Question 1:
Systems that produce electrical power with something other than a heat engine (for instance, a fuel cell) may not require high temperature to achieve high efficiency. Will the requirement on page 11 for temperature ≥ 650 C be strictly enforced, or will novel high-efficiency, low-temperature systems be considered?
Answer 1:
As stated in the Funding Opportunity Announcement, "All Applicants must demonstrate a credible strategy whereby the TCES system will supply energy at a temperature and a ramp rate that is consistent with the requirements of one of the power cycles defined in Table 2." The power cycles defined in Table 2 are all based upon heat engines, and only those thermochemical energy storage systems designed to interface with one of the heat engine power cycles defined in Table 2 will be considered.
The output temperature from the thermochemical energy storage must be ≥650 C. Applications that do not meet this requirement will be scored in a manner that reflects the failure to meet this technical target given in the FOA.
Question 2:
A. The FOA instructions state the page limit for the Technology Description in the Concept Paper (p39) is four pages, but the application on the EERE website states three pages (on the Upload and Submit tab). Which is correct?
B. A cover page is requested in the FOA instructions (page 39) but the online application does not have an area to upload a cover page. Are the questions within the application form considered the “cover page”? I noticed the application seems to include the same items requested in the cover page instructions.
Answer 2:
A. The Concept Paper is limited to five (5) pages total including a cover page and a four (4) page technology description. This has been corrected in Exchange to read, “Concept Paper - limited to five (5) pages. The page limitation for Concept Papers includes all charts, graphs, maps, photographs, references, and a cover page.”
B. The cover page should be included in uploaded concept paper document.
Question 4:
Page 11 of the FOA states that proposed TCES systems must operate at ≥ 650C. Page 13 states that the TCES system will supply energy at a temperature that is consistent with the requirements of one of the power cycles defined in Table 2. Table 2 lists supercritical steam in a temperature range of 540-620C. If the envisioned TCES system generates steam directly during discharge, can the steam discharge temperature (and the TCES operating temperature) be in the range of the supercritical steam cycle (540-620C)?
Answer 4:
As stated on page 13 of the FOA (emphasis added), "All Applicants must demonstrate a credible strategy whereby the TCES system will supply energy at a temperature and a ramp rate that is consistent with the requirements of one of the power cycles defined in Table 2." Furthermore, as stated on page 19 of the FOA, "Each application must also include a calculation of the anticipated first law and second law efficiencies for the entire subsystem…" which, as indicated on page 16 of the FOA includes "exergy transfer from heat (E_heat), work (E_work), and substances (E_sub)". The merits of the application will be reviewed based upon the objectives of the FOA.
Question 7:
There are a host of different ways to interpret the program metric of "ratio of change of Gibbs Free Energy to change in Enthlpay (DG/DH) of 1".
Can additional guidance describing the source/derivation/end goal of this metric be provided?
Answer 7:
As stated on page 12 of the FOA (emphasis added) "An ideal chemical reaction would have the following characteristics: 1) a ratio of change in Gibbs Free Energy to change in Enthalpy (DG/DH) of 1". Page 16 of the FOA states "…eq. 3 defines the Gibbs free energy for the substance." wherein eq. 3 is presented as "Esub = (H - H0) - T0(S - S0)". As stated on page 15 of the FOA "Functions for entropy (S) [14] and Gibbs free energy (G) are defined by the second law and can be used to calculate exergy, or the maximum (reversible) amount of available energy to do work in a given environment [15, 16, 17]. Pages 16-17 of the FOA further state "To ensure maximum energy utilization, deviations from theoretical exergy values due to irreversible processes must be evaluated. Specifically, exergy destruction (Eloss) resulting from entropy creation should be determined when calculating the exergetic efficiency (hE) of a process…"
Applicants are directed to literature referenced in the FOA (as shown below) for further explanation of the subject.
[14] Entropy is a thermodynamic variable which reflects the disorder of a system. Entropy increases over time and is maximized for a system in equilibrium. In theory, entropy is zero for reversible processes; however, in practice entropy always increases since natural processes are irreversible.
[15] Sato, N. “Chemical Energy and Exergy: An Introduction to Chemical Thermodynamics for Engineers.” Elsevier, 2004 (New York).
[16] Dunbar, W. R., Lior, N., Gaggioli, R. A., 1992. The Composite Equations of Energy and Exergy, Journal of Energy Resources Technology. 114: 75 – 83.
[17] Bejan, A., 2002. Fundamentals of Exergy Analysis, Entropy Generation Minimization, and the Generation of Flow Architecture, International Journal of Energy Research. 26: 545 – 565.
Each application will be reviewed based upon its merits for meeting the objectives of the FOA.
Question 8:
Please give us an estimate of when we will be informed if we will be invited to submit a full proposal?
Answer 8:
DOE anticipates releasing feedback on concept papers for FOA DE-FOA-0000805 CSP ELEMENTS by no later than close of business on 6/10/2013.
Question 14:
1. What costs are included in the $15/kWh target? For instance, should the capital costs be levelized over 30 years or non-levelized? Are there rules of thumb that EERE would like to have used by all applicants?
2. No basis for the curve in Fig. 2 is given, and it would be highly likely that variations would exist for different configurations and chemical systems. Can EERE give examples of TCES systems that define the curve? How strictly will the criteria displayed be implemented?
3. Must Universities also supply 20% cost-share?
Answer 14:
1) The $15/kWht capital costs are not levelized over 30 years, although systems are targeted for a 30 year lifetime and so any material or equipment that will not last for that period of time and therefore requires replacement or regeneration should have those associated costs accounted for in the cost calculation. From the FOA, Figure 4 provides a simplified system boundary for both a direct and an indirect TCES system. Costs for any materials or equipment within this boundary should be included in the TCES system cost calculation." Functions describing the replacement and regeneration costs should also be included.
2) Figure 2 is meant to serve as a guiding principle to demonstrate that, in general, a system that has higher energy density can have a lower exergetic efficiency when compared to a system with a lower energy density and still be cost effective. This represents a concept described later in the FOA as a techno-economic tradeoff. The $15/kWht cost target, combined with the need to couple to the power blocks given in Table 2 of the FOA, captures most of this curve quantitatively.
3) All applicants, including universities, must provide 20% cost share to be compliant under the CSP:ELEMENTS FOA.
Question 16:
Reference Section IV.E.d. on page 46 (Budget Information SF-424A), do the separate budgets for each year have to sync up with government fiscal years?
If a budget period is only 5 months long, is that considered a Budget Year for purposes of SF-424A?
Answer 16:
No, budget periods do not need to line up with the government fiscal years.
While the exact length of budget periods is not restricted by the FOA, please keep in mind that adequate and realistic timeframes are important to the success of the project in passing go/no-go decision points. For the purposes of the SF-424A, please enter the information based on budget periods for Sections A and B and enter the information based on year for Sections D and E.
Question 17:
According to the FOA’s’ Project Management Plan (PMP): Instructions to Applicants’, The Project Management Plan (PMP) is an addendum to the Statement of Project Objectives (SOPO) that summarizes the proposed work to be completed in a tabular format, which is defined as the CSP_ELEMENTS PMP Excel Spreadsheet. However, within the Technical Volume, there is a Project Management Plan and the third bullet states a properly formatted PMP can be found on EERE Exchange. Is this the Excel spreadsheet? If not, what are the requirements for the 4 page PMP within the Technical Volume? What is to be uploaded in the Project Management Plan field in Upload and Submit tab? The excel spreadsheet? The PMP narrative file? Or both?
In the Upload and Submission tab, it states the completed and signed other sources of funding disclosure form, however, the FOA does not state a signature is required. Is there a form we need to complete/sign? If so, where can it be obtained?
Answer 17:
The Project Management Plan Example is located on Exchange under “Required Application Documents” that may be used as a guide. As stated in the FOA, the PMP should be included in the Technical Narrative. Per the FOA, the PMP should not be uploaded as a separate document from the Technical Narrative. In addition the Project Management Plan Instructions are located above the PMP Example listed among the Required Application Documents.
While there is not a specific Other Sources of Funding Disclosure form, an Other Sources of Funding Disclosure document is required if the PI or Co-PI(s) are participating in on any other Federally funded projects, as noted on pages 47 and 48 of the FOA. Please see the list of requested information required as part of the Other Sources of Funding Disclosure under section IV.E.ii.i of the FOA.