Aspen Plus(r) (version 10.2) simulation models and the Cost of Electricity (COE) have been developed for advanced fossil power generation systems both with and without carbon dioxide (CO2) capture. The intent was to compare the cycles based on using common assumptions and analytic standards with respect to realizable performance, cost, emissions and footprint. Additionally, commercially available (or near term) reference plants were included for comparison. The advanced fossil power systems considered were: (both natural gas and coal fueled) Hydraulic Air Compression Cycle (HAC); Rocket Engine Gas Generator Cycle; Hydrogen Turbine (air) Cycle; Hybrid Cycle (Turbine / Solid-Oxide Fuel Cell); Humid Air Turbine Cycle (HAT) (CO2) capture - not considered]. Reference Plants developed based on previous NETL/EG&G studies included: Pulverized Coal (PC) Boiler; Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC); Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC). Capital cost estimates were developed for the above cases using data from the EG&G Cost Estimating Notebook (version 1.11) and several contractor reports. The format follows the guidelines set by EPRI TAG methods. Individual equipment sections were based on capacity factored techniques. The costs are reported in first quarter 2002 dollars. The total capital requirement includes equipment, labor, engineering fees, contingencies, interest during construction, startup costs, working capital and land. Other assumptions are provided in summary tables in Appendix B which contains the COE spreadsheets developed for all cases. Results are compared in Table 1 (Natural Gas Cycles) and in Table 2 (Coal Cycles). These results demonstrate the following key observations: For all systems, (CO2) capture entails major cost & efficiency penalties; Only Hybrids perform at or near the Vision 21 efficiency goals summarized in Appendix D; Rocket Engine cycles have lower efficiency and higher cost than other options requiring far less development; HAC cycles based on a closed-loop water system are unattractive. An open-loop water system (dam site) may be attractive as a niche market; Hydrogen Turbine (air) and HAT cycles are also unattractiv

The Department of Energy (DOE) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of providing an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act; Public Law 111-5, 123 Stat.115) financial assistance grant to Brea Power II, LLC (Brea Power; formerly Ridgewood Renewable Power, LLC). The grant would facilitate expansion of an existing landfill gas collection system, and construction and operation of a combined cycle power generation facility at the Olinda Alpha Landfill in Brea, California. DOE's proposed action is to provide $10 million in financial assistance in a cost-sharing arrangement with the project proponent, Brea Power. The cost of the project is estimated to be about $84 million. The primary objective of Brea Power's proposed project is to maximize the productive use of substantial quantities of waste landfill gas generated and collected at the Olinda Alpha Landfill in Brea, California. The project proponent determined that utilization of the waste gas for power generation in a combustion turbine combined cycle facility was the best use for the gas. The electricity generated from the proposed project, a net output of approximately 280 kilowatt-hours of electricity annually, would be distributed to the local power grid via a new electric transmission line to be installed by the local utility company. Brea Power would expand the existing gas collection system at the landfill and build the new gas-to-energy facility across the street from the existing gas-to-energy facility. Once the new facility is operational, the existing facility would be used only as a contingency. This EA evaluates 14 resource areas and, after proposed mitigation measures, identifies no significant adverse environmental impacts for the proposed project. Beneficial impacts to the nation's energy efficiency and local economy could be recognized. The project would generate 280 kilowatt-hours of electricity annually, and save an estimated 2,216 trillion British thermal units per year annually from the landfill gas that would otherwise be flared. In addition, by using nearly 50,000 tons per year of methane from the landfill gas, the project would provide carbon dioxide equivalent reductions of greater than 1 million tons annually and enable the avoidance of over 120,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year from not using fossil fuels for generating a similar amount of electricity.

The DOE prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to assess the potential for impacts to the human and natural environment of its Proposed Action-providing financial assistance to Toda under a cooperative agreement. DOE's objective is to support the development of the EDV industry in an effort to substantially reduce the United States' consumption of petroleum, in addition to stimulating the United States' economy. More specifically, DOE's objective is to accelerate the development and production of various EDV systems by building or increasing domestic manufacturing capacity for advanced automotive batteries, their components, recycling facilities, and EDV components. This work will enable market introduction of various electric vehicle technologies by lowering the cost of battery packs, batteries, and electric propulsion systems for EDVs through high-volume manufacturing. Under the terms of the cooperative agreement, DOE would provide approximately 50 percent of the funding for Toda to construct a manufacturing plant to produce oxide materials for cathodes for lithium-ion batteries. The plant would be located within the Fort Custer Industrial Park in Battle Creek, Michigan. The project would help meet the growing needs of domestic and global lithium-ion battery cell producers. The total production volume at this facility would be sufficient to supply batteries for around 450,000 HEVs or 125,000 plug-in HEVs. Additionally, the project would create approximately 50 permanent jobs. The environmental analysis identified that the most notable changes to result from the Toda's Proposed Project would occur in the following areas: land use, air quality and greenhouse, noise, geology and soils, surface water and groundwater, vegetation and wildlife, solid and hazardous wastes, utilities and energy use, transportation and traffic, and human health and safety. No significant environmental effects were identified in analyzing the potential consequences of these changes.

DOE prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to assess the potential for impacts to the human and natural environment of its Proposed Action-providing financial assistance to BASF under a cooperative agreement. DOE's objective is to support the development of the EDV industry in an effort to substantially reduce the United States' consumption of petroleum, in addition to stimulating the United States' economy. More specifically, DOE's objective is to accelerate the development and production of various EDV systems by building or increasing domestic manufacturing capacity for advanced automotive batteries, their components, recycling facilities, and EDV components. This work will enable market introduction of various electric vehicle technologies by lowering the cost of battery packs, batteries, and electric propulsion systems for EDVs through high-volume manufacturing. Under the terms of the cooperative agreement, DOE would provide approximately 50 percent of the funding for BASF to construct a commercial-size manufacturing plant for cathode material. The plant would be constructed on existing BASF property located in Elyria, Ohio, and it would help meet the growing needs of domestic and global lithium-ion battery cell producers. The cathode materials to be produced are based on technology licensed from DOE. The plant can produce enough material to supply a battery manufacturer making from 20,000 to 100,000 plug-in HEV batteries and/or their cells per year or equivalent volumes of other EDV batteries. For purposes of production volume estimation, each plug-in HEV is assumed to capable of delivering at least 5 kilowatt hours of available energy. Additionally, the project would create a number of permanent jobs. The environmental analysis identified that the most notable changes, although minor, to result from BASF's Proposed Project would occur in the following areas, although minor: air quality, noise, and solid and hazardous wastes. No significant environmental effects were identified in analyzing the potential consequences of these changes.

The Department of Energy's (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) manages the research and development portfolio of the Vehicle Technologies (VT) Program for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). A key objective of the VT program is accelerating the development and production of electric drive vehicle systems in order to substantially reduce the United States' consumption of petroleum. Another of its goals is the development of production-ready batteries, power electronics, and electric machines that can be produced in volume economically so as to increase the use of electric drive vehicles (EDVs). Congress appropriated significant funding for the VT program in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 111-5 (Recovery Act) in order to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment in addition to furthering the existing objectives of the VT program. DOE solicited applications for this funding by issuing a competitive Funding Opportunity Announcement (DE-FOA-0000026), Recovery Act - Electric Drive Vehicle Battery and Component Manufacturing Initiative, on March 19, 2009. This project, Lithium Ion (Li-Ion) Battery Manufacturing Project, was one of the 30 DOE selected for funding. DOE's Proposed Action is to provide $299,200,000 in financial assistance in a cost sharing arrangement with the project proponent, Johnson Controls, Inc. (Johnson Controls or JCI) and ENTEK International, LLC (ENTEK). The total cost of the project is estimated at $599,449,514. The overall purpose and need for DOE action pursuant to the VT program and the funding opportunity under the Recovery Act is to accelerate the development and production of various electric drive vehicle systems by building or increasing domestic manufacturing capacity for advanced automotive batteries, their components, recycling facilities, and EDV components, in addition to stimulating the United States' economy. This work will enable market introduction of various electric vehicle technologies by lowering the cost of battery packs, batteries, and electric propulsion systems for EDVs through high-volume manufacturing. DOE intends to further this purpose and satisfy this need by providing financial assistance under cost-sharing arrangements to this and the other 29 projects selected under this funding opportunity announcement. This and the other selected projects are needed to reduce the United States' petroleum consumption by investing in alternative vehicle technologies. Successful commercialization of EDVs would support DOE's Energy Strategic Goal of "protect ing] our national and economic security by promoting a diverse supply and delivery of reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy." This project will also meaningfully assist in the nation's economic recovery by creating manufacturing jobs in the United States in accordance with the objectives of the Recovery Act.

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 (ARRA) to Delphi Automotive Systems, Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) (Delphi). Delphi proposes to construct a laboratory referred to as the "Delphi Kokomo, IN Corporate Technology Center" (Delphi CTC Project) and retrofit a manufacturing facility. The project would advance DOE's Vehicle Technology Program through manufacturing and testing of electric-drive vehicle components as well as assist in the nation's economic recovery by creating manufacturing jobs in the United States. The Delphi CTC Project would involve the construction and operation of a 10,700 square foot (ft2) utilities building containing boilers and heaters and a 70,000 ft2 engineering laboratory, as well as site improvements (roads, parking, buildings, landscaping, and lighting). The engineering laboratory would house equipment for helping to validate the readiness of new products for manufacture in Delphi's Kokomo Morgan Street (KMS) facility. Delphi's KMS facility is an existing 93,000 ft2 leased facility that Delphi would modify and equip for validating and producing advanced automotive electric drive components. DOE's proposed action would provide approximately $89.3 million in financial assistance in a cost sharing arrangement to Delphi. The total cost of the proposed project would be approximately $178.6 million. This EA evaluates the environmental resource areas DOE commonly addresses in its EAs 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 the electric vehicle components produced could contribute toward enabling significant reductions of greenhouse gases.

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.

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.

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) (Recovery Act; Public Law 111-5, 123 Stat. 115) to Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (Air Products). If Air Products received the funding, the company would demonstrate the capture of carbon dioxide (CO2) from steam methane reformers at Air Products facilities in Port Arthur, Texas; transporting the CO2 via pipeline; and conducting monitoring, verification, and accounting (MVA) related to enhanced oil recovery (EOR) at the West Hastings Field. The CO2 would be sequestered in the Frio formation as part of the EOR activities. Air Products would capture approximately one million short tons of CO2 per year using vacuum swing adsorption. The compressed CO2 would be piped approximately 12.8 miles to the existing Green Pipeline, which would in turn convey the CO2 to the West Hastings Field south of Houston, Texas. Denbury Onshore, LLC. is a subcontractor to Air Products for the use of the Green Pipeline and will share responsibility for conducting the MVA activities. DOE's proposed action would provide approximately $284 million in financial assistance in a cost-sharing arrangement to Air Products. The cost of the proposed project would be approximately $431 million. This EA evaluates the environmental resource areas DOE commonly addresses in its EAs 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, through capture of CO2 at existing Air Products facilities within the Valero Port Arthur Refinery, and to the local economy; increase domestic oil production; and could contribute to a minor reduction of greenhouse gases.

DOE prepared this Supplemental EA to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of providing financial assistance in a cooperative agreement with General Motors Limited Liability Company (LLC) (General Motors Company or GM). A supplement to the April 2010 EA was necessary due to the proposed building size increasing three fold as well as the addition of a parking lot and widening of a truck dock area. This building size increase is necessary to accommodate more manufacturing equipment and provide office space. If GM received the funding, they would construct a high-volume U.S. manufacturing facility to produce the first U.S.-manufactured electric motor components and assemble electric drive units for hybrid and electric vehicles. This funding would be used for constructing a building of approximately 104,000 square feet, paving an approximately 120,000 square foot parking lot, twenty-foot wide fire road representing approximately 8,000 square feet of pavement or gravel, and widening a truck dock as well as various other supporting infrastructure. DOE's proposed action would provide approximately $105 million in financial assistance in a cost-sharing arrangement to GM. The cost of the proposed project would be approximately $283.9 million. This EA evaluates the environmental resource areas DOE commonly addresses in its EAs and identifies no significant adverse environmental impacts for the proposed project. The proposed project could result in beneficial impacts to the nation's fuel efficiency and the local economy.

DOE prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to assess the potential for impacts to the human and natural environment of its Proposed Action -- providing financial assistance to Phycal under a cooperative agreement. DOE's objective is to support the development of innovative concepts for beneficial CO2 use, which include, but are not limited to, CO2 mineralization to carbonates directly through conversion of CO2 in flue gas; use of CO2 from power plants or industrial applications to grow algae or biomass. Under the terms of the cooperative agreement, DOE would provide approximately 80 percent of the funding for the development of a pilot algae farm and processing facility in Wahiawa and Kalaeloa, Hawaii, to demonstrate the beneficial use of CO2 for the growing of algae and production of algal oil (referred to as the proposed project within this EA). The proposed project would develop algae technology that demonstrates the future potential of algae oil for biofuels at a level that results in technical, economic, and environmental advantages. This advanced technology would not only help to enhance U.S. energy supplies through the responsible development of domestic renewable energy but would also help to reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. The proposed project would include developing an algae farm and processing facility, which would include constructing shallow ponds, greenhouses, lab/offices, a process building, and an outdoor area with various processing equipment facilities. The proposed project would be split into two phases or Modules. Module 1 would provide a baseline assessment of core processes and initial optimization. Module 2 would include the scaling and integration of supporting processes. The overall objective of proposed project would be to confirm the process economics prior to commencing to a commercial scale, development of which is not funded under this award. The proposed project would create approximately 20 jobs in Module 1, and another 20 jobs in Module 2, for the total duration of the approximately three-year pilot. The environmental analysis identified that the most notable, although minor, changes to result from the proposed project would occur in the following areas: utilities and energy use, air quality and greenhouse gas, noise, geology and soils, vegetation and wildlife, solid and hazardous wastes, transportation and traffic, and human health and safety. No significant environmental effects were identified in analyzing the potential consequences of these changes.

The Department of Energy's (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) manages the research and development portfolio of the Vehicle Technologies (VT) Program for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). A key objective of the VT program is accelerating the development and production of electric drive vehicle systems in order to substantially reduce the United States' consumption of petroleum. Another of its goals is the development of production-ready batteries, power electronics, and electric machines that can be produced in volume economically so as to increase the use of electric drive vehicles (EDVs). Congress appropriated significant funding for the VT program in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 111-5 (Recovery Act) in order to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment in addition to furthering the existing objectives of the VT program. DOE solicited applications for this funding by issuing a competitive Funding Opportunity Announcement (DE-FOA-0000026), Recovery Act - Electric Drive Vehicle Battery and Component Manufacturing Initiative, on March 19, 2009. This project, Next-Generation Lithium Ion (Li Ion) Battery Recycling Facility, was one of the 30 DOE selected for funding. DOE's Proposed Action is to provide $9,552,653.00 in financial assistance in a cost sharing arrangement with the project proponent, Toxco Incorporated (Toxco). The total cost of the project was estimated at $19,107,705.00. The overall purpose and need for DOE action pursuant to the VT program and the funding opportunity under the Recovery Act is to accelerate the development and production of various electric drive vehicle systems by building or increasing domestic manufacturing capacity for advanced automotive batteries, their components, recycling facilities, and EDV components, in addition to stimulating the United States' economy. This work will enable market introduction of various electric vehicle technologies by lowering the cost of battery packs, batteries, and electric propulsion systems for EDVs through high-volume manufacturing. DOE intends to further this purpose and satisfy this need by providing financial assistance under cost-sharing arrangements to this and the other 29 projects selected under this funding opportunity announcement. This and the other selected projects are needed to reduce the United States' petroleum consumption by investing in alternative vehicle technologies. Successful commercialization of EDVs would support DOE's Energy Strategic Goal of "protect ing] our national and economic security by promoting a diverse supply and delivery of reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy." This project will also meaningfully assist in the nation's economic recovery by creating manufacturing jobs in the United States in accordance with the objectives of the Recovery Act.

DOE prepared this EA to assess the potential for impacts to the human and natural environment of its proposed action to provide financial assistance to Chemetall under a cooperative agreement. DOE's objective is to support the development of the Electric Drive Vehicles (EDV) industry in an effort to reduce the United States' consumption of petroleum, in addition to stimulating the United States' economy. More specifically, DOE's objective is to accelerate the development and production of various EDV systems by building or increasing domestic manufacturing capacity for advanced automotive batteries, their components, recycling facilities, and EDV components. This work will enable market introduction of various electric vehicle technologies by lowering the cost of battery packs, batteries, and electric propulsion systems for EDVs through high-volume manufacturing. Under the terms of the cooperative agreement, DOE is to provide approximately 45 percent of the funding for Chemetall to establish a new 5,000 metric tons per year lithium hydroxide plant at an existing Chemetall facility in Kings Mountain, North Carolina and to upgrade and expand an existing lithium brine production facility and an existing lithium carbonate plant in Silver Peak, Nevada. The Kings Mountain site is located in an industrial area directly south of Kings Mountain, in Cleveland County, North Carolina, and serves as the headquarters for Chemetall. The site is located on 720 acres, with the operations concentrated within an approximately 20-acre developed area that is centrally located within the property. Production currently includes a specialty lithium manufacturing plant, which produces various lithium salt products by reacting lithium carbonate with different materials to produce lithium bromide, lithium chloride, and lithium aluminate. The proposed project would expand operations at the facility by adding a lithium hydroxide plant. The project at Kings Mountain would create approximately 19 permanent jobs. The Silver Peak site is approximately 15,000 acres. Chemetall uses the Silver Peak site for the production of lithium carbonate, and to a lesser degree, lithium hydroxide from lithium-bearing brines that are pumped from a well field. Silver Peak is the only major source of lithium carbonate in the United States. The proposed project would rework the existing brine field's production system, rework and expand the capacity of the existing brine evaporation pond system, and refurbish the existing lithium carbonate plant. All the improvements would occur within Chemetall's patented mining claims. The project at Silver Peak would create approximately 14 permanent jobs. Chemetall may also construct a geothermal power plant in the western portion of its Silver Peak unpatented mining claims. However, that action would be evaluated separate EAs prepared by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and is not part of this EA. The environmental analysis identified that the most notable changes, although minor, to result from Chemetall's proposed project would occur in the following areas: air quality, solid and hazardous wastes, and human health and safety for both Kings Mountain and Silver Peak, with the exception of solid and hazardous waste for Silver Peak, which was negligible. Additionally for Silver Peak, minor impacts would occur to groundwater, transportation and traffic. No significant environmental effects were identified in analyzing the potential consequences of these changes.

The issue of greenhouse gas emissions has been at the forefront of environmental concerns for the past decade. A number of treaties, agreements, and voluntary programs have been proposed to reduce emissions - some of which have been the subject of intense debate and disagreement. Most notable among these proposals has been the Kyoto Protocol. Signed in 1997 by the United States and other industrialized countries, the Kyoto Protocol is a major international treaty imposing binding emission reduction targets on the developed world. However, the U.S. Senate never ratified Kyoto, and the Administration recently announced its intention of dropping out of the international negotiations surrounding the Protocol. Nonetheless, the general scientific consensus, that global warming is a real, significant issue, is not in dispute. The Administration is calling into question only the appropriate response to this issue, while explicitly recognizing the need for some response. Regardless of whether this response takes the form of a domestic voluntary program, an international treaty, or something in between these two extremes, it is likely that it will incorporate "market mechanisms" in some form or other. Most of the various emission reduction responses that have been proposed over the past few years include such mechanisms. The development and implementation of these mechanisms, designed to facilitate low-cost solutions to environmental problems, is part of a broader trend away from the command-and-control regulations of the past, and towards increased flexibility in meeting regulatory requirements. This new market-based approach has worked its way into greenhouse gas emission reduction programs and proposals, using the guidelines provided by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and developed into a new concept: credits for emission reduction projects undertaken beyond a country's borders. Perhaps the greatest challenge for this new concept is the development of a protocol, or set of protocols, for estimating the emission reductions associated with projects. There is considerable concern among various groups surrounding the accuracy of the emission reduction estimates upon which credits would be awarded. In addition, others, particularly any potential project developer, want protocols that can be implemented within reasonable costs. Nonetheless, all parties generally recognize the need for accuracy of credits and agree on the need for a standard approach or set of procedures for estimating project-level emission reductions. A number of such approaches have been proposed and the purpose of this report is to evaluate some of the key proposals. Specifically, the report presents a series of hypothetical case study analyses designed to test each proposed approach in the context of potential real world projects. The case studies have been selected to cover a broad range of sectors and project types. The goal is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, and based on the case study analyses, recommendations for improving and refining the different approaches are developed. Four different approaches are evaluated in this report: The approach officially proposed by the U.S. at the recent (COP-6) negotiations surrounding the Kyoto Protocol; The European Union's "Positive Technology List"; The U.S. National Energy Technology Laboratory's (NETL) technology matrix concept (the "full" technology matrix); A hybrid approach combining elements of the technology matrix with the official U.S. approach (the "hybrid" technology matrix). Each case study project is evaluated using each of the above four approaches. The results for each approach are analyzed, compared and contrasted; these critical analyses in turn reveal the strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches in the context of a variety of different project types.

DOE prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to assess the potential for impacts to the human and natural environment associated with its Proposed Action -- providing financial assistance to Honeywell under a cooperative agreement. DOE's objective is to support the development of the EDV industry in an effort to substantially reduce the United States' consumption of petroleum, in addition to stimulating the United States' economy. More specifically, DOE's objective is to accelerate the development and production of various EDV systems through building or increasing domestic manufacturing capacity for advanced automotive batteries, their components, recycling facilities, and EDV components. This work will enable market introduction of various electric vehicle technologies by lowering the cost of battery packs, batteries, and electric propulsion systems for EDVs through high-volume manufacturing. Under the terms of the cooperative agreement, DOE would provide approximately 50 percent of the funding for Honeywell to construct a manufacturing plant to produce a critical battery material LiPF6. The project would produce up to 1500 metric tons of LiPF6 on an annual basis for high-quality Li-ion batteries. Additionally, the project would create approximately 34 permanent jobs. The environmental analysis identified that the most notable changes, although minor, to result from Honeywell's Proposed Project would occur in the following areas: air quality and greenhouse gas, noise, geology and soils, surface water and groundwater, vegetation and wildlife, wetlands, solid and hazardous wastes, transportation and traffic, and human health and safety. No significant environmental effects were identified in analyzing the potential consequences of these changes.

The Department of Energy (DOE) prepared this Environmental Assessment (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 Thermal Energy Corporation to facilitate installation of a combined heat and power system (CHP), water chillers, and cooling tower at a district power plant that supplies the energy, heating, and cooling needs of the Texas Medical Center campus in Houston, Harris County, Texas. This EA analyzes the potential environmental consequences of DOE's Proposed Action to provide the Recovery Act grant, Thermal Energy Corporation's proposed project of installing and operating a CHP system, and the No-Action Alternative. In this EA, DOE evaluated in detail potential impacts to air quality, sound levels, water resources, health and safety, and socioeconomics. After performing a screening analysis of other environmental resource areas, DOE concluded that impacts to other aspects of the environment would not be likely to occur or would not be detectable. The proposed project would be designed and operated in compliance with federal and Texas air quality regulations, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and have a net beneficial impact on air quality in the region. Operation of the CHP system would cause a small increase in noise outdoors near the adjacent medical facilities. Installation of the CHP system in a floodplain would not adversely impact natural and beneficial floodplain values or increase risks to lives or property. The project would have no or only small impacts to surface water quality and future availability of potable water in the Houston area, and would not cause significant hazards to workers or the public at the Central Plant. Manufacturing and installation of the equipment would result in a minor to moderate, temporary beneficial impact to the economy. Incremental increase in cumulative impacts from the proposed project, relative to impacts from other activities in the surrounding area, would be negligible to small.

PPL Renewable Energy, LLC and the Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority propose to construct and operate a 2 turbine wind energy project at the Frey Farm Landfill (FFLF) in Manor Township in Pennsylvania's Lancaster County to provide up to 3.2 megawatts of electricity principally to the adjacent Turkey Hill Dairy. Pennsylvania proposes to provide the project a $1.5 million grant, which would come from a formula grant Pennsylvania received from DOE pursuant to the Department's State Energy Program. This EA analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed construction and operation of the FFLF wind energy project and the alternative of not implementing this project.

DOE prepared this EA to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of providing an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act; Public Law 111-5, 123 Stat. 115) grant to Exide Technologies for expansion of its operations to manufacture advanced lead-acid batteries. DOE's Proposed Action is to provide $34.3 million in financial assistance in a cost-sharing arrangement with the project proponent, Exide Technologies. The total cost of the project is estimated at $70 million. Exide Technologies' proposed project would expand its domestic capacity to produce advanced lead-acid batteries for use in the transportation industry. This EA evaluates 14 resource areas and identifies no significant adverse impacts for the proposed project. Beneficial impacts to the nation's air quality and transportation industry could be realized from implementation of this proposed project. In addition, beneficial socioeconomic impacts would occur from increased employment opportunities and spending in the affected local economies.

Cephas Industries (Cephas) is proposing to construct an open-loop biomass manufacturing facility in Richmond, Virginia. The demand for recycling construction and demolition (C&D) debris has rapidly increased in recent years prompting the construction of approximately 200 biomass manufacturing facilities nationwide, with more expected to be developed. Of particular value is the recycling of wood and woody material into biomass commodities that can be sold to end-users as an alternative fuel source. Studies have shown that the recycling of C&D debris serves to: produce energy, conserve landfill space, reduce the environmental impact of producing new materials, and reduce overall construction project expenses by lessening disposal costs. The Cephas Open Loop Biomass Manufacturing Facility is a shovel-ready biomass project that would support the C&D and recycling industries in metropolitan Richmond. The proposed facility would be located on approximately 5.2 acres within the Broad Rock Industrial Park, which is located within the Richmond City limits south of the James River (Appendix 1). Development of the facility would include constructing an approximately 33,000 square foot metal building from recycled materials that would house the operational equipment (Appendix 2). The facility would have the capacity to accept and process 250-500 tons of C&D debris on a weekly basis, of which approximately 35% is expected to be biomass fuel. Cephas applied for funding assistance from Virginia's State Energy Program (SEP) through the Virginia Department of Mines Minerals and Energy (DMME). DMME selected this project to receive a grant from the SEP. States can apply their SEP funds to a variety of activities related to energy efficiency and renewable energy. Recently, much of states' SEP funding came from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) of 2009 (Public Law 111-5, 123 Stature 115; Recovery Act), in which Congress appropriated $3.1 billion to the Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) for SEP grants and from which Virginia received $70 million pursuant to a statutory formula for financial distribution. Virginia recently informed the Department that it proposes to use $500,000 of its SEP funds as a grant to the Cephas project. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) DOE must complete a review of potential environmental impacts of projects funded under the SEP before deciding whether to allow states to use their funds for the projects they select. DOE prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed biomass project and the no action alternative. This EA analyzes the following areas of potential environmental impacts: water resources, geology, topography, soils, vegetation, wildlife, air quality, noise, visual resources, archeological and historic resources, land use, environmental justice, and infrastructure.

This publication presents a rich and detailed history of the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) on the 100th anniversary of the founding of its original predecessor organization, the United States Bureau of Mines. This comprehensive account chronicles NETL's organizational history since 1910. To understand our history is to truly understand our organization, and, throughout this journey, A Century of Innovation is an invaluable guide to NETL's mission, vision, priorities, and structure. Our founding organization, the Bureau of Mines, was often a leader in technological advancements that benefitted American industries and consumers. Commencing as a small agency dedicated to making coal mining safer, it developed into a nationwide network of experiment stations supporting petroleum and natural gas production, mining and refining of rare metals, and the conversion of coal into gas and liquid fuels. From energy conservation efforts in the Great Depression, through urgent World War II research into aviation fuels, explosives, and nuclear materials, to its more familiar focus on developing new technologies to secure the Nation's energy future, NETL's path has had many pioneering twists and turns. NETL's efforts and accomplishments have been impressive in their breadth and scope, and our history encompasses a wide range of programs and activities. However, one constant over the years has been the tremendous dedication of the people who have made this organization what it is today. As this book attests, each time a new problem or challenge presented itself, NETL's managers, researchers, and engineers were ready to roll up their sleeves and find a solution. The universal commitment of NETL's people to a cause greater than themselves has been the hallmark of this organization. In 2010, many aspects of NETL would be unrecognizable to its predecessors. But our reputation for innovation has remained consistent. Beginning with the creation of the Pittsburgh Experiment Station in 1910, our evolution has paralleled the transformation of the U.S. energy economy from a system almost entirely dependent on fossil fuels to the current mix of fossil energy, hydropower, nuclear energy, and renewable resources. Our work reflects this mix, as our scientists, engineers, and analysts advance not only coal- and natural gas-based power systems, but also vehicle technologies, fuel cells, hydrogen turbines, water conservation technologies, and the potential of methane hydrates and fossil-biomass blends as new energy feedstocks. Our research activities continue to help assert America's leadership in solving the world's energy and environmental issues. Building on nearly a century of Federal energy research, we are developing and deploying modern technologies, creating jobs, and preparing our Nation's next generation of scientists and engineers.

DOE prepared this EA to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of providing $1.6 million in financial assistance pursuant to a Congressional earmark to Boston Architectural College (BAC) for its Urban Sustainability Initiative for the Renovation of Public Alley #444. The financial assistance would be in the form of cost-shared funding. This EA analyzes the potential environmental impacts of DOE's proposed action of providing the grant funding and the No-Action Alternative. In this EA, DOE evaluated potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project on air quality, geology and soils, biological resources - sensitive species, water resources, cultural/historic resources, traffic, noise, aesthetics and visual resources, and socioeconomic resources. The proposed project would be designed in compliance with all federal and state regulations, would reduce storm water runoff into the Charles River Basin and would become an ongoing tool for the BAC curriculum and community public education. The project would include the installation of 13 to 15 open loop geothermal wells to provide heating and cooling energy to BAC's facilities; the installation of a green screen trellis system, planting soils, concrete pavement, pavers, landscaping; and mechanical upgrades (plumbing and electrical) to accommodate the geothermal solution into the facilities. Operation of the geothermal wells would not result in any increase in noise in the vicinity. The aesthetics of Boston's Historic Back Bay District community would be enhanced with the addition of the green screen trellis system, planting soils, concrete pavement, and pavers. After consulting with Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) DOE has determinated that this project would not have an adverse effect on the historical Back Bay District. As part of the Green Alley Phase II, the green screen trellis system is a vine covered vegetated screen intended to provide an attractive visual amenity that benefits both the public and the institution by softening the appearance of two faces of an existing masonry block stair tower. Developing the geothermal wells on the BAC site would not significantly impact any population of plant or animal species. The project site is relatively small (less than 1.0 acre) and isolated from larger tracts of undisturbed land; nor does the area provide any unique habitats for special species. The Indiana bat (Myotis sodalist), an endangered species, is known to reside in Suffolk and Middlesex counties and in various locations throughout Massachusetts. However, given the localized construction area in the alley and the species' tendency to not stray from its wooded habitat, it is highly unlikely that the proposed action would have any negative impacts on the endangered Indiana bat species.