In 2001, the National Research Council (NRC) completed a congressionally mandated assessment of the benefits and costs of DOE's fossil energy and energy efficiency R&D programs, Energy Research at DOE: Was It Worth It? The Congress followed this retrospective study by directing DOE to request the NRC to develop a methodology for assessing prospective benefits. The first phase of this projectâ€"development of the methodologyâ€"began in December 2003. Phase two will make the methodology more robust and explore related issues, and subsequent phases will apply the methodology to review the prospective benefits of different DOE fossil energy and energy efficiency R&D programs. In developing this project, three considerations were particularly important. First, the study should adapt the work of the retrospective study. Second, the project should develop a methodology that provides a rigorous calculation of benefits and risks, and a practical and consistent process for its application. Third, the methodology should be transparent, should not require extensive resources for implementation, and should produce easily understood results. This report presents the results of phase one. It focuses on adaptation of the retrospective methodology to a prospective context.

Nationally-recognised studies and our contacts with a diverse group of industry representatives, non-governmental organisations, and academic researchers show that key barriers to CCS deployment include (1) underdeveloped and costly CO2 capture technology and (2) regulatory and legal uncertainties over CO2 capture, injection, and storage. Among the key technological barriers are a lack of experience in capturing significant amounts of CO2 from power plants and the significant cost of capturing CO2, particularly from existing coal-fired power plants, which are the single largest source of CO2 emissions in the United States. Compounding these technological issues are regulatory and legal uncertainties, including uncertainty regarding liability for CO2 leakage and ownership of CO2 once injected. According to the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and other knowledgeable authorities, another barrier is the absence of a national strategy to control CO2 emissions (emissions trading plan, CO2 emissions tax, or other mandatory control of CO2 emissions), without which the electric utility industry has little incentive to capture and store its CO2 emissions. Moreover, according to key agency officials, the absence of a national strategy has also deterred their agencies from addressing other important practical issues, such as resolving how stored CO2 would be treated in a future CO2 emissions trading plan.

Since its inception in 1977 from an amalgam of federal authorities, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has administered numerous programs aimed at developing applied energy technologies. In recent years, federal oversight of public expenditures has emphasized the integration of performance and budgeting. Notably, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) was passed in 1993 in response to questions about the value and effectiveness of federal programs. GPRA and other mandates have led agencies to develop indicators of program performance and program outcomes. The development of indicators has been watched with keen interest by Congress, which has requested of the National Research Council (NRC) a series of reports using quantitative indicators to evaluate the effectiveness of applied energy research and development (R&D). The first such report took a retrospective view of the first 3 years of DOE R&D programs on fossil energy and energy efficiency. The report found that DOE-sponsored research had netted large commercial successes, such as advanced refrigerator compressors, electronic lighting ballasts, and emission control technology for flue gas desulfurization. However, some programs were judged to be costly failures in which large R&D expenditures did not result in a commercial energy technology. A follow-up NRC committee was assigned the task of adapting the methodology to the assessment of the future payoff of continuing programs. Evaluating the outcome of R&D expenditures requires an analysis of program costs and benefits. Doing so is not a trivial matter. First, the analysis of costs and benefits must reflect the full range of public benefits that are envisioned, accounting for environmental and energy security impacts as well as economic effects. Second, the analysis must consider how likely the research is to succeed and how valuable the research will be if successful. Finally, the analysis must consider what might happen if the government did not support the project: Would some non-DOE entity undertake it or an equivalent activity that would produce some or all of the benefits of government involvement? This second report continues to investigate the development and use of R&D outcome indicators and applies the benefits evaluation methodology to six DOE R&D activities. It provides further definition for the development of indicators for environmental and security benefits and refines the evaluation process based on its experience with the six DOE R&D case studies.

A selection of annotated references to unclassified reports and journal articles that were introduced into the NASA scientific and technical information system and announced in Scientific and technical aerospace reports (STAR) and International aerospace abstracts (IAA).

Selected, peer reviewed papers from the 2012 Asian Pacific Conference on Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development (APEESD 2012), November 12-13, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia