Zachary T. W Deployment of Advanced Ene

DEPLOYMENT OF ADVANCED
ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or
by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no
expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No
liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information
contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in
rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.
DEPLOYMENT OF ADVANCED
ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
ZACHARY T. WILLIAMSON
EDITOR
Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

New York
Copyright © 2009 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic,
tape, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission
of the Publisher.
For permission to use material from this book please contact us:
Telephone 631-231-7269; Fax 631-231-8175
Web Site: http://www.novapublishers.com
NOTICE TO THE READER

The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no
expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any
errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in
connection with or arising out of information contained in this book. The Publisher
shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in
whole or in part, from the readers’ use of, or reliance upon, this material.
Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations

contained in this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the publisher for
any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from any methods, products,
instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this publication.
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with

regard to the subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that
the Publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If
legal or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent person
should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY
ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND
A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA
Available upon request
ISBN: 978-1-61728-362-8 (E-Book)
Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

  New York
CONTENTS
Preface
vii
Chapter 1 Department of Energy: Key Challenges Remain
for Developing and Deploying Advanced Energy
Technologies to Meet Future Needs
1
GAO
Chapter 2 Advanced Energy Technologies:
Key Challenges to Their Development and Deployment
69
Jim Wells
Chapter 3 Advanced Energy Technologies: Budget Trends
and Challenges for Doe’s Energy R And D Program
81
Mark E. Gaffigan
Index
99
PREFACE
For decades, the nation has benefited from relatively inexpensive energy, in
the process growing heavily reliant on conventional fossil fuels—oil, natural gas,
and coal. However, in the current wake of higher energy costs and environmental
concerns about fossil fuel emissions, renewed attention is turning to the
development of advanced energy technologies as alternatives. In the United
States, the Department of Energy (DOE) has long conducted research,
development, and demonstration (R&D) on advanced renewable, fossil, and
nuclear energy technologies. DOE’s Office of Science has also funded basic
energy-related research.This book presents important information of
developments in this essential field.
In: Deployment of Advanced Energy Technologies ISBN: 978-1-60692-503-4
Editor: Zachary T. Williamson © 2009 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 1
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: KEY CHALLENGES

REMAIN FOR DEVELOPING AND DEPLOYING
ADVANCED ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES TO MEET
FUTURE NEEDS*
GAO
ABBREVIATIONS
AFCI Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative

DOE Department of Energy
EIA Energy Information Administration
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
GNEP Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
IGCC integrated gasification combined cycle
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
RPS renewable portfolio standards
R and D research and development
December 20, 2006
*
Excerpted from GAO Report GAO-07-106, dated December 2006.
2 GAO
The Honorable Bart Gordon

Ranking Member
Committee on Science
House of Representatives
The Honorable
Michael M. Honda
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Energy Committee on Science
House of Representatives
Since 1974, the nation has been subjected to periodic disruptions of crude oil
imports resulting in price shocks and related energy crises. Oil prices doubled in
1974 and doubled again between 1978 and 1980. These price shocks alerted the
nation to our growing dependence on imported oil and the need to conserve
energy and develop alternative energy sources. Yet, when world crude oil prices
plunged in the mid-1980s, the United States continued to rely on oil, and U.S.
energy companies reduced their investments in developing alternative energy
technologies. More recently, crude oil prices more than doubled—gasoline prices
exceeded $3 per gallon in August 2006—as a result of increased world
consumption, hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and instability in the Middle East
and other oil producing regions. However, by October 2006, crude oil prices had
once again declined, though at higher levels than previously. Despite these
periodic price shocks and related energy crises, the United States’ dependence on
imported crude oil and natural gas continues to increase—crude oil imports have
grown from 40.5 percent of the U.S. supply in 1980 to 65.5 percent of the U.S.
supply in 2005, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), within
the Department of Energy (DOE). Without dramatic change, the United States is
likely to become ever more reliant on imported oil and natural gas with all the
attendant threats to the U.S. economy and national security. Since 1974, the nation
has been subjected to periodic disruptions of crude oil imports resulting in price
shocks and related energy crises. Oil prices doubled in 1974 and doubled again
between 1978 and 1980. These price shocks alerted the nation to our growing
dependence on imported oil and the need to conserve energy and develop
alternative energy sources. Yet, when world crude oil prices plunged in the mid-
1980s, the United States continued to rely on oil, and U.S. energy companies
reduced their investments in developing alternative energy technologies. More
recently, crude oil prices more than doubled—gasoline prices exceeded $3 per
gallon in August 2006—as a result of increased world consumption, hurricanes in
Department of Energy: Key Challenges Remain for Developing… 3
the Gulf of Mexico, and instability in the Middle East and other oil producing
regions. However, by October 2006, crude oil prices had once again declined,
though at higher levels than previously. Despite these periodic price shocks and
related energy crises, the United States’ dependence on imported crude oil and
natural gas continues to increase—crude oil imports have grown from 40.5
percent of the U.S. supply in 1980 to 65.5 percent of the U.S. supply in 2005,
according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), within the Department
of Energy (DOE). Without dramatic change, the United States is likely to become
ever more reliant on imported oil and natural gas with all the attendant threats to
the U.S. economy and national security.
EIA projects that total U.S. energy demand will increase by about 28 to 35
percent between 2005 and 2030. Specific sectors reflect even more dramatic
growth in energy demand: (1) the transportation sector is expected to grow by 43
percent, with annual crude oil consumption increasing from about 4.8 billion
barrels in 2004 to about 6.8 billion barrels by 2030 (a barrel of oil is equivalent to
42 gallons of gasoline), and (2) the EIA projects that total U.S. energy demand
will increase by about 28 to 35 percent between 2005 and 2030. Specific sectors
reflect even more dramatic growth in energy demand: (1) the transportation sector
is expected to grow by 43 percent, with annual crude oil consumption increasing
from about 4.8 billion barrels in 2004 to about 6.8 billion barrels by 2030 (a barrel
of oil is equivalent to 42 gallons of gasoline), and (2) the electricity sector is
expected to grow by 50 percent, with electricity consumption increasing from
about 3.6 billion megawatt-hours in 2004 to about 5.3 billion megawatt-hours by
2030 (a megawatt-hour is sufficient to meet the demand of 750 households for 1
hour). EIA projects that the proportions of energy derived from renewable, fossil,
and nuclear sources for both transportation and electricity generation will remain
about the same through 2030.
Since its creation in 1977, DOE has had leadership responsibility for energy
research, development, and demonstration programs (R and D) to enable the
nation to deploy advanced energy technologies for meeting future demands and
diversifying its energy portfolio.[1] During the past 29 years, the Congress has
provided DOE about $50 billion for R and D in renewable, fossil, and nuclear
energy technologies.[2] Specifically:
• DOE’s renewable energy R and D program has primarily focused on (1)

developing cost-effective technologies for producing ethanol from
biomass sources, such as agricultural residues and forest waste, and (2)
making wind and solar energy technologies more cost-competitive
sources of electricity. DOE has also funded R and D for geothermal and
4 GAO
hydropower energy technologies and, in 2003, accelerated the R and D

funding for developing hydrogen technologies.
• DOE’s fossil energy R and D program has primarily focused on reducing
emissions of harmful pollutants from coal-fired power plants, particularly
sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide in the 1980s and early 1990s. More
recently, DOE has concentrated on developing (1) coal gasification
technologies to improve efficiency and reduce mercury and carbon
dioxide emissions and (2) sequestration technologies for the long-term
storage of carbon dioxide.
• DOE’s nuclear energy R and D program has focused primarily on
improving nuclear power plant safety—in response to the March 1979
accident at the Three Mile Island plant near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania—
and efficiency.[3] More recently, the program has focused on developing
technologies and designs for new generations of nuclear reactors —so-
called Generation III and Generation IV. Beginning in October 2007,
electric power companies are expected to apply for the first licenses to
construct nuclear reactors since 1979. These reactors will use Generation
III technologies. DOE’s nuclear R and D program is developing
Generation IV technologies for deployment after 2020.
The market has been slow to embrace advanced energy technologies because
they typically are not economically competitive with conventional energy sources
such as oil, natural gas, and coal. In part this is because the prices U.S. consumers
pay for conventional energy do not reflect their true costs, including the costs of
certain adverse environmental impacts; economists refer to these hidden costs as
negative externalities. For example, we continue to rely on electricity generated
from coal-fired plants because coal is plentiful and inexpensive in the United
States. However, carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants—a key
concern for global warming—are not currently regulated, and thus potential
environmental costs associated with global warming are not reflected in the
electricity prices that consumers pay. In contrast, renewable energy sources, such
as wind farms, and nuclear reactors do not produce carbon dioxide emissions in
generating electricity.
The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 stimulated the deployment of
ethanol by providing a 51-cent tax credit through December 31, 2010, for every
gallon of ethanol blended into gasoline.[4] The act also provides tax credits that
expire on December 31, 2006, for every gallon of biodiesel and agri-biodiesel.
Similarly, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 promoted a diversified U.S. energy
portfolio by reauthorizing DOE’s R and D funding and providing tax incentives
for stimulating investment in advanced renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy

technologies.[5] Specifically, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 extended the
production tax credit established in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 for renewable
technologies for 2 years until January 1, 2008. The act also added a new (1)
investment tax credit of up to $1.3 billion for constructing new clean-coal power
plants and (2) production tax credit of 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour for up to 6,000
megawatts of new nuclear power capacity lasting 8 years after each qualifying
nuclear reactor begins service. These tax credits and other tax incentives are
legally known as tax expenditures;[6] revenue losses from these tax incentives can
be viewed as spending channeled through the tax system. Historically, the tax
subsidies that the U.S. government has provided to the energy sector have been
directed toward the conventional energy sector. More recently, tax incentives
available in fiscal year 2006, such as the new technology tax credits, have also
been directed toward stimulating the development and deployment of advanced
energy technologies (see app. I).
You asked that we assess the nation’s ability to meet its energy needs through
2030 by examining DOE’s efforts to diversify the nation’s energy portfolio and
reduce its dependence on oil and natural gas. Specifically, we examined (1)
DOE’s R and D funding trends and strategies for developing advanced renewable,
fossil, and nuclear energy technologies; (2) the key barriers to developing and
deploying technologies that will address the nation’s future energy needs; and (3)
the efforts of states and selected countries to develop and deploy renewable,
fossil, and nuclear energy technologies that address future energy needs.
To ensure that we obtained a balanced view of future U.S. energy challenges,
we reviewed documents and interviewed DOE officials, including program
managers and laboratory scientists; senior industry executives; independent
experts; officials of several state governments and states’ associations; and
representatives of foreign governments and industry associations. More
specifically, to review DOE’s R and D funding trends and strategy for developing
advanced energy technologies, we analyzed DOE’s (1) budget authority data for
renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy R and D from fiscal year 1978 through
fiscal year 2006, adjusted for any advanced appropriations and rescissions, and (2)
strategic plans for developing and deploying new energy technologies. For
perspective, we also reviewed revenue losses due to energy-related tax
expenditures for fiscal years 2000 through 2006. To assess the key technological,
economic, and other barriers, we analyzed various energy studies and interviewed
senior officials at DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which
regulates the construction and operations of nuclear power plants, industry
executives, and independent experts. To examine the efforts of states and selected
6 GAO
countries to develop and deploy advanced energy technologies, we identified their

use of mandates, financial incentives, and other actions. We selected Brazil,
Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, and Spain because they have initiated major
nationwide programs to stimulate the deployment of advanced energy
technologies that have changed, or could change, their energy portfolios. We
found that the data we used to examine trends and states’ efforts to develop and
deploy energy technologies to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We
conducted our work from October 2005 through October 2006 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. (See app. II for further
information about our scope and methodology.)
RESULTS IN BRIEF
Despite growing dependence on foreign energy sources, DOE’s R and D
budget authority for renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy technologies declined
by over 85 percent (in real terms) between fiscal years 1978 and 2005.
Specifically, DOE’s R and D budget authority dropped from about $5.5 billion (in
real terms) in fiscal year 1978 to $793 million in fiscal year 2005. Budget
authority for renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy R and D peaked in the late
1970s before falling sharply in the mid 1980s when crude oil prices returned to
lower levels. As funding has shrunk, DOE’s R and D focus has narrowed. For
example, DOE’s renewable R and D program has focused on ethanol, wind, and
solar technologies, making steady incremental progress in reducing their costs
over the past 29 years. DOE’s fossil R and D program has focused primarily on
reducing harmful emissions of coal-fired power plants, working with industry to
make significant progress in reducing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution
during the 1980s and 1990s. Currently, DOE is using coal gasification
technologies to reduce mercury and carbon dioxide emissions and achieve the
long-term goal of a “near-zero emissions” power plant. From 1978 through 1998,
DOE’s nuclear R and D program focused on making incremental improvements in
nuclear power plant safety and efficiency. Since 1998, DOE’s nuclear R and D
program shifted its focus to developing “next generation” nuclear facilities for
reprocessing spent fuel, developing advanced nuclear reactors that produce
hydrogen and reduce waste, and producing more efficient nuclear fuels. Faced
with competing R and D priorities and budget constraints, DOE’s fiscal year 2007
budget proposed eliminating R and D funding for its geothermal, hydropower, oil,
and natural gas programs.
Advanced renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy technologies all face key
barriers to their development and deployment. Among renewable energy
technologies, for ethanol to garner a significant share of the U.S. gasoline market,
ethanol producers need to deploy cost-competitive technologies for processing
agricultural residues and other biomass materials; it is unclear whether ethanol
from corn alone can achieve this result. Widespread deployment of ethanol also
faces infrastructure challenges—in particular, transporting and storing ethanol and
retrofitting gasoline station pumps. Barriers to electricity generation from
renewable sources—primarily wind and solar—include the difficulty of efficiently
converting renewable energy into electricity, high up-front capital costs, including
connection to the electric power transmission grid; the intermittent nature of wind
and solar energy; and the higher financial risks associated with gaps in the
renewal of the production tax credit. In addition, renewable energy technologies
must compete with traditional fossil energy sources whose greater environmental
costs are not reflected in the price paid by consumers, and renewable energy R
and D budgets have been subject to growing congressional earmarks in recent
years. For advanced fossil technologies, the primary challenge continues to be
controlling emissions of mercury and carbon dioxide generated by conventional
coal-fired plants. However, reducing these emissions requires plants to use new
coal gasification technologies, which cost about 20 percent more to construct than
conventional coal-fired plants and carry higher perceived investment risk as new
technologies. Furthermore, DOE and industry have not demonstrated the
technological feasibility of the long-term storage of carbon dioxide captured by a
large-scale, coal-based power plant. For advanced nuclear technologies, investors
face uncertainties about whether NRC’s revised review process for new reactors
will effectively reduce regulatory delays and minimize added costs to address
safety concerns. While public opposition previously was a primary barrier, the
nuclear industry reports that public opinion, particularly in the southeast United
States, is more favorable reflecting the increased demand for electricity, perceived
advances in safety, and growing concerns about global warming. Investors also
face higher financial risk because of nuclear reactors’ high capital costs and long
construction time frames, as well as environmental and nonproliferation concerns
about spent nuclear fuel.
While federal R and D has declined and the government has relied on the
market to determine whether to deploy advanced energy technologies, many states
have assumed higher profile roles by enacting standards, mandates, and financial
incentives primarily to stimulate renewable energy technologies that address their
growing energy needs and environmental concerns. In particular, 22 states have
established renewable portfolio standards requiring or encouraging that a fixed
percentage of the state’s electricity be generated from renewable sources; 39
states have established rules for electric power companies to connect renewable
8 GAO
energy sources to the power transmission grid and credit producers for excess
generation; and 45 states offer tax credits, grants, or loans to stimulate the
deployment of renewable energy. Examples of state initiatives include the
following: Since 1980, Minnesota has enacted various mandates and production
incentives to stimulate the use of ethanol. Minnesota had displaced nearly 10
percent of all of its gasoline consumption with ethanol by June 2006 and had
nearly one-third of the nation’s ethanol fueling stations in September 2006. Texas’
2005 legislation extended the state’s 1999 renewable portfolio standard to require
the installation of 5,000 megawatts of new renewable capacity by 2015. As of
September 2006, electric power companies had installed over 1,900 megawatts of
new renewable capacity in Texas—approximately 3 percent of its total electricity
consumption. California’s Solar Initiative called for 3,000 megawatts of new solar
capacity by 2017. In response, 150 megawatts of new solar capacity have recently
been installed. Some states have also established mandates and financial
incentives to stimulate advanced fossil and nuclear technologies. For example,
2002 legislation in Indiana established investment tax credits for advanced coal
power plants to encourage cleaner coal technologies. Similarly, Calvert County,
Maryland, recently offered a 50-percent, 15-year property tax credit to the owner
of the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant if an additional nuclear reactor is built.
Each of the six countries we reviewed—Brazil, Denmark, Germany, Japan,
Spain, and France—has sustained long-term efforts using mandates and/or
incentives to deploy advanced energy technologies that are providing, or are
expected in the future to provide, significant amounts of energy. For example, by
2005, Brazil had eliminated its need to import crude oil for gasoline by using
mandates and price subsidies to stimulate the development of an ethanol industry
that uses domestic sugarcane. Similarly, Denmark’s stimulation of renewable
energy has resulted in wind energy generating 19 percent of total electricity
consumed in 2005. Denmark’s support of wind energy has also created a thriving
domestic wind turbine industry, which grew from about 200 megawatts to more
than 3,000 megawatts in annual global sales over the past decade. To develop a
sustainable energy supply and protect the environment, Germany established a
goal to increase the share of renewable energy consumption to at least 4.2 percent
of its total energy requirements by 2010 and to 10 percent by 2020. The 2010
target was exceeded in 2005, when renewable technologies accounted for 4.6
percent of consumption. To reduce its reliance on imported energy, Japan initiated
a 10-year program subsidizing the cost of residential solar systems. As a result,
solar systems were installed on more than 253,000 homes and the price of
residential solar systems was cut by more than one-half. Spain, supported in part
by a European Union program to promote cleaner energy technologies, is
successfully operating a 320-megawatt coal gasification plant—the largest such

plant in the world—designed to run more efficiently with fewer emissions than
conventional coal-fired plants. France leads the United States in deploying an
advanced Generation III nuclear reactor—the European Pressurized Reactor—
which is designed to be safer, more efficient, and less susceptible to terrorist
attacks than older reactors, and will also generate nearly 80 percent more
electricity.
To meet the nation’s rising demand for energy, reduce its economic and
national security vulnerability to crude oil supply disruptions, and minimize
adverse environmental effects, we suggest that the Congress consider further
stimulating the development and deployment of a diversified energy portfolio by
focusing R and D funding on advanced energy technologies.
For the past several decades, the United States has enjoyed relatively
inexpensive and plentiful energy supplies, relying on market forces to determine
the energy mix that provides the most reliable and least expensive sources of
energy—primarily oil, natural gas, and coal. In 1973, oil cost about $15 per barrel
(in real terms) and accounted for 96 percent of the energy used in the
transportation sector and 17 percent of the energy used to generate electricity.
In 1973, the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries embargoed
nations that it believed supported Israel during the Yom Kippur War. The
disruption of oil supplies caused oil prices in the United States to double between
1973 and 1974, resulting in long gasoline lines and rationing by the U.S.
government. Natural gas price spikes followed a pattern similar to that of oil.
Since oil and natural gas accounted for about 35 percent of electricity generation
in 1973, electricity prices soared, and consumers experienced periodic brown
outs. Oil disruptions reoccurred with the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the 1979 to
1981 Iran-Iraq War, which caused oil prices to double once again from the already
record-high prices, adversely affecting the U.S. economy. Oil and natural gas
prices fell in the mid-1980s, and U.S. reliance on fossil fuels and, in particular on
imported oil, continued as the U.S. economy expanded and domestic sources of
oil declined. By 2004, about 63 percent of U.S. oil was imported and cost $38 per
barrel (in real terms);[7] oil accounted for 98 percent of energy consumed for
transportation, and coal and natural gas accounted for about 71 percent of the
energy used to generate electricity.
As shown in figure 1, the current U.S. energy portfolio is similar to the
energy portfolio in 1973. The primary change is the growth of the fledgling
nuclear energy industry during the 1970s and 1980s, as new nuclear power plants
came online and efficiency improved. However, because nuclear power plants
currently operate at about 90 percent capacity, new growth will occur only when
10 GAO
new reactors are built. In addition, while hydropower makes up the bulk of energy
generated from renewable sources, its share of the renewable energy has declined
because new wind, geothermal, and solar-generating capacity has been added
while hydropower generation has remained unchanged.
BACKGROUND
Source: GAO analysis of EIA data.
Figure 1. Comparison of the U.S. Energy Portfolio in 1973 and 2004.
EIA’s model of energy generation in 2030 projects that the United States will
continue to primarily rely on oil to provide most of the energy in the
transportation sector and coal to provide most of the energy for generating
electricity. EIA projects that U.S. electricity generation will grow from 3,900
billion kilowatt-hours in 2005 to 5,500 billion kilowatt-hours in 2030 (see fig. 2).
In addition to funding energy R and D to develop advanced energy
technologies, DOE has funded efforts to improve energy efficiency and reduce
energy demand. For example, DOE has encouraged energy efficiency by, for
example, establishing energy efficiency standards for home appliances and air
conditioners, and the federal government provides tax credits for purchasing
energy-efficient equipment.
The federal government also provides the energy industry and consumers
with 23 tax expenditures affecting energy supply, some of which are incentives
designed to stimulate the development and deployment of advanced technologies.
From a budgetary perspective, most tax expenditures are comparable to
mandatory spending for entitlement programs because they require no further
action. Tax expenditures do not compete directly in the annual budget process
and, in effect, receive a higher funding priority than discretionary spending
subject to the annual appropriations process. Some tax expenditures are enacted
on a temporary basis, providing an opportunity for scrutiny before they can be
extended.
Source: EIA.
Note: EIA projects a greater reliance on coal to generate electricity if oil prices exceed $90
per barrel by 2030 and less reliance on coal and a slight reduction in renewable energy
if oil prices are less than $30 per barrel by 2030.
Figure 2. Projected U.S. Electricity Generation by Energy Source, 2005-2030.
Currently, the United States does not regulate carbon dioxide emissions,
which contribute to global warming. In 1992, the United States ratified the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was intended to
stabilize the build-up of greenhouse gases, but did not impose binding limits on
greenhouse gas emissions. In 1997, the United States participated in drafting the
Kyoto Protocol, which established some limits on greenhouse gas emissions but
did not ratify the protocol. Many DOE officials and industry executives told us,
however, that the federal government might begin to regulate greenhouse gas
emissions in the future to address global warming concerns. The Energy Policy
Act of 2005 authorized R and D funding for the capture and long-term storage—
or sequestration—of carbon dioxide.
12 GAO
DOE’S BUDGET AUTHORITY FOR RENEWABLE, FOSSIL, AND

NUCLEAR ENERGY R AND D HAS DECLINED BY OVER 85
PERCENT IN REAL TERMS SINCE 1978; DOE IS NARROWING
ITS R AND D FOCUS
DOE’s budget authority for renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy R and D
dropped from $5.5 billion (in real terms) in fiscal year 1978 to $793 million in
fiscal year 2005—a decline of over 85 percent. Energy R and D budget authority
peaked in the late 1970s in response to the Organization of Arab Petroleum
Exporting Countries’ oil embargo of 1973 and fell sharply as crude oil prices
plunged in the mid 1980s. However, since fiscal year 2000, federal support for the
energy industry—through DOE’s R and D budget authority and federal revenue
losses from energy-related income tax expenditures—has grown. Since 1978,
DOE’s renewable energy R and D program has made incremental progress in
making renewable technologies more efficient and reducing their costs. DOE’s
fossil energy R and D program has focused primarily on reducing harmful
emissions by coal-fired power plants. During the 1980s and 1990s, the program
made significant progress in demonstrating technologies that reduce sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollutants, and DOE’s current objective is to develop a
“near-zero emissions” power plant by targeting mercury and carbon dioxide
emissions. In response to the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, DOE’s nuclear
energy R and D program focused on improving the safety and efficiency of
nuclear reactors. More recently, the nuclear energy R and D program has given
priority to (1) encouraging electric power companies to submit the first
applications to NRC in over 30 years for combined licenses to build and operate a
nuclear reactor to generate electricity, (2) developing technologies for
reprocessing spent nuclear fuel that minimize the threat of spent fuel being used to
make nuclear weapons and reduce highly radioactive waste, and (3) developing
advanced Generation IV reactor technologies. Faced with competing R and D
priorities and budget constraints, DOE has proposed in recent years to concentrate
its R and D funding on key technologies for meeting the nation’s growing energy
demand while eliminating funding for geothermal, hydropower, oil, and natural
gas technologies.
DOE’s Budget Authority for Renewable,

Fossil, and Nuclear Energy R and D
Has Substantially Fallen Since 1978
As shown in figure 3, renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy R and D budget

authority each peaked in the late 1970s before falling sharply in the 1980s.
Similarly, energy R and D funding as a percentage of total nondefense R and D
expenditures fell from about 20 percent in the late 1970s to less than 5 percent in
fiscal year 2006, according to the American Association for the Advancement of
Science. More recently, total budget authority for the three energy R and D
programs has risen after bottoming out in fiscal year 1998. Budget authority for
renewable energy R and D peaked at $1.5 billion (in real terms) in fiscal year
1979, with most of the funding directed toward solar energy. Subsequently,
renewable R and D budget authority fell, hitting its lowest point of $144 million
(in real terms) in 1990. Fossil energy R and D budget authority peaked at $1.9
billion (in real terms) in fiscal year 1979 and then has fluctuated. In particular, the
Clean Coal Technology Program, a joint DOE-industry effort to demonstrate
technologies that reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions, began in
1985 with high levels of DOE budget authority in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Fossil energy R and D budget authority rose in fiscal year 2001, and the
administration introduced its “clear skies” initiative to further reduce pollution in
fiscal year 2002. DOE’s nuclear energy R and D program peaked at $2.4 billion
(in real terms) in fiscal year 1978 and then fell through fiscal year 1998, when the
nuclear R and D program received no budget authority. Since fiscal year 1998,
budget authority for nuclear energy R and D has gradually increased. Similar to
DOE’s budget authority for energy R and D, estimated federal revenue losses
from energy-related tax expenditures grew from nearly $2.2 billion (in real terms)
in fiscal year 2000 to nearly $4.9 billion in fiscal year 2005.[8] While many of the
new tax expenditures are for developing and deploying advanced energy
technologies, tax expenditures for conventional energy remain among the largest
in terms of revenue loss. The alternative fuels production credit is the largest
energy-related tax expenditure, with estimated revenue losses of about $2.4 billion
in fiscal year 2006.[9]
In fiscal year 2006, the Congress provided about $982 million in budget
authority for energy R and D, including $324 million for renewable energy R and
D, about $434 million for fossil energy R and D, and about $224 million for
nuclear energy R and D (see fig. 4). The biomass, solar, and hydrogen energy
programs received about 80 percent of the renewable energy R and D budget
authority. Similarly, coal R and D programs received more than 80 percent of the
14 GAO
fossil energy R and D budget authority, particularly for developing and

demonstrating advanced gasification technologies—including integrated
gasification combined cycle (IGCC)—mercury capture, and sequestration
technologies. DOE’s top nuclear energy R and D priority is to encourage electric
power companies to submit applications to NRC for licenses to build and operate
Generation III nuclear reactors by competitively awarding funds for preparing
early site permits and NRC combined license applications. The nuclear R and D
program also is developing Generation IV nuclear reactor technologies, especially
ones that can reprocess spent nuclear fuel that reduce both proliferation risks and
the amount of waste generated.
Source: GAO analysis of DOE data.

Note: Budget authority is in real terms, adjusted to fiscal year 2005 dollars to account for
inflation. Excludes DOE program management costs and indirect facilities costs of
DOE laboratories.
Figure 3. DOE’s Budget Authority for Renewable, Fossil, and Nuclear R and D, Fiscal
Years 1978 through 2005.

Note: Budget authority is in fiscal year 2006 dollars. Excludes DOE program management
costs, indirect facilities costs of DOE laboratories, and funding for fuel cells—
historically, an energy efficiency program.
Year 2006.
DOE’s Renewable R and D Focuses on Innovations in

Ethanol, Wind, Solar, and Hydrogen Energy Technologies
Over the past 29 years, DOE has made steady incremental progress in making
each of the renewable energy technologies more cost-competitive; for example,
DOE and its industry partners have reduced wind energy costs by more than 80
percent. DOE’s renewable energy R and D efforts have focused on developing
16 GAO
ethanol, wind, and solar energy technologies. More recently, in January 2003, the
administration announced the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and proposed spending
$1.2 billion over 5 years to support research in hydrogen and fuel cell
technologies. While DOE has conducted R and D in geothermal and hydropower
technologies since the late 1970s, the administration’s 2007 budget proposed to
eliminate both programs.
Ethanol
DOE’s ethanol R and D program, the primary component of its biomass R
and D efforts, is developing technologies to reduce the cost of producing ethanol,
which can be blended with gasoline to reduce harmful exhaust emissions. In the
early years of the biomass program, DOE focused on developing biofuels and
biomass energy systems that primarily relied on corn as the energy source. As the
biomass program evolved, it sought to make biorefinery-related technologies cost-
and performance-competitive. As of October 2006, 106 biorefineries were
operating throughout the United States to supply (1) oil refineries with ethanol to
oxygenate gasoline—ethanol is a substitute for methyl tertiary-butyl ether
(MTBE), which some states have banned because of concerns about groundwater
contamination, and (2) fuel suppliers with ethanol to produce E85, a blend of 85
percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline that can be used in flex fuel vehicles.[10]
The long-term goal of DOE’s biomass R and D program is to enable U.S.
industry to produce enough biofuels equivalent to 30 percent of current gasoline
demand—about 60 billion gallons of biofuels per year—by 2030. To meet this
goal, the biomass program is focused on developing additional sources of ethanol
from cellulosic biomass, such as agricultural residues, forest wastes, and energy
crops. According to DOE, producing cellulosic ethanol is difficult because it
requires a complex chemical process to convert the plant material into a simple
sugar to use for ethanol. The biomass program is also working with industry to
demonstrate biorefinery technologies and assess infrastructure needs.
Wind
DOE’s wind R and D program primarily is focused on developing efficient
wind turbines that convert the wind’s power into electrical power. Historically,
DOE’s wind program focused on developing wind turbines for high-wind sites
because it was the easiest way to achieve significant levels of electric power
generation. High-wind sites—referred to as Class 6—typically are located in areas
where the wind regularly blows from 18 to 20 miles per hour. During the past 29
years, DOE and its industry partners have made technological improvements that
reduced the cost of wind energy by more than 80 percent, and industry has built
wind farms on many of the high-wind sites that are easily accessible.
DOE’s wind R and D program primarily is seeking to develop new cost-
effective technology for deploying wind turbines for low-wind areas in the United
States and exploring the possibility of offshore wind development. Low-wind
sites—referred to as Class 4—generally are located in areas of sustained winds of
16 to 17 miles per hour and primarily are located in the Midwest from Texas to
the Canadian border. The advantages of developing low-wind resources are that
low-wind sites are far more plentiful than high-wind sites and are located closer to
electricity load centers, which can substantially reduce the cost of connecting to
the electricity transmission grid. DOE’s R and D program is focused on
developing wind turbine technology for low-wind sites because easily accessible
high-wind sites are becoming scarce. Specifically, the turbine rotor diameter must
be much larger to harvest the low-energy winds without increasing costs, and the
tower must be taller to take advantage of the increasing wind speed at greater
heights. DOE is using public/private partnerships to improve wind turbine designs
and components and demonstrate full-scale prototypes. DOE’s goal is to reduce
the cost of low-wind generated electricity from about 4.5 to 5.5 cents per kilowatt-
hour in 2002 to 3.6 cents per kilowatt-hour by 2012.
DOE’s wind R and D program is also exploring wind energy technology for
the distinct needs of offshore wind sites. While the United States currently has no
offshore wind farms, several projects have been proposed in the waters off the
Northeast and Gulf coasts. DOE estimates that there are over 900,000 megawatts
of potential wind energy off the coasts of the United States, roughly between 6
and 58 miles offshore. Several European countries, including Denmark, Ireland,
and the United Kingdom, have deployed wind farms in the shallow (less than 100
feet deep) waters off their coastlines using wind turbine designs adapted from
land-based versions. However, the European offshore sites are different from
potential U.S. offshore wind sites, which are generally located in deeper waters
and expected to have more severe wind, wave, and ice conditions. As a result,
many U.S. sites will require new technologies. DOE’s offshore wind R and D
activities include mapping coastal wind resources, organizing workshops for
knowledge sharing, and collaborating with industry in developing offshore
technologies to address design, offshore transmission, and interconnection issues.
DOE is also collaborating with European nations on deep-water wind energy and
with states to identify the regulatory, environmental, and technical issues facing
offshore wind energy. DOE’s goal is to reduce the cost of electricity generated by
offshore wind farms located in water 100 to 200 feet deep from an estimated 12
cents per kilowatt-hour today to 5 cents per kilowatt-hour by 2016.
18 GAO
Solar
DOE’s solar R and D program is working to make solar energy technologies a
more cost-competitive source of electricity. Specifically, DOE’s extensive work
has advanced solar technologies, improved efficiency and reliability, lowered
costs, and resulted in more than 235 patents. While solar energy technologies have
evolved and costs have decreased, DOE is focused on further reducing solar
energy costs to compete in the residential, commercial, and industrial energy
markets and for solar technology to penetrate the market sufficiently to create a
sustainable solar industry. Currently, DOE’s solar R and D program focuses on
developing advanced photovoltaics, also called solar cells, that produce electricity
directly from absorbed photons from sunlight; solar heating and lighting systems;
and utility-size, solar-power plants.
DOE’s photovoltaic R and D program is designed to increase performance,
reduce costs, and enhance the reliability of photovoltaic systems. DOE initially
focused on using crystalline-silicon, which continues to hold the majority of the
photovoltaic market today. DOE’s second generation of photovoltaic R and D
focuses on thin-film technology, which is designed to use less materials to reduce
costs and can be made into a variety of forms. DOE’s goal is to lower the cost of
photovoltaics so that they are an affordable alternative to traditional electricity
sources across all sectors. DOE is working to reduce the costs of photovoltaics
from about 18 to 23 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2005 to about 5 to 10 cents per
kilowatt-hour by 2015.
DOE’s solar heating and lighting R and D program is developing
technologies that use sunlight for various thermal applications, particularly space
heating and cooling, water heating, and to illuminate building interiors. DOE’s R
and D program is focused on advancing materials, design, and manufacturability
that will lower costs of solar water heaters, improve their performance, and ease
installation. DOE seeks to reduce the costs of solar water-heating systems
operating in cold climates from about 11 to 12 cents per kilowatt-hour today to
about 5 to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour by 2011. DOE is also working with industry
to fully commercialize solar lighting systems. However, the administration’s
fiscal year 2007 budget proposed eliminating funding for the solar heating and
lighting R and D program.
DOE is also working with industry and southwestern states to develop utility-
size solar power plants that use two types of concentrating solar power
technologies: trough systems and dish/engine systems. These technologies use
various mirror configurations to convert the sun’s energy into high-temperature
heat that is used to generate electricity in a steam generator. DOE’s goal is to
reduce the cost of utility-size solar power plants in the Southwest from 12 to 14
cents per kilowatt-hour in 2005 to 10 to 12 cents per kilowatt-hour by 2010.
Hydrogen
In January 2003, the administration announced the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative
and proposed spending $1.2 billion over 5 years to support research in hydrogen
and fuel cell technologies. The initiative’s objective is to accelerate the
development of technologies to produce and distribute hydrogen to power fuel
cells to replace the internal combustion engine in vehicles. While hydrogen is
used as a fuel for aerospace and rocket propulsion applications, it is primarily
used in the petroleum refining and fertilizer industries. DOE’s hydrogen R and D
program is focused on developing technologies for production and delivery,
storage, conversion, and end-use applications and on standards formulation and
other research. The program’s goal is to develop the technology needed to allow
industry to make a technology readiness decision in 2015 and introduce new
hydrogen vehicles by 2020. However, these technologies are not expected to
penetrate the market or significantly displace oil before 2030.
Geothermal
DOE’s geothermal R and D program is developing technologies to improve
the efficiency and cost competitiveness of geothermal technologies, which
currently provide about 0.3 percent of total U.S. electricity and heating needs.[11]
DOE’s R and D program has changed over time from a resource-oriented, long-
term, high-risk program to a cost-shared, competitively selected R and D program
to meet immediate industry needs in geosciences, drilling, resource engineering,
and energy conversion technologies. The program has developed drilling tools
that oil and gas companies have adapted for exploration and helped introduce
geothermal heat pumps into the market.[12] The current goals of the geothermal R
and D program are to (1) decrease the cost of geothermal electricity from about 8
to 9 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2004 to about 3 to 5 cents per kilowatt-hour by
2010; (2) improve hydrothermal technologies by increasing the productivity and
lifetime of reservoirs, improve technology performance, and reduce the costs
associated with drilling geothermal wells; (3) develop additional geothermal
resources; and (4) explore the technical feasibility of mining heat from hot dry
rock and magma. However, the administration’s fiscal year 2007 budget proposed
eliminating funding for the geothermal R and D program.
20 GAO
Hydropower
Since 1991, annual budget authority for DOE’s hydropower R and D program
has not exceeded $6 million (in real terms) for developing cost-effective
technologies to improve the operation of hydropower facilities and address
environmental concerns. Hydropower is currently the largest source of renewable
energy, generating as much as 10 percent of U.S. electricity. The most common
type of hydropower plant uses a dam on a river to store water in a reservoir. Water
released from the reservoir flows through a turbine, spinning it, which, in turn,
activates a generator to produce electricity. Current hydropower technologies can
have undesirable environmental effects, such as fish injury and mortality from
passage through hydropower systems, and negative impacts on the quality of
water downstream. DOE has been working with industry to improve the
environmental and operational performance of hydropower systems. DOE’s goal
is to demonstrate advanced turbine technologies that will enable a 10 percent
growth in generation at existing hydropower plants and enhance environmental
performance by 2010. However, the administration’s fiscal year 2007 budget
proposed eliminating funding for the hydropower R and D program.
DOE’s Fossil R and D Program Has Focused on Reducing

Harmful Emissions and Improving the Efficiency of Burning Coal
DOE’s fossil energy R and D has focused primarily on reducing emissions

and increasing the efficiency of coal-fired power plants. DOE also has supported
oil and natural gas R and D through cost-shared partnerships with industry, with
most funding focused on advanced drilling and piping technologies for
exploration and production.
Coal
In the 1980s and early 1990s, DOE’s clean coal technology programs used
cost-shared cooperative agreements with power companies to demonstrate
technologies for reducing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from coal-
fired power plants. In part as a result of concerns about acid rain and
transboundary pollution, the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments required that the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate hazardous air pollutants,
including sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions.[13] Technologies
demonstrated by the clean coal technology program contributed to a 98-percent
reduction in sulfur dioxide and similar targets for nitrogen oxide emissions from
coal-fired power plants from 1986 to 2005.
While DOE’s fossil R and D program seeks to further reduce sulfur dioxide
and nitrogen oxide emissions, its overall objective is to drive all coal-fired power
plant emissions to “near-zero” levels by 2020. To enable industry to meet Clean
Air Act standards, as well as new goals set out by the administration’s Clear Skies
Initiative and EPA regulations,[14] DOE has focused on reducing mercury and
carbon dioxide emissions—significant contributors to health hazards and global
warming, respectively. DOE’s objective is to reduce mercury emissions by 95
percent and capture and store—or “sequester”—up to 90 percent of carbon
dioxide emissions by 2020. Carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies
would separate carbon dioxide from other gases produced during the combustion
process and would transport the captured carbon dioxide to a suitable long-term
storage site, such as geologic repositories or in the deep ocean.
DOE is also working to improve the efficiency of coal-fired plants by up to
50 percent by 2010 and 60 percent by 2020. According to DOE, pulverized coal-
fired plants using currently available technology are only about 35-percent
efficient—meaning about 65 percent of the energy generated by the plant is lost
during the conversion process, mostly as heat that is not converted to electricity.
Several of DOE’s current fossil R and D projects aim to develop coal-based plants
that employ new, more efficient gasification technologies. Rather than burning
coal directly, gasification breaks coal down into a synthesis gas, comprised
primarily of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, which is combusted to turn a gas
turbine, generating electricity. Heat from the combustion process is captured and
directed toward a steam turbine, which also generates electricity. According to
DOE, industry, and association officials, power plants using an IGCC
configuration for gasification increase the efficiency of electricity generation and
substantially reduce harmful emissions in comparison with conventional
pulverized coal technology (see table 1).
Coal-based power plants that employ IGCC technologies break down coal
into its basic chemical elements, allowing for the capture of carbon dioxide as a
concentrated gas stream. In contrast, conventional pulverized coal plants burn coal
directly, creating a more diluted stream of carbon dioxide that is much more
costly to separate from the larger mass of gases flowing from the combustor. As
such, IGCC plants offer greater potential for carbon capture and sequestration to
reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Moreover, according to international climate
change experts at the United Nations Environment Programme and the World
Meteorological Organization, carbon dioxide capture and sequestration
technologies have the most potential for significantly mitigating climate change
when applied in IGCC plants. Currently, only two coal-based IGCC plants in the
22 GAO
United States are fully operational and produce electricity, and an additional 28
coal gasification plants are planned for operation by 2030.
Table 1. Comparison of Conventional Pulverized Coal and IGCC

Technologies
IGCC
Performance New conventional
characteristic pulverized coal near
plant current future 2020
Mercury emissions
(pounds/year) 45 29 29 26
Sulfur dioxide emissions
(tons/year) 3,027 566 276 250
Nitrogen oxide emissions
(tons/year) 1,412 1,094 219 198
Carbon dioxide
emissions (tons/year) 3,700,000 3,600,000 3,500,000 3,200,000
Potential for carbon
capture and sequestration Limited Yes Yes Yes
Plant efficiency (percent) 38.6 39.7 45-50 50-60
Source: The Electric Power Research Institute and DOE.
Note: DOE is the source of plant efficiency data for the “near future” and 2020. The
Electric Power Research Institute provided all other data.
To meet its emissions and efficiency goals, DOE recently proposed a $1

billion advanced coal-based power plant R and D project called FutureGen—cost-
shared between DOE (76 percent) and industry (24 percent)—which will
demonstrate how IGCC technology can both reduce emissions and improve
efficiency by integrating IGCC with carbon capture and sequestration
technologies. According to DOE, FutureGen is designed to be the first “zero-
emissions” coal-based power plant and is expected to be operational by 2015. In
addition to producing electricity and capturing and storing 1 million metric tons of
carbon dioxide, the 275 megawatt plant also will be capable of producing
hydrogen.
Oil and Natural Gas
Since 1978, DOE has supported oil and natural gas R and D, mainly through
cost-shared partnerships with industry. Historically, DOE’s R and D funding for
oil and natural gas was principally divided among specific resources, such as gas
shales and coal-bed methane. In the mid-1980s, however, DOE switched its focus
to developing energy technologies that cross multiple resources. Recently, DOE’s
R and D has focused on improving oil exploration technologies, extending the life
of current oil reservoirs, and developing drilling technology for tapping into deep
deposits of natural gas. For example, DOE is working with industry to develop (1)
a composite drill pipe that is lighter, stronger, and more flexible than steel to
improve oil and natural gas extraction and (2) technology for tapping into the vast
amount of natural gas available in naturally occurring methane hydrate found on
land in permafrost regions and beneath the ocean floor at water depths greater
than 1,600 feet. In fiscal year 2005, exploration and production and methane
hydrate R and D received almost two-thirds of DOE’s funding for oil and natural
gas R and D. While DOE’s fiscal year 2006 budget proposed terminating the oil
and natural gas R and D program, the Congress provided $65 million. DOE’s
fiscal year 2007 budget again proposed terminating the oil and natural gas R and
D program. In addition to the appropriated funds that oil and natural gas R and D
program receives, section 999A-H of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 established a
program for R and D and commercialization of technologies for ultra-deepwater
and unconventional natural gas and other petroleum resource exploration and
production through September 2014 and authorized the use of $50 million per
year from federal oil and gas lease income for an 11-year period.
DOE’s Nuclear R and D Goals Recently Have Focused on

Restarting
the U.S. Nuclear Power Industry, Reprocessing Spent Nuclear Fuel,
and Developing New Reactor Designs
The commercial nuclear energy industry experienced substantial growth

during the 1960s and 1970s. By 1974, the federal government had approved
operating licenses for 52 nuclear reactors with plans for dozens more. However,
the energy crisis in the 1970s led to a significant reduction in orders for new
reactors and, coupled with concerns about reactor safety and performance
resulting from the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island, the industry canceled the
application process for 93 other reactors. DOE began to focus on short-term R and
D, working specifically to restore public trust and regulator confidence by
improving safety and efficiency of operations. By the mid-1990s, the industry had
dramatically improved its safety record, and the performance of nuclear power
exceeded that of any other source of energy, reaching 90 percent of total potential
capacity. Left with only incremental improvements in operations and uncertain
economics, the Congress began to phase out funding DOE’s nuclear energy R and
D and terminated nuclear R and D funding altogether in fiscal year 1998.
24 GAO
In fiscal year 1999, DOE crafted a long-term nuclear energy R and D agenda
that focused on developing more efficient systems and proliferation-resistant fuel
cycles, devising new technologies for managing nuclear waste, and designing a
fourth generation of nuclear reactors that would not use conventional light water
reactor technology. In fiscal year 2001, DOE prioritized its R and D program to
focus on (1) the Nuclear Power 2010 program, (2) the Advanced Fuel Cycle
Initiative (AFCI), and (3) the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative.
DOE’s Nuclear Power 2010 initiative has shared the costs that participating
power companies have incurred in preparing either an early site permit or an
application for an NRC license to construct and operate an advanced Generation
III nuclear power reactor. In the years after the Three Mile Island accident, the
nuclear power industry stated that NRC’s regulatory process had become too
cumbersome, leading to costly delays in construction and licensing and becoming
a major stumbling block to investing in a new nuclear reactor. In response, NRC
promulgated regulations in 1989 that established a single combined license to
construct and operate a new reactor, replacing its prior requirement that
companies obtain both a construction permit and an operating license.[15] More
recently, in fiscal year 2002, to encourage power companies to apply to NRC for a
combined construction and operating license, DOE initiated a demonstration
program with three power companies seeking early site permits for potential
nuclear reactor sites in Illinois, Mississippi, and Virginia. The permits,
applications for which were submitted to NRC in 2003, would allow the sites to
be used for nuclear power plants, but the power companies still would have to
apply to NRC for a combined license to construct and operate any reactors later
built on these sites. In fiscal year 2004, DOE began a demonstration program with
two industry consortia to develop applications for NRC licenses to build and
operate two additional reactors at existing nuclear power plants. These
applications may be submitted to NRC next year. Even if NRC approves the
licenses, which NRC estimates will take 42 months, the industry consortia have
not committed to constructing the new reactors. The industry has, however,
received license extensions for 44 of the 103 operating nuclear reactors. DOE
allocated $65.3 million to the Nuclear Power 2010 program in fiscal year 2006
and requested $54 million for fiscal year 2007.
The AFCI program is designed to develop and demonstrate technologies for
reprocessing spent nuclear fuel that could recover the fuel for reuse, minimize
proliferation threats, and reduce the long-term hazard and disposal requirements
of spent nuclear fuel. In the 1970s, the United States pioneered reprocessing
technologies, but it abandoned the concept because of concerns about nuclear
proliferation—plutonium could be separated to manufacture nuclear weapons.[16]
Current R and D efforts focus on reprocessing spent fuel without separating the
plutonium, with the goal of rendering it virtually useless to potential proliferators.
Much of the reprocessed fuel could be reused in commercial reactors to generate
electricity.
In February 2006, DOE announced the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
(GNEP) program, characterizing it as an extension of the AFCI program. GNEP
furthers the R and D goals of the AFCI program, accelerating the R and D efforts
and introducing a global component. DOE’s intent is to work with other nations
that reprocess spent fuel to supply fuel to countries for the purpose of generating
electricity. The countries then would return the spent fuel to the supplier nations
for reprocessing. Once reprocessed, this fuel would be returned to the countries
for reuse. The intent of the program is to encourage these “reactor-only” countries
not to develop their own independent nuclear technologies, thereby reducing
proliferation risks. Details of the program are still being developed. DOE
requested $243 million for the combined AFCI and GNEP programs in fiscal year
2007. According to DOE officials, the GNEP program would need about $5
billion over the next 5 years.
The Generation IV program focuses on developing new, fourth generation,
advanced reactor technologies intended to be commercially available by about
2020 to 2030. The program, including the United States and 12 international
partners, identified six advanced reactor designs from which DOE has focused on
two reactor designs: (1) a sodium-cooled fast reactor and (2) a gas-cooled very
high temperature reactor. A fast reactor manages nuclear reactions somewhat
differently than current commercial reactors, in which neutrons interact with the
low-enriched uranium fuel atoms to induce fissions—or the splitting of the
uranium atom—that emits more neutrons and leads to a self-sustaining chain
reaction. The fissioning of uranium releases large amounts of energy that is
captured as heat to drive turbines and generate electricity. Because the fission
neutrons are born at high energy, they are not inherently efficient at causing more
fissions, so commercial nuclear reactors are filled with water that functions both
to slow the neutrons down and act as a coolant and heat removal system. The
lower energy neutrons in current commercial reactors are much more effective at
sustaining the uranium fission chain reaction. In contrast, a fast reactor manages
these nuclear reactions at a higher energy level. Fast reactors use coolants such as
liquid sodium metal that do not slow down the neutron energy. Because fast
reactors are more effective than current commercial reactors at inducing fissions
in a wider variety of nuclear materials, including plutonium and other materials
that might otherwise become wastes from the current commercial reactor fuel
cycle, they can potentially reduce the total amount, temperature, and radiotoxicity
26 GAO
of the fuel that might otherwise have to be stored for many thousands of years in a
geologic repository. The lower temperature may also allow more spent fuel to be
stored at a deep geologic repository, delaying the need for additional repository
requirements. This continuous recycle and burning of spent nuclear fuel materials
is key to the GNEP program.
The gas-cooled very high temperature reactor is also being developed through
DOE’s Next Generation Nuclear Plant program because the high temperature
allows for the efficient production of hydrogen by splitting water. U.S. industries
annually produce over 9 million tons of hydrogen to, for example, manufacture
fertilizer and refine petroleum. Very high temperature reactors may become an
efficient and emissions free alternative source of hydrogen, which is made
primarily from natural gas. The very high temperature reactor can be more
efficient than current reactors and is designed to be versatile, capable of
generating small or large amounts of electricity. DOE requested $31.4 million for
fiscal year 2007 for the Generation IV R and D efforts.
ADVANCED RENEWABLE, FOSSIL, AND NUCLEAR ENERGY

TECHNOLOGIES FACE KEY BARRIERS TO MARKET
DEPLOYMENT
challenges to their deployment into the market. Renewable technologies face
technological and market barriers—such as efficiency and high up-front capital
costs—to substituting for oil and for generating electricity. Advanced fossil
technologies also face key challenges—such as controlling harmful emissions—to
deploying advanced technologies for generating electricity. Similarly, advanced
nuclear technologies face key challenges—such as public opposition and high
capital costs—that must be addressed as the industry considers constructing new
nuclear power reactors for the first time in nearly 30 years.
Renewable Energy Technologies Face a Variety of
Technical and Deployment Barriers
The primary renewable energy technologies with the potential to substantially

expand their existing production capacity during the next 25 years are biomass, a
partial substitute for gasoline in transportation, and wind and solar energy
technologies for generating electricity.
Ethanol
In 2005, 95 ethanol refineries located in 19 states produced 3.9 billion gallons
of ethanol—an increase of 17 percent over 2004 and 126 percent over 2001. The
United States will consume about 5 billion gallons of ethanol in 2006, according
to the industry’s September 2006 projections. Ethanol is blended in 30 percent of
the nation’s gasoline and is primarily produced in the Midwest because of the
abundant supply of corn. Ethanol demand is expected to continue to grow as a
result of the national renewable fuels standard,[17] enacted by the Energy Policy
Act of 2005, and the decision of many oil refineries to switch to using ethanol
instead of MTBE as a fuel additive in gasoline that improves its octane and clean-
burning properties.[18]
One of ethanol’s biggest challenges is how to cost-effectively expand the
supply of biomass, in addition to corn, to enable the total ethanol market to grow.
DOE scientists are exploring technologies that can cost-effectively use cellulosic
biomass—low-value residues such as wheat straw and corn stover or bio-energy
crops such as fast-growing grasses and trees. Some bio-energy crops, such as
switchgrass, require less fertilizer than corn and can be grown in many U.S.
regions. While cellulosic ethanol requires less fossil energy than corn ethanol on a
total life-cycle basis, capital costs are substantially higher for cellulosic ethanol
plants than for corn ethanol plants. In addition, cellulosic ethanol producers need
to reduce costs for (1) harvesting and handling cellulosic feedstock, (2) enzymes
for converting cellulose to fermentable sugars, and (3) novel fermenting micro-
organisms that can convert these biomass-derived sugars to ethanol. Cellulosic
ethanol currently costs at least twice as much to produce as corn ethanol,
according to DOE officials.
A related challenge is producing sufficient biomass levels without disrupting
current production of food and forest products. In 2005, 1.43 billion bushels of
corn—nearly 13 percent of the U.S. corn crop—were used for ethanol production.
In a 2005 report, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and DOE estimated that the
nation is capable of producing enough ethanol to replace 30 percent of the U.S. oil
consumption by 2030 and still meet food, feed, and export demands.[19]
However, some experts have expressed concern that large-scale diversion of
agricultural resources to generate ethanol could result in higher food prices for
people and livestock. There are also questions about the amount of land that will
be needed to produce higher levels of ethanol, whether vast preserved areas will
be transformed into farmland, water quality issues, and soil sustainability. In
addition, scientists have debated whether ethanol is an effective petroleum
substitute because of the amount of energy needed to produce it—a significant
amount of energy is used because (1) fertilizer made from fossil fuels is used to
28 GAO
grow the corn, (2) most U.S. biorefineries use natural gas to convert biomass into
ethanol, and (3) the corn and the ethanol need to be transported.
A third challenge is the distribution of ethanol from the biorefinery to the
consumer, according to DOE officials. Ethanol cannot use the same infrastructure
as gasoline because it has corrosive qualities and is water soluble.[20] As a result,
an independent infrastructure system for transporting and storing ethanol would
be needed throughout the United States. In particular, no pipelines exist to
distribute ethanol from the Midwest, where it is mainly produced, to major
markets on the East and West coasts. In addition, infrastructure constrains the
distribution of E85—a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline—
because regular gas stations must have separate tanks for storing E85 and
specialized pumps for dispensing it. Currently, fewer than 1,000 fueling stations
provide E85 nationwide, compared with 176,000 gas stations. These ethanol
fueling stations are concentrated in the upper Midwest, and about 75 percent of
ethanol is transported by rail and 25 percent is moved by truck. U.S. consumers
have bought more than 5 million flexible fuel vehicles that can run on E85;
however, without a ready supply of E85, many of these vehicles will continue to
operate using gasoline.
Ethanol also faces the challenge of becoming more price-competitive with
gasoline. Currently the market for ethanol relies on federal tax incentives. One
such incentive is the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit, enacted in 2004, which
provides a 51-cent tax credit for every gallon of ethanol used to produce a fuel
mixture through December 31, 2010. Even with tax incentives for ethanol
producers, the fuel has been more expensive than gasoline, in part because
ethanol’s energy content is lower than gasoline’s. According to DOE and EPA,
flex fuel vehicles require about one-third more ethanol to match gasoline’s energy
content. Similarly, in October 2006, Consumer Reports, estimated that drivers
paying $2.91 per gallon for E85 in August 2006 actually paid about $3.99 for the
energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline because the distance vehicles traveled
per gallon declined by 27 percent.
Finally, congressional earmarks of DOE’s biomass R and D funding rose
from 14 percent of the fiscal year 2000 funds to 57 percent ($52 million) of the
fiscal year 2006 funds, according to a DOE program official.[21] DOE program
officials told us that the rising number of biomass earmarks shifted funding away
from DOE’s R and D program, causing the biomass program to change its
program priorities and terminated some of its cost-shared projects.
Congressionally earmarked projects typically are not subject to peer review, are
not selected on either their technical merits or their contribution to meeting
program goals, and are only voluntarily accountable for reporting results.
Wind and Solar

Both wind and solar technologies have experienced substantial growth in
recent years; they have benefited from federal and state financial incentives,
DOE’s R and D programs that decreased costs and improved efficiencies, and
environmental and energy security concerns. For example, U.S. wind electric
generation capacity has grown from 2,000 megawatts in 1999 to 10,000
megawatts by August 2006, enough energy to power about 2.5 million homes[22]
with electricity on a typical day. Similarly, the total photovoltaic market has
grown, on average, about 30 percent per year over the past 10 years, according to
a solar manufacturer. In 2005, the United States had an estimated 475 megawatts
of installed photovoltaic capacity, enough to power about 240,000 homes. EIA
data show that in 2005 domestic shipments of solar photovoltaic solar technology
increased by 72 percent over 2004.
The wind energy industry faces technological challenges to improve turbine
design, performance, and reliability that will enable wind power to expand into
low wind and offshore locations. These locations use bigger wind turbines with
longer blades mounted on taller towers, requiring complex design improvements
in such areas as blade development, advanced drive train and power electronics,
and advanced controls to reduce system loads. For example, while traditional
blade materials have used fiberglass technology, the next generation of turbines
will need stiffer and stronger materials, such as carbon fiber, to make longer,
thinner, but equally durable blades. Similarly, offshore wind development faces
new technical challenges, such as understanding the effects of wave and current
loads on the base of wind structures, connecting offshore wind farms to the
electric transmission grid, and designing support structures for turbines located in
deep water.
Solar technologies also face challenges of improving the scientific
understanding of the electronic process of capturing and converting sunlight at the
molecular level and technical challenges of improving performance and
reliability. For example, DOE is pursuing thin-film photovoltaic technologies,
which are designed to reduce material costs by using thin layers of semiconductor
material. According to DOE, this technology is not as efficient in converting
sunlight to electricity as conventional crystalline-silicon solar cells, but
manufacturing costs are anticipated to be lower. The challenge is to increase their
efficiency, while continuing to reduce the costs of manufacturing thin-film
technologies. DOE scientists are also seeking to reduce failure rates for
components in solar water-heating systems that are exposed to high temperatures
and improve the 12-year tank life of current solar heaters in cold climates.
30 GAO
A second major challenge to deploying both wind and solar technologies is

overcoming investors’ concern about their higher up-front capital costs. In
particular, wind investors pay substantial up-front capital costs to build a facility
and connect it to the power transmission grid. Constructing a wind farm may cost
less than connecting the facility to the power transmission grid, according to DOE
officials who noted that the connection could cost $100,000 or more per mile, on
average, depending on such factors as the project’s size, the terrain, and the
transmission line rating. In addition, in most areas, a wind farm’s investors would
pay for upgrading the power transmission grid to carry the extra load, which can
be high because prime wind resources are often found far from large urban areas
that need the electricity. Similarly, the primary barrier to deploying solar
photovoltaic technologies is their up-front purchase costs, which continue to make
them more expensive than traditional energy sources, according to DOE and
industry executives.[23] More recently, the rapidly growing solar energy industry
has experienced an industrywide shortage of solar-grade silicon—the principal
material for making crystalline-silicon photovoltaic cells—because of competition
from other industries, such as computer chip manufacturers. As a result, the price
of silicon wafers on the market has doubled in each of the past 2 years, according
to EIA. The tight silicon supply has also created back orders of several months.
Because photovoltaic manufacturing costs have risen sharply, manufacturers have
changed their business strategies to maintain profits and continue to finance their
plans to expand their production and strengthen their distribution capabilities.
Both wind and solar power also have unique intermittency characteristics that
can constrain their use because the existing power transmission grid was built to
accommodate large central-station power plants located near population centers
that operate full time. This system relies on precisely predicting and controlling
power plant output to avoid blackouts and other disruptions. However, wind and
solar energy are intermittent energy sources because wind speed and sunlight
vary, depending, for example, on the time of day and the weather—on average,
wind turbines operate the equivalent of less than 40 percent of the hours in a year
due to the intermittency of wind. Alternatively, the electricity generated must be
immediately used or transmitted to the power transmission grid because no cost-
effective means exists for storing electricity. DOE is conducting R and D in this
area.
A recent challenge facing the wind industry is mitigating environmental and
community concerns about its adverse effects. While wind energy does not create
the pollution or greenhouse gas emissions associated with fossil fuel power
generation, some wind farms have resulted in the death of birds and bats because
they are located amidst migratory pathways or important habitats.[24] Our 2005
report found that impacts of wind farms on birds and other wildlife varied by
region and by species, and the lack of comprehensive data on bird and bat
fatalities from wind turbines make it difficult to make national assessments of the
impact of wind turbines on wildlife.[25] In addition, wind energy may face
community opposition because it affects visual aesthetics and landscapes. For
example, the first proposed U.S. offshore wind project, consisting of 130 wind
turbines off the coast of Massachusetts, ran into opposition from local residents
and organizations who oppose the appearance of wind turbines in Nantucket
Sound.
Another challenge for wind energy is that the federal production tax credit—
the primary federal financial incentive to stimulate the deployment of renewable
energy systems—periodically must be legislatively extended, creating uncertainty
among investors whether the tax credit will be extended. The federal production
tax credit, initially established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 for a limited
duration, had expired before being renewed by subsequent legislation in 1999,
2001, and 2003. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 extended it an additional 2 years,
until January 1, 2008. According to DOE officials and industry representatives,
the production tax credit has helped to offset the significant higher capital costs
per unit of generating capacity needed to start up wind power projects, compared
with projects for fossil fuel power generation. However, the uncertainty about the
production tax credit’s availability has created a boom-and-bust cycle for
installing new wind power capacity—installation of new capacity fell
dramatically in years when the authorization for the tax credit expired and its
renewal was delayed, as compared with years when it was available without
interruption. Potential developers are reluctant to commit resources to the
planning and construction of new capacity without the certainty that the tax credit
will be reauthorized. Furthermore, according to the American Wind Energy
Association, 4 to 6 months before the tax credit expires, financial lenders hesitate
to provide capital for wind projects because of the uncertainty of whether the tax
credit will be extended.
DOE officials and industry representatives believe the continued availability
of the production tax credit, or other subsidy support, is vital to the potential
future growth of the wind industry. According to an industry representative, a
long-term production tax credit would facilitate steady market development for
wind power and other renewable sources by encouraging companies to enter the
market, allowing the industry to conduct long-term planning, and eventually help
the industry stand on its own. According to some stakeholders, renewable energy
sources require subsidies, such as the production tax credit, to level the playing
32 GAO
field because various subsidies for fossil fuel and nuclear technologies have made
it difficult for renewable energy sources to compete.
Both DOE’s wind and solar R and D programs have experienced a large
increase in the amount of congressional earmarks in recent years. Wind energy
earmarks grew from 6 percent of funding in fiscal year 2004 to about 33 percent
($13 million) of funding in fiscal year 2006, according to a DOE program official.
Similarly, solar energy earmarks grew from 1 percent of funding in fiscal year
2004 to about 17 percent ($14 million) of funding in fiscal year 2006, according
to a DOE program official. An industry association executive noted that
congressional earmarks reduce DOE’s ability to adequately fund its solar R and D
programs and meet targets.
Barriers to Advanced Fossil Technologies Include Harmful

Emissions
and High Capital Costs of New Coal Gasification Plants
While coal-fired power plants have substantially reduced their sulfur dioxide
and nitrogen oxide emissions, electric power companies face important challenges
to deploying a new generation of advanced IGCC coal gasification power plants.
These challenges are to further reduce mercury and carbon dioxide emissions and
manage the risk associated with high construction and operating costs of new
advanced coal technologies. The administration’s Clear Skies Initiative set goals
for coal-fired plants to cut their 2003 emissions—49 tons of mercury, 10.2 million
tons of sulfur dioxide, and 3.9 million tons of nitrogen oxide—by an average of
70 percent by 2018. However, coal-fired plants also annually emit 2.1 billion tons
of carbon dioxide—the most significant contributor to greenhouse gases and
global warming—or 36 percent of the nation’s total carbon dioxide emissions.
EPA currently does not regulate carbon dioxide emissions but might do so in the
future to address the growing concern about the harmful effects of greenhouse
gases.
IGCC coal-gasification technology enables power plants to separate sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, and carbon dioxide before the synthesis gas is
burned, thus reducing their emission into the air. DOE and industry are
conducting R and D to develop sequestration technologies for the long-term
storage of carbon dioxide gas without the gas gradually leaking back into the
atmosphere. DOE has funded 25 carbon-dioxide sequestration projects as of
September 2006, but has not yet demonstrated the storage of carbon dioxide
captured by a large-scale, coal-based power plant. Specifically, when carbon
dioxide is compressed and stored in geologic formations, such as oil and gas
reservoirs, its density is close to that of some crude oils, resulting in buoyant
forces that tend to drive carbon dioxide upwards. It is unknown whether carbon
dioxide will remain safely sequestered if pressure, temperature, or other
conditions change. According to international climate change experts, leakages
could significantly affect climate change or contaminate groundwater. Moreover,
given the long-term nature of carbon dioxide capture and sequestration, storage
sites may require monitoring for very long periods of time—possibly for
“eternity,” according to one DOE official.
New coal gasification plants also face the high costs associated with
employing advanced energy technologies, such as IGCC and carbon dioxide
capture and sequestration systems. In particular, IGCC plants are 20 percent more
expensive—about $100 million more—than pulverized coal plants that use
currently available technology, according to International Energy Agency, DOE,
and industry officials. Moreover, carbon dioxide capture and sequestration
technologies will further increase an IGCC plant’s costs because capturing and
sequestering carbon dioxide increases fuel consumption by as much as 25 percent.
According to international climate change experts, an IGCC plant that employs
carbon dioxide capture and sequestration technologies could increase the cost of
electricity per kilowatt hour from 21 to 78 percent, depending on plant design, the
cost of fuel, and the storage site characteristics.[26]
In addition to technological and cost barriers, the uncertainties surrounding
new coal-gasification technologies create substantial investment risks that threaten
to hinder development. Despite the greater efficiency, reduced emissions, and the
ability to capture carbon dioxide, only four coal-based IGCC power plants
currently operate worldwide. The unproven nature of IGCC technology creates
uncertainty and reluctance among industry to invest in building a new coal-based
IGCC power plant, particularly given the additional cost, according to DOE and
industry officials. Furthermore, international climate change forecasting models
predict that carbon dioxide capture and sequestration systems are unlikely to be
deployed on a large scale without explicit government regulations that
substantially limit greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. In light of such
technological uncertainties, industry officials noted that cost-sharing initiatives
with DOE will continue to be an important factor in encouraging the
demonstration and deployment of IGCC plants.
34 GAO
Advanced Nuclear Energy Technologies Face Uncertainty about

NRC’s Regulatory Process, Public Opposition, High Capital Costs,
and the Storage of Nuclear Waste
The nuclear energy industry, DOE, and NRC face important challenges in
reinvigorating the nuclear power industry include an untried regulatory process,
the public’s concern about safe operations, investor concerns about high capital
costs, and uncertainty about the long-term storage of nuclear waste. During the
1960s and 1970s, several nuclear power plants experienced construction costs that
doubled and time frames that extended several years longer than anticipated—in
one case, a project took nearly 20 years to build and begin operations, according
to the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry association. Since 1974, power
companies have cancelled applications for 93 proposed reactors and have shut
down 22 of 126 operating reactors before their 40-year license expired. NRC
issued its last permit to construct a nuclear reactor in 1978, the year before the
Three Mile Island nuclear reactor accident, which heightened public opposition to
nuclear power and tightened NRC’s oversight of nuclear power plant operations.
More recently, however, NRC has approved a 20-year license extension for 44 of
the 103 operating nuclear reactors in the United States and is reviewing
applications to extend the licenses for 10 additional reactors.
Because NRC has not issued a construction permit in almost 30 years,
investors worry that the problems that contributed to the schedule delays, cost
overruns, and abandonment of many planned reactors may not be resolved.
Among the reasons for these problems were that electric power companies
custom-built many of the nuclear power plants, rather than using a standard
design, and sometimes began construction with preliminary design information,
only to resort to mid-construction retrofits as final design plans changed. In
addition, NRC’s regulatory process at that time required the applicant to obtain a
construction permit first and apply for an operating license in the midst of
construction. Final approval of the operating license sometimes hinged on time-
consuming and costly retrofits, particularly if operational procedures conflicted
with design features.
To reduce these high costs and long time frames, NRC streamlined its
licensing process in 1989 by combining its construction and operating licenses
into a single license that requires applicants to submit final design information,
safety analyses, and environmental data in advance of or with the license
application. While industry representatives generally agree that the revised
licensing process reduces risk of costly retrofits, they are concerned that the new
process has not been tested and could still lead to extensive delays. For example,
some representatives noted that NRC has already fallen behind schedule in
reviewing the early site permits that three electric power companies submitted as
part of a DOE demonstration program to stimulate power companies to apply to
NRC for a combined construction and operating license. The early site permits
address site suitability matters such as safety and environmental issues and, once
obtained, can be used as a reference in a combined license application to
streamline the site suitability portion of the application.[27] NRC acknowledged
the delays, attributing them to a learning process under new procedures and
regulations; an unexpectedly large number of public comments received
electronically; and, in one case, the applicant’s decision to change the design.
Electric power companies have notified NRC that they plan to submit license
applications to build and operate at least 29 new reactors. To prepare, NRC has
implemented a design-centered approach that encourages applicants to use a
standardized design for each reactor manufacturer with variations only to address
the site’s local characteristics, such as environmental conditions. NRC also has
created a separate Office of New Reactors to oversee the licensing process, plans
to hire 400 additional staff by fiscal year 2008, and is developing a more robust
system to handle electronic comments. NRC expects to review license
applications and issue a decision within 42 months. However, while it has issued
its draft regulatory guidance for submitting and reviewing the combined license
applications, NRC does not expect to finalize the guidance until March 2007.
A second challenge that investors face is public opposition to nuclear power.
According to the nuclear energy industry, public support for nuclear power has
increased in recent years, primarily as a result of the industry’s improved safety
record and a growing awareness that nuclear power production releases few
greenhouse gases.[28] Electric power companies plan to construct most of the
announced new reactors at existing nuclear power plants in the southeast United
States, where public opinion is more favorable toward nuclear power. Reactor
projects at existing nuclear power plants also benefit from existing power
transmission lines and historical environmental data for the required
environmental impact assessment. However, industry officials acknowledge that
public support is fragile and note that a nuclear accident anywhere in the world
could undermine this support.
A third challenge facing nuclear energy is the high capital costs to build new
nuclear reactors and a potential shortage of skilled workers. Nuclear energy
representatives expect a new nuclear power plant to cost between $1.5 billion and
$4 billion—more than double the cost of a comparably sized conventional coal-
fired plant. These costs may increase if (1) transmission lines need to be installed
or upgraded, (2) significant delays occur during construction or start-up
36 GAO
operations, and (3) lawsuits are filed resulting in higher legal costs and delays.
Although nuclear power plants have relatively low operating costs and can
operate at 90-percent capacity, the overall cost of construction makes nuclear
energy a high-cost option. In addition, nuclear energy industry officials noted that
a potential shortage of skilled workers creates additional uncertainties over
construction schedules that could increase the cost of a new plant. With the hiatus
in nuclear power plant construction, industry officials have expressed concerns
that there may be a shortage of workers with the skills critical to the construction
of new nuclear power plants, particularly if several utilities plan construction
simultaneously.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 has facilitated the construction of new nuclear
power reactors by providing a 1.8 cents/kilowatt-hour tax credit for up to 6,000
megawatts of new nuclear energy capacity for the first 8 years of operation (up to
$125 million per reactor). The Department of the Treasury is to prescribe the
process for allocating the tax credit in consultation with the Secretary of Energy.
In addition, the act authorizes the Secretary of Energy to enter into six contracts
with sponsors of advanced nuclear facilities to ensure against certain delays in
attaining full-power operation and provide indemnification of (1) 100 percent of
covered costs, up to $500 million each for the first two reactors and (2) 50 percent
of covered costs, up to $250 million each for the next four reactors after an initial
180-day delay.
Recently, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the University
of Chicago issued studies comparing nuclear power’s costs with other forms of
generating electricity. [29] Both studies concluded that, assuming no unexpected
costs or delays in licensing and construction, nuclear power is only marginally
competitive with conventional coal and natural gas and, even then, only if the
nuclear power industry significantly reduces anticipated construction costs. The
nuclear power industry has proposed constructing modular plants based on a set of
reference designs in the hopes of reducing construction costs. New technologies
that use more reliable and less expensive passive safety systems also can reduce
costs considerably compared with active safety systems currently used. For
example, several of the proposed nuclear reactors utilize less piping. Despite the
projected cost reductions, the MIT authors suggested that investors would most
likely prefer conventional coal or natural gas over nuclear energy for generating
electricity. Table 2 shows that without substantial cost reductions, nuclear energy
cannot compete with either conventional coal or natural gas.
Table 2. Comparison of Electricity Generating Costs Using Nuclear,

Coal, and Natural Gas Energy Sources
Cents per kilowatt-hour

Energy source 25-year period 40-year period
Nuclear (base case) 7.0 6.7
Nuclear (best case) 4.7 4.4
Coal 4.4 4.2
Natural gas 4.9 5.1
Source: MIT.
Note: Costs were calculated using 2002 dollars and an 85 percent capacity factor using
merchant plant financing, reflecting a risk premium for nuclear energy. The best case
for nuclear energy assumes a 25-percent reduction in construction costs and a 12-
month reduction in construction time. The natural gas case assumes combined cycle
turbine technology and a price that starts at $4.50/million Btu and rises at a 2.5
percent rate over 40 years. Although natural gas prices were lower in 2002 than today,
construction and other costs have risen, resulting in a good measure of relative costs,
according to one of the MIT authors.
However, the MIT study found that if a tax on carbon emissions were
introduced, nuclear energy could become much more competitive because
conventional coal and natural gas power plants would be subject to the tax while
nuclear reactors would not because they do not emit carbon dioxide during the
generation of electricity (see table 3). Coal-based IGCC plants could perform
better than the conventional coal-fired power plants in capturing and sequestering
carbon dioxide emissions, but these plants are considerably more expensive to
build and operate than conventional coal-fired plants. Part of DOE’s R and D
efforts include reducing the cost of construction of coal-based IGCC plants.
The revival of the nuclear power industry is also challenged by uncertainty
about long-term disposal of commercial reactors’ spent nuclear fuel. DOE reports
that about 55,000 tons of commercial spent nuclear fuel—enough to fill the area
of a football field about 10 feet deep—currently sits in interim storage at 72 sites
in 33 states, mostly at operating reactor sites. This spent fuel must be safely
disposed of to protect the public and the environment from harm because it will
remain highly radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. The Atomic Energy
Commission, DOE’s predecessor, initially planned to recycle spent nuclear fuel to
reduce the amount of waste for disposal, but the 1970s recycling technology did
not address concerns that plutonium might be separated and diverted for use in
manufacturing nuclear weapons. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
determined that the spent fuel should be disposed of in a deep geologic repository;
38 GAO
and, in 1987, an amendment to the act identified Yucca Mountain, about 100
miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada, as the one site that DOE should study
further. However, DOE has extended the repository’s commissioning date from
the original 1998 target to 2017.[30] In addition, once the repository is completed,
decades may be needed to transport the spent fuel from various locations across
the country to Yucca Mountain. In the meantime, utilities continue interim storage
of spent nuclear fuel at operating reactor sites.[31]
Table 3. Comparison of Electricity Generating Costs

Assuming a Carbon Emissions Tax
Cents per kilowatt-hour

Energy source 25-year period 40-year period
Nuclear (base case) 7.0 6.7
Nuclear (best case) 4.7 4.4
Coal ($50/ton carbon tax) 5.6 5.4
Coal ($100/ton carbon tax) 6.8 6.6
Natural gas ($50/ton carbon tax) 5.3 5.6
Natural gas ($100/ton carbon tax) 5.8 6.0
Source: MIT.
Note: Costs were calculated using 2002 dollars and an 85 percent capacity factor using
merchant plant financing, reflecting a risk premium for nuclear energy. The best case
for nuclear energy assumes a 25-percent reduction in construction costs and a 12-
month reduction in construction time. The natural gas case assumes combined cycle
turbine technology and a price that starts at $4.50/million Btu and rises at a 2.5
percent rate over 40 years. Although natural gas prices were lower in 2002 than today,
construction and other costs have risen, resulting in a good measure of relative costs,
according to one of the MIT authors.
Many states have expressed alarm at the delays in opening Yucca Mountain,
fearing that the repository will suffer continual delays or might never open,
forcing the nuclear power plants to store the spent fuel indefinitely. While the
states are concerned about the public health and environmental risks, especially
with about 2,200 tons of spent nuclear fuel being added to the national inventory
annually, DOE and NRC cite a long list of studies that indicate that the risks of
radiation release from spent fuel in interim storage in pools or in dry storage casks
is low.[32] The states are also concerned that Yucca Mountain project delays are
resulting in ongoing costs for the consumer because, under the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act, users of nuclear power generated electricity pay $0.001 per kilowatt-
hour into a Nuclear Waste Fund, which is designed to pay for the permanent
disposal of all commercial spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste, including the
siting, licensing, and construction of a nuclear waste repository. In fiscal year

2006, DOE reported $19.4 billion in the fund. DOE reported that from project
inception in fiscal year 1983 through fiscal year 2005 that it had spent
approximately $11.7 billion (in real terms).[33] Recently, DOE revised the start
date from 2010 to 2017 and estimated that the project would incur an additional
$10.9 billion (in real terms) from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2017. According
to the National Council of State Legislatures, seven states have prohibited the
construction of new nuclear plants, citing the need to resolve the spent nuclear
fuel issue.
Nuclear energy representatives also told us that another barrier facing nuclear
power is states’ opposition to transporting spent nuclear fuel. Specifically, once
Yucca Mountain opens, DOE expects to make about 175 shipments of spent
nuclear fuel each year to Yucca Mountain, by both rail and truck, over at least 24
years. Some states and public interest groups have cited safety concerns if an
incident occurred while the spent fuel was near populated or environmentally
sensitive areas. DOE and NRC officials report that transportation casks have been
certified to withstand severe accidents and, according to numerous studies, have
also been found to withstand certain acts of sabotage and are considered safe for
transporting spent nuclear fuel.
In fiscal year 1999, DOE began R and D to develop proliferation-resistant
technology for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. The new technology—called
uranium extraction or UREX—strives to keep plutonium mixed with other highly
radioactive elements. The resulting product can be used as fuel in a fast reactor,
but it would be very unattractive to proliferators because the desired plutonium is
mixed with thermally hot and highly radioactive elements. The technology still
needs to be demonstrated to show that it can be cost competitive. In addition,
while supporting the idea of reprocessing spent fuel, industry representatives
noted that reprocessing technologies are technically challenging and very
expensive and would make nuclear energy less economic. DOE and industry
representatives have suggested that the reprocessing program, including
development of a fast reactor, could cost about $5 billion by 2012 and could
exceed $35 billion by 2050. DOE and NRC officials noted, however, that the
reprocessing program could delay the need for a second repository, potentially
saving money over the long term.
40 GAO
THE STATES AND COUNTRIES WE REVIEWED

HAVE IMPLEMENTED A VARIETY OF INITIATIVES
TO ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT
OF ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
While federal R and D funding has declined and the government has relied on
the market to determine whether to deploy advanced energy technologies, the
states and countries we reviewed have enacted various standards, mandates, and
financial incentives in an effort to deploy energy technologies that address their
energy needs and environmental concerns. The states have focused their efforts on
stimulating the deployment of renewable energy technologies; some states have
also provided incentives for stimulating the deployment of advanced fossil and
nuclear energy technologies. Each of the six countries we reviewed has sustained
long-term efforts resulting in the deployment of one or more advanced renewable,
fossil, and/or nuclear energy technologies. While the countries’ initiatives have
not been without difficulties, they have sustained long-term efforts using
mandates and/or incentives to deploy advanced technologies that are providing, or
are expected to provide, significant amounts of energy.
States Are Stimulating Renewable Energy through Standards,

Mandates, and Financial Incentives
Forty-five states have enacted legislation or developed initiatives to stimulate

the deployment of renewable energy technologies, primarily to address their
growing energy demand, reduce adverse impacts on the environment, encourage
local economic development, and/or provide a reliable, diversified supply of
electricity for residents. (See app. III for states’ use of five types of standards,
mandates, and financial incentives for stimulating renewable energy.) As of 2006,
(1) 39 states have established interconnection and net metering rules that require
electric power companies to connect renewable energy sources to the power
transmission grid and credit, for example, the monthly electricity bill of residents
with solar-electric systems when they generate more power than they use;[34] (2)
22 states have established renewable portfolio standards (RPS) requiring or
encouraging that a fixed percentage of the state’s electricity be generated from
renewable sources; and (3) 45 states offer various tax credits, grants, or loans
including, for example, exemptions from the state sales tax for purchases of
renewable energy equipment and low- or no-interest loans for the purchase of
renewable energy equipment. As shown in figure 5, states in the West, Northeast,

and Midwest are leading many of these efforts.
Many states have adopted various standards, mandates, and financial
incentives to stimulate the deployment of renewable energy technologies by
offsetting their high startup costs. The following are two examples of states’
initiatives:
• In 2002, New Mexico enacted a production tax credit of 1 cent per

kilowatt-hour for companies that generate electricity from wind, solar, or
biomass. In February 2006, New Mexico enacted a 30-percent personal
income tax credit (up to $9,000) for residents who purchase and install
photovoltaic or solar thermal systems. New Mexico also has net-metering
and interconnection rules, which address connecting renewable energy
sources to the power transmission grid and crediting producers for excess
power generation.
• Since 2004, Massachusetts has provided $2.5 million annually in grants
to consumers who install qualified clean-energy technologies under the
state’s RPS. These technologies include solar thermal electric power,
photovoltaics, and wind generation. Massachusetts also has net-metering
and interconnection rules.
Sources: GAO analysis of the Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy
maintained by the Interstate Renewable EnergyCouncil and Map Resources (map).
Note: The map does not show the magnitude of state incentives. For example, while
Minnesota has more types of financial incentives for renewable energy than
California, California’s rebate programs have a collective budget over 500 times
greater than the budget for the single rebate program administered by Minnesota.
Figure 5. Distribution of State Incentives and Policies for Renewable Energy.
42 GAO
In addition to specific incentives and policies, some states have implemented

statewide programs to stimulate the deployment of advanced renewable energy
technologies. Three examples of states’ efforts are described as follows (see app.
IV for further details):
• Since 1980, Minnesota has provided mandates and production incentives
to stimulate ethanol production. In particular, Minnesota (1) established
an incentive in 1986 that paid ethanol producers 20 cents per gallon over
10 years and (2) mandated in 2003 that all gasoline sold in the state
contain at least 10-percent ethanol. In 2004, Minnesota’s governor
proposed raising this mandate to 20 percent. As a result, the state is now
home to one-third of the nation’s E85 (85 percent ethanol and 15 percent
gasoline) stations and has replaced nearly 10 percent of all its gasoline
consumption with ethanol.
• In 2005, Texas enacted legislation that extended its 1999 RPS to require
the installation of 5,000 megawatts of new renewable capacity—in
addition to 880 megawatts of existing renewable capacity—by 2015. The
Texas RPS represents 5 percent of the state’s electricity demand. Electric
power retailers that do not comply with RPS requirements are subject to
penalties of up to $50 per megawatt-hour, or 5 cents per kilowatt-hour.
Moreover, to ensure a wide variety of renewable projects, the Texas RPS
requires that 500 megawatts of new capacity come from renewable
sources other than wind. According to the Electric Reliability Council of
Texas, Inc., as of September 2006, Texas had installed over 1,900
megawatts of new renewable energy, representing about 3 percent of its
total electricity consumption.
• In 2006, California enacted a $2.2 billion solar initiative to support the
governor’s goal to install 3,000 megawatts of new solar energy by 2017.
In particular, the initiative provides rebates for new photovoltaic and
solar thermal systems, and pay-for-performance incentives that reward
high-performing solar systems (greater than 100 kilowatts). The initiative
also sets aside 10 percent of its funding to subsidize solar energy for low-
income and affordable housing projects. According to a state official,
California has already installed more than 150 megawatts of new solar
energy capacity.
Source: Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy maintained by the Interstate
Renewable Energy Council.
Note: Net metering and interconnection refer to eligibility and pricing rules for connecting
renewable energy sources to the power transmission grid and for crediting producers
for excess generation. A public benefit fund is a general fund to support renewable
energy resources, energy efficiency initiatives, and renewable energy projects for low-
income residents, supported by a small surcharge on each consumer’s electricity bill.
Figure 6. Number of States Using Each of 12 Renewable Standards, Mandates, and
Incentives.
Some States Are Offering Incentives to Encourage the
Deployment of New Fossil and Nuclear Energy Technologies
In addition to the investment tax credits and loan guarantees that the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 authorizes for the deployment of fossil and nuclear
technologies, some states have enacted financial incentives and requirements to
further stimulate the deployment of advanced fossil and nuclear technologies that
support state needs and goals. For example, Indiana enacted legislation in 2002 to
provide financial incentives for clean coal projects using Illinois Basin coal or gas
and extended these incentives in 2005 by establishing investment tax credits for
state investments in IGCC power plants. Similarly, Pennsylvania’s Energy
Deployment for a Growing Economy program provides low-interest loans for
IGCC plants in an effort to build advanced coal plants that use coals abundant to
the state.
However, states provide far fewer incentives for fossil and nuclear
technologies—both in variety and number—than for renewable energy
44 GAO
technologies. As of 2006, only seven states had incentives for coal gasification
and IGCC technologies, according to the National Conference of State
Legislatures. We found no national database on states’ nuclear incentives,
although industry officials said that states or localities may offer a variety of
economic incentives to attract large businesses, such as a nuclear power plant.
An industry association official noted that states may have an important
influence over regulatory incentives for fossil plants, such as requiring new coal-
fired plants to employ mercury removal technologies. For example, Idaho has
stopped construction on all conventional pulverized coal-fired power plants until
the state finishes researching the possibility of building new gasification plants
that significantly reduce mercury emissions. Similarly, while industry officials say
state and local incentives for new nuclear plants—the most common of which are
property tax breaks—do not significantly impact the high costs of plants, states
may have an indirect impact on encouraging or discouraging the construction of
new nuclear plants. For example, seven states specifically discourage or prohibit
the construction of new nuclear plants until methods of waste disposal are
determined. In contrast, some states and localities may send more positive signs
about nuclear energy by offering economic enticements. For instance, Calvert
County, Maryland, recently offered a 50-percent, 15-year property tax credit to
the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant’s owner if another nuclear reactor is built.
The Countries We Reviewed Have Stimulated the Development and

Deployment of Advanced Renewable, Fossil,
and Nuclear Energy Technologies
We identified six countries—Brazil, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Spain, and

France—that illustrate a range of financial initiatives and mandates to stimulate
the development and deployment of advanced renewable, fossil, and nuclear
energy technologies. For example, successful use of financial incentives and/or
mandates has enabled Germany to generate 10.2 percent of its electricity from
renewable sources and Denmark to generate 19 percent of its electricity from
wind technologies, surpassing the United States in the percentage of electricity
derived from renewable sources.
Brazil Has Displaced 40 Percent of Its Gasoline Consumption with Ethanol

In 1975, in response to oil price shocks, Brazil initiated a program to replace
imported oil with ethanol produced from domestic sugarcane to power vehicles.
To stimulate its ethanol industry, Brazil (1) required its major oil company,
Petrobras, to purchase a guaranteed amount of ethanol; (2) provided $4.9 billion
in low-interest loans to the agricultural and industrial sectors to stimulate ethanol

production for transportation use; (3) provided subsidies so ethanol’s price at the
pump was 59 percent of the price of gasoline; and (4) required that all fuels be
blended with a minimum of 22 percent ethanol (called E22 fuel). Brazil removed
its price supports for ethanol in 2000, when it deregulated the ethanol market, but
still requires that all fuels be blended with 20 to 25 percent ethanol, depending on
market conditions. Moreover, to receive an operating license, all fueling stations
must provide an ethanol or ethanol-blend pump. In 2003, the Brazilian
government introduced flex-fuel cars—which can run on ethanol, gasoline, or a
blend of the two, thus allowing consumers to choose which fuel to use based on
the current oil and ethanol prices—further encouraging the consumption of
ethanol.
As of 2005, Brazil was the world’s ethanol leader, producing 4.2 billion
gallons of ethanol per year, or 47 percent of the world’s supply. Brazil no longer
needs to import crude oil for transportation, saving an estimated $1.8 billion per
year by displacing 40 percent of its gasoline consumption—200,000 barrels of oil
per day—with ethanol, according to Brazilian experts. In comparison, the United
States produced 3.9 billion gallons of ethanol in 2005, displacing about 3 percent
of gasoline consumption. By 2011, Brazil’s ethanol production is expected to
increase to 27 billion gallons per year—a more than 600 percent increase—from
efficiency improvements and land expansion. With the introduction of flex-fuel
cars, consumer confidence in ethanol consumption has grown significantly,
according to Brazilian embassy officials. As a result, more than 70 percent of cars
sold in Brazil today run on ethanol or ethanol blends, and according to Brazil’s
former Secretary of Environment, ethanol is now fully competitive with
international gas prices—sold for 60 to 70 percent of the price of gasoline at the
pump.
Brazil has also significantly improved its environmental profile by replacing
oil with ethanol in the transportation sector. From 1975 to 2000, for instance, the
use of ethanol in cars saved 100 million tons of carbon emissions, according to
Brazilian authorities. In addition, ethanol production has helped Brazil become
more self-sufficient in electricity. In particular, by burning sugarcane waste, mills
have been able to generate energy surpluses of around 600 megawatts per crop
season, allowing them to be completely self-sufficient in electricity, and in some
cases, to export electricity abroad.
Denmark’s Wind Energy Generates 19 Percent of Its Electricity

Successive Danish governments have committed to a series of national energy
plans aimed at reducing dependency on imported fuels, improving the
46 GAO
environment, and moving toward greater sustainability. As a result, since 1980

there has been general consensus in Denmark that renewable technologies—and
especially wind energy—require special support to gain an advantage in the
market. Specifically, the Danish government has (1) conducted R and D in wind
turbine technologies since the 1970’s; (2) provided investment subsidies for 30
percent of the installation cost of wind turbines until 1990; and (3) required that
electric power companies purchase wind energy from private producers at a fixed
price until 1999, when the obligation moved to electricity consumers paying for
all increased costs associated with wind power. In addition, the government
exempts wind generators from a carbon dioxide tax,[35] gives wind power
priority access to the electric power grid, and has established regulations for
building wind turbines.
In 2005, renewable energy accounted for approximately 28 percent of the
Danish electricity supply, including 19 percent from wind power—the highest
percentage in the world. Since 1980, more than 6,000 wind turbines have been
established in Denmark. From 2001 to 2003, a repowering program led to
approximately 1,500 smaller wind turbines being replaced by approximately 300
new and larger wind turbines, which together have tripled the capacity. At the end
of 2005, Denmark had 3,122 megawatts of installed wind power capacity—more
than the 2,631 megawatts of the installed capacity in Texas, the nation’s leader in
wind power.
Denmark’s long-term support of wind energy has fostered a thriving wind
turbine industry, with global sales increasing over the last decade from about 200
megawatts of capacity per year to more than 3,000 megawatts per year. Danish
wind turbine manufacturers accounted for about 40 percent of global sales in
2004, providing about 20,000 jobs domestically, or 4 percent of Danish industrial
production. In particular, Denmark is a world leader in offshore wind power
development. Denmark built the first offshore wind farm in 1991 and had eight
operating offshore wind farms by the end of 2005. Two additional offshore wind
farms are planned to supply electricity to 350,000 to 400,000 households, or about
4 percent of the total Danish electricity consumption.[36] As a result of its
experience, Denmark has gained extensive technical knowledge in how to
integrate wind power into the overall electricity system, how to combine wind
power with other sources of energy to maintain the electrical system’s stability,
and how to develop offshore wind farms—including the logistics of transporting,
installing, and maintaining wind turbines at sea.
Germany’s Renewable Energy Technologies Generate 10 Percent of Its

Electricity
In 2000, the German government enacted the Renewable Energy Sources Act
to accelerate the growth of renewable energy technologies in the German
electricity market. It amended the act in 2004 to increase country targets for
renewable technologies and further develop the framework conditions for
renewable technologies.[37] The Renewable Energy Sources Act requires
electricity grid operators to purchase electricity generated from renewable energy
technologies and establishes minimum rates for it. Germany’s goal is to increase
the share of renewable energy consumption to at least 4.2 percent of its total
energy requirements by 2010, 10 percent by 2020, and at least 50 percent by
2050. The target for 2010 was exceeded in 2005, when renewable technologies
accounted for 4.6 percent of consumption. The German government is also
offering tax relief for biofuels and financial support for constructing plants that
generate heat and/or electricity from renewable energy sources. In response,
Germany has more than doubled its electricity consumption from renewable
energy sources—from 4.8 percent in 1998 to 10.2 percent in 2005. In particular,
Germany generated about 1 billion kilowatt-hours of solar electricity in 2005,
tripling the generation of electricity from solar cells in 2 years. Germany has also
become the world leader in wind energy with 18,428 megawatts of installed wind
capacity that produced 26.5 terawatt-hours of electricity in 2005.
Under the Kyoto Protocol and as a member of the European Union, Germany
has committed to a 21-percent reduction in the 1990 baseline year’s greenhouse
gas emissions from 2008 to 2012. The German government believes the
Renewable Energy Sources Act is one of Germany’s most effective and efficient
instruments for climate protection, stating that using renewable energy
technologies prevented the emission of approximately 84 million tons of carbon
dioxide in 2005. The government also states that renewable energy technologies
have created jobs in Germany—the renewables sector had 157,000 jobs in 2004,
including 64,000 jobs in wind power, 57,000 jobs in biomass, and 25,000 in the
solar industry. The government estimates that renewable energy jobs increased to
170,000 in 2005, and German industry estimates that this number will grow to
more than 255,000 by 2010.
Japan Has Installed over 931 Megawatts of Residential Solar Systems

In 1994, Japan launched a 10-year residential solar project as part of its
efforts to deploy domestic energy technologies that would diversify its energy
portfolio and reduce its dependence on energy imports.[38] The goal of the
residential solar project was to reduce the cost of photovoltaics and promote
48 GAO
installation of solar systems in residential communities. Initially, the Japanese

government provided a subsidy covering 50 percent of the cost of installing a
residential solar system. This percentage subsequently dropped to 33 percent and
eventually became a fixed amount as the 10-year project matured. As a result of
the project, over 253,000 homes installed solar systems that collectively generate
over 931 megawatts of power. Even though the government subsidy decreased,
the number of systems installed increased considerably year by year, as the
installation price decreased. According to a solar manufacturer, the cost of
installing a solar system dropped from about $16,000 per kilowatt in 1994 to
about $6,000 per kilowatt when the project ended. Due to the successful
transformation of the photovoltaic market, Japanese homeowners continue to buy
and install solar systems without the government subsidy.
The 10-year residential solar project has also helped create a Japanese solar
industry that has become a world leader in the photovoltaic market. According to
the European Commission, Japanese manufacturers’ share of the world
photovoltaic market is now greater than 40 percent. The residential solar project
also enables the Japanese government to fulfill its commitment to increase its
share of renewables in its energy portfolio to about 3 percent by 2010 and reduce
its greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol.
Spain Began Operating an IGCC Coal Gasification Plant in 1997

In the early 1990s, the European Union and the Spanish government
collaborated to construct the world’s largest coal-based IGCC plant in
Puertollano, Spain, to improve the efficiency, cost, and environmental profile of
coal-based power plants. The 320-megawatt IGCC plant, which began generating
electricity from coal in 1998, is operated by a consortium of eight utilities from
France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom as part of a
European Union program to demonstrate energy technologies that promote clean
coal and reduce the European Union’s dependency on natural gas.
The European Union and the Spanish government supported the construction
of the Puertollano plant by subsidizing about 8.5 percent of its nearly $900
million cost. European consortium members noted that, in comparison, DOE can
fund up to 50 percent of the cost of commercial IGCC demonstration projects. In
2000, the Puertollano plant produced nearly 1 million megawatts of electricity
using synthetic gas. The Puertollano plant is expected to operate at over 45
percent efficiency and eliminate 99.9 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. DOE
plans to achieve efficiencies and emissions levels comparable to the Puertollano
plant by 2010—currently, U.S. IGCC plants are about 40-percent efficient and
eliminate 98 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions.
France’s Advanced Nuclear Reactor Is Scheduled to Begin Operations in

2012
In response to the oil price shocks in 1973, France decided to reduce its
reliance on oil-fired power plants to generate electricity by launching a nuclear
initiative designed to make nuclear power a primary source of electricity. France
built 56 nuclear reactors during the 1970s and 1980s and, according to the
International Energy Agency, spent about 90 percent of its energy R and D
funding on nuclear energy from 1985 through 2001. The French government
reported that its R and D efforts during this time focused on technological
improvements and safety, as well as development of a fast reactor. Today, France
has 58 nuclear reactors generating 75 to 80 percent of its electricity.
France does not license reactors for a specific amount of time, but conducts
reviews every 10 years to grant continued operational authority. Reactors are
expected to operate for about 40 years. Some interest groups in France have called
for an end to nuclear energy, citing radioactive waste and safety issues and noting
that Germany has decided to phase out of nuclear energy and close down its
reactors. However, the French government has maintained its support for nuclear
energy, deciding in a 2005 law to keep the nuclear option open for the future and
planning to potentially replace its current reactors with a new generation of
reactors designed to be more efficient, safer, and less susceptible to external
threats. As part of this effort, France has developed the European Pressurized
Reactor, which uses Generation III technology and will be capable of generating
1,600 megawatts of electricity, a significant increase over the capacity of existing
reactors, which range from 900 megawatts to 1,450 megawatts. Two European
Pressurized Reactors are under construction—one in Flammanville, France,
scheduled to be operational in 2012 and a second in Finland scheduled to be
operational in 2009.
France is one of 13 partners in the Generation IV International Forum that
collaborates on R and D to develop next generation nuclear reactor technologies.
France is conducting R and D on several nuclear reactors, including the sodium-
cooled fast reactor that is a critical element of the U.S. GNEP program. In
addition, France has provided U.S. researchers with access to the French Phenix
fast reactor to study how highly radioactive nuclear fuel might be converted to
less radiotoxic material.
50 GAO
CONCLUSIONS
It is unlikely that DOE’s current level of R and D funding or the nation’s
current energy policies will be sufficient to deploy alternative energy sources in
the next 25 years that will reverse our growing dependence on imported oil or the
adverse environmental effects of using conventional fossil energy. The United
States has generally relied on market forces to determine the nation’s energy
portfolio, primarily conventional supplies of oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear
energy. In contrast, advanced energy technologies have higher up-front capital
costs that make them less cost competitive than conventional technologies. As a
result, despite periodic energy price spikes caused by disruptive world events and
about $50 billion (in real terms) in energy R and D funding since 1978, the United
States has made only steady incremental progress in developing and deploying
advanced renewable, coal, and nuclear technologies that can compete with
conventional energy technologies. However, continued reliance on conventional
technologies leaves the United States vulnerable to crude oil supply disruptions,
with economic, energy security, and national security consequences.
The nation is once again assessing how best to stimulate the deployment of
advanced energy technologies in response to recent high energy prices—caused
by the growing world demand for energy, wars in the Middle East, and last year’s
hurricanes—and concerns about the adverse environmental effects, particularly
greenhouse gas emissions, of using conventional fossil energy. Reducing the
nation’s dependence on oil and carbon dioxide emissions in the next 25 years is
not unlike the 1960s challenge to put a man on the moon. Without sustained high
energy prices or concerted, high-profile federal government leadership, U.S.
consumers are unlikely to change their energy-use patterns, and the United States
will continue to rely upon its current energy portfolio. Specifically, government
leadership is needed to overcome technological and market barriers to deploying
advanced energy technologies that would reduce the nation’s vulnerability to oil
supply disruptions and the adverse environmental effects of burning fossil fuels.
The nation’s current energy portfolio has raised concerns about the adverse
environmental effects of energy generation—particularly greenhouse gas
emissions from coal-fired and oil-fired power plants and the long-term storage of
spent nuclear fuel. In addition, the duration of certain federal tax incentives has
been insufficient to stimulate investment decisions to deploy advanced energy
technologies. For example, renewable energy industry representatives have stated
that the 2-year extension of the production tax credit in the Energy Policy Act of
2005 does not provide sufficient certainty to stimulate investment. In providing a
production tax credit to stimulate the construction of projects using advanced
technologies, the credit’s duration is key to encouraging companies and their

lenders to undertake the substantial investments and build an industry over time.
Several states have taken the lead in encouraging the deployment of advanced
energy technologies, particularly in renewable energy. For example, in the past 7
years, Texas tripled its renewable energy use as a result of its renewable portfolio
standard. Similarly, Minnesota’s ethanol program has displaced 10 percent of
gasoline consumption with ethanol. Many other states have initiatives to stimulate
renewable energy generation as well. States’ initiatives that diversify our energy
portfolio and reduce harmful emissions are positive steps. Similarly, foreign
countries, including Brazil, Denmark, and Germany, have sustained long-term
efforts using mandates and/or financial incentives to deploy advanced energy
technologies that are providing, or are expected in the future to provide,
significant amounts of energy. Approaches taken by these countries may provide
useful insights and opportunities for fostering the deployment of advanced energy
technologies.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CONGRESS

adverse environmental effects, the Congress should consider further stimulating
the development and deployment of a diversified energy portfolio by focusing R
and D funding on advanced energy technologies.
AGENCY COMMENTS
We provided DOE with a draft of this report for its review and comment. In
its written response, DOE did not comment on our recommendation to the
Congress. (See app. V.) DOE provided technical comments, which we have
incorporated as appropriate.
As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the report
date. At that time, we will send copies to interested congressional committees, the
Secretary of Energy, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and
other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site
at http://www.gao.gov .
52 GAO
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact me at
(202) 512-3841 or wellsj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this
report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in
appendix VI.
Jim Wells Director,

Natural Resources and Environment
APPENDIX I. ESTIMATED FEDERAL TAX EXPENDITURES

TARGETED AT ENERGY SUPPLIERS AND USERS, FISCAL
YEAR 2006
Dollars in millions
Federal tax expenditures Budget First Estimated FY
targeted at energy suppliers function yearb 2006 revenue loss
and usersa
1 Capital gains treatment of Energy 1974 $90
royalties on coal
2 Excess of percentage over Energy 1974 670
cost depletion, fuels
3 Expensing of exploration and Energy 1974 680
development costs, fuels
4 New technology credits Energy 1978 510
(addresses energy production
from several technologies,
including wind and solar
energy)
5 Alcohol fuel creditsc Energy 1980 40
6 Alternative fuel production Energy 1980 2,390
credit
7 Exclusion of interest on Energy 1980 90
energy facility bonds
8 Exception from passive loss Energy 1988 40
limitation for working
interests in oil and gas
properties
9 Tax credit and deduction for Energy 1992 90
clean-fuel burning vehicles
10 Enhanced oil recovery credit Energy 1994 0

11 Credit for holding clean Energy 2005 0
renewable energy bonds
12 Deferral of gain from Energy 2005 620
dispositions of transmission
property to implement the
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission’s restructuring
policyd
13 Credit for production from Energy 2005 0
advanced nuclear power
facilities
14 Credit for investment in clean Energy 2005 50
coal facilities
15 Temporary 50 percent Energy 2005 10
expensing for equipment used
in the refining of liquid fuels
Federal tax expenditures Budget First Estimated FY
targeted at energy suppliers function yearb 2006 revenue loss
and usersa
16 Pass through low sulfur diesel Energy 2005 0
expensing to cooperative
owners
17 Natural gas distribution Energy 2005 20
pipelines treated as 15-year
property
18 Amortize all geological and Energy 2005 40
geophysical expenditures over
2 years
19 30 percent credit for Energy 2005 10
residential
purchases/installations of
solar and fuel cells
20 Credit for business installation Energy 2005 80
of qualified fuel cells and
stationary microturbine power
plants
21 Alternative Fuel and Fuel Energy 2005 170
Mixture tax credit
22 Bio-Diesel and small agri- Agriculture 2004 90
biodiesel producer tax credits
23 Expensing of small refiner Natural 2004 10
capital costs with respect to resources and
complying with EPA sulfur environment
regulations
Total estimated tax $5,700
expenditurese
Source: GAO analysis of tax expenditures reported by the Department of the Treasury.
54 GAO
Note: For descriptions of tax expenditures, see Office of Management and Budget.
Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2007,
(Washington, D.C.: 2005).
a
This list does not include five tax expenditures whose primary focus is energy
conservation—exclusion of utility conservation subsidies, deduction for certain
energy efficient commercial building property as well as tax credits for construction
of new energy efficient homes, energy efficiency improvements to existing homes,
and energy efficient appliances—with revenue loss estimates summing to $510
million for fiscal year 2006. This list also does not include tax incentives for general
research and development available for all businesses. Also, the Department of
Treasury does not report tax expenditures with revenue losses below $5 million.
b
First year the Department of the Treasury reported expenditures.
c
The alcohol fuel credit includes, among other things, the volumetric tax credit for
ethanol, which was enacted in 2004. Treasury estimates a $2.1 billion reduction in
excise tax receipts in fiscal year 2006 as a result of income tax revenue losses and
reduced excise tax receipts.
d
This tax expenditure was listed under the community and regional development budget
function in 2004.
e
Summing tax expenditure estimates does not take into account interactions between
individual provisions.
APPENDIX II. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

To review the Department of Energy’s (DOE) research and development (R
and D) funding trends, we analyzed DOE budget authority data for renewable,
fossil, and nuclear energy R and D from fiscal year 1978 through fiscal year 2006.
The data consist of DOE’s annual appropriations, adjusted for any advanced
appropriations and rescissions. To assess the reliability of these data, we
interviewed DOE program managers and budget officials with oversight of each
of the technologies. We asked DOE officials a series of data reliability questions,
including questions covering data classification, particularly over time; program
changes that could impact data classification or budget accounts; custody and
maintenance of the data, including updates; quality control procedures; and
accuracy and completeness of the data. Where appropriate, we adjusted the data to
ensure consistency in reporting over time. We obtained historical documents,
program plans, and assessments from other entities to corroborate the data. We
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
In addition to DOE’s R and D funding, we reviewed revenue losses from energy-
related tax expenditures for fiscal years 2000 through 2006 by reviewing tax
expenditure revenue loss estimates prepared by the Department of the Treasury
and published in the President’s annual budget. While the aggregate value for
energy-related tax expenditures is useful for gauging their general magnitude,
summing does not take into account interactions between individual provisions.
We excluded annual tax expenditures below $5 million because Treasury does not
report them. To review DOE’s strategy for developing advanced energy
technologies, we reviewed DOE documents, including strategic plans, program
plans, and studies on each of the technologies. We also collected and analyzed
documents from industry and industry associations. In addition, we interviewed
senior DOE managers, program managers and scientists at DOE laboratories,
senior power company and industry association executives, and independent
experts.
To assess the key technological, economic, and other barriers to developing
and deploying new energy technologies, we analyzed various documents from
DOE, including program plans, energy studies and assessments, and key budget
documents, including supporting documentation justifying budget requests. We
also analyzed documents from other federal agencies; utilities; industry
associations; state utility commissions and associations; and independent experts,
including studies from the Electric Power Research Institute, the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, and the University of Chicago. We interviewed DOE and
NRC officials; program managers and scientists at DOE laboratories; executives
of utilities, manufacturers, and industry associations; public utility commissions
from various states; and selected state governments and government associations.
To examine the efforts of states to develop and deploy advanced energy
technologies, we analyzed reports and assessments from DOE, various state
governments and associations, industry and industry associations, and
independent experts. We also used the Database of State Incentives for Renewable
Energy, maintained by the Interstate Renewable Energy Council, to analyze state
initiatives and select three states with successful initiatives—Texas’ renewable
portfolio standards, Minnesota’s ethanol program, and California’s solar
programs. To assess the reliability of this database, we reviewed relevant
documentation and obtained responses from the database administrator to a series
of data reliability questions covering issues such as data entry, access, quality
control procedures, and the accuracy and completeness of the data. We
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
In addition to the database, we collected documents and interviewed officials from
DOE; industry and industry associations; and various state organizations,
including the National Conference of State Legislatures and the Western
Governor’s Association; and selected public utility commissions.
56 GAO
To develop a nonprobability sample of countries that have developed and

deployed advanced renewable, fossil, and nuclear technologies, we (1) reviewed
the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) international data to identify
significant changes in consumption patterns among renewable, fossil, and nuclear
energy technologies; (2) examined other related information; and (3) interviewed
cognizant DOE officials and independent industry experts.[39] We selected
Brazil, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, and Spain because they have initiated
major efforts to deploy advanced energy technologies that could change their
energy portfolios. To obtain information on each country’s initiatives, we
analyzed documents from EIA, the International Energy Agency, each of the
countries, and independent experts. We also interviewed DOE officials; officials
from each country, either at their U.S. embassy or by telephone or e-mail; and
independent experts.
We conducted our work from October 2005 through October 2006 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
APPENDIX III. THE STATES’ USE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY
INCENTIVES, STANDARDS, AND MANDATES
State Tax Rebatesb Public Renewable Net
creditsa benefit portfolio metering &
fundsc standardsd inter
connection
rulese
Alabama •
Alaska
Arizona • •
Arkansas •
California • • • • •
Colorado • •
Connecticut • • • •
Delaware • • • •
Florida •
Georgia •
Hawaii • • •
Idaho •
Illinois • • •
Indiana •
Iowa • • •
Kansas •
Kentucky •
Louisiana •
Maine • • • •
Maryland • • • •
Massachusetts •
State Tax Rebatesb Public Renewable Net

creditsa benefit portfolio metering &
fundsc standardsd inter
connection
rulese
Michigan •
Minnesota • • • •
Mississippi
Missouri • •
Montana • • • •
Nebraska
Nevada • • •
New •
Hampshire
New Jersey • • • •
New Mexico • •
New York • • • • •
North Carolina • •
North Dakota • •
Ohio • • •
Oklahoma • •
Oregon • • • •
Pennsylvania • • •
Rhode Island • • • • •
South •
Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas • • •
Utah • •
Vermont • • •
Virginia •
Washington •
West Virginia •
Wisconsin • • • •
Wyoming • •
Total 21 17 15 22 39
Source: GAO analysis of the Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy,
maintained by the Interstate Renewable Energy Council.
a
Provided to corporations or individuals that purchase or install renewable energy
equipment. For example, New Mexico offers a 30-percent personal income tax credit
(up to $9,000) for residents who install photovoltaic or solar thermal systems. Tax
credits are one of the most frequently used state-level financial incentives.
b
Typically provided in the form of cash rebates to residents and businesses for the
purchase and installation of renewable energy equipment. For example, New York
provides $4 to $4.50 per watt to eligible installers for the installation of approved,
grid-connected photovoltaic systems.
58 GAO
c
A surcharge on each consumer’s electricity bill that goes into a general fund to support
renewable energy resources, energy efficiency initiatives, and renewable energy
projects for low-income residents. For example, Connecticut residents are charged up
to 0.1 cents per kilowatt-hour on their utility bills, which provides funding for
Connecticut’s Energy Efficiency Fund for energy efficiency and Clean Energy Fund
for renewable energy.
d
Require that a fixed percentage of the state’s electricity be generated from renewable
sources. For example, Texas enacted legislation in 2005 requiring the installation of
5,000 megawatts of new renewable capacity by 2015. According to the National
Conference of State Legislatures, renewable portfolio standards have been particularly
successful in encouraging wind power development.
e
Eligibility and pricing rules for connecting renewable energy sources to the power
transmission grid and crediting producers for excess generation. For example, the
value of energy generated in excess of what is used is subtracted from the monthly
utility bill of residents in Arizona with solar-electric systems.
APPENDIX IV: THREE STATES’ INITIATIVES TO STIMULATE

THE USE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
Minnesota, Texas, and California have implemented programs to stimulate

the use of renewable energy technologies. In response to various incentives and
mandates, Minnesota now has one-third of the nation’s ethanol fueling stations
and had displaced nearly 10 percent of its gasoline consumption with ethanol by
June 2006. Since Texas enacted renewable portfolio standards (RPS) in 1999, its
electric power companies have installed over 1,900 megawatts of new renewable
energy capacity—approximately 3 percent of the state’s total electricity
generation. Since California began its Solar Initiative in January 2006, over 150
megawatts of new solar capacity have been installed.
Minnesota’s Ethanol Program
Minnesota’s Ethanol Program began in 1980 as an effort to expand the state’s

farm economy by building a new market for corn, its largest crop; meet EPA
standards for air quality in the Twin Cities area by reducing carbon monoxide
emissions from cars; and reduce dependence on imported oil. To reach these
goals, Minnesota established financial incentives and mandates to encourage the
development of a state ethanol industry over a 17-year period. As of June 2006,
ethanol had displaced nearly 10 percent of Minnesota’s gasoline consumption.
The Minnesota Ethanol Program encouraged growth in the state’s ethanol

industry, primarily through the use of producer incentives and mandated ethanol
blends. In particular, state legislation passed in 1980 provided a tax credit for
gasoline that was blended with 10-percent ethanol, and in 1986, the state set up a
producer payment incentive that paid ethanol producers 20 cents per gallon for a
10-year period. Legislation enacted in 1992 required that all gasoline offered for
sale in the state be blended with 7.7 percent ethanol beginning in 1997. This
provision was amended in 2003 to require blends to contain at least 10 percent
ethanol. In 1995, Minnesota also established a statutory goal to develop over 200
million gallons of ethanol production. The tax credits were eliminated in 1997,
and the producer incentive payments were phased out beginning in the late
1990s.[40] In 2004, Minnesota enacted legislation doubling the requirement to 20
percent by 2013.
Currently, nearly all gasoline in Minnesota is blended with 10-percent
ethanol, representing over $100 million in annual savings on oil imports. Ethanol
production has expanded from 1.5 million gallons in 1987 to a current capacity of
over 500 million gallons. Corn prices have also doubled to 30 cents a bushel, and
the Twin Cities area is in compliance with EPA air quality standards, according to
Minnesota officials. Minnesota is the nation’s leader in the use of renewable fuels,
with the highest renewable fuel use per capita in the nation. It is home to 32
percent of the nation’s E85 stations.
Texas’ Renewable Portfolio Standards
To reduce a growing dependency on imported fossil fuels, make better use of

the region’s natural renewable resources, and improve air quality profiles, Texas
enacted legislation in 2005 that extended its 1999 RPS to require the installation
of 5,000 megawatts of new renewable capacity, or about 5 percent of the state’s
electricity demand, by 2015. Texas has already tripled its use of renewable energy
in the 7 years since its RPS was initially enacted.
Texas uses more total energy—including electricity, petroleum, natural gas,
and coal—than any other state. In the early 1990s, Texas’ use of renewable
energy was less than 1 percent, the lowest in the United States. In 1992, Texas
became a net importer of energy. Moreover, if Texas was a country, it would have
ranked 7th in the world for greenhouse gas emissions in the early 1990s,
according to climate change experts at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
Despite these conditions, however, Texas also ranks first in abundance of U.S.
solar and biomass resources, and second for wind resources. To encourage the use
60 GAO
of the state’s abundant renewable resources and improve its environmental

profile, Texas’ 1999 legislation established an RPS mandating that state utilities
derive 2,000 megawatts of new generating capacity from renewable sources by
2009. When Texas had nearly reached this capacity by 2005, new legislation
increased the mandate to 5,000 new megawatts by 2015. Electric power retailers
that do not comply with RPS requirements are subject to penalties of up to $50
per megawatt-hour, or 5 cents per kilowatt-hour, as tracked by a renewable energy
credit system. To encourage a wide variety of renewable developments, the Texas
RPS also requires that 500 megawatts of total mandated new capacity come from
renewable sources other than wind, because wind power is the most competitive
renewable energy technology in Texas—98 percent of new installed capacity in
Texas prior to 1999 was wind power. In addition, Texas’ RPS set a nonbinding
target of 10,000 megawatts of installed renewable capacity by January 1, 2025.
According to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc., as of September
2006, Texas had tripled its renewable energy capacity, installing over 1,900
megawatts of new capacity, representing about 3 percent of its total electricity
consumption. During 2001 alone, Texas installed 912 megawatts of wind
power—more than the entire country had installed in any previous year—and
created 2,500 wind-power related jobs. Texas’ 2025 goal would result in an
estimated $5 billion in consumer electric bill savings and the creation of nearly
20,000 jobs, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.
California’s Solar Programs
Since 1998, California has supported the installation of solar systems—

including photovoltaic systems and solar thermal systems—by establishing
production incentives and rebates for solar energy generators and consumers.
These programs are designed to reduce electricity demand and improve the
reliability of the state’s electricity system. In January 2006, California enacted a
$2.2 billion Solar Initiative to install 3,000 megawatts of new solar energy by
2017, supporting the governor’s 2006 “Million Solar Roofs Plan” to power 50
percent of all California homes—or 1 million roofs—with solar energy by 2019.
As of January 2006, California had installed over 150 megawatts of new solar
systems on over 20,000 homes, businesses, schools, and government buildings,
according to California state officials and a California environmental group.
California established the Emerging Renewables Program in 1998.
Implemented by the California Energy Commission, the program has encouraged
the use of naturally abundant solar resources by allocating $118 million in rebates
from 2002 through 2006 for the installation of new, primarily residential,
renewable energy generating systems. In particular, for systems less than 30
kilowatts, the program offered $2.60 per watt for the installation of solar-cell
systems and $3.00 per watt for the installation of solar-thermal systems. The
Emerging Renewables Program also allocated $10 million toward a performance-
based incentive option for photovoltaic installations, giving electricity generators
$0.50 per kilowatt-hour over a 3-year period. In 2001, the California Public
Utilities Commission initiated the Self-Generation Incentive Program, which
offers rebates through 2007 for nonresidential distributed renewable generation
for 30 kilowatt or larger systems. Since its inception, the rebate program has spent
about $50 million per year, achieving 50 megawatts of installed solar capacity,
with another 62 additional megawatts in progress. In 2006, the Public Utilities
Commission introduced the California Solar Initiative, which will provide $2.9
billion in solar energy incentives over 11 years and support the governor’s Million
Solar Roofs Plan to install 3,000 megawatts of new solar energy capacity by 2017.
By integrating California’s existing Emerging Renewables Program and rebate
solar programs, the initiative will continue to encourage new solar installations
through rebate incentives for new photovoltaic and solar thermal systems, and
pay-for-performance incentives that reward high-performing solar systems
(greater than 100 kilowatts). To help sustain the solar industry, rebates for new
solar systems will begin at $2.50 per watt, but will decline by about 10 percent
annually over the next 10 years. In addition, the initiative sets aside 10 percent of
program funding for low-income and affordable housing projects.
62 GAO
APPENDIX V. COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF

ENERGY
APPENDIX VI. GAO CONTACT AND STAFF

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
GAO Contact
Jim Wells (202) 512-3841 or wellsj@gao.gov
Staff Acknowledgments
In addition to the individual named above, Richard Cheston, Assistant

Director; Robert Sanchez, Kerry Lipsitz, Christina Connelly, Chuck Bausell,
MaryLynn Sergent, Anne Stevens, and Alison O’Neill made key contributions to
this report. Also contributing to this report were Doreen Feldman, Barbara
Timmerman, and Jenny Chanley.
GAO’s Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines
the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed
oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government
is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is
through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-
mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and
select “Subscribe to Updates.”
Order by Mail or Phone
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A
check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents.
GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to
a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000
TDD: (202) 512-2537
Fax: (202) 512-6061
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

64 GAO
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.

Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
REFERENCES
[1] DOE is also responsible for energy efficiency programs, which are integral
to addressing future energy challenges by reducing demand.
[2] All historical DOE R and D budget authority totals are presented in real
terms by adjusting them to fiscal year 2005 dollars to account for inflation.
[3] The Three Mile Island accident, which involved one of the plant’s two
reactors, was the most serious incident at a U.S. commercial nuclear power
plant. While there were no deaths or injuries, the reactor’s core began to
melt down, creating widespread concern about health and safety.
[4] Pub. L. No. 108-357.
[5] Pub. L. No. 109-58.
[6] Tax expenditures result in forgone revenue for the federal government due
to preferential provisions in the tax code. See GAO, Government
Performance and Accountability: Tax Expenditures Represent a Substantial
Federal Commitment and Need to Be Reexamined, GAO-05-690
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 23, 2005).
[7] In 2006, crude oil prices peaked at nearly $70 per barrel in the United
States.
[8] Summing tax expenditure estimates is useful to gauge their general
magnitude but does not take into account interactions between individual
provisions.
[9] The alternative fuels production credit is a tax credit of $3 per oil equivalent
barrel (in 1979 dollars) for gas produced from biomass or synthetic fuels
produced from coal.
[10] Flex fuel vehicles operate on any blend of ethanol and gasoline, from 0
percent ethanol and 100 percent gasoline, up to 85 percent ethanol and 15
percent gasoline.
[11] See also GAO, Renewable Energy: Increased Geothermal Development
Will Depend on Overcoming Many Challenges, GAO-06-629 (Washington,
D.C.: May 24, 2006).
[12] Geothermal heat pumps are used for space heating and cooling, as well as
water heating. The heat pump transfers heat stored in the earth or in
groundwater into a building during the winter and transfers it out of the
building and back into the ground during the summer.
[13] Under the Clean Air Act, EPA sets limits on how much of a pollutant can be
in the air anywhere in the United States, which it can enforce by fining
companies that violate air pollution limits.
[14] EPA has promulgated a Clean Air Mercury Rule for mercury and a Clean
Air Interstate Rule for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide reductions across
the states.
[15] See 54 Fed. Reg. 15383 (1989).
[16] In 1977, President Carter announced plans to indefinitely suspend U.S.
reprocessing efforts.
[17] The national renewable fuels standard establishes a baseline for renewable
fuel use, beginning with 4 billion gallons per year in 2006 and expanding to
7.5 billion gallons by 2012.
[18] According to EIA, oil refineries decided to eliminate MTBE primarily
because (1) many states have banned MTBE because of water
contamination concerns, (2) industry’s liability exposure by adding MTBE
to gasoline, and (3) industry’s perception that liability exposure increased
because the Energy Policy Act of 2005 eliminated the oxygen content
requirement for reformulated gasoline.
[19] DOE and USDA, Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts
Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply, April
2005.
[20] It is a normal occurrence for water to accumulate in oil pipelines. In most
cases, water enters the system through terminal and refinery tank roofs or
can be dissolved in fuels during refinery processes. Introducing ethanol into
an oil pipeline risks rendering it unusable as a transportation fuel.
66 GAO
[21] Similarly, earmarks accounted for about $43 million, or 27 percent, of

appropriated funds for DOE’s hydrogen and fuel cell R and D program in
fiscal year 2006.
[22] One megawatt of wind power generates about as much electricity as 240 to
300 households use each year.
[23] The Energy Policy Act of 2005 also established a new residential
investment tax credit for solar energy systems that provides a 2-year tax
credit through December 31, 2007
[24] The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that some of the leading sources of
bird mortality per year are attacks by domestic and feral cats, hundreds of
millions of bird deaths; collisions with building windows, 97 million to 976
million bird deaths; poisoning from pesticides, at least 72 million bird
deaths; and collisions with communication towers, 4 million to 50 million
bird deaths.
[25] See GAO, Wind Power: Impacts on Wildlife and Government
Responsibilities for Regulating Development and Protecting Wildlife, GAO-
05-906 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 16, 2005).
[26] The higher cost of electricity generated using IGCC technology in
comparison with conventional coal-fired technologies more fully reflects
the total cost of burning coal by including the cost of controlling the release
of harmful emissions. Alternatively, several countries have enacted a carbon
tax that puts a value on the carbon emissions that conventional coal-fired
technologies generate.
[27] See 10 C.F.R. pt. 52.
[28] Mining and processing of uranium and transporting of nuclear fuel result in
some greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, greenhouse gas emissions
result from site construction and worker transportation for both nuclear and
renewable energy facilities.
[29] MIT. The Future of Nuclear Power (Cambridge, MA: July 2003);
University of Chicago, The Economic Future of Nuclear Power (Chicago,
IL: August 2004).
[30] The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 originally set 1998 as the date for
DOE to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel for disposal. DOE has revised its
estimate of the repository’s opening first to 2010 and currently to 2017,
characterized by DOE as a “best-achievable schedule.”
[31] NRC requires that utilities store spent nuclear fuel immersed in deep pools
of water or in dry storage casks consisting of all steel or steel and concrete.
Currently, 37 commercial dry storage facilities exist in 27 states. However,
Private Fuel Storage in Utah, a facility licensed to take waste from a
consortium of commercial reactors, is not yet operational. Two sites in

Colorado and Idaho that are managed by DOE and store commercial spent
nuclear fuel from the Fort St. Vrain and Three Mile Island reactors,
respectively, are not included in this count.
[32] NRC has determined that there is reasonable assurance that a geologic
repository will be open by 2025, giving it confidence that the nuclear waste
issue will be resolved. In the meantime, NRC testified that continued
interim storage is considered safe. In February 2006, NRC licensed a
centralized interim storage facility in Utah that the electric power industry is
pursuing to relieve congested spent fuel pools. However, there is no
timetable for construction.
[33] Funding includes $8.3 billion from the Nuclear Waste Fund, $3 billion from
defense waste, and the remainder from various reprogramming actions.
Both commercial spent nuclear fuel and high-level defense waste are
planned for disposal at Yucca Mountain.
[34] The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, (Pub. L. No. 95-617,
(1978)) requires that utilities buy excess energy generated by small energy
producers. The states determine its minimum purchase price.
[35] Renewable technology plants are exempt from taxes placed on power plants
that emit carbon dioxide.
[36] One of the new offshore developments, Horns Rev II, is expected to be
operational by 2009.
[37] The German government also amended the Atomic Energy Act in 2002,
which will systematically decommission the nation’s existing nuclear power
plants once the volume of electricity specified for each plant is generated—
the last nuclear power plant in Germany is estimated to shut down about
2020.
[38] About half of Japan’s total energy demand is for oil, which is primarily
imported from the Middle East.
[39] Results from a nonprobability sample cannot be used to make inferences
about a population because in a nonprobability sample some elements of the
population being studied have no chance or an unknown chance of being
selected as part of the sample.
[40] Some payments are still being made to producers that qualified for the
program prior to 1999. However, these payments are now less than 20
percent and are being continuously phased out.
Chapter 2
ADVANCED ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES:

KEY CHALLENGES TO THEIR DEVELOPMENT
AND DEPLOYMENT*
Jim Wells
Director Natural Resources and Environment
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the challenges that our nation faces in
meeting its future energy needs. The United States has primarily relied on market
forces to determine its energy portfolio. These market forces have generally
succeeded in providing us with plentiful, reliable, and generally inexpensive
gasoline to power our vehicles and electricity to run our homes and businesses.
However, most of this energy comes from conventional fossil fuels—oil, natural
gas, and coal—the dependence on which has brought increased economic and
national security risks and adverse environmental impacts. In 1973, 1979, 1991,
and 2005, the nation’s crude oil supplies were constricted contributing to major
energy price shocks. Despite these price shocks and related energy crises, the
United States is even more dependent on imported crude oil and natural gas today
than it was 30 years ago. And, without dramatic change, the nation will become
ever more reliant on imported oil and natural gas with corresponding threats to the
U.S. economy and national security. Perhaps equally important, the growing
recognition that global warming is linked to carbon dioxide emissions from
*
GAO-07-550T, dated February 28, 2007.
70 Jim Wells
burning coal and oil will need to be addressed. Given these threats, the nation will
almost certainly need to make much more tangible progress than has been
achieved to date to diversify our energy portfolio by reducing conventional fossil
fuel usage and developing and deploying advanced energy technologies.
Since its inception in 1977, the Department of Energy (DOE) has had
leadership responsibility for energy research, development, and demonstration (R
and D) that enable the nation to deploy advanced energy technologies for meeting
1
future demands and diversify its energy portfolio. During the past 29 years, the
Congress has provided DOE about $50 billion for R and D in renewable, fossil,
2
and nuclear energy technologies. Regrettably, however, the nation is still not
currently positioned to deploy alternative energy technologies in the next 25 years
that will reverse our growing dependence on conventional fossil energy.
My testimony today is based on our December 2006 report on key challenges
3
to developing and deploying advanced energy technologies. Specifically, my
testimony will address (1) funding trends for DOE’s energy R and D program, (2)
key barriers to developing and deploying advanced energy technologies, and (3)
efforts of the states and six selected countries to develop and deploy advanced
energy technologies.
ABSTRACT
declined by over 85 percent (in inflation-adjusted terms) from 1978 through 2005,
dropping from about $5.5 billion in fiscal year 1978 to $793 million in fiscal year
2005.
DOE’s R and D efforts have made renewable technologies more cost
competitive, reduced harmful sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution by coal-
fired power plants, and improved the safety and operating efficiency for nuclear
reactors. However, DOE and the energy industry still need to overcome enormous
technological and financial challenges before advanced energy technologies are
likely to supplant fossil fuels on a national scale. For example, because many
high-wind sites have been developed, for the wind industry to expand, it will need
to develop low-wind and offshore sites that require new designs, technologies,
and materials, and will face higher upfront capital costs. Similarly, development
and use of advanced coal gasification and carbon sequestration and storage
technologies to control harmful carbon dioxide emissions is dependent upon
additional technological breakthroughs and lowered costs.
Advanced Energy Technologies: Key Challenges… 71

inflation.
Years 1978-2005.
While federal R and D funding has declined and the government has relied on
the market to make advanced energy technology deployment decisions, many
states have assumed higher profile roles by enacting standards, mandates, and
financial incentives primarily to stimulate renewable energy technologies that
address their growing energy needs and environmental concerns. For example, in
Texas over 1,900 megawatts of new renewable capacity was installed and
renewable energy now accounts for 3 percent of electricity consumption because
legislation enacted in 1999 and 2005 requires Texas’ utilities to meet renewable
energy capacity standards. In addition, each of the six countries we reviewed—
Brazil, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Spain, and France—has used mandates and/or
financial incentives to deploy advanced energy technologies that are providing, or
are expected in the future to provide, significant amounts of energy. For example,
Brazil has replaced all of its imported oil with ethanol, wind energy provides 19
percent of Denmark’s electricity, and Germany’s renewable energy technologies
generate 10 percent of its electricity.
BACKGROUND
For the past several decades, the United States has enjoyed relatively
inexpensive and plentiful energy supplies, relying primarily on market forces to
determine the energy mix that provides the most reliable and least expensive
72 Jim Wells
sources of energy—primarily oil, natural gas, and coal. In 1973, oil cost about $15
per barrel (in inflation-adjusted terms) and accounted for 96 percent of the energy
used in the transportation sector and 17 percent of the energy used to generate
electricity. As shown in figure 2, the 2004 U.S. energy portfolio is similar to the
1973 energy portfolio. In 2004, oil accounted for 98 percent of energy consumed
for transportation, and coal and natural gas accounted for about 71 percent of the
energy used to generate electricity. Renewable energy—primarily hydropower—
remains at 6 percent of U.S. energy consumption.
However, since 1973, U.S. crude oil imports have grown from 36 percent of
consumption to 66 percent of consumption today, and crude oil prices have
jumped particularly in recent years to today’s $60 per barrel level.
DOE’S BUDGET AUTHORITY FOR RENEWABLE, FOSSIL,

AND NUCLEAR ENERGY R AND D HAS DECLINED BY OVER
85 PERCENT IN REAL TERMS SINCE 1978
Despite growing dependence on foreign energy sources, DOE’s budget
authority for renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy R and D dropped from $5.5
billion (in real terms) in fiscal year 1978 to $793 million in fiscal year 2005—a
decline of over 85 percent. As shown in figure 3, renewable, fossil, and nuclear
energy R and D budget authority each peaked in the late 1970s before falling
sharply in the 1980s. Total budget authority for the three energy R and D
programs has risen after bottoming out in fiscal year 1998.

inflation. Excludes DOE program management costs and indirect facilities costs of
DOE laboratories.
Years 1978 through 2005.
DOE’s renewable R and D program has focused on ethanol, wind, and solar
technologies, making steady incremental progress over the past 29 years in
reducing their costs. DOE’s goal is for biofuels production in 2030 to replace 30
percent of current gasoline demand, or about 60 billion gallons per year. In 2005,
ethanol refiners produced 3.9 billion gallons of ethanol, primarily from corn, that
was used (1) as a substitute for methyl tertiary-butyl ether, known as MTBE,
which oil refineries have used to oxygenate gasoline and (2) to make E85, a blend
of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline for use in flex fuel vehicles. To
achieve its production goal, DOE is developing additional sources of cellulosic
biomass—such as agricultural residues, energy crops, and forest wastes—to
minimize adverse effects on food prices. In recent years, DOE’s wind program
shifted from high-wind sites to low-wind and offshore sites. Low-wind sites are
far more plentiful than high-wind sites and are located closer to electricity load
centers, which can substantially reduce the cost of connecting to the electricity
transmission grid. Low-wind and offshore-wind energy must address design and
upfront capital costs to be competitive. DOE’s solar R and D program focuses on
improving photovoltaic systems, heat and light production, and utility-size solar
74 Jim Wells
power plants. DOE is exploring thin-film technologies to reduce the

manufacturing costs of photovoltaic cells, which convert sunlight into electricity.
Similarly, DOE’s solar heating and lighting R and D program is developing
technologies that use sunlight for various thermal applications, particularly space
heating and cooling. DOE is also working with industry and states to develop
utility-size solar power plants to convert the sun’s energy into high temperature
heat that is used to generate electricity.
Beginning in the mid-1980s, DOE’s fossil energy R and D provided funding
through the Clean Coal Technology Program to demonstrate technologies for
reducing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions. DOE also has focused on
developing and demonstrating advanced integrated gasification combined cycle
(IGCC) technologies. More recently, DOE proposed a $1 billion advanced coal-
based power plant R and D project called FutureGen—cost-shared between DOE
(76 percent) and industry (24 percent)—which will demonstrate how IGCC
technology can both reduce harmful emissions and improve efficiency by
integrating IGCC with carbon capture and sequestration technologies for the long-
term storage of carbon dioxide. According to DOE, FutureGen is designed to be
the first “zero-emissions” coal-based power plant and is expected to be
operational by 2015.
Beginning in fiscal year 1999, DOE’s nuclear energy R and D program
shifted from improving safety and efficiency of nuclear power reactors to
developing advanced reactor technologies by focusing on (1) the Nuclear Power
2010 initiative in an effort to stimulate electric power companies to construct and
operate new reactors; (2) the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP, to
develop and demonstrate technologies for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel that
could recover the fuel for reuse, reduce radioactive waste, and minimize
proliferation threats; and (3) the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative,
or Gen IV, to develop new fourth generation advanced reactor technologies
intended to reduce disposal requirements and manufacture hydrogen by about
2020 to 2030.
ADVANCED RENEWABLE, FOSSIL, AND NUCLEAR ENERGY

TECHNOLOGIES FACE KEY BARRIERS TO MARKET
DEPLOYMENT
challenges to their deployment into the market. The primary renewable energy
technologies with the potential to substantially expand their existing production
capacity during the next 25 years are ethanol, a partial substitute for gasoline in
transportation, and wind and solar energy technologies for generating electricity.
For advanced fossil technologies, the primary challenge is controlling emissions
of mercury and carbon dioxide generated by conventional coal-fired plants by
using coal gasification technologies that cost about 20 percent more to construct
than conventional coal-fired plants and demonstrating the technological feasibility
of the long-term storage of carbon dioxide captured by a large-scale coal-fired
power plant. For advanced nuclear technologies, investors face substantial risk
because of nuclear reactors’ high capital costs and long construction time frames
and uncertainty about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) review of
license applications for new reactors.
One of ethanol’s biggest challenges is to cost-effectively produce ethanol
while diversifying the biomass energy sources so it can grow from its current 3-
percent market share. DOE is exploring technologies to use cellulosic biomass
from, for example, agricultural residues or fast-growing grasses and trees. In
addition, ethanol requires an independent transportation, storage, and distribution
infrastructure because its corrosive qualities and water solubility prevent it from
using, for example, existing oil pipelines to transport the product from the
Midwest to the east or west coasts. As a result, fewer than 1,000 fueling stations
nationwide provide E85 compared with 176,000 stations that dispense gasoline.
Ethanol also needs to become more cost competitive. Even with the recent spikes
in gasoline prices, ethanol producers rely on federal tax incentives to compete. In
October 2006, Consumer Reports estimated that drivers paying $2.91 per
gallon for E85 actually paid about $3.99 for the energy equivalent amount of a
gallon of gasoline because the distance vehicles traveled per gallon declined by 27
percent. Finally, congressional earmarks of DOE’s biomass R and D funding rose
from 14 percent of the fiscal year 2000 funds to 57 percent ($52 million) of the
fiscal year 2006 funds, according to a DOE program official.
Both wind and solar technologies have experienced substantial growth in
recent years, but both wind and solar technologies face important challenges for
future growth. In particular, wind investors pay substantial upfront capital costs to
build a wind farm and connect the farm to the power transmission grid, which can
cost $100,000 or more per mile on average, according to DOE officials. Because
both wind energy and solar energy are intermittent, utilities have been skeptical
about using them, relying instead on large baseload power plants that operate full
time and are more accessible to the transmission grid. In contrast, wind turbines
operate the equivalent of less than 40 percent of the hours in a year because of the
intermittency of wind. In addition, the electricity that is generated must be
76 Jim Wells
immediately used or transmitted to the grid because it cannot be cost effectively

stored.
For the wind industry to expand from high-wind sites to low-wind and
offshore locations, DOE needs to also develop bigger wind turbines with longer
blades mounted on taller towers, requiring improved designs and materials for
blade and drive train components. In addition, offshore wind development faces
such technical challenges as understanding the effects of wave and ocean current
loads on the base of the structures. The wind industry also faces concerns about
environmental impacts, including bird and bat fatalities caused by wind turbines.
Finally, investors interested in developing wind energy have relied on the federal
production tax credit as a financial incentive to construct wind farms. The credit
has periodically expired, resulting in a boom-and-bust cycle for the wind power
industry.
Solar energy also faces a challenge of developing inexpensive photovoltaic
solar cells. As a result of R and D efforts, photovoltaic cells, consisting mostly of
crystalline-silicone materials, are becoming increasingly efficient, converting
nearly 40 percent of sunlight into electricity for some applications, but the cells
are expensive for the typical homeowner. DOE is exploring how to reduce
manufacturing costs through thin-film technologies, but at a cost of efficiency.
DOE’s challenge is to increase efficiency and reduce costs in the thin-film
technologies.
Reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants continues to be the priority
for DOE’s fossil energy R and D. Having significantly reduced sulfur dioxide and
nitrogen oxide, DOE is now focusing on reducing mercury and carbon dioxide
emissions. Gasification technologies, such as the IGCC configuration, holds the
most promise, but at a 20 percent higher cost than conventional coal-fired power
plants. To address global warming concerns, DOE’s challenge is to reduce the
cost of gasification technologies and demonstrate the large-scale sequestration and
long-term storage of carbon dioxide.
A significant obstacle facing nuclear power is the high upfront capital costs.
No electric power company has applied for a NRC license to construct a new
nuclear power plants in almost 30 years in large part because of a long legacy of
cost over-runs, schedule delays, and cancellations. Industry officials report that
new nuclear power plants can cost between $1.5 billion and $4 billion to
construct, assuming no problems in the licensing and construction process, with
additional expenses for connecting the plant to transmission lines. In addition,
investors have grown concerned about the disposal of a legacy of spent nuclear
fuel. While NRC has revised its licensing process to address past concerns over
licensing delays and added costs because of requirements to retrofit plants,
investors are uncertain of the effectiveness of the revised regulations. Recently,

the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the University of Chicago
issued studies comparing nuclear power’s costs with other forms of generating
4
electricity. Both studies concluded that, assuming no unexpected costs or delays
in licensing and construction, nuclear power is only marginally competitive with
conventional coal and natural gas and, even then, only if the nuclear power
industry significantly reduces anticipated construction times. MIT also reported,
however, that if carbon were to be regulated, nuclear energy would be much more
competitive with coal and natural gas.
THE STATES AND COUNTRIES WE REVIEWED HAVE

IMPLEMENTED A VARIETY OF INITIATIVES TO ENCOURAGE
THE DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT OF ADVANCED
ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
While federal R and D has declined in recent years, the states have enacted
legislation or developed initiatives to stimulate the deployment of renewable
energy technologies, primarily to address their growing energy demands, adverse
environmental impacts, and their concern for a reliable, diversified energy
portfolio. As of 2006, (1) 39 states have established interconnection and net
metering rules that require electric power companies to connect renewable energy
sources to the power transmission grid and credit, for example, the monthly
electricity bill of residents with solar-electric systems when they generate more
power than they use; (2) 22 states have established renewable portfolio standards
requiring or encouraging that a fixed percentage of the state’s electricity be
generated from renewable energy sources; and (3) 45 states offer various tax
credits, grants, or loans. For example, renewable energy accounts for 3 percent of
Texas’ electricity consumption because Texas enacted legislation in 1999 and
2005 that created a renewable portfolio standard requiring electric utilities to meet
renewable energy capacity standards.
We identified six countries—Brazil, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Spain, and
France—that illustrate a range of financial initiatives and mandates to stimulate
the development and deployment of advanced renewable, fossil, and nuclear
energy technologies. Through mandates and incentives, Brazil initiated an ethanol
program in 1975 that eventually led to an end to Brazil’s dependence on imported
oil. Denmark focused on wind energy and, in 2005, derived 19 percent of its
electricity from wind energy. Germany began a more diversified renewable
energy approach in 2000 and has a goal to increase the share of renewable energy
78 Jim Wells
consumption to at least 50 percent by 2050. Japan subsidized the cost of

residential solar systems for 10 years, resulting in the installation of solar systems
on over 253,000 homes and the price of residential solar systems falling by more
than half. Spain hopes to lead the way for European Union investments in an
IGCC coal power plant, improving efficiency and generating fewer emissions
than conventional coal-fired plants. Finally, France has led Europe in nuclear
energy and plans to deploy new nuclear power plants within the next decade.
CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS
The United States remains the world’s largest oil consumer. In the wake of
increasing energy costs with the attendant threat to national security and the
growing recognition that fossil fuel consumption is contributing to global climate
change, the nation is once again assessing how best to stimulate the deployment
of advanced energy technologies. However, it is unlikely that DOE’s current level
of R and D funding or the nation’s current energy policies will be sufficient to
deploy advanced energy technologies in the next 25 years. Without sustained high
energy prices or concerted, high-profile federal government leadership, U.S.
consumers are unlikely to change their energy-use patterns, and the United States
will continue to rely upon its current energy portfolio. Specifically, government
leadership is needed to overcome technological and market barriers to deploying
advanced energy technologies that would reduce the nation’s vulnerability to oil
supply disruptions and adverse environmental effects of burning fossil fuels.
adverse environmental effects, our December 2006 report recommended that the
Congress consider further stimulating the development and deployment of a
diversified energy portfolio by focusing R and D funding on advanced energy
technologies.
CONTACTS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

For further information about this testimony, please contact me at (202) 512-
3841 or wellsj@gao.gov . Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Richard
Cheston, Robert Sanchez, and Kerry Lipsitz made key contributions to this
statement.
GAO’S MISSION
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
OBTAINING COPIES OF GAO REPORTS AND TESTIMONY

through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
select “Subscribe to Updates.”
ORDER BY MAIL OR PHONE


To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000
TDD: (202) 512-2537
Fax: (202) 512-6061
80 Jim Wells
TO REPORT FRAUD, WASTE, AND

ABUSE IN FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
D.C. 20548
PUBLIC AFFAIRS
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
Chapter 3
ADVANCED ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES:

BUDGET TRENDS AND CHALLENGES FOR
DOE’S ENERGY R AND D PROGRAM*
Mark E. Gaffigan
Acting Director Natural Resources and Environment
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the challenges that our nation faces in
meeting its future energy needs. The United States has primarily relied on market
forces to determine its energy portfolio. The market has generally succeeded in
providing us with plentiful, reliable, and inexpensive conventional fossil fuels—
oil, natural gas, and coal—to power our vehicles and run our homes and
businesses. However, as shown in figure 1, the nation’s energy portfolio today has
not dramatically changed since 1973. In 2006, fossil fuels accounted for 85
percent of the nation’s energy supply as compared with 93 percent in 1973—the
primary difference in the portfolio was the growth of nuclear power in the 1970s
and 1980s. Oil continues to account for 97 percent of the energy consumed for
transportation and fossil fuels continue to generate 71 percent of the nation’s
electricity; renewable energy grew slightly during this period to 7 percent of U.S.
energy consumption.
While conventional fossil fuels have provided us with relatively inexpensive
and plentiful energy, they present economic and national security risks and have
*
Excerpted from GAO Report GAO-08-556T, dated March 5, 2008.
82 Mark E. Gaffigan
adverse health and environmental impacts. For example, about two-thirds of the
oil we consume is imported, and supply constrictions have contributed to major
energy price shocks several times since 1973. More recently, decreased domestic
production and increased world consumption of oil have pushed prices upward,
nearly doubling the amount American consumers have paid for oil in just the past
3 years. In addition, DOE projects that U.S. transportation demand will increase
by 31 percent and U.S. electricity demand will increase by 35 percent by 2030.
Furthermore, emissions from the conventional burning of fossil fuels have
contributed to health problems––about 50 percent of Americans live in areas
where levels of one or more air pollutants are high enough to affect public health.
Also, the combustion of fossil fuels account for most of the greenhouse gas
emissions––particularly carbon dioxide––that have been linked to global
warming.
Since its inception in 1977, the Department of Energy (DOE) has had
leadership responsibility for energy research, development, and demonstration (R
and D) to deploy advanced renewable, fossil, and nuclear technologies. DOE’s
energy R and D goal is to develop technologies for meeting future energy
demands, addressing health and environmental issues, and diversifying the
nation’s energy portfolio.[1] During the past 30 years, DOE has spent about $57.5
billion for R and D in renewable, fossil, and nuclear technologies. In addition,
DOE’s Office of Science has spent about $34.3 billion from fiscal year 2000
through fiscal year 2008 on related basic energy research in such areas as high
energy and nuclear physics, basic energy sciences, and fusion energy.
Advanced Energy Technologies: Budget Trends and Challenges… 83
DOE’s fiscal year 2009 budget requests $1.8 billion for renewable, fossil, and
nuclear energy R and D and $4.7 billion for the Office of Science. In addition,
several other federal agencies perform R and D to develop advanced energy
technologies. For example, the Department of Agriculture funds R and D on
ethanol and biodiesel production and energy crops that maximize ethanol
production. The Department of Defense is the nation’s largest consumer of
transportation fuels, spending $13.6 billion on energy in fiscal year 2006. The
Department of Defense is conducting R and D—some of it in collaboration with
DOE—to develop alternative fuels to displace oil. One Air Force program has
already certified a new fuel for the B-52 bomber, a 50/50 blend of the standard
oil-based JP-8 jet fuel and a new synthetic fuel currently derived from natural gas
that may be derived from biomass in the future.
In addition to R and D funding, the federal government can attempt to tap the
vast resources of the private sector through tax incentives, such as tax credits to
companies that make certain types of energy investments. These tax
preferences—which are legally known as tax expenditures—result in forgone
revenue for the federal government. The revenue losses can be viewed as
spending channeled through the tax system. The federal government provides the
energy industry and consumers with 20 tax expenditures affecting energy supply,
totaling $6.3 billion in fiscal year 2007 and $4.9 billion in fiscal year 2008.[2]
While the tax subsidies were historically directed toward the conventional energy
sector, they have also been directed toward stimulating the deployment of
advanced energy technologies.[3] For example, the Energy Policy Act of 2005
provided a (1) 2-year extension of the production tax credit for renewable
technologies, (2) new investment tax credit of up to $1.3 billion for constructing
new clean-coal power plants, and (3) new production tax credit of 1.8 cents per
kilowatt-hour for up to 6,000 megawatts of new nuclear power capacity lasting 8
years after each qualifying nuclear reactor begins service. The Energy Policy Act
of 2005 also authorized DOE to implement a new loan guarantee program for
energy projects that decrease air pollutants or greenhouse gases, employ new or
significantly improved technologies, and have a reasonable prospect of
repayment. In February 2007, the Congress authorized DOE to guarantee loans of
up to $4 billion.[4] In December 2007, the Congress directed DOE to make loan
guarantees of up to $38.5 billion in fiscal years 2008 and 2009.[5]
Moreover, the federal government can enact standards and mandates that
could impact the nation’s energy portfolio. For example, the federal government
has recently revised the renewable fuels standards to require the use of 36 billion
gallons of biofuels by 2022.[6] For electricity, the Congress has considered
renewable portfolio standards that require a percentage of electricity be generated
84 Mark E. Gaffigan
from renewable sources. Consideration has also been given to either a carbon tax
or a carbon cap and trade program to reduce the environmental impact of carbon
emissions and to better enable the market to compare total costs of conventional
fossil energy sources with advanced energy technologies. Many states and foreign
governments have enacted energy portfolio standards, mandates, and financial
incentives to stimulate the deployment of renewable energy technologies that
address their growing energy needs and environmental concerns. In particular, 29
states have established renewable portfolio standards requiring or encouraging
that a fixed percentage of the state’s electricity be generated from renewable
sources. For example, in response to the Texas renewable portfolio standard’s
requirement that 5,880 megawatts of renewable capacity be installed by 2015,
electric power companies had installed over 1,900 megawatts of new renewable
capacity by September 2006—about 3 percent of Texas’ total electricity
consumption. Similarly, to develop a sustainable energy supply and protect the
environment, Germany established a goal to increase the share of renewable
energy consumption to at least 4.2 percent of its total energy requirements by
2010 and 10 percent by 2020.
Within this broader context, I will discuss today (1) funding trends for DOE’s
renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy R and D programs and its Office of Science
and (2) key challenges in developing and deploying advanced energy
technologies. My remarks are primarily based on our December 2006 report on
key challenges to developing and deploying advanced technologies for using
renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy.[7] I will also highlight findings from our
recent reports on DOE’s R and D for oil and natural gas and the Hydrogen Fuel
Initiative.[8] We conducted our work for these reports from October 2005 through
December 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained
provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives.
In summary, DOE’s budget authority for renewable, fossil, and nuclear
energy R and D dropped by 92 percent (in inflation-adjusted terms) between fiscal
years 1978 and 1998 before bouncing back in part during the past 10 years.
Specifically, DOE’s budget authority for renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy R
and D of about $6 billion was near its high point in fiscal year 1978, when the
nation faced severe energy crises. DOE’s budget authority subsequently declined
in the 1980s and 1990s as energy prices returned to historical levels reaching its
lowest level in fiscal year 1998 at $505 million (in inflation-adjusted terms). Since
then, DOE’s budget authority for renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy R and D
has increased to $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2008. The Office of Science’s budget
authority also grew by 16 percent from fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2008.
Further development and deployment of advanced renewable, fossil and
nuclear energy technologies faces three key challenges. First, there are
technology-specific challenges. For example, high-wind sites have generally been
developed using current wind turbine technology. To further expand the use of
wind energy, DOE is working with industry to develop new wind turbine designs
and materials that exploit low-wind and offshore sites. Second, there are cost
challenges. These advanced energy technologies often face high up-front capital
costs and the need to improve operating efficiency so they can better compete
with conventional energy technologies. The nuclear industry, for example,
projects that new nuclear power plants will likely cost between $4 billion and $6
billion each, about twice the cost of comparable conventional coal power plants.
Finally, these technologies face challenges in addressing emerging concerns
related to public health and the environment. For example, DOE is working with
electric power companies to demonstrate coal gasification and carbon
sequestration technologies designed to enable coal plants to reduce carbon dioxide
and mercury emissions.
DOE’S BUDGET AUTHORITY FOR RENEWABLE, FOSSIL, AND

NUCLEAR ENERGY R AND D HAS SUBSTANTIALLY
DECLINED IN REAL TERMS SINCE 1978
dropped by 92 percent from $6 billion in fiscal year 1978 to $505 million in fiscal
year 1998 (in inflation-adjusted terms) before bouncing back to $1.4 billion in
fiscal year 2008. As shown in figure 2, R and D budget authority in renewable,
fossil, and nuclear energy peaked in the late 1970s and fell sharply in the 1980s.
Since fiscal year 1998, R and D budget authority for renewable and nuclear
energy R and D have grown, while fossil energy R and D funding has fluctuated
in response to coal program initiatives.
Nuclear energy R and D, which received no funding in fiscal year 1998,
experienced the largest increase, rising to $438 million in fiscal year 2008. During
this period, budget authority for renewable energy increased by 89 percent and
fossil energy increased by 116 percent. A comparison of DOE’s fiscal year 2009
budget request with the fiscal year 2008 appropriation shows that renewable
86 Mark E. Gaffigan
energy R and D would decline slightly, while fossil energy R and D and nuclear
energy R and D would increase by 34 percent and 44 percent, respectively (see
app. I).

Note: Budget authority is in real terms, adjusted to fiscal year 2008 dollars to account
for inflation. The budget data focuses on development of advanced energy
technologies and excludes such R and D areas as Vehicle Technologies because
its focus is improving the energy efficiency of vehicles.
Years 1978-2008.
As shown in figure 3, budget authority for the Office of Science increased by

16 percent from $3.4 billion in fiscal year 2000 to $4 billion in fiscal year 2008.
The budget request for the Office of Science for fiscal year 2009 is $4.7 billion, a
19-percent increase over the fiscal year 2008 appropriation. Because the Office of
Science funds basic research in materials sciences, for example, many of its R and
D programs may have useful applications for energy R and D. In fiscal year 2009,
the Office of Science has requested $69.1 million for research related to the solar
energy R and D program, $42.9 million related to biomass R and D, and $60.4
million for the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. The Office of Science also funds
fundamental research in such areas as high energy physics, nuclear physics, and
fusion energy.
Source: GAO.
inflation.
Figure 3. DOE’s Budget Authority for Office of Science, Fiscal Years 2000-2008.
DOE FACES KEY CHALLENGES IN DEVELOPING ADVANCED

ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES FOR DEPLOYMENT
There are key technical, cost, and environmental challenges in developing
advanced renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy technologies to address future
energy challenges.
DOE’s R and D Challenges for Advanced

Renewable Energy Technologies
DOE’s recent R and D focus in renewable energy has been in (1) biomass-
derived ethanol, (2) hydrogen-powered fuel cells, (3) wind technologies, and (4)
solar technologies. The primary focus of ethanol and hydrogen R and D is to
displace oil in the transportation sector. The primary focus of wind and solar
technologies is to generate electricity. DOE also conducts R and D on geothermal
and hydropower to generate electricity, but they have reflected a small proportion
of the R and D budget in prior years and are not discussed here.
Biomass-derived ethanol. DOE’s short-term R and D goal is to help meet the
administration’s “20 in 10” goal of substituting 20 percent of gasoline
88 Mark E. Gaffigan
consumption in 10 years with alternative fuels, primarily biomass-derived ethanol.

DOE’s longer-term R and D goal is to develop new technologies to allow the
ethanol industry to expand enough to displace 30 percent of gasoline
requirements—about 60 billion gallons—by 2030. In 2007, industry produced
over 7 billion gallons of ethanol, displacing about 3 percent of the nation’s oil
consumption.[9] Ethanol, however, faces high production and infrastructure costs,
creating challenges in competing with gasoline nationally.[10] Ethanol refiners in
the United States rely mostly on corn as a feedstock, the use of which has
contributed to price increases for some food products, and ethanol’s corrosive
properties create challenges in developing an infrastructure for delivering and
dispensing it. DOE’s R and D focuses on (1) developing a more sustainable and
competitive feedstock than corn, primarily by exploring technologies to use
cellulosic biomass from, for example, agricultural residues or fast-growing
grasses and trees; (2) reducing the cost of producing cellulosic ethanol to $1.33
per gallon by 2012 and $1.20 per gallon by 2017; (3) converting biomass to
biofuels through both biochemical and thermochemical processes to help the
industry expand; (4) contributing to a strategy to develop a national biofuels
infrastructure, including demonstration projects for integrated biorefineries to
develop multiple biomass-related products; and (5) promoting market-oriented
activities to accelerate the deployment of biomass technologies. Although DOE
has made progress in reducing ethanol production costs, cellulosic ethanol in
2007—based on current corn prices—still cost about 50 percent more to produce
than corn ethanol.
Hydrogen-powered fuel cells. The long-term R and D goal of DOE’s
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative is to provide hydrogen fuel cell technologies to industry
by 2015 to enable industry to commercialize them by 2020. To be
commercialized, hydrogen fuel cell technologies must be competitive with
gasoline vehicles in terms of price, convenience, safety, and durability. Hydrogen
is the preferred fuel for vehicle fuel cells because of the ease with which it can be
converted to electricity and its ability to combine with oxygen to emit only water
and heat as byproducts. Let me clarify, however, that hydrogen is not an energy
source, but, like electricity, is an energy carrier. Furthermore, because hydrogen is
lighter than air, it does not exist on earth and must be extracted from common
compounds. Producing hydrogen through the extraction process requires energy
from renewable, fossil, or nuclear sources, adding to the challenge of developing
hydrogen technologies. Our January 2008 report concluded that DOE has made
important progress in developing hydrogen fuel cells, but the program has set very
ambitious targets and some of the most difficult technical challenges––those that
require significant scientific advances––lie ahead. Specifically, R and D for
vehicles includes reducing the cost of commercial-scale manufacturing of fuel

cells by nearly fourfold, storing enough hydrogen on board a fuel-cell vehicle to
enable a 300-mile driving range, and increasing the durability of fuel cells by
more than threefold to match the 150,000 mile life-span of gasoline vehicles.
DOE also conducts R and D on stationary and portable fuel cells which could be
used, for example, to replace batteries on fork lifts and diesel generators used for
back-up power. We recommended that DOE update its overarching R and D plan
to reflect the technologies it reasonably expects to provide to industry by 2015 to
accurately reflect progress made by the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, the challenges it
faces, and its anticipated R and D funding needs. I would also note that
developing the supporting infrastructure to deploy the technologies nationally will
likely take decades, tens of billions of dollars in investments, and continued R and
D well beyond the 2015 target date.
DOE’s fiscal year 2009 budget request would reduce funding for the
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative by 17 percent from $283.5 million in fiscal year 2008 to
$236 million in fiscal year 2009. The budget also proposes to increase the
proportion of longer-term R and D by increasing the funding for basic research.
Although the Hydrogen Program Manager told us that funding is sufficient to
meet target dates for critical technologies, other target dates for supporting
technologies—such as hydrogen production from renewable sources—would be
pushed back.
Wind technologies. DOE is assessing its long-term vision of generating 20
percent of the nation’s electricity using wind energy by 2030. Its current R and D
efforts, however, are focused on more immediate expansion of the wind industry,
particularly on utility-scale wind turbines. More specifically, DOE has focused its
R and D efforts on improving the cost, performance, and reliability of large scale,
land-based wind turbines, including both high- and low-wind technologies;
developing small and mid-size turbines for distributed energy applications, such
as for residential or remote agricultural uses; and gathering information on more
efficient uses of the electricity grid and on barriers to deploying wind technology
and providing that information to key national, state, and local decision-makers to
assist with market expansion of wind technologies.[11] For example, one of
DOE’s targets is to increase the number of distributed wind turbines deployed in
the United States from 2,400 in 2007 to 12,000 in 2015. Although wind energy
has grown in recent years, from about 1,800 megawatts in 1996 to over 16,800
megawatts in 2007, the wind industry still faces investors’ concerns about high
up-front capital costs, including connecting the wind farms to the power
transmission grid.
90 Mark E. Gaffigan
Solar technologies. DOE’s R and D goal is for solar power to be unsubsidized

and cost competitive with conventional technologies by 2015 by, for example,
developing new thin-film photovoltaic technologies using less expensive
semiconductor material than crystalline-silicon to reduce the manufacturing cost
of solar cells. Specifically, DOE is working to reduce the costs of photovoltaic
systems from about 18-23 cents per kilowatt hour in 2005 to about 5-10 cents per
kilowatt hour in 2015. DOE is also conducting R and D to reduce the cost and
improve the reliability of concentrating solar power technologies, which use
various mirror configurations to convert the sun’s energy to heat to generate
electricity. In addition, DOE has expanded R and D to address low-cost thermal
storage to allow solar thermal systems to be more valuable to utility grid power
markets. Along these lines, both the photovoltaic and concentrated solar power
activities have ramped up efforts in the areas of grid integration and reliability to
facilitate the transition to larger scale, centralized solar electric power plants.
Investors’ concerns about high up-front capital costs are among the most
significant challenges in deploying photovoltaic or concentrating solar energy
technologies. This requires both technologies to have lower costs for installation
and operations and maintenance, better efficiency of converting solar power to
electricity, and longer-term (20 to 30 years) durability.

Fossil Energy Technologies
Since fiscal year 2006, DOE has proposed eliminating its R and D in oil and
natural gas and, in January 2008, announced a restructuring of its coal R and D
program.
Increased Oil Production

Since fiscal year 2006, DOE has proposed to terminate its oil R and D. In
November 2007, we reported that DOE has focused its R and D on increasing
domestic production primarily by improving exploration technologies, extending
the life of current oil reservoirs, developing drilling technology to tap into deep oil
deposits, and addressing environmental protection. DOE officials stated that if the
oil R and D program continues, it would focus on such areas as enhanced oil
recovery technologies and expanding production from independent producers.
Independent producers account for about 68 percent of domestic oil production.
Natural Gas Technologies

Since fiscal year 2006, DOE has proposed to terminate its natural gas R and
D.[12] Our November 2007 report noted that DOE’s R and D focuses on
improving exploration technologies, reducing the environmental impact of natural
gas operations, developing drilling technology to tap into deep gas reservoirs, and
developing the technology for tapping into natural gas in naturally occurring
methane hydrate found in permafrost regions on land and beneath the ocean floor.
Clean coal technologies. DOE’s R and D goal is to reduce harmful power
plant emissions to “near-zero” levels by 2020. For new power plant applications,
DOE is developing and demonstrating advanced integrated gasification combined
cycle (IGCC) technologies. In 2003, DOE announced plans to construct a near-
zero emissions commercial scale R and D facility called FutureGen with an
alliance of coal mining and coal-based electric generating companies. DOE had
originally pledged about three-quarters of the estimated $1 billion cost of the
FutureGen project (in constant fiscal year 2004 dollars). With escalation costs and
rising price of materials and labor, the estimated project costs rose to nearly $1.8
billion. As a result, DOE announced in January 2008 that it is restructuring
FutureGen to focus on multiple, competitively selected projects that demonstrate
carbon capture and sequestration at commercially viable power plant project sites.
The impact of DOE’s restructuring on FutureGen at this time is not known, but an
industry official from the FutureGen Alliance noted that the project cannot go
forward without federal government assistance. Separate from the FutureGen
project, DOE also conducts R and D on near-zero emission power plants—
including carbon capture and sequestration—through its fuels and power systems
programs and its Clean Coal Power Initiative.

Nuclear Energy Technologies
DOE has focused nuclear energy R and D in the following three areas:
• The Nuclear Power 2010 program focuses on reducing regulatory and

technical barriers to deploying advanced “Generation III” nuclear power
reactors, which are designed to be more efficient than currently operating
reactors. Because over the past 30 years, no electric power company had
applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to construct
a new nuclear reactor, Nuclear Power 2010 shares the costs with industry
of preparing early site permits and or construction and operating license
92 Mark E. Gaffigan
applications for submission to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Nuclear Power 2010 also regulates the risk insurance authorized by the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 that protects industry from certain regulatory
delays during licensing and construction.
• The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program––an extension of the
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative––develops proliferation-resistant nuclear
fuel cycles that maximizes energy output and minimizes waste.
Specifically, the program is designed to reduce the threat of global
nuclear proliferation by developing advanced technologies for
reprocessing spent nuclear fuel in the 2030 time frame. One of the critical
elements of this effort is to develop a sodium-cooled fast reactor designed
to burn a wide variety of nuclear fuels to reduce the total amount,
temperature, and radiotoxicity of the spent fuel that might otherwise have
to be stored for thousands of years in a repository.
• Beginning in fiscal year 2008, the Generation IV Program is focusing
solely on the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP), designed as a
versatile, efficient, high-temperature reactor capable of generating
electricity and producing hydrogen. DOE collaborates with 12 other
international partners on R and D related to fuels, materials, and design
methodologies as part of the Generation IV International Forum.
CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS
In the current wake of higher energy costs and the growing recognition that
fossil energy consumption is contributing to global climate change, the nation is
once again assessing how best to stimulate the deployment of advanced energy
technologies. While still considerably below its peak in the late 1970s, DOE’s
budget authority for renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy R and D has rebounded
to $1.4 billion during the past 10 years after hitting a low point in fiscal year
1998. However, despite DOE’s energy R and D funding of $57.5 billion over the
last 30 years, the nation’s energy portfolio remains heavily reliant on fossil fuels.
Many technical, cost and environmental challenges must be overcome in
developing and demonstrating advanced technologies before they can be deployed
in the U.S. market. Our December 2006 report suggested that the Congress
consider further stimulating the development and deployment of a diversified
energy portfolio by focusing R and D funding on advanced energy technologies.
However, because it is unlikely that DOE’s energy R and D funding alone will be
sufficient to significantly diversify the nation’s energy portfolio, coordinating
energy R and D with other federal programs, policies, incentives, standards, and
mandates that can impact the nation’s energy portfolio will be important for
targeting any desired goals to change the nation’s energy portfolio. In addition,
state and local governments and other nations, along with a worldwide private
sector, will play a role in developing and deploying advanced energy technologies
both here and throughout the global energy market. A key factor to any
sustainable deployment of advanced energy technologies will be to make them
cost competitive, while addressing technical and environmental challenges, so that
the market can support a more diversified portfolio. Otherwise, without sustained
higher energy prices for our current portfolio, or concerted, high-profile federal
government leadership, U.S. consumers are unlikely to change their energy-use
patterns, and the U.S. energy portfolio will not significantly change.
APPENDIX I: COMPARISON OF DOE’S FISCAL YEAR 2008

APPROPRIATIONS WITH ITS FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET
REQUEST
(Millions of dollars)
Fiscal year
Program 2008 Fiscal year 2009 Percentage
appropriation budget request change
Energy Efficiency and Renewable
a
Energy
Biomass and Biorefinery Systems $198.2 $225.0 14
Solar 168.5 156.1 (7)
Wind 49.5 52.5 6
Geothermal 19.8 30.0 51
Water Power 9.9 3.0 (70)
Hydrogen Technology (Hydrogen Fuel
b
Initiative) 94.5 66.9 (29)
Subtotal $540.4 $533.5 (1)
Fossil Energy
Oil 5.0 0.0 (100)
Natural gas 19.8 0.0 (100)
Coal
Clean Coal Power Initiative 69.4 85.0 22
FutureGen 74.3 156.0 110
Fuels and Power Systems 324.9 372.7 15
b
Fuels (Hydrogen Fuel Initiative) 24.8 10.0 (60)
Clean Coal Technology (58.0) 0 (100)
Cooperative R and D 5.0 0 (100)
Subtotal $465.2 $623.7 34
94 Mark E. Gaffigan
(Continued).
c
Nuclear energy
Nuclear Power 2010 133.8 241.6 81
d
Generation IV 114.9 70.0 (39)
(Millions of dollars)
Program Fiscal year
2008 Fiscal year 2009 Percentage
appropriation budget request change
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative/ Global
d
Nuclear Energy Partnership 179.4 301.5 68
Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative
b
(Hydrogen Fuel Initiative) 9.9 16.6 68
Subtotal $438.0 $629.7 44
Office of Science
High energy physics 689.3 805.0 17
Nuclear physics 432.7 510.1 18
Biological and environmental research 544.4 568.5 4
Basic energy sciences 1,269.9 1,568.2 23
Advanced scientific computing
research
351.2 368.8 5
Fusion energy sciences program 286.5 493.1 72
Science laboratories infrastructure 66.9 110.3 65
Safeguards and security 75.9 80.6 6
Science program direction 177.8 203.9 15
Workforce development for teachers
and scientists
8.0 13.6 70
Congressionally directed projects 123.6 0 (100)
Small business innovation research 0 0 0
Use of prior year balances and other
adjustments
(53.2) 0
Subtotal $3,973.0 $4,722.1 19
Total $5,416.6 $6,509.0 20
Source: DOE.
Note: Dollar amounts for the fiscal year 2009 budget request are not adjusted for inflation.
Differences may exist due to rounding.
a
Excludes budget authority for Vehicle Technologies, which includes the FreedomCAR
and Fuel Partnership and the 21st Century Truck Partnership. The Vehicle
Technologies R and D program focuses on improving the energy efficiency of
vehicles by developing lightweight materials, advanced batteries, power electronics,
and electric motors for hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles, and advanced combustion
engines and fuels.
b
The Hydrogen Fuel Initiative is funded separately through DOE’s Offices of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, and Science and
the Department of Transportation. In addition to Hydrogen Technology R and D,
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy funds Fuel Cell Technology R and D,
which historically has been an energy efficiency program. The fiscal year 2008
appropriation for Fuel Cell Technology R and D is $116.6 million, and DOE’s request
for fiscal year 2009 is $79.3 million The Hydrogen Fuel Initiative received a total of
$283.5 million in budget authority in fiscal year 2008; the administration is requesting
$236 million for the initiative in fiscal year 2009. During fiscal year 2008, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy transferred some of the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative
activities to its Vehicle Technologies R and D program.
c
Excludes the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, which received $278.8 million in
fiscal year 2008. DOE is requesting $487 million for fiscal year 2009.
d
During fiscal year 2008, R and D on the sodium-cooled fast reactor was transferred from
the Generation IV program to the Accelerated Fuel Cycle Initiative/Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership Program.
CONTACTS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

For further information about this testimony, please contact me at (202) 512-
3841 or gaffiganm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Richard
Cheston, Robert Sanchez, Kerry Lipsitz, MaryLynn Sergent, and Anne Stevens
made key contributions to this statement.
GAO’S MISSION
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
OBTAINING COPIES OF GAO REPORTS AND TESTIMONY

through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
96 Mark E. Gaffigan
select “E-mail Updates.”
ORDER BY MAIL OR PHONE


Washington, DC 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000
TDD: (202) 512-2537
Fax: (202) 512-6061
TO REPORT FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE

IN FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system:
(800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
Washington, DC 20548
PUBLIC AFFAIRS
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 U.S.
DC 20548
REFERENCES
[1] DOE is also responsible for energy efficiency programs, which are integral
to addressing future energy challenges by reducing demand.
[2] Summing of tax expenditure estimates does not take into account
interactions between individual provisions.
[3] The alternative fuels production credit, the largest energy-related tax credit,
is a tax credit of $3 per oil equivalent barrel (in 1979 dollars) for gas
produced from biomass or synthetic fuels produced from coal.
[4] See Pub. L. No. 110-5 (2007).
[5] This direction appears in an explanatory statement to Pub. L. No. 110-161
(2007), published by the House of Representatives.
[6] Pub. L. No. 110-140 (2007).
[7] GAO, Department of Energy: Key Challenges Remain for Developing and
Deploying Advanced Energy Technologies to Meet Future Needs, GAO-07-
106, (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 20, 2006).
[8] GAO, Department of Energy: Oil and Natural Gas Research and
Development Activities, GAO-08-190R , (Washington, D.C.,: Nov. 6, 2007)
and GAO, Hydrogen Fuel Initiative: DOE Has Made Important Progress
and Involved Stakeholders but Needs to Update What It Expects to Achieve
by Its 2015 Target, GAO-08-305 , (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 11, 2008).
[9] Biodiesel, electricity from batteries, and other technologies also contribute
to the displacement of oil. DOE’s R and D efforts also include, among other
things, liquid fuels from biomass and plug-in hybrid vehicles.
[10] See GAO, Biofuels: DOE Lacks a Strategic Approach to Coordinate
Increasing Production with Infrastructure Development and Vehicle Needs,
GAO-07-713 , (Washington, D.C.: June 8, 2007).
[11] DOE continues to perform R and D on off-shore wind technologies as well.
[12] In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided for commercialization
of exploration and production technologies for ultra-deepwater and
unconventional natural gas and other petroleum through fiscal year 2014
and authorized the use of $50 million per year from federal oil and gas lease
income for 11 years.
INDEX
appendix, 52
application, 23, 24, 34
A appropriations, 5, 11, 54
assessment, 35
access, 46, 49, 55
atmosphere, 32, 33
accidents, 39
Atomic Energy Act, 67
accountability, 63, 79, 95
Atomic Energy Commission, 37
accuracy, 54, 55
attacks, 9, 66
administration, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 32,
auditing, 6, 56, 84
87, 95
authority, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 49, 54,
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, 1, 24, 92,
64, 70, 71, 72, 73, 84, 85, 86, 87, 92,
94
94, 95
aerospace, 19
availability, 31
aesthetics, 31
awareness, 35
afternoon, 63, 79, 96
agricultural, 3, 7, 16, 27, 45, 73, 75, 88, 89
agricultural residue, 3, 7, 16, 73, 75, 88 B
air, 10, 20, 32, 58, 59, 65, 82, 83, 88
air pollutant, 20, 82, 83 barrier, 7, 30, 39
air pollutants, 20, 82, 83 barriers, 5, 6, 26, 33, 50, 55, 70, 78, 89, 91
air pollution, 65 base case, 37, 38
air quality, 58, 59 basic research, 86, 89
alcohol, 54 batteries, 89, 94, 97
alternative, 2, 13, 18, 26, 50, 65, 70, 83, binding, 11
88, 97 biodiesel, 4, 53, 83
alternative energy, 2, 50, 70 biofuels, 16, 47, 73, 83, 88
alternatives, vii biomass, 3, 7, 13, 16, 26, 27, 28, 41, 47,
amendments, 20 59, 65, 73, 75, 83, 86, 87, 88, 97
American Association for the biomass materials, 7
Advancement of Science, 13 biorefinery, 16, 28
American Jobs Creation Act, 4 birds, 30
100 Index
blackouts, 30 commercialization, 23, 97

blends, 45, 59 communication, 66
bonds, 52, 53 communities, 48
Brazil, 6, 8, 44, 45, 51, 56, 71, 77 community, 30, 54
Brazilian, 45 competition, 30
buildings, 60 competitiveness, 19
burn, 21, 92 compliance, 59
burning, 21, 26, 27, 45, 50, 52, 66, 70, 78, components, 17, 29, 76
82 compounds, 88
bust, 31, 76 concrete, 66
confidence, 23, 45, 67
configuration, 21, 76
C Congress, iv, 3, 9, 13, 23, 51, 63, 70, 78,
79, 83, 92, 95
capacity, 5, 8, 9, 23, 26, 29, 31, 36, 37, 38,
Connecticut, 56, 58
42, 46, 47, 49, 58, 59, 60, 61, 71, 75,
consensus, 46
77, 83, 84
conservation, 54
capital cost, 7, 26, 27, 30, 31, 34, 35, 50,
constraints, 6, 12
53, 70, 73, 75, 76, 85, 89, 90
construction, 5, 7, 24, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36,
carbon, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 21, 22, 29, 32, 33,
37, 38, 39, 44, 48, 49, 50, 54, 66, 67,
37, 38, 45, 46, 47, 50, 58, 66, 67, 69,
75, 76, 91
70, 74, 75, 76, 77, 82, 84, 85, 91
consumers, 4, 7, 9, 10, 28, 41, 45, 46, 50,
carbon dioxide, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 21, 22, 32,
60, 78, 82, 83, 93
33, 37, 46, 47, 50, 67, 69, 70, 74, 75,
consumption, 2, 3, 8, 27, 33, 42, 45, 46,
76, 82, 85
47, 51, 56, 58, 60, 71, 72, 77, 78, 81,
carbon emissions, 37, 45, 66, 84
82, 84, 88, 92
carbon monoxide, 21, 58
consumption patterns, 56
carrier, 88
contamination, 16, 65
cats, 66
contracts, 36
cell, 16, 19, 61, 66, 88
control, 70
cellulose, 27
conversion, 19, 21
cellulosic, 16, 27, 73, 75, 88
cooling, 18, 65, 74
cellulosic ethanol, 16, 27, 88
corn, 7, 16, 27, 58, 73, 88
centralized, 67, 90
corporations, 57
classification, 54
corrosive, 28, 75, 88
Clean Air Act, 20, 21, 65
cost-effective, 3, 17, 20, 27, 30, 75
Clean Coal Power Initiative, 91, 93
costs, vii, 4, 6, 7, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19,
clean-energy, 41
24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35,
climate change, 21, 33, 59
36, 37, 38, 41, 44, 46, 50, 52, 53, 70,
coal, vii, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20,
73, 75, 76, 78, 84, 85, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92
21, 22, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 43, 44, 48,
costs of manufacturing, 29
50, 52, 53, 59, 65, 66, 69, 70, 72, 74,
cost-sharing, 33
75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 90, 91, 97
covering, 48, 54, 55
collaboration, 83
credit, 5, 8, 13, 28, 31, 36, 40, 41, 50, 52,
collisions, 66
53, 54, 57, 60, 65, 66, 76, 77, 83, 97
combustion, 19, 21, 82, 94
Index 101
crops, 16, 27, 73, 83 electric power transmission, 7

crude oil, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 12, 33, 45, 50, 51, electric utilities, 77
64, 69, 72, 78 electrical power, 16
crystalline, 18, 29, 30, 76, 90 electrical system, 46
cycles, 24, 92 electricity, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18,
19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 29, 30, 33, 36,
37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47,
D 48, 49, 58, 59, 60, 61, 66, 67, 69, 71,
72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 81, 82, 83, 87, 88,
database, 44, 55
89, 90, 92, 97
death, 30
electricity system, 46, 60
deaths, 64, 66
embargo, 12
decisions, 50, 63, 71, 79, 95
emission, 32, 47, 91
deduction, 52, 54
energy consumption, 8, 47, 72, 78, 81, 84,
defense, 67
92
delivery, 19
energy efficiency, 10, 15, 43, 54, 58, 64,
demand, 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 16, 27, 40, 42, 50,
86, 94, 95, 97
51, 59, 60, 64, 67, 73, 78, 82, 97
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
density, 33
93, 94
Department of Agriculture, 27, 83
Energy Information Administration, 1, 2,
Department of Defense, 83
56
Department of Energy, v, vii, 1, 2, 54, 62,
energy markets, 18
70, 82, 97
Energy Policy Act, 4, 11, 23, 27, 31, 36,
Department of Energy (DOE), vii, 2, 70,
43, 50, 65, 66, 83, 92, 97
82
Energy Policy Act of 2005, 4, 11, 23, 27,
Department of Transportation, 94
31, 36, 43, 50, 65, 66, 83, 92, 97
deposits, 23, 90
energy supply, 8, 10, 81, 83, 84
diesel, 53, 89
engines, 94
discretionary, 10
entitlement programs, 10
discretionary spending, 10
environment, 8, 37, 40, 46, 53, 84, 85
displacement, 97
environmental conditions, 35
distribution, 28, 30, 51, 53, 75
environmental effects, 9, 20, 50, 51, 78
draft, 35, 51
environmental impact, 4, 35, 69, 76, 77,
durability, 88, 90
82, 84, 91
duration, 31, 50
environmental issues, 35, 82
environmental protection, 90
E Environmental Protection Agency, 1, 20
enzymes, 27
earth, 65, 88 EPA, 1, 20, 21, 28, 32, 53, 58, 59, 65
economic development, 40 equipment, 10, 40, 53, 57
economic incentives, 44 ethanol, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 16, 27, 28, 42, 44, 45,
economics, 23 51, 54, 55, 58, 59, 65, 71, 73, 75, 77,
electric power, 4, 7, 12, 14, 16, 32, 34, 35, 83, 87
40, 41, 46, 58, 67, 74, 76, 77, 84, 85, excise tax, 28, 54
90, 91 exclusion, 54
102 Index
expenditures, 5, 10, 12, 13, 52, 53, 54, 64, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 59, 65, 66, 67, 70,
83 73, 74, 76, 78, 83, 87, 88, 92
expert, iv fuel cell, 15, 16, 19, 53, 66, 87, 88
exposure, 65 fuel cycle, 24, 25, 92
externalities, 4 funding, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18,
extraction, 23, 39, 88 19, 20, 22, 23, 28, 32, 40, 42, 49, 50,
extraction process, 88 51, 54, 58, 61, 63, 70, 71, 74, 75, 78,
79, 83, 84, 85, 89, 92, 95
funds, 14, 23, 28, 63, 66, 75, 79, 83, 86, 95
F fusion, 82, 86
FutureGen, 22, 74, 91, 93
failure, 29
farmland, 27
farms, 17, 31, 46 G
fatalities, 31, 76
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, GAO, v, 1, 10, 14, 15, 41, 51, 52, 53, 57,
53 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 69, 71, 72, 73, 79,
federal government, 10, 11, 23, 50, 63, 64, 81, 82, 86, 87, 95, 96, 97
78, 79, 83, 91, 93, 95 gas, vii, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 19, 20, 21, 22,
feedstock, 27, 88 25, 26, 28, 32, 36, 37, 38, 43, 45, 48,
feet, 17, 23, 37 50, 52, 53, 59, 65, 66, 69, 72, 77, 81,
fertilizer, 19, 26, 27 83, 84, 90, 91, 93, 97
fiber, 29 gas turbine, 21
film, 18, 29, 74, 76, 90 gas-cooled, 25, 26
finance, 30 gases, 21, 32
financial support, 47 gasification, 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 14, 21, 22, 32,
financing, 37, 38 33, 44, 70, 74, 75, 76, 85, 91
fire, 4, 6, 7, 12, 21, 32, 35, 44, 50, 66, 76 gasoline, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 16, 26, 27, 28, 42,
fish, 20 45, 51, 58, 59, 65, 69, 73, 75, 87, 88
fission, 25 gauge, 64
flex, 16, 28, 45, 73 general fund, 43, 58
focusing, 9, 51, 74, 76, 78, 92 generation, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 20, 21, 24,
food, 27, 73, 88 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37, 41, 43, 47, 49,
food products, 88 50, 51, 58, 61, 74
football, 37 generators, 46, 60, 61, 89
forecasting, 33 geophysical, 53
fossil, vii, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 20, 21, Georgia, 56
26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 40, 43, 44, 50, 54, geothermal, 3, 6, 10, 12, 16, 19, 87
56, 59, 69, 70, 72, 74, 76, 77, 78, 81, geothermal wells, 19
82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 92 global climate change, 78, 92
fossil fuel, vii, 9, 27, 30, 31, 32, 50, 59, 69, Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, 1, 25,
70, 78, 81, 92 74, 92, 94, 95
fossil fuels, vii, 9, 27, 50, 59, 69, 70, 78, Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
81, 92 (GNEP), 25
fuel, vii, 6, 7, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 24, 25, global warming, 4, 7, 11, 21, 32, 69, 76,
27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 37, 38, 39, 45, 82
Index 103
GNEP, 1, 25, 26, 49, 74 hydrothermal, 19

goals, 19, 21, 22, 25, 28, 32, 43, 58, 93
government, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 23, 33, 40, 45,
47, 48, 49, 50, 55, 56, 60, 63, 64, 67, I
71, 78, 79, 83, 84, 91, 93, 95
ice, 17
Government Accountability Office, 63, 64,
importer, 59
79, 80, 95, 96
imports, 2, 47, 59, 72
grants, 8, 40, 41, 77
incentive, 28, 31, 42, 59, 61, 76
grasses, 27, 75, 88
incentives, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 28, 29, 40, 41,
greenhouse, 11, 30, 32, 33, 35, 47, 48, 50,
42, 43, 44, 51, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 71,
59, 66, 82, 83
77, 84, 93
greenhouse gas, 11, 30, 32, 33, 35, 47, 48,
income, 12, 23, 41, 42, 43, 54, 57, 58, 61,
50, 59, 66, 82, 83
97
greenhouse gases, 11, 32, 35, 83
income tax, 12, 41, 54, 57
groundwater, 16, 33, 65
industrial, 18, 45, 46
groups, 39, 49
industrial production, 46
growth, 3, 9, 20, 23, 29, 31, 47, 59, 75, 81
industrial sectors, 45
guidance, 35
industry, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15,
16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26,
H 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37,
39, 44, 46, 47, 48, 50, 55, 56, 58, 59,
handling, 27 61, 65, 67, 70, 74, 76, 77, 83, 85, 88,
harm, 37 89, 91
harmful effects, 32 inferences, 67
harvest, 17 inflation, 14, 64, 70, 71, 72, 73, 84, 85, 86,
harvesting, 27 87, 94
hazards, 21 infrastructure, 7, 16, 28, 75, 88, 89, 94
health, 21, 64, 82 injuries, 64
health problems, 82 injury, iv, 20
heat, 18, 19, 21, 25, 47, 65, 73, 88, 90 innovation, 94
heat pumps, 19, 65 instability, 2
heat removal, 25 instruments, 47
heating, 18, 19, 29, 65, 74 insurance, 92
high temperature, 25, 26, 29, 74 integration, 90
high-level, 38, 67 integrity, 63, 79, 95
high-risk, 19 interactions, 54, 55, 64, 97
homeowners, 48 interest groups, 49
households, 3, 46, 66 internal combustion, 19
housing, 42, 61 International Energy Agency, 33, 49, 56
hurricanes, 2, 50 investigative, 63, 79, 95
hybrid, 94, 97 investment, 5, 7, 8, 33, 43, 46, 50, 53, 66,
hydrate, 23, 91 83
hydrogen, 4, 6, 13, 16, 19, 21, 22, 26, 66, investors, 7, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 75, 76, 89
74, 87, 88, 89, 92
hydropower, 4, 6, 10, 12, 16, 20, 72, 87
104 Index
J M
jet fuel, 83 magma, 19

jobs, 46, 47, 60 magnetic, iv
maintenance, 54, 90
management, 14, 15, 73
K mandates, 6, 7, 8, 40, 41, 42, 44, 51, 58,
71, 77, 83, 93
Kyoto Protocol, 11, 47, 48
manufacturer, 29, 35, 48
manufacturing, 29, 30, 37, 74, 76, 89, 90
L mapping, 17
market, 4, 7, 9, 18, 19, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
labor, 91 31, 40, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 58, 69, 71,
land, 17, 23, 27, 45, 89, 91 74, 75, 78, 81, 84, 88, 89, 92
landscapes, 31 market share, 75
large-scale, 7, 27, 32, 75, 76 markets, 18, 28, 90
law, 49 materials science, 86
lawsuits, 36 megawatt, 3, 9, 22, 42, 48, 60, 66
lead, 34, 51, 78 melt, 64
leadership, 3, 50, 70, 78, 82, 93 mercury, 4, 6, 7, 12, 14, 21, 22, 32, 44, 65,
learning, 35 75, 76, 85
learning process, 35 methane, 22, 91
legislation, 8, 31, 40, 42, 43, 58, 59, 60, methyl tertiary, 16, 73
71, 77 metric, 22
lenders, 31, 51 micro-organisms, 27
licenses, 4, 12, 14, 23, 24, 34 mining, 19, 91
licensing, 24, 34, 36, 39, 76, 92 mirror, 18, 90
life-cycle, 27 missions, vii, 4, 6, 11, 21, 22, 32, 48, 50,
lifetime, 19 58, 69, 70, 76, 85, 91
lighting systems, 18 MIT, 1, 36, 37, 38, 66, 77
limitation, 52 models, 33
liquid fuels, 53, 97 money, 39, 63, 79, 96
livestock, 27 mortality, 20, 66
loan guarantees, 43, 83 motors, 94
loans, 8, 40, 43, 45, 77, 83 MTBE, 16, 27, 65, 73
local government, 93
logistics, 46
N
long period, 33
long-term, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 16, 19, 21, 24, 31,
nation, vii, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 27, 32, 42, 46,
32, 34, 37, 40, 46, 50, 51, 74, 75, 76,
50, 51, 58, 59, 67, 69, 70, 78, 81, 82,
88, 89
83, 84, 88, 89, 92
losses, 5, 12, 13, 54, 83
national security, 2, 9, 50, 51, 69, 78, 81
low-income, 42, 43, 58, 61
Index 105
natural, vii, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12, 20, 22, 26, 28, offshore, 17, 29, 31, 46, 67, 70, 73, 76, 85
36, 37, 38, 48, 50, 59, 69, 72, 77, 81, oil, vii, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16,
83, 84, 90, 91, 97 19, 20, 22, 26, 27, 33, 44, 45, 49, 50,
natural gas, vii, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12, 20, 22, 26, 51, 52, 53, 58, 59, 64, 65, 67, 69, 71,
28, 36, 37, 38, 48, 50, 59, 69, 72, 77, 72, 73, 75, 77, 78, 81, 82, 83, 84, 87,
81, 83, 84, 90, 91, 97 88, 90, 97
net metering, 40, 77 oil production, 90
neutrons, 25 oil recovery, 53, 90
next generation, 6, 29, 49 oil refineries, 16, 27, 65, 73
nitrogen, 4, 6, 12, 13, 20, 21, 32, 65, 70, online, 9
74, 76 opposition, 7, 26, 31, 34, 35, 39
nonproliferation, 7 organizations, 31, 55
normal, 65 oversight, 34, 54, 63, 79, 95
NRC, 1, 5, 7, 12, 14, 24, 34, 38, 39, 55, oxide, 4, 6, 12, 13, 20, 21, 22, 32, 65, 70,
66, 67, 75, 76 74, 76
nuclear, vii, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 23, 24, oxygen, 65, 88
25, 26, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40,
43, 44, 49, 50, 53, 54, 56, 64, 66, 67,
70, 72, 74, 76, 77, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, P
86, 87, 88, 91, 92
pain, 48
nuclear energy, vii, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 23,
partnerships, 17, 20, 22
24, 26, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44,
passive, 36, 52
49, 50, 54, 56, 70, 72, 74, 77, 83, 84,
patents, 18
85, 86, 87, 91, 92
pathways, 30
nuclear material, 25
peer, 28
nuclear power, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 23, 24, 26, 34,
peer review, 28
35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 44, 49, 53, 64, 67,
penalties, 42, 60
74, 76, 78, 81, 83, 85, 91
Pennsylvania, 4, 43, 57
nuclear power plant, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 24, 34,
per capita, 59
35, 38, 44, 64, 67, 76, 78, 85
perception, 65
nuclear reactor, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 23,
performance, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23, 29, 42,
24, 25, 34, 35, 36, 37, 44, 49, 70, 75,
61, 63, 79, 89, 95
83, 91
periodic, 2, 9, 50
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1, 5, 75,
permafrost, 23, 91
91
permit, 24, 34
Nuclear Waste Policy Act, 37, 38, 66
personal, 41, 57
nuclear weapons, 12, 24, 37
pesticides, 66
petroleum, 19, 23, 26, 27, 59, 97
O Petroleum, 9, 12
photons, 18
obligation, 46 photovoltaic, 18, 29, 30, 41, 42, 48, 57, 60,
octane, 27 61, 73, 76, 90
Office of Management and Budget, 51, 54 photovoltaic cells, 30, 74, 76
Offices of Congressional Relations and photovoltaics, 18, 41, 47
Public Affairs, 52, 78, 95 physics, 82, 86, 94
106 Index
pipelines, 28, 53, 65, 75 59, 60, 65, 73, 74, 76, 82, 83, 88, 89,
planning, 31, 49 90, 97
plants, 4, 7, 9, 19, 20, 21, 24, 27, 32, 33, production costs, 88
35, 36, 37, 39, 43, 44, 47, 48, 67, 70, productivity, 19
74, 75, 76, 78, 85, 90, 91 profits, 30
play, 93 program, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
plug-in, 94, 97 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28,
plutonium, 24, 25, 37, 39 32, 35, 39, 41, 43, 44, 46, 48, 49, 51,
poisoning, 66 54, 55, 60, 66, 67, 70, 73, 74, 75, 77,
pollutant, 65 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95
pollutants, 4, 12 proliferation, 14, 24, 25, 39, 74, 92
pollution, 6, 13, 20, 30, 65, 70 promote, 8, 48
pools, 38, 66, 67 property, iv, 8, 44, 53, 54
population, 30, 67 propulsion, 19
portfolio, 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 40, 47, 48, 50, 51, protection, 47, 90
55, 56, 57, 58, 69, 70, 72, 77, 78, 81, protocol, 11
82, 83, 92 public, 7, 17, 23, 26, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 43,
portfolios, 6, 56 55, 63, 79, 82, 85, 95
power, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, public funds, 63, 79, 95
21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, public health, 38, 82, 85
34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, public interest, 39
44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 55, 58, 60, public opinion, 7, 35
64, 66, 67, 69, 70, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, public support, 35
81, 83, 84, 85, 89, 90, 91, 94 pumps, 7, 19, 28, 65
power generation, 30, 31, 41
power plant, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 18, 20, 21,
22, 24, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 43, Q
44, 48, 49, 50, 53, 67, 70, 74, 75, 76,
quality control, 54, 55
78, 83, 85, 91
power plants, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 18, 20, 21,
24, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 43, R
44, 48, 49, 50, 53, 67, 70, 74, 75, 76,
78, 83, 85, 90, 91 radiation, 38
premium, 37, 38 radioactive waste, 12, 49, 74
pressure, 33 rail, 28, 39
prices, 2, 4, 6, 9, 11, 12, 27, 37, 38, 45, 50, rain, 20
59, 64, 72, 73, 75, 78, 82, 84, 88, 93 range, 44, 49, 77, 89
priorities, 6, 12, 28 real terms, 6, 9, 12, 13, 14, 20, 39, 50, 64,
private, 17, 46, 83, 93 71, 72, 73, 86, 87
private sector, 83, 93 rebates, 42, 57, 60
producers, 7, 8, 27, 28, 41, 42, 43, 46, 58, recognition, 69, 78, 92
59, 67, 75, 90 recovery, 53, 90
production, 5, 7, 8, 13, 19, 20, 23, 26, 27, recycling, 37
30, 31, 35, 41, 42, 45, 46, 50, 52, 53, reduction, 11, 20, 23, 37, 38, 47, 54
refineries, 27
Index 107
refiners, 73, 88 security, 3, 9, 29, 50, 51, 69, 78, 81, 94

refining, 19, 53 semiconductor, 29, 90
regional, 54 series, 45, 54, 55
regular, 28 services, iv
regulations, 21, 24, 33, 35, 46, 53, 77 shares, 91
Regulatory Commission, 92 sharing, 17, 33
reliability, 18, 29, 42, 54, 55, 60, 63, 79, shocks, 2, 44, 49, 69, 82
89, 90, 95 shortage, 30, 35
renewable energy, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, short-term, 23, 87
13, 15, 20, 26, 31, 40, 41, 42, 43, 46, signs, 44
47, 50, 51, 53, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 66, silicon, 18, 29, 30, 76, 90
71, 74, 77, 81, 84, 85, 87 sites, 16, 17, 24, 33, 37, 67, 70, 73, 76, 85,
renewable resource, 59, 60 91
reprocessing, 6, 12, 24, 25, 39, 65, 74, 92 skills, 36
research, vii, 1, 3, 16, 19, 54, 70, 82, 86, sodium, 25, 49, 92, 95
89, 94 soil, 27
research and development, 1, 54, 97 solar, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 16, 18, 26, 29, 30,
researchers, 49 32, 40, 41, 42, 47, 48, 52, 53, 55, 57,
reservoir, 20 58, 59, 60, 66, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 86,
reservoirs, 19, 23, 33, 90, 91 87, 90
residential, 8, 18, 47, 48, 53, 61, 66, 78, solar cell, 18, 29, 47, 76, 90
89 solar cells, 18, 29, 47, 76, 90
residues, 3, 7, 16, 27, 73, 75, 88 solar energy, 3, 7, 13, 16, 18, 26, 30, 32,
resources, 17, 19, 22, 27, 30, 31, 43, 53, 42, 52, 60, 61, 66, 75, 86, 90
58, 59, 60, 83 solar system, 8, 42, 48, 60, 61, 78
responsibilities, 63, 79, 95 solubility, 75
restructuring, 53, 90, 91 species, 31
revenue, 5, 12, 13, 52, 53, 54, 64, 83 speed, 17, 30
risk, 7, 19, 32, 34, 37, 38, 75, 92 spent nuclear fuel, 7, 12, 14, 24, 26, 37,
risks, 7, 14, 25, 33, 38, 65, 69, 81 38, 39, 50, 66, 67, 74, 76, 92
royalties, 52 stability, 46
stabilize, 11
stakeholders, 31
S standards, 1, 6, 7, 10, 19, 21, 40, 41, 43,
55, 56, 58, 59, 71, 77, 83, 84, 93
sabotage, 39
statutory, 59
safety, 4, 6, 7, 12, 23, 34, 35, 36, 39, 49,
steel, 23, 66
64, 70, 74, 88
storage, 4, 7, 11, 19, 21, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38,
sales, 8, 40, 46
50, 66, 67, 70, 74, 75, 76, 90
sample, 56, 67
strategic, 5, 55
savings, 59, 60
strategies, 5, 30
school, 60
subsidies, 5, 8, 31, 45, 46, 54, 83
scientific computing, 94
subsidy, 31, 48
scientific understanding, 29
sugar, 16
scientists, 5, 27, 29, 55, 94
sugarcane, 8, 44, 45
second generation, 18
108 Index
sugars, 27 threats, 2, 24, 49, 69, 74

sulfur, 4, 6, 12, 13, 20, 21, 32, 48, 53, 65, Three Mile Island, 4, 12, 23, 24, 34, 64, 67
70, 74, 76 time, 7, 19, 26, 30, 33, 34, 37, 38, 49, 51,
sulfur dioxide, 4, 6, 12, 13, 20, 21, 32, 48, 54, 75, 91, 92
65, 70, 74, 76 time frame, 7, 34, 75, 92
summer, 65 timetable, 67
sunlight, 18, 29, 30, 74, 76 total costs, 84
suppliers, 16, 52, 53 total energy, 8, 47, 59, 67, 84
supply, 2, 9, 16, 25, 27, 28, 30, 40, 45, 46, trade, 84
50, 51, 78, 82 transformation, 48
supply disruption, 9, 50, 51, 78 transition, 90
sustainability, 27, 46 transmission, 7, 8, 17, 29, 30, 35, 40, 41,
synthesis, 21, 32 43, 53, 58, 73, 75, 76, 77, 89
synthetic fuels, 65, 97 transport, 21, 38, 75
systems, 8, 16, 18, 20, 24, 29, 31, 33, 36, transportation, 3, 9, 10, 26, 39, 45, 65, 66,
40, 41, 42, 48, 57, 58, 60, 61, 66, 73, 72, 75, 81, 82, 83, 87
77, 78, 90, 91 Treasury, 36, 53, 54
trees, 27, 75, 88
trust, 23
T
tangible, 70 U
tanks, 28
targets, 20, 32, 47, 88, 89 U.S. Department of Agriculture, 27
tax credit, 4, 7, 8, 10, 28, 31, 36, 40, 41, U.S. economy, 2, 9, 69
43, 44, 50, 53, 54, 59, 65, 66, 76, 77, uncertainty, 31, 33, 34, 37, 75
83, 97 United Nations Environment Program, 21
tax credits, 4, 8, 10, 40, 43, 53, 54, 59, 77, uranium, 25, 39, 66
83 urban areas, 30
tax incentive, 4, 28, 50, 54, 75, 83 USDA, 65
tax incentives, 4, 28, 50, 54, 75, 83
tax preferences, 83
tax receipt, 54 V
tax system, 5, 83
values, 63, 79, 95
taxes, 67
vehicles, 16, 19, 28, 44, 52, 65, 69, 73, 75,
teachers, 94
81, 86, 88, 94, 97
technology, 5, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,
vision, 89
24, 29, 32, 33, 37, 38, 39, 49, 52, 60,
vulnerability, 9, 50, 51, 78
66, 67, 71, 74, 85, 89, 90, 91
telephone, 56
temperature, 18, 25, 26, 33, 74, 92 W
terawatt, 47
terrorist, 9 waste disposal, 44
terrorist attack, 9 wastes, 25
testimony, 63, 70, 78, 79, 95, 96 water, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,
threat, 12, 78, 92 29, 65, 66, 75, 88
Index 109
water heater, 18 wind turbines, 16, 17, 29, 30, 31, 46, 75,
water quality, 27 76, 89
wells, 19 windows, 66
wheat, 27 winter, 65
wildlife, 31 workers, 35
wind, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 15, 16, 17, 26, 29, worry, 34
30, 31, 32, 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 52, 58,
59, 60, 66, 70, 71, 73, 75, 76, 77, 85,
87, 89, 97 Y
wind farm, 4, 17, 29, 30, 46, 75, 76, 89
Yucca Mountain, 38, 39, 67

Zachary T. W Deployment of Advanced Ene

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zachary T. W Deployment of Advanced Ene

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEPLOYMENT OF ADVANCED

Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

NOTICE TO THE READER

Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations

This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA

Available upon request

ISBN: 978-1-61728-362-8 (E-Book)

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: KEY CHALLENGES

AFCI Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative

December 20, 2006

The Honorable Bart Gordon

• DOE’s renewable energy R and D program has primarily focused on (1)

hydropower energy technologies and, in 2003, accelerated the R and D

for stimulating investment in advanced renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy

countries to develop and deploy advanced energy technologies, we identified their

successfully operating a 320-megawatt coal gasification plant—the largest such

Source: GAO analysis of EIA data.

Figure 1. Comparison of the U.S. Energy Portfolio in 1973 and 2004.

Figure 2. Projected U.S. Electricity Generation by Energy Source, 2005-2030.

DOE’S BUDGET AUTHORITY FOR RENEWABLE, FOSSIL, AND

DOE’s Budget Authority for Renewable,

As shown in figure 3, renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy R and D budget

fossil energy R and D budget authority, particularly for developing and

Source: GAO analysis of DOE data.

Source: GAO analysis of DOE data.

DOE’s Renewable R and D Focuses on Innovations in

DOE’s Fossil R and D Program Has Focused on Reducing

DOE’s fossil energy R and D has focused primarily on reducing emissions

Table 1. Comparison of Conventional Pulverized Coal and IGCC

To meet its emissions and efficiency goals, DOE recently proposed a $1

DOE’s Nuclear R and D Goals Recently Have Focused on

The commercial nuclear energy industry experienced substantial growth

ADVANCED RENEWABLE, FOSSIL, AND NUCLEAR ENERGY

The primary renewable energy technologies with the potential to substantially

Wind and Solar

A second major challenge to deploying both wind and solar technologies is

Barriers to Advanced Fossil Technologies Include Harmful

Advanced Nuclear Energy Technologies Face Uncertainty about

Table 2. Comparison of Electricity Generating Costs Using Nuclear,

Cents per kilowatt-hour

Table 3. Comparison of Electricity Generating Costs

Cents per kilowatt-hour

siting, licensing, and construction of a nuclear waste repository. In fiscal year

THE STATES AND COUNTRIES WE REVIEWED

States Are Stimulating Renewable Energy through Standards,

Forty-five states have enacted legislation or developed initiatives to stimulate

renewable energy equipment. As shown in figure 5, states in the West, Northeast,

• In 2002, New Mexico enacted a production tax credit of 1 cent per

In addition to specific incentives and policies, some states have implemented

The Countries We Reviewed Have Stimulated the Development and

We identified six countries—Brazil, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Spain, and

Brazil Has Displaced 40 Percent of Its Gasoline Consumption with Ethanol

in low-interest loans to the agricultural and industrial sectors to stimulate ethanol

Denmark’s Wind Energy Generates 19 Percent of Its Electricity

environment, and moving toward greater sustainability. As a result, since 1980

Germany’s Renewable Energy Technologies Generate 10 Percent of Its

Japan Has Installed over 931 Megawatts of Residential Solar Systems

installation of solar systems in residential communities. Initially, the Japanese

Spain Began Operating an IGCC Coal Gasification Plant in 1997

France’s Advanced Nuclear Reactor Is Scheduled to Begin Operations in

technologies, the credit’s duration is key to encouraging companies and their

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.