Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “CAPITAL”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 181 records · Page 10
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1980

SPS salvage and disposal alternatives

A wide range of salvage options exist for the satellite power system (SPS) satellite, ranging from use in and beyond geosynchronous orbit to use in low Earth orbit to return and use on Earth. The satellite might be used intact to provide for various purposes, it might be cannibalized, or it might be melted down to supply materials for space- or ground-based products. The use of SPS beyond its nominal lifetime provides value that can be deducted from the SPS capital investment cost. It is shown that the present value of the salvage value of the SPS satellites, referenced to the system initial operation data, is likely to be on the order of five to ten percent of its on-orbit capital cost. (Given a 30 year satellite lifetime and a four percent discount rate, the theoretical maximum salvage value is 30.8 percent of the initial capital cost). The SPS demonstration satellite is available some 30 years earlier than the first full-scale SPS satellite and has a likely salvage value on the order of 80 percent of its on site capital cost. In the event that it becomes desirable to dispose of either the demonstration or full-scale SPS satellite, a number of disposal options appear to exist for which intact disposal costs are less than one percent of capital costs.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1980

Satellite power system salvage and disposal alternatives

A wide range of salvage options for the SPS satellite, ranging from use in and beyond geosynchronous orbit to use in low Earth orbit in return and use on Earth are presented. The satellite can be used intact to provide power for various purposes, it can be cannibalized or it can be melted down to supply materials for space or ground based products. The use of SPS beyond its nominal lifetime provides value that can be deducted from the SPS capital investment cost. The present value of the salvage value of the SPS satellites, referenced to the system initial operation data, is on the order of five to ten percent of its on-orbit capital cost. (Given a 30 year satellite lifetime and a four percent discount rate, the theoretical maximum salvage value is 30.8 percent of the capital cost.) The SPS demonstration satellite is available some 30 years earlier than the first full scale SPS satellite and has a salvage value on the order of 80 percent of its on-orbit capital cost. In the event that it becomes desirable to dispose of either the demonstration of full scale SPS satellite, a number of disposal options is presented for which intact disposal costs are less than one percent of capital costs.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1986

Constant-Elasticity-of-Substitution Simulation

Program simulates constant elasticity-of-substitution (CES) production function. CES function used by economic analysts to examine production costs as well as uncertainties in production. User provides such input parameters as price of labor, price of capital, and dispersion levels. CES minimizes expected cost to produce capital-uncertainty pair. By varying capital-value input, one obtains series of capital-uncertainty pairs. Capital-uncertainty pairs then used to generate several cost curves. CES program menu driven and features specific print menu for examining selected output curves. Program written in BASIC for interactive execution and implemented on IBM PC-series computer.

Reiter, G.↗
DOE OSTI2014

Nuclear-Renewable Hybrid System Economic Basis for Electricity, Fuel, and Hydrogen

Concerns about climate change and altering the ocean chemistry are likely to limit the use of fossil fuels. That implies a transition to a low-carbon nuclear-renewable electricity grid. Historically variable electricity demand was met using fossil plants with low capital costs, high operating costs, and substantial greenhouse gas emissions. However, the most easily scalable very-low-emissions generating options, nuclear and non-dispatchable renewables (solar and wind), are capital-intensive technologies with low operating costs that should operate at full capacities to minimize costs. No combination of fully-utilized nuclear and renewables can meet the variable electricity demand. This implies large quantities of expensive excess generating capacity much of the time. In a free market this results in near-zero electricity prices at times of high nuclear renewables output and low electricity demand with electricity revenue collapse. Capital deployment efficiency—the economic benefit derived from energy systems capital investment at a societal level—strongly favors high utilization of these capital-intensive systems, especially if low-carbon nuclear renewables are to replace fossil fuels. Hybrid energy systems are one option for better utilization of these systems that consumes excess energy at times of low prices to make some useful product.The economic basis for development of hybrid energy systems is described for a low-carbon nuclear renewable world where much of the time there are massivequantities of excess energy available from the electric sector.Examples include (1) high-temperature electrolysis to generate hydrogen for non-fossil liquid fuels, direct use as a transport fuel, metal reduction, etc. and (2) biorefineries.Nuclear energy with its concentrated constant heat output may become the enabling technology for economically-viable low-carbon electricity grids because hybrid nuclear systems may provide an economic way to produce dispatachable variable electricity with economic base-load operation of the reactor.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2015

Identification and prioritization of high risk deteriorating support infrastructure - 15475

Identification and prioritization for the re-capitalization of deteriorating waste processing and storage support infrastructure and information technology (IT) is essential for a safe, cost effective, and sustainable waste management program. Funding restraints have limited programs to performing only maintenance on aging infrastructure support systems whose operational costs, technological obsolescence, and reliability risks continue to grow without a disciplined and balanced re-capitalization program. Savannah River Site (SRS) comprises both Department of Energy Environmental Management and NNSA missions, and includes a lab, Savannah River National Laboratory. SRS has developed a crosscutting identification and prioritization tool and process that provides integration of all Site mission support infrastructure re-capitalization requirements and prioritizes into a single database that can be readily accessed for infrastructure investment decisions. This database, referred to as the SRS Critical Integrated Infrastructure Priority List (CIIPL) captures risk data that includes impacts toward safety, regulatory compliance, mission, and cost for inclusion in its prioritization process. Further, the CIIPL provides a status of each entered project's readiness for execution that includes funding source, reliability of current cost estimate, and an out year budget profile. The SRS CIIPL, created in 2009, was initially comprised of re-capitalization projects for the Site's common infrastructure (i.e. shared roads and utilities) that supported all Site missions and activities. As mission program funding became constrained, the value for a Site wide integrated prioritization tool became more apparent and the CIIPL grew to include all Site mission and tenant activities which included safeguards and security requirements. The SRS CIIPL has become a highly effective tool for achieving senior management situational awareness of the Site's most pressing support infrastructure and IT needs. The mission programs have used the CIIPL to prioritize and fund high risk projects within their own program budgets. This past year, the CIIPL was used as a budgeting and decision making tool to allocate funding for two common infrastructures high risk projects for the FY16 Site budget submission and has received laudatory comments from DOE headquarters review teams. The SRS CIIPL and its process can be a benefit to other waste management organizations by demonstrating a proven approach toward the integration of support infrastructure and IT re-capitalization requirements across diverse mission and tenant boundaries. The SRS CIIPL can provide senior management with an objective decision making tool that delivers a balanced evaluation of project requirements in terms of multiple risk criteria; safety, regulatory, mission, and cost impacts. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2021

Mexico and U.S. Power Systems Under Variations in Natural Gas Prices

This study examines the impact of natural gas prices on the power systems of Mexico and the United States. For this, we develop an integrated modeling framework by soft linking three different techno-economic bottom-up models of the power and energy systems, one partial equilibrium model of the natural gas sector, and a partial equilibrium model of the Mexican energy sector. Our results show several interesting results: high natural gas prices raise the use of carbon-intensive technologies in the short-term and boost renewable investments at longer time intervals, increasing emissions in earlier periods and reducing them thereafter. Regarding system costs, because of more capital-intensive green power and lower expenditures in raw energy carriers, capital costs rise and operating costs decrease in the long haul. Furthermore, we see an increase in natural gas demand when its price is low, reducing long-term capital and operating costs through cheaper energy inputs in natural gas facilities and a lower share of capital-intensive renewable facilities in the power system. Concerning emissions, low natural-gas prices decrease coal use in the United States, reducing anthropogenic emissions until the last stages of the optimization period. For Mexico, they show heterogeneous results across models. Policymakers can use this study's results to understand the influence of natural gas prices in the Mexican and United States energy sectors.

45 MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, WEAPONRY, AND NATIONAL DEF↗
DOE OSTI2010

Techno-Economic Analysis of Biofuels Production Based on Gasification

This study compares capital and production costs of two biomass-to-liquid production plants based on gasification. The first biorefinery scenario is an oxygen-fed, low-temperature (870?C), non-slagging, fluidized bed gasifier. The second scenario is an oxygen-fed, high-temperature (1,300?C), slagging, entrained flow gasifier. Both are followed by catalytic Fischer-Tropsch synthesis and hydroprocessing to naphtha-range (gasoline blend stock) and distillate-range (diesel blend stock) liquid fractions. Process modeling software (Aspen Plus) is utilized to organize the mass and energy streams and cost estimation software is used to generate equipment costs. Economic analysis is performed to estimate the capital investment and operating costs. Results show that the total capital investment required for nth plant scenarios is $610 million and $500 million for high-temperature and low-temperature scenarios, respectively. Product value (PV) for the high-temperature and low-temperature scenarios is estimated to be $4.30 and $4.80 per gallon of gasoline equivalent (GGE), respectively, based on a feedstock cost of $75 per dry short ton. Sensitivity analysis is also performed on process and economic parameters. This analysis shows that total capital investment and feedstock cost are among the most influential parameters affecting the PV.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2012

Investment in different sized SMRs: Economic evaluation of stochastic scenarios by INCAS code

Small Modular LWR concepts are being developed and proposed to investors worldwide. They capitalize on operating track record of GEN II LWR, while introducing innovative design enhancements allowed by smaller size and additional benefits from the higher degree of modularization and from deployment of multiple units on the same site. (i.e. 'Economy of Multiple' paradigm) Nevertheless Small Modular Reactors pay for a dis-economy of scale that represents a relevant penalty on a capital intensive investment. Investors in the nuclear power generation industry face a very high financial risk, due to high capital commitment and exceptionally long pay-back time. Investment risk arise from uncertainty that affects scenario conditions over such a long time horizon. Risk aversion is increased by current adverse conditions of financial markets and general economic downturn, as is the case nowadays. This work investigates both the investment profitability and risk of alternative investments in a single Large Reactor or in multiple SMR of different sizes drawing information from project's Internal Rate of Return stochastic distribution. multiple SMR deployment on a single site with total power installed, equivalent to a single LR. Uncertain scenario conditions and stochastic input assumptions are included in the analysis, representing investment uncertainty and risk. Results show that, despite the combination of much larger number of stochastic variables in SMR fleets, uncertainty of project profitability is not increased, as compared to LR: SMR have features able to smooth IRR variance and control investment risk. Despite dis-economy of scale, SMR represent a limited capital commitment and a scalable investment option that meet investors' interest, even in developed and mature markets, that are traditional marketplace for LR. (authors)

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2017

Development Strategy for Gas Turbines with Firebrick Resistance-Heated Energy Storage to Enable Nuclear-Renewable Grid Integration

The world is transitioning to a low-carbon energy system. Variable electricity and industrial energy demands have been met with storable fossil fuels-systems with low-capital costs and high-operating costs. In contrast, the low-carbon energy sources (nuclear, wind and solar) are characterized by high-capital-costs and low-operating costs. High utilization is required to produce economic energy. The addition of large quantities of wind or solar changes the market. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Future of Solar Energy study examined the solar option and the challenge of moving from an electricity grid dominated by fossil fuel generation to a grid with significant solar capacity. As more solar plants are built, electricity prices at times of high solar output collapse; thus, solar revenue collapses as solar production increases. This limits unsubsidized solar capacity to a relatively small fraction of total electricity production even if there are large decreases in solar capital costs. The same occurs with the large-scale use of wind. This results in increasing number of hours of near-zero wholesale prices for electricity that has been seen in multiple electricity markets in Europe and the United States. This is bad economic news for nuclear, wind and solar for revenue collapse limits the use of low-carbon technologies. It favors lower-capital-cost higher-operating-cost natural gas plants with their capability to cycle up and down quickly. New technologies are required to store or use this electricity at times of low prices to produce electricity at times of high prices. The use of gas-turbines with Firebrick Resistance-Heated Energy Storage (FIRES) is proposed herein to address this challenge as part of a broader strategy to develop nuclear power systems with three goals: (1) compete with natural gas, (2) prosper with subsidized wind and solar and (3) enable a low-cost low-carbon nuclear-renewable energy system.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2017

Heat Storage for Peak Power with Base-Load Rankine-Cycle LWRs nd Brayton-Cycle High-Temperature Reactors

The world is transitioning to a low-carbon energy system. Variable electricity and industrial energy demands have been met with storable fossil fuels-systems with low-capital costs and high-operating costs. In contrast, the low-carbon energy sources (nuclear, wind and solar) are characterized by high-capital-costs and low-operating costs. High utilization is required to produce economic energy. The addition of large quantities of wind or solar changes the market. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Future of Solar Energy study provides an examination of the solar option and the challenge of moving from an electricity grid dominated by fossil fuel generation to a grid with significant solar capacity. As more solar plants are built, electricity prices at times of high solar output collapse; thus, solar revenue collapses as solar production increases. This limits unsubsidized solar capacity to a relatively small fraction of total electricity production even if there are large decreases in solar capital costs. The same occurs with the large-scale use of wind. This results in increasing number of hours of near-zero wholesale prices for electricity that has been seen in multiple electricity markets in Europe and the United States. This is bad economic news for nuclear, wind and solar for revenue collapse limits the use of low-carbon technologies. It favors lower-capital-cost higher-operating- cost natural gas plants with their capability to cycle up and down quickly. New technologies are required to store or use this electricity at times of low prices to produce electricity at times of high prices. We describe two strategies to improve nuclear power economics based on heat storage. Heat storage is less expensive than electricity storage. The reactor operates at full capacity all the time but the electricity to the grid varies with time depending upon electricity prices. Each option allows sending heat to industry.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Advancing Pumped Thermal Energy Storage Performance and Cost Using Silica Storage Media

Pumped Thermal Energy Storage (PTES) is an electricity storage system that is suitable for long-duration energy storage (10-1000 h) due to its low marginal cost of energy capacity. We present a techno-economic model of a PTES system that uses particle thermal energy storage. Particles have low costs and can be operated over a wide temperature range leading to increased efficiency and reduced costs compared to other PTES designs. We show how the round-trip efficiency, specific power output, capital cost, and levelized cost of storage (LCOS) depend on parameters such as the pressure ratio, heat exchanger approach temperature and pressure loss, and maximum temperature. We compare particle-PTES (P-PTES) performance to PTES which uses liquid thermal energy storage - i.e. molten salt hot storage and methanol cold storage (MS-PTES). We find that using silica particles for storage advances PTES technology: P-PTES can be operated at higher maximum temperatures than MS-PTES. Furthermore, P-PTES can achieve lower approach temperatures in the heat exchangers than MS-PTES without increasing capital costs, because P-PTES uses direct-contact heat transfer in fluidized bed heat exchangers. As a result, we find that P-PTES systems achieve higher round-trip efficiency than MS-PTES (66 % versus 57 %) and lower LCOS (e.g. 0.115 +- 0.03 $/kWhe versus 0.171 +- 0.04 $/kWhe for 10 h discharge). The low cost of particles and containment means that P-PTES can provide long-duration energy storage at low capital cost per unit energy capacity. For example, the total capital cost per unit energy reduces from 245 $/kWhe at 10 h to 38 $/kWhe at 100 h. These costs are considerably lower than MS-PTES (72 $/kWhe at 100 h) and also outcompete current and future Li-ion battery system projections (100-265 $/kWhe).

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2021

Towards standardized nuclear reactors: Seismic isolation and the cost impact of the earthquake load case

We report nuclear energy has a key role to play in global decarbonization. Impediments to the widespread deployment of reactors are their projected high capital cost and levelized cost of energy, and time required to analyze, design, license, construct, and commission them. The earthquake load case is a key cost driver for a new build nuclear plant, because near-surface soils and seismic hazard are different at each site, requiring site-specific analysis, design, engineering, qualification, licensing, and regulatory review, essentially making every design First-of-a-Kind (FoaK). To enable deployment at the scale needed for deep decarbonization, the cost and time impact of the seismic load case must be significantly mitigated, and plants must be standardized. Seismic base isolation has been proven to considerably reduce the earthquake response of structures and equipment but has yet to be applied to a nuclear power plant in the United States, in part because the financial impacts, positive or negative, are not known. Because there are no recent non-proprietary data to characterize the influence of the seismic load case on capital cost, it is difficult to confidently quantify the financial benefits of seismic isolation. Scheme-level designs of two fundamentally different advanced reactor buildings were developed to assemble cost data on the influence of the seismic load case. Both buildings were equipped with three bespoke pieces of safety-related equipment and analyzed for incremented levels of earthquake shaking to quantify the seismic penalty on equipment, in terms of vessel weights and horizontal accelerations. Using analysis results, a questionnaire was developed and transmitted to nuclear utilities, reactor developers, engineers, and equipment suppliers to collect cost data on engineering and fabrication costs for these unique pieces of safety-class equipment. Synthesis of the cost data showed that the seismic load case significantly affects the capital cost (sum of engineering and fabrication cost) of safety-class equipment, with engineering costs being comparable to fabrication costs. Standardization of safety-class equipment is made possible by seismic isolation, that is, equipment designed for minimal seismic robustness can resist earthquake shaking at a site of much higher seismic hazard. The average reduction in the capital cost of the safety-related equipment, enabled by seismic isolation, is a factor of two for FoaK equipment and a factor of five for standardized equipment.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Defining a compact dry cooler design to reduce LCOE contribution in a CSP facility

Concentrating solar power (CSP), when coupled with a supercritical carbon dioxide (sCO 2 ) power cycle and sensible heat storage, presents a renewable and clean alternative for utility-scale power generation. However, in order to be competitive in the current and future markets, CSP facilities must limit their levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) by minimizing capital costs and reducing operating costs over the lifetime of the plant. Targeting this goal, this study investigates the LCOE impact of the power cycle pre-cooler. This study considers a compact dry cooler with micro-channel technology on the CO 2 side and formed fin geometry on the air side, using directly-coupled centrifugal fans and a transition duct to improve air distribution across the fins as well as protect the fins from contaminants which may cause blockage, soiling, fouling, and damage. In an effort to better understand the dry cooler impact on LCOE, a sensitivity study was conducted using various combinations of end-to-end approach temperatures, air-side pressure drop values, CO 2 -side pressure drop values, fan types, cooler turndown control schemes, cooler module sizes, and design-point ambient temperatures. Furthemore, off-design cycle performance data was calculated for each dry cooler design using NPSS simulation software; cycle performance data were then input to System Advisor Model (SAM) along with the associated capital costs for LCOE prediction of a 100 MW system over a 30 year plant lifetime. Results of this study show the LCOE is most sensitive to air-side performance, followed by heat transfer effectiveness and capital cost. It was found that a power cycle with a mid- to high-performance dry cooler will produce the most competitive power-production costs. Designing at the extreme ends for approach temperature (or effectiveness), design-point ambient temperature, and compactness (footprint) produce higher LCOE values; mid-range values for these parameters balance performance, operating costs, and associated capital cost to optimize LCOE.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2013

Potential of Securitization in Solar PV Finance

This report aims to demonstrate, hypothetically and at a high level, what volumes of solar deployment could be supported given solar industry access to the capital markets in the form of security issuance. Securitization is not anticipated to replace tax equity in the near- to mid-term, but it could provide an additional source of funds that would be comparatively inexpensive and could reduce the weighted average cost of capital for a given solar project or portfolio. Thus, the potential to securitize solar assets and seek financing in the capital markets could help to sustain the solar industry when the investment tax credit (ITC) -- one of the federal incentives that has leveraged billions of dollars of private capital in the solar industry -- drops from 30% to 10% at the close of 2016. The report offers analysis on the size of the U.S. third-party financed solar market, as well as on the volumes (in MW) of solar asset origination possible through a $100 million securitization fund (assuming no overcollateralization). It also provides data on the size of the relevant securities markets and how the solar asset class may fit into these markets.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2016

Feasibilities of a Coal-Biomass to Liquids Plant in Southern West Virginia

This project has generated comprehensive and realistic results of feasibilities for a coal-biomass to liquids (CBTL) plant in southern West Virginia; and evaluated the sensitivity of the analyses to various anticipated scenarios and parametric uncertainties. Specifically the project has addressed economic feasibility, technical feasibility, market feasibility, and financial feasibility. In the economic feasibility study, a multi-objective siting model was developed and was then used to identify and rank the suitable facility sites. Spatial models were also developed to assess the biomass and coal feedstock availabilities and economics. Environmental impact analysis was conducted mainly to assess life cycle analysis and greenhouse gas emission. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis were also investigated in this study. Sensitivity analyses on required selling price (RSP) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of CBTL fuels were conducted according to feedstock availability and price, biomass to coal mix ratio, conversion rate, internal rate of return (IRR), capital cost, operational and maintenance cost. The study of siting and capacity showed that feedstock mixed ratio limited the CBTL production. The price of coal had a more dominant effect on RSP than that of biomass. Different mix ratios in the feedstock and conversion rates led to RSP ranging from $104.3 - $157.9/bbl. LCA results indicated that GHG emissions ranged from 80.62 kg CO 2 eq to 101.46 kg CO2 eq/1,000 MJ of liquid fuel at various biomass to coal mix ratios and conversion rates if carbon capture and storage (CCS) was applied. Most of water and fossil energy were consumed in conversion process. Compared to petroleum-derived-liquid fuels, the reduction in GHG emissions could be between -2.7% and 16.2% with CBTL substitution. As for the technical study, three approaches of coal and biomass to liquids, direct, indirect and hybrid, were considered in the analysis. The process models including conceptual design, process modeling and process validation were developed and validated for different cases. Equipment design and capital costs were investigated on capital coast estimation and economical model validation. Material and energy balances and techno-economic analysis on base case were conducted for evaluation of projects. Also, sensitives studies of direct and indirect approaches were both used to evaluate the CBTL plant economic performance. In this study, techno-economic analysis were conducted in Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (APEA) environment for indirect, direct, and hybrid CBTL plants with CCS based on high fidelity process models developed in Aspen Plus and Excel. The process thermal efficiency ranges from 45% to 67%. The break-even oil price ranges from $86.1 to $100.6 per barrel for small scale (10000 bbl/day) CBTL plants and from $65.3 to $80.5 per barrel for large scale (50000 bbl/day) CBTL plants. Increasing biomass/coal ratio from 8/92 to 20/80 would increase the break-even oil price of indirect CBTL plant by $3/bbl and decrease the break-even oil price of direct CBTL plant by about $1/bbl. The order of carbon capture penalty is direct > indirect > hybrid. The order of capital investment is hybrid (with or without shale gas utilization) > direct (without shale gas utilization) > indirect > direct (with shale gas utilization). The order of thermal efficiency is direct > hybrid > indirect. The order of break-even oil price is hybrid (without shale gas utilization) > direct (without shale gas utilization) > hybrid (with shale gas utilization) > indirect > direct (with shale gas utilization).

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2015

Nuclear-Renewable Energy Systems Secondary Product Market Analysis Study

In order to properly create a program surrounding the development of any technological concept it is necessary to fully understand the market in which it is being developed. In the case of Integrated Nuclear-Renewable Hybrid Energy Systems (HES), there are two economic markets in which it must be able to participate in: the electricity market and the secondary product market associated with the specific system. The purpose of the present report is to characterize the secondary product market in the U.S. and to provide recommendations for further developing the HES program. While HESs have been discussed in depth in many other reports, it is helpful to discuss them briefly in the present work [REF]. The concept of the HES can be deduced to a system, featuring a combination of a nuclear power plant, a renewable energy source, and an industrial manufacturing plant . The system is designed in a fashion that allows it either to produce electricity or to manufacture a secondary product as needed. The primary benefit of this concept lies in its ability to maximize economic performance of the integrated system and to manufacture products in a carbon-free manner. A secondary benefit is the enhanced supply-side flexibility gained by allowing the HES to economically provide grid services. A key tenant to nuclear power plant economics in today’s electricity market is their ability to operate at a very high capacity factor. Unfortunately, in regions with a high penetration of renewable energy, the carbon free energy produced by nuclear power may not be needed at all times. This forces the nuclear power plant to find a user for its excess capacity. This may include paying the electric grid to find a user, releasing energy to the environment by ‘dumping steam’, or reducing power. If the plant is unable to economically or safely do any of these actions, the plant is at risk of being shutdown. In order to allow for nuclear power plants to continue to contribute carbon free electricity to the grid in a future with high renewable energy penetration, HESs allow for excess capacity to be diverted to a chemical process. If the chemical products sold on the market replace those sold previously – which would be the case if a currently operating manufacturing plant was modified to be a HES component – then the products would now be produced with reduced emission of carbon and other greenhouse gases. There are several key economic barriers that must be surmounted for HESs to be developed. The two primary barriers are the increased capital cost associated with coupling and controlling the HES components and the decreased utilization of the manufacturing plant capital due to intermittent energy delivery . Because of this, manufacturing plants that are less complex and have smaller non-variable operations and capital costs may be more attractive for integration. A secondary economic barrier for the HES is the market availability for its products. The system must operate a region where there is either an intermittent demand for its electricity, an intermittent demand for its secondary product, or both. In a region with an intermittent demand, product prices should shift accordingly, making it less attractive to produce one of the products. The HES then can shift production in order to maximize profit. Without an intermittent demand for at least one of its products, there would be little need for it to expend the extra capital required for integration as an HES.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2017

Crowdsourced Microfinance for Energy Efficiency in Underserved Communities

BlocPower’s mission is to provide access to energy efficiency financing for underserved communities across the United States. This project, “Crowdsourced Microfinance for Energy Efficiency in Underserved Communities,” is an extension of that goal and is grounded in the principles of providing engineering and financing services to those in need. The project is based on the creation of a BlocPower Marketplace as a central hub for connecting shovel-ready green buildings to institutional investors. This ‘connection’ entails using online crowdfunding to aggregate debt and equity capital from institutional investors to connect to customers (building owners) across various financial portfolios. BlocPower Marketplace is intended to bring social, environmental, and financial returns to investors while also decreasing investor risk by loaning out funds for energy installations in individual buildings. In detail, the intended benefits of crowdsourcing are two-sided. Firstly, for building owners, clean energy retrofit installations improve building operations, reduce utility costs, and reduce harmful impacts to their surrounding environment. Secondly, for institutional investors, they gain access to a new market of energy efficiency and are able to provide debt or equity capital with high financial returns. This gives investors the opportunity to create social and environmental impact in communities around the country as well. With this in mind, BlocPower designed the marketplace to specifically answer exploratory research questions with respect to the pricing of energy financing. Institutional investors typically charge high rates on project financing solutions in the energy space, particularly in low and middle-income communities, because of fears that required debt service will not be made. This makes access to energy capital exorbitantly difficult for those that need it the most. Through this project, BlocPower tested investor appetite to determine if crowdsourcing would lower prices and subsequently lower barriers to entry for underserved communities’ access to energy capital. BlocPower’s results in this project were extremely informative for the industry. The project demonstrates that the marketplace is a scalable tool to help overcome barriers to entry for small building owners in underserved communities to access energy efficiency financing, but that crowdfunding by itself does not necessarily lower interest rates and make energy efficiency projects feasible. For that, we need a repayment mechanism that lowers perceived risk. That mechanism is on bill repayment.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2017

Regulatory Incentives and Disincentives for Utility Investments in Grid Modernization

Electric power is America's most capital-intensive industry, with more than $100 billion invested each year in energy infrastructure. Investment needs are likely to grow as electric utilities make power systems more reliable and resilient, deploy advanced digital technologies, and facilitate new services to meet some consumers' expectations for greater choice and control. But do current regulatory approaches provide the appropriate incentives for grid modernization investments? This report presents three perspectives: -Financial analyst Steve Kihm begins by explaining that any major investor-owned electric utility that wants to raise capital today can do so at a reasonable cost. The question is whether utility managers want to raise capital for grid modernization. Specifically, they look for investments that create the most value for their existing shareholders. In cases where grid modernization investments are not the best choice in terms of shareholder value, Kihm describes shareholder incentive mechanisms that regulators could consider to encourage such investments when they are in the public interest. -From an institutional perspective, Dr. Janice Beecher finds that the traditional rate-base/rate of return regulatory model provides powerful incentives for utilities to pursue investments, cost control, efficiency and even innovation, and it is well suited to the policy objectives of grid modernization. Prudence of grid modernization investments (fair returns) depends on careful evaluation of the specific asset, and any special incentives (bonus returns) should be used only if they promote economic efficiency consistent with the core goals of economic regulation. According to Beecher, realizing the promises of grid modernization depends on effective implementation of the traditional regulatory model and ratemaking tools to serve the public interest. -Conversely, former commissioner and clean energy consultant Ron Lehr says that rapid electric industry changes require a better alignment of utility investment incentives with changes challenging the electricity sector, emerging grid modernization options and benefits, and public policies. For example, investor-owned utilities typically have an incentive to make capital investments, but rarely to employ expense-based solutions, since utilities do not earn profits on expenses. Further, Lehr cites a variety of factors that stand in the way of creating well targeted and well aligned utility incentives, including litigated regulatory processes. These may be a poor choice for finding the right balance among competing interests, establishing rules of prospective application, justifying demonstrations of new technologies and approaches to meeting emerging consumer demands, and keeping pace with rapid change.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗