Advanced Search

Portfolio evaluation of advanced coal technology : research, development, and demonstration

Research and Teaching Output of the MIT Community

Planned maintenance alert - Monday, April 21: DSpace@MIT will undergo maintenance activities that will affect service availability and access to file content. While the service interruptions should be brief, access to file content may take longer to restore. Status updates will be posted to

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisor Ernest J. Moniz. en_US Naga-Jones, Ayaka en_US
dc.contributor.other Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Technology and Policy Program. en_US 2006-11-07T12:48:23Z 2006-11-07T12:48:23Z 2005 en_US 2005 en_US
dc.description Thesis (S.M.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Engineering Systems Division, Technology and Policy Program, 2005. en_US
dc.description Includes bibliographical references (p. 82-84). en_US
dc.description.abstract This paper evaluates the advanced coal technology research, development and demonstration programs at the U.S. Department of Energy since the 1970s. The evaluation is conducted from a portfolio point of view and derives implications for future program design and implementation. The evaluation framework consists of four categories of criteria that assess the portfolio from strategy, diversity, partnership, and project merit points of view. The analysis of the successes and the failures of the past programs in technical, financial and managerial respects shows that these programs are reasonably successful in (1) remarkably advancing coal technologies to enable the U.S. to use coal as its major energy resource in the electricity sector when facing more stringent environmental regulation or possibly even in a greenhouse gas constrained world; (2)accumulating effective program management experience, especially involving industry in technology development from the beginning of the process to facilitate future deployment. Among these successes, a number of important features incorporated in the CCTDP are especially worth noting. These features are: (1) The program goal was well defined, which was accelerating commercialization of ACTs; en_US
dc.description.abstract (cont.) (2) All projects have been fully funded up front, which saved worries about project funding prospect and enabled performers to concentrate on project implementation; (3) The well-defined program goal and funding commitment from federal government has encouraged industrial participation. As a result, industry has shared more than 50% of the programs cost with new money; (4) The DOE share of project cost growth was capped at 25%, which has incentivized industry to be more cautious about project risk; (5) Industry was authorized to design, build, operate and own facilities, which made full use of industry expertise and resources; and (6)In general, the program created a degree of competition for a range of technologies, which has helped hedge the program risk. Notwithstanding the achievements, some problems exist in these programs, of which the major ones are: (1) imbalanced RD&D structure caused by gaps in high efficiency combustion, application of modeling and simulation in ACT R&D, under-investment in basic research and applied R&D, insufficient university and national laboratory participation in R&D programs, and weak international collaboration, especially that with China; en_US
dc.description.abstract (cont.) (2) deficiency in program management such as some political influence on project selection and operation, inefficient termination of unpromising projects, and design of inefficient programs such as the CCPI and over risky demonstration programs such as FutureGen. FutureGen, in a number of important respects such as goal defining, funding mechanism and technology option, presents a contrast to the CCTDP, the organization features of which have produced a number of successes. This elevates risk of failure of the program. Going forward, the DOE should (1) strive for more balanced program structure by enhancing R&D program and further diversifying technology options, with special attention on high efficiency combustion R&D and application of modeling and simulation; (2) draw in the successful experience of the CCTDP for efficient program design and management, especially in reconsidering program organization of FutureGen; (3) improve the processes of demonstration project selection and termination of unpromising projects in terms of minimizing political pressure on them; and (4) enhance university and national laboratory participation in R&D programs and Sino-U.S. collaboration on ACTs through joint RD&D on IGCC, USC, and pollution control devices. The collaboration may seek breakthrough with Chinese coal industry as a start. en_US
dc.description.statementofresponsibility by Ayaka Naga-Jones. en_US
dc.format.extent 134 p. en_US
dc.format.extent 46638943 bytes
dc.format.extent 46638443 bytes
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf
dc.language.iso eng en_US
dc.publisher Massachusetts Institute of Technology en_US
dc.rights M.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission. en_US
dc.subject Technology and Policy Program. en_US
dc.title Portfolio evaluation of advanced coal technology : research, development, and demonstration en_US
dc.type Thesis en_US S.M. en_US
dc.contributor.department Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Technology and Policy Program. en_US
dc.identifier.oclc 70964990 en_US

Files in this item

Name Size Format Description
70964990.pdf 44.47Mb PDF Preview, non-printable (open to all)
70964990-MIT.pdf 44.47Mb PDF Full printable version (MIT only)

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record