DOE prepared this EA to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of providing a financial assistance grant under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act; Public Law 111-5, 123 Stat. 115) to the Center for Commercialization of Electric Technology (CCET) to demonstrate battery technology integration with wind generated electricity by deploying and evaluating utility-scale lithium battery technology to improve grid performance and thereby aid in the integration of wind generation into the local electricity supply. This EA analyzes the potential environmental impacts of DOE's proposed action of providing the Recovery Act funding and of the No-Action Alternative. In this EA, DOE evaluated potential environmental consequences from a portion of the overall project that would involve land disturbance. Other portions are described as major elements of the project, but because they involve only installation of equipment in existing facilities, they do not involve potential for significant environmental impact and are not evaluated further. With regard to the land disturbing actions considered in this EA, DOE evaluated impacts to air quality, noise, aesthetics and visual resources, surface water resources, biological resources, and areas of environmental concern. After performing a screening analysis of other environmental resource areas, DOE concluded that impacts to some aspects of the environment would not be likely to occur or would be negligible. The proposed project would be designed in compliance with federal and state air quality regulations, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and would have a net beneficial impact on air quality in the region. New construction would involve: (1) above ground and underground 12.5 kV distribution lines, (2) 1.5 MW storage battery facility and foundation, (3) an access road, and (4) site clearing. Two wind turbines and foundations would also be constructed as part of the proposed action. Although DOE is not funding the wind turbines, the effects will be assessed as a connected action, as it is part of the overall action. Operation of the proposed project would not result in any increase in noise in the vicinity. The aesthetics of the RTC and along the easements would change with the addition of the above ground distribution lines, which would be along 5.5 miles of right-of-way utility easements, storage battery facility, access road, and wind turbines. There are two alternatives for the aboveground distribution lines; Option A extends through agricultural fields and Option B along county roads. The storage battery facility is proposed to be 20 by 40 feet with a 20 foot wide by 600 foot long access road. The wind turbines will not adversely affect the aesthetics as the location since it is in an open field with limited development in the area, and there is an existing wind turbine already on-site at the RTC along with several transmission and meteorological towers near the proposed location. Clearing of 3 acres for the proposed project on the RTC site would not significantly impact any plant or animal species population because: (1) the project site has previously been disturbed; (2) the project site is currently vacant land that is isolated from larger tracts of undisturbed land; and (3) because plant and animal species found there are expected to be widespread in the region or, for sensitive species, the area is not unique habitat. The whooping crane, which is an endangered species under the federal Endangered Species Act, occurs in Lubbock County. However, the habitat needed for the whooping crane is not located within the vicinity of the project.

The United States Department of Energy's (DOE's) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the potential environmental impacts of providing funding for the proposed Battleground Energy Recovery Project in Deer Park, Harris County, Texas. The proposed action is for DOE to provide $1.94 million in cost-shared funding to the Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC) for the Battleground Energy Recovery Project. The proposed project was selected by the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) to advance research and demonstration of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. The proposed project would produce 8 megawatts (MWs) of electricity from high pressure steam generated by capturing heat that is currently lost at the Clean Harbors Deer Park (CHDP) facility. The proposed project is consistent with DOE's goal of increased use of energy efficiency and renewable energy generation projects. The proposed project involves installation of a specifically designed waste heat recovery boiler on the existing kiln afterburner of an incineration unit at the CHDP facility. This boiler would use heat from the incinerator flue gases to generate high-pressure superheated steam. The adjacent Dow Chemical plant would periodically consume part of the steam for process needs, replacing natural gas firing of existing boilers. The majority of the steam, however, would be piped to a new turbine generator (TG). The TG would be installed in a new building adjacent to the existing CHDP facility. Additional waste heat steam from the neighboring Dow Chemical plant would be routed to the TG when available. A cooling tower would be installed adjacent to the new building in the northwest corner of the facility. The 8 MWs of electricity generated by the TG would be used by the CHDP facility to offset purchased power; any excess power generated would be transmitted to the electric grid. Construction and installation activities associated with the proposed project would occur entirely within private industrial property. The project would require a construction permit and a minor amendment to the facility's air emissions operating permit. Additionally, modification to the facility's hazardous waste processing and disposal permit would be necessary. However, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated to result from implementation of this proposed project.

This latest volume includes contributions on the latest advances in energy research. Chapter One introduces photovoltaic-green (PV-green) roofing systems according to three different approaches: critical review about crucial factors which influence the performance of a PV-green roof; experimental; and environmental/Life Cycle Analysis (LCA). Chapter Two discusses the benefits of green roof systems. Chapter Three provides an introduction to the composition and the functioning of building management systems (BMS), as well as shows some of the available systems in the market, specifically those that are related to the automatic control of lighting and shading devices according to sunlight intensity, climate control and the monitoring of energy consumption in a service building. Chapter Four reviews both the experimental and numerical work that has been conducted on encapsulated phase change material (EPCM) thermal energy storage (TES) systems with applications in concentrating solar power (CSP) plants. Chapter Five presents the effect of thermal energy storage on the performance of combined heat and power (CHP) systems under different operational strategies. Chapter Six studies the effects of different levels of water flow rate and temperature on the performance of an induced draft cooling tower. Chapter Seven reviews the harvesting of power from bamboo charcoal. Chapter Eight investigates the magnetosphere-ionosphere-atmosphere coupling and the effect of geomagnetic activity on meteorological processes in the atmosphere.

This latest volume includes contributions on the latest advances in energy research. Chapter One discusses stability assessment using direct methods. Chapter Two focuses on the geopolitical implications of the energy reserves in the Caspian Basin. Chapter Three reviews an investigation into the effect of various parameters on the evaporator performance. Chapter Four helps to understand the vapour compression cycle in which heat is absorbed from a low temperature region and released in a high temperature region. Chapter Five examines static voltage stability enhancements by incorporating voltage-sourced based converters in continuation power flow.

The 2014 Electricity Profiles publication provides an overall picture of the electricity sector of over 200 countries and areas on an internationally comparable basis, for the years 2009-2014. It displays detailed information on production, trade and consumption of electricity, on net installed capacity and thermal power plant inputs and efficiency relevant to each of these countries and areas. This is the third issue of Electricity Profiles as a stand-alone publication, replacing the previous series of Energy Balances and Electricity Profiles.

Two key long-term energy trends are shifting the strategic balance between the United States and China, the world's superpower rivals in the 21st century: first, a domestic boom in U.S. shale oil and gas is dramatically boosting America's energy security; second, the frenetic and successful search for hydrocarbons in Africa is making it an increasingly crucial element in China's energy diversification strategy. America's increasing energy security and China's increased dependence on energy imports from Africa and the Middle East until well past 2040 despite its own shale discoveries will make Beijing's own increasing energy insecurity be felt even more acutely, pushing the People's Liberation Army to accelerate adoption of a "two ocean" military strategy that includes an enduring presence in the Indian Ocean as well as the Pacific Ocean.

The 2014 Energy Balances publication presents energy data for over 200 countries and areas in a format which shows the overall picture of the yearly production, trade, transformation and consumption of energy products utilized in each country or area shown, for the years 2013 and 2014. Such a format, presented in a common energy unit, the Terajoule, is useful in assessing and analysing supply and consumption patterns across both products and countries in detail on an internationally comparable basis. It is the third issue of Energy Balances as a stand-alone publication, replacing the previous series of Energy Balances and Electricity Profiles. The standards brought about by the International Recommendations for Energy Statistics (IRES) have been incorporated.

The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill provides funding for civil works projects of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), for the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the Department of Energy (DOE), and for a number of independent agencies. President Obama's FY2013 budget request for Energy and Water Development was released in February 2012. For FY2013 the level of overall spending will be a major issue. The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25) contained an overall discretionary spending cap for FY2013 of $1.047 trillion. On March 29, 2012, the House passed a budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 112) that caps spending at a lower level, $1.028 trillion. The Senate has not passed a budget resolution, but on April 19 the Senate Appropriations Committee allotted subcommittee funding levels that totaled the $1.047 trillion cap in the BCA. The difference between overall spending caps is reflected in differences in spending proposals for Energy and Water Development programs. The Administration's request for FY2013 was $33.684 billion. On April 25, the House Appropriations Committee reported out H.R. 5325 (H.Rept. 112-462), with a total of $32.156 billion. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported out S. 2465 (S.Rept. 112-164) on April 26, funding Energy and Water Development programs at $33.432 billion. On June 6 the House passed H.R. 5325 by a vote of 255-165, with some amendments. On September 28, 2012, President Obama signed into law the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013 (P.L. 112-175). The act continues appropriations until March 27, 2013, for Energy and Water Development programs at 0.612% above the FY2012-enacted levels, with two exceptions: DOE's Nuclear Weapons Activities program is funded at an annual rate of $7.577 billion, the amount requested for FY2013, instead of the FY2012 rate of $7.214 billion, and the Nuclear Nonproliferation program was increased by $100 million over the FY2012 level of $2.296 billion to fund domestic uranium enrichment R&D. In addition, issues specific to Energy and Water Development programs included: the distribution of appropriations for Corps (Title I) and Reclamation (Title II) projects that have historically received congressional appropriations above Administration requests; alternatives to the proposed national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, which the Administration has abandoned (Title III: Nuclear Waste Disposal); and proposed FY2013 spending levels for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) programs (Title III) that are 25% higher in the Administration's request than the amount appropriated for FY2012.

Smart grids are for everyone but require the vision and investment plans for grid modernization. This document provides some practical elements on how to develop a smart grid vision and investment plan with a focus on the distribution side and also briefly discusses finance and regulatory issues.

America's energy security paradigm has collapsed. For decades, politicians have been barking up the wrong tree when it comes to oil. Over the last seven years, domestic oil production has increased, vehicle fuel efficiency has increased, oil imports have decreased, and yet the amount Americans spend on oil imports - not just per barrel but in total - has skyrocketed. We drill more, we use less, and yet we spend more. In the wake of the Arab Spring, we can expect OPEC to keep turning the screws to drive prices higher. On the bright side, a revolution in extraction technologies has opened the door to unconventional natural gas. There's a light at the end of the tunnel, but only if we wake up, wise up, and send a message to Washington to shift gears from pork laden no-lobbyist-left-behind energy bills to Teddy Roosevelt style trust-busting. In a no-holds barred, fast paced, information packed sequel to Turning Oil into Salt, Gal Luft and Anne Korin spell out the pitfalls of an oil market dominated by a cartel and sketch a clear blueprint for getting America out from under its thumb.

Increasing U.S. energy supply diversity has been the goal of many Presidents and Congresses. This commitment has been prompted by concerns about national security, the environment, and the U.S. balance of payments. Investments in new energy sources also have been seen as a way to expand domestic manufacturing. For all of these reasons, the federal government has a variety of policies to promote wind power. Expanding the use of wind energy requires installation of wind turbines. These are complex machines composed of some 8,000 components, created from basic industrial materials such as steel, aluminum, concrete, and fiberglass. Major components in a wind turbine include the rotor blades, a nacelle and controls (the heart and brain of a wind turbine), a tower, and other parts such as large bearings, transformers, gearboxes, and generators. Turbine manufacturing involves an extensive supply chain. Until recently, Europe has been the hub for turbine production, supported by national renewable energy deployment policies in countries such as Denmark, Germany, and Spain. However, support for renewable energy including wind power has begun to wane across Europe as governments there reduce or remove some subsidies. Competitive wind turbine manufacturing sectors are also located in India and Japan and are emerging in China and South Korea. U.S. and foreign manufacturers have expanded their capacity in the United States to assemble and produce wind turbines and components. About 470 U.S. manufacturing facilities produced wind turbines and components in 2011, up from as few as 30 in 2004. An estimated 30,000 U.S. workers were employed in the manufacturing of wind turbines in 2011. Because turbine blades, towers, and certain other components are large and difficult to transport, manufacturing clusters have developed in certain states, notably Colorado, Iowa, and Texas, which offer proximity to the best locations for wind energy production. The U.S. wind turbine manufacturing industry also depends on imports, with the majority coming from European countries, where the technical ability to produce large wind turbines was developed. Although turbine manufacturers' supply chains are global, recent investments are estimated to have raised the share of parts manufactured in the United States to 67% in 2011, up from 35% in 2005-2006. The outlook for wind turbine manufacturing in the United States is more uncertain now than in recent years. For the past two decades, a variety of federal laws and state policies have encouraged both wind energy production and the use of U.S.-made equipment to generate that energy. One apparent challenge for the industry is the scheduled expiration at year-end 2012 of the production tax credit (PTC), which the industry claims could reduce domestic turbine sales to zero in 2013. In anticipation, at least a dozen wind turbine manufacturers announced layoffs or hiring freezes at their U.S. facilities in 2012, citing uncertainty around the renewal of the PTC as one reason. Other factors affecting the health of the U.S. wind industry are intense price competition from natural gas, an oversupply in wind turbines, and softening demand for renewable electricity.

DOE prepared this EA to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of its Proposed Action to provide cost-shared funding to RTI International (RTI) for its proposed project to demonstrate the pre-commercial scale-up of RTI's high-temperature syngas cleanup and carbon capture and sequestration technologies. Approximately $168.8 million of DOE's total $171.8 million funding for the proposed project would be provided from funds authorized in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5, 123 Stat. 115). RTI's proposed project would advance the commercial deployment of cost-effective, environmentally sound technology options that reduce the constraints associated with using domestic coal energy resources and may ultimately assist in reducing greenhouse gas intensity. RTI's proposed project would be located at Tampa Electric Company's existing Polk Power Station in Polk County, Florida. The proposed project would treat a slipstream, equivalent to up to 66 megawatts of electricity generation, of coal-derived syngas from the existing Polk Unit 1 integrated gasification combined-cycle power plant to remove 99.9 percent of the sulfur, reduce trace contaminant (arsenic, selenium, and mercury) concentrations, and convert the removed sulfur compounds to commercial-grade elemental sulfur. Also, up to 300,000 tons per year, or 90 percent, of the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the cleaned syngas would be captured and sequestered in a deep geologic formation and not released to the atmosphere. This EA evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed project in 13 environmental resource areas. Based on initial impact screening evaluations, DOE determined that no or negligible impacts would occur in six of these resource areas. Additional impact evaluations for air quality, geology and soils, water resources, socioeconomics, transportation, waste management, and human health and safety identify negligible or minimal impacts due to the proposed project's construction and operation. In this EA, potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project with other past, present, or future actions are also evaluated, and no adverse cumulative impacts are identified.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the potential impacts of providing financial assistance to Viresco Energy, LLC, (Viresco) for its construction and operation of a Coal and Biomass Fueled Pilot Plant, that would be located in Kanab, Utah. The plant would be located on land leased to Viresco by the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration. The Pilot Plant would occupy approximately 1.5 acres of a 10-acre site located approximately 2.5 miles south of the downtown area of Kanab, Utah. The Fiscal Year 2010 Appropriations Act for Energy & Water Development and Related Agencies (Public Law 111-85) included a $2,500,000 earmark sponsored by then Senator Bennett of Utah for the "Utah Coal and Biomass Fueled Pilot Plant." In accordance with the earmark, DOE would provide financial assistance to Viresco to support its design, construction, and testing of a pilot-scale steam hydrogasification facility. Under a cost sharing agreement, DOE would provide $2,404,000 (approximately 80 percent of the total cost of the research and development project) and Viresco would contribute the remaining $601,000. The Pilot Plant would be constructed, owned, and operated by Viresco. Viresco is responsible for obtaining the permits and other authorizations needed for the project; DOE would have no regulatory authority over the project or its operation. Under the cooperative agreement, Viresco would operate the Pilot Plant and collect data for a series of test runs totaling 30 days of operation over a period of months; after DOE's financial assistance ends, Viresco plans to seek additional funding for continued operations. The objective of Viresco's proposed project is to conduct a pilot-scale evaluation of the Steam Hydrogasification Reaction (SHR) process. The Pilot Plant would be a small-scale facility designed to evaluate the technical feasibility of using steam hydrogasification to convert coal and biomass (such as agricultural or wood processing waste) into synthesis gas (syngas), and ultimately into clean fuels such as substitute natural gas, sulfur-free Fischer-Tropsch diesel, jet fuel, dimethyl ether, and methane. The successful operation of this SHR gasification technology at a pilot scale would provide engineering information needed to develop a commercialization pathway for this process. This project supports DOE's goal of developing and using domestic coal and renewable resources in an efficient and environmentally acceptable manner. This technology uses an advanced gasification process and produces clean fuels. The addition of biomass to the coal feedstock also reduces net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The EA found that the most notable potential changes from Viresco's proposed project would occur in the following areas: land use, aesthetics, air quality, solid and hazardous wastes, utilities, and socioeconomics. No significant environmental effects were identified in analyzing these potential changes.

DOE prepared this EA to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of providing a financial assistance in a cooperative agreement with Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (SECARB). If SECARB received the funding, they would demonstrate the injection of 125,000 tons/year of carbon dioxide (CO2) from a power plant into a deep saline aquifer for enhanced oil recovery and geologic sequestration. This funding would be used for drilling up to two injection wells, reconditioning of four existing wells for monitoring, and two new shallow water wells. Connected actions include the CO2 source at the CO2 capture unit at Plant Barry, the 12.3-mile long, 4.5-inch outside diameter pipeline to transport the CO2 to the oilfield, and the two electric service lines for a total of 3,275 feet. No connected actions are receiving federal money. DOE's proposed action would provide approximately $30.0 million in financial assistance in a cost-sharing arrangement to SECARB. The cost of the proposed project would be approximately $39.3 million. This EA evaluates the environmental resource areas DOE commonly addresses in its EA's and identifies no significant adverse environmental impacts for the proposed project. The proposed project could result in beneficial impacts to the nation's energy efficiency and the local economy, and could contribute to a minor reduction of greenhouse gases.