the energy released by fission to produce heat, which then drives a turbine to 

generate electricity. Twenty percent of electricity produced in the United States comes from nuclear 

power. There are 104 operating reactors in the U.S. with a combined capacity of 101 GW. The NRC is in 

the process of reviewing 17 applications to build 26 new reactors with a combined capacity of 34 GW. 

Globally, 442 reactors are in operation with an additional 65 under construction, the majority of which 

are in Asia. Known uranium reserves would be more than sufficient to expand nuclear generation by a 

factor of ten over the course of decades.

Reactors are generally operated at constant output to maximize economic return on the high capital 

investment, and the capacity factor of nuclear energy (over 0.9) is the highest for any current generation 

technology. This rigid output prevents nuclear plants from providing dispatchable power.

The oldest nuclear power reactors still operating were built in 1969, and the last reactor built in the U.S. 

began operation in 1996. Pre-1980 reactors were smaller and had a lower cost per kW installed than 

those built after 1980. Improvements in operational performance have allowed reactor operators to 

extend their operational lifetime—sixty-one reactors have received 20-year license renewals from the 

NRC with an additional 21 currently under review and 17 more that have indicated their intent to apply 

for renewals. 

U. S. utilities are currently proposing to construct Generation 3+ units, with the first expected to be 

completed by 2016. These are based upon the same light-water reactor technologies in use today, with 

improved safety and economic characteristics. They require large steel components that can be 

produced only in a few factories around the world, all of which are located abroad. Small modular 

reactors (SMRs) have the potential to lower the hurdle for construction financing while leveraging 

factory construction techniques to lower costs. 

International nuclear development has diminished the importance of U.S. nuclear suppliers, and all 

major U.S. reactor vendors are either owned by or closely aligned with foreign companies. In addition, 

South Korea may begin exporting SMRs before U.S. suppliers. As more players emerge in the global 

nuclear power arena, the U.S. must lead engagement with international regulatory bodies to ensure 

safety and security throughout the nuclear fuel cycle.
37

DOE supports the continuing operation of existing plants through its Light Water Reactor Sustainability 

program and the Modeling and Simulation Hub. The DOE program to accelerate SMR development will 

provide financial support to reactor developers to reach commercialization while the DOE SMR R&D 

efforts will help to enable the NRC to establish the regulatory basis for SMR licensing. DOE is supporting 

development of Generation IV and Generation V reactor designs.

In developing roadmaps for nuclear technologies, we will draw upon the following sources:

Congressional Budget Office, Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity, 2008.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT 

Study, 2003, and the 2009 Update to this report.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: An Interdisciplinary 

MIT Study, 2010.

University of Chicago, The Economic Future of Nuclear Power, 2004.

6.2.3.2 Wind

Wind turbines convert airflow directly to electricity. The capacity factor for wind power can be as much 

as 0.44 for new generation at good sites, but averages ~0.3 across the U.S. Wind power can be used as a 

distributed generation technology, but because of the size and area requirements it is more typically 

installed on the utility scale, and can be installed either on- or offshore. The U.S. wind resource is most 

dense in mountain areas (including the Rockies and Appalachians), in the Great Plains, and in some 

offshore locations. 

Global wind power installations increased by 35.8 GW in 2010, bringing total installed wind capacity up 

to 194 GW, a 22.5% increase from the end of 2009. China currently has the most installed wind power 

capacity. In the U.S., just over 5 GW of new wind power capacity was added in 2010, bringing the total 

installed capacity to 40.2 GW. Wind power now provides over 2% of the nation’s annual electricity 

generation. No offshore projects have yet been built in the U.S.

Over the past 25 years, wind turbine nameplate capacity has increased from about 50 kW to 1.5–3

megawatts (MW) for land-based wind turbines. Offshore wind turbines as large as 5 MW are being 

deployed, and even larger turbines are under consideration. Continued scaling of rotor size and tower 

height will increase energy capture, while advanced control and condition monitoring technology will 

lower installation costs and increase reliability. Installed costs could be further reduced through 

decreased component weight and simplified transportation logistics. Offshore wind requires further 

development of turbines, installation, and monitoring mechanisms designed for the marine 

environment. 

The availability of fiberglass, carbon fiber, and permanent magnets (i.e., rare earth minerals) may 

present long-term barriers to continued scaling and deployment of wind energy. Non-technical barriers 

to wind deployment include transmission availability at remote locations, noise and viewshed concerns, 

danger to wildlife, and siting and permitting requirements.
38

DOE’s goals are to facilitate wind deployment and decrease the cost of electricity for onshore and 

offshore wind systems to $0.036/kWh by 2012 and 0.07/kWh by 2014, respectively. The Recovery Act 

supported over 8 GW of wind capacity installation, more than 50 wind-related manufacturing projects, 

and development of innovative wind technologies and test facilities.

In developing roadmaps for wind technologies, we will draw upon the following sources:

Musial, W. and Ram, B., Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States: Assessment of 

Opportunities and Barriers, NREL/TP-500-40745, 2010

DOE EERE, 2009 Wind Technologies Market Report, DOE/GO-102010-3107, 2010

DOE EERE, 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy’s Contribution to U.S. Electricity 

Supply, DOE/GO-102008-2567, 2008. 

6.2.3.3 Concentrating Solar Power

Concentrating solar power (CSP) systems use mirrors to focus the sun's energy onto receivers in which a 

heat-transfer fluid is heated; that heat ultimately drives a turbine to generate power. CSP is suited for 

utility-scale generation, and could be base-load generation if long-term thermal storage is incorporated. 

The average capacity factor of new CSP generation is 0.3. Short-term storage (30 minutes to 1 hour) 

reduces the impact of thermal transients (such as clouds), while long-term storage (4–16 hours) can 

increase the system capacity factor (up to 0.7). The CSP solar resource in the U.S. is geographically 

concentrated in the desert southwest.

Between 1985 and 1991, 354 MW of solar trough technology were deployed in southern California. 

These plants are still in commercial operation and have demonstrated the longevity of CSP technology. 

In the U.S., 431 MW of CSP were in operation in 2009, generating about 0.03% of U.S. electricity, and 

there are more than 8 GW of CSP projects with signed power purchase agreements. Spain has 435 MW

of commercial CSP generation and an additional 2 GW under development, and there are significant 

markets in the Middle East and North Africa. 

CSP technology without thermal storage is relatively mature; integration of thermal storage is an area of 

active technical development. In addition, new technologies could reduce the use of water in CSP plants

(as well as water use in other thermal power generation technologies). The DOE program aims for cost 

reductions to less than $0.10/kWh, which could make CSP competitive in the intermediate load market 

without subsidies by 2020.

In developing roadmaps for solar CSP technologies, we will draw upon the following sources:

GTM Research, Concentrating Solar Power 2011, Technology, Markets, and Trends, 2009

Mehos, M., D. Kabel, and P. Smithers, “Planting the Seed—Greening the Grid with Concentrating 

Solar Power.” IEEE Power & Energy, 7 (3), 55-62, 2009

SolarPACES/ESTELA/Greenpeace, Concentrating Solar Power Global Outlook 2009 - Why Renewable 

Energy is Hot, 2009.

Turchi, C., M. Mehos, C.K. Ho, and G.J. Kolb, Current and Future Costs for Parabolic Trough and 

Power Tower Systems in the U.S. Market, NREL/CP-5500-49303, 2010.
39

6.2.3.4 Solar Photovoltaic

Solar photovoltaics (PV) use semiconductors (such as silicon or thin-film materials) to convert sunlight 

directly into electrical energy. They can be deployed at both utility (field) and distributed (rooftop) 

scales. The average capacity factor of new solar PV is ~0.2, with peak generation in daytime. The total 

solar resource exceeds U.S. energy consumption, although the intermittent nature of that resource 

requires new paradigms of energy management. The greatest resource density is in the desert 

southwest, although the resource is significant across the southern tier of the U.S. and the Great Plains. 

Global solar PV installations reached nearly 37 GW at the end of 2010, growing at an annual rate of 

almost 40% over the past decade. U.S. PV capacity grew at similar rates to approximately 2.0 GW in 

2010, but nearly 70% of the world’s solar capacity is in Europe. Even with this growth, PV currently 

supplies less than 0.1% of US electricity. 

The U.S. solar industry has grown into a $6 billion market, the majority of which is solar PV. However, 

the U.S. share of global PV manufacturing has fallen from nearly 46% in 1995 to 6% in 2008. China, the 

world leader, manufactured nearly 9 GW of solar PV in 2010, compared to roughly 900 MW produced in 

the U.S. 

Cost is currently the major barrier to greater solar PV deployment. Improvements in cell efficiency, along 

with advances in manufacturing and the balance of the PV system, can drive down deployment costs. 

DOE’s PV program aims to facilitate cost reduction to $1/W for utility-scale installations by 2020 through 

activities on three key components: the module, the power electronics, and the balance of system. At 

that cost, widespread deployment is expected. The Recovery Act supported the construction of PV 

manufacturing facilities and the deployment of 322 MW of PV capacity.

In developing roadmaps for solar PV technologies, we will draw upon the following sources:

International Energy Agency, Technology Roadmap: Solar photovoltaic energy, 2010

6.2.3.5 Carbon Capture and Storage

Carbon capture technology removes CO2 from fossil fuel combustion product stream for potential 

geologic storage, thereby reducing GHG emissions. Fossil fuels supply 80% of the world’s energy, and 

coal accounts for 25% of world energy supply and 40% of global carbon emissions. The U.S. possesses 

1/4 of the known coal resource, and the U.S., Russia, China and India together account for 2/3 of world 

reserves. The existing and predicted coal-burning energy infrastructure in these countries implies 

substantial continued coal use in the next few decades. 

Currently available CCS technologies are neither cost-effective nor demonstrated with electric 

generation. The highest-cost CCS step is CO2 capture, due to the added capital cost and energy required 

to release the CO2 from the chemicals that extract it from the combustion flue gas and the subsequent 

compression. A new generation of capture technologies is under development with DOE support, and 

DOE expects them to be ready for demonstration by 2015. If these are successful, CCS could be an 

economically viable GHG reduction option by 2020. Assigning a monetary value to the reduction in CO2
40

emissions would provide a market incentive to further improve and deploy CCS technologies. Multiple 

technology paths are being pursued in an effort to maximize the likelihood of commercial success. 

Another challenge to CCS deployment is demonstrating CO2 storage. This will require comprehensive 

characterization and monitoring of geologic CO2 storage sites and the ability to predict underground 

behavior, migration, and trapping of CO2 as well as a legal regime that addresses allocation of long term 

potential liabilities associated with storage. Injection of CO2 has long been used to enhance oil recovery.

DOE supports the development of 5–10 commercial-scale CCS demonstration projects in the U.S. by 

2016 for both retrofit and new-plant applications; these projects have been funded in part by the 

Recovery Act. DOE’s RD&D aims to reduce costs by improving overall power plant efficiency and 

reducing cost for CCS systems. DOE is also supporting research in CO2 storage that will lead to the 

reduction and quantification of risks. DOE participates in several international collaborations to develop 

and demonstrate CCS technologies.

In developing roadmaps for CCS technologies, we will draw upon the following sources:

Report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage, 2010. 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Future of Coal: Options for a Carbon-Constrained World, 

2007. 

6.2.3.6 Other Clean Electricity Supply Technologies

DOE expects that each of clean electricity supply technologies described above could contribute 

significantly to meeting the Nation’s energy goals, and DOE RD&D support has the potential to 

materially improve these technologies. Other clean electricity supply technologies could also contribute 

to varying degrees; these include hydroelectric, marine, and geothermal power technologies. Increasing 

the deployment of hydroelectric power is expected to consist largely of deploying evolutionary 

technologies, where DOE RD&D would not play a significant role. Geothermal and marine power 

technologies face uncertainties that exceed those of the previously discussed clean power technologies, 

including uncertainty in the materiality of their impact.