SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “smart grid applications”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

208 records · Page 12

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2022

Advanced Solar and Load Forecasting Incorporating HD Sky Imaging (Phase III)

Due to rapidly changing sky conditions, the available solar irradiance for energy generation is subject to wide swings in amplitude. As the market penetration of solar energy continues to increase rapidly, these variations in solar power generation are beginning to have an impact on grid stability and increased wear on power switches. Solar power forecasting plays a critical role in operations for Independent System Operators (ISOs) and utilities. Accurate forecasts help maintain grid reliability, optimize generation from renewables, and reduce operating costs. Of particular interest to the ISOs and utilities are sudden changes in solar irradiance, termed “ramp events,” due to the movement of clouds. One significant impact of ramp events on the grid is additional ancillary service requirements necessary to manage such variability. Ramp events can also cause voltage fluctuations in the distribution grids and trigger actions of automated line equipment (e.g., tap changers), leading to additional maintenance costs. In high penetration solar regions, forecasts must be made for both transmission-connected and distribution-connected resources – either behind the meter or in front of it. Particularly for distributed solar energy resources, forecasting can be a challenge due to the lack of visibility of the energy resource. Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) has been working towards nowcasting Global Horizontal Irradiance (GHI) using low-cost technologies for several years now. The Solar NowCasting technology being developed by BNL is a 0 – 30 min solar “nowcasting” technology applicable to a scale covering both large generating facilities and residential, distributed solar installations that relies on a network of ground-based high-definition (HD) cameras and surface pyranometers. GHI forecasts are being produced for both regions using 8 ground-based HD cameras and at least 2 surface pyranometers. When stitched together, the camera images can be used to forecast the impact of clouds on available solar irradiance over a domain of ~50 km 2 . Phase I of the project was the engineering scale up conceptual design stage. Phase II was the initial field test and demonstration, in which the technology was scaled up by a factor of 20 times and successfully demonstrated in eastern Long Island. In Phase III, an additional forecasting network was added in upstate NY and both networks are currently being operated until at least a full year of data is gathered by the Albany network to allow for the collection of sufficient data to evaluate performance against the persistence and smart persistence models using the Solar Arbiter.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2020

Real-Time Distributed Control of Smart Inverters for Network-level Optimization

The limitations of centralized optimization methods in managing electric power distribution systems operations have led to the distributed paradigm of computing and decision-making. Unfortunately, the existing distributed optimization algorithms are limited in their applicability to managing fast varying phenomena such as those resulting from highly variable Distributed Energy Resource (DER) generation patterns. They require a large number of communication rounds (in the order of 10 2 to 10 3 ) among the computing agents to solve one instance of the optimization problem. Related real-time distributed control methods are equally limited in their applications to power distribution systems with fast-changing DER generation; they require hundreds of rounds of communication and thus are slow in tracking the network-level optimal solutions. In this paper, we propose a novel distributed voltage controller that provides a fast-tracking of rapidly varying DER generation profiles while simultaneously converging to network-level optimal solutions within a few communication rounds. The proposed control algorithm leverages the radial topology of the system, which reduces the required communication rounds to reach the network-level optimum solution by order of magnitude. The novelty lies in carefully reducing the electrical network model from the perspective of each distributed controller and enabling appropriate data sharing among upstream and downstream nodes to achieve fast convergence. The simulation results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach in minimizing the feeder losses while maintaining the node voltage within the pre-specified limits.

voltage control, optimization, reactive power, inv↗

DOE OSTI2024

Deep Generative Models in Energy System Applications: Review, Challenges, and Future Directions

In recent years, with the advent of mature machine learning products like ChatGPT, Stable Diffusion, and Sora, the world has witnessed tremendous changes driven by the rapid development of generative artificial intelligence (GAI). Beyond applications in text, speech, image, and video creation, deep generative models (DGMs) underpinning these cutting-edge technologies have also been employed by domain researchers to address scientific and engineering challenges. This paper aims to fill a gap in the research community by providing a systematic review of how DGMs have been utilized in energy system applications. After introducing four most popular DGMs, we review and categorize 196 research articles into five focus areas: data generation, forecasting, situational awareness, modeling, and optimal decision-making. Through this classification, we uncover trends in how DGMs are employed for each type of problem, highlighting GAI techniques that contribute to breakthroughs over traditional methods. We discuss limitations in existing literature, engineering challenges, and propose future directions, all tailored to the unique nature of problems in energy system engineering. Our goal is to offer insights for energy system domain researchers, providing a comprehensive view of existing studies and potential future opportunities.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2021

Deep Reinforcement Learning for Autonomous Water Heater Control

Electric water heaters represent 14% of the electricity consumption in residential buildings. An average household in the United States (U.S.) spends about USD 400–600 (0.45 ¢/L–0.68 ¢/L) on water heating every year. In this context, water heaters are often considered as a valuable asset for Demand Response (DR) and building energy management system (BEMS) applications. To this end, this study proposes a model-free deep reinforcement learning (RL) approach that aims to minimize the electricity cost of a water heater under a time-of-use (TOU) electricity pricing policy by only using standard DR commands. In this approach, a set of RL agents, with different look ahead periods, were trained using the deep Q-networks (DQN) algorithm and their performance was tested on an unseen pair of price and hot water usage profiles. The testing results showed that the RL agents can help save electricity cost in the range of 19% to 35% compared to the baseline operation without causing any discomfort to end users. Additionally, the RL agents outperformed rule-based and model predictive control (MPC)-based controllers and achieved comparable performance to optimization-based control.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2020

Integrated Transmission-and-Distribution System Modeling of Power Systems: State-of-the-Art and Future Research Directions

Integrated transmission-and-distribution (T&D) modeling is a new and developing method for simulating power systems. Interest in integrated T&D modeling is driven by the changes taking place in power systems worldwide that are resulting in more decentralized power systems with increasingly high levels of distributed energy resources. Additionally, the increasing role of the hitherto passive energy consumer in the management and operation of power systems requires more capable and detailed integrated T&D modeling to understand the interactions between T&D systems. Although integrated T&D modeling has not yet found widespread commercial application, its potential for changing the decades-old power system modeling approaches has led to several research efforts in the last few years that tried to (i) develop algorithms and software for steady-state and dynamic modeling of power systems and (ii) demonstrate the advantages of this modeling approach compared with traditional, separated T&D system modeling. In this paper, we provide a review of integrated T&D modeling research efforts and the methods employed for steady-state and dynamic modeling of power systems. We also discuss our current research in integrated T&D modeling and the potential directions for future research. This paper should be useful for power systems researchers and industry members because it will provide them with a critical summary of current research efforts and the potential topics where research efforts are needed to further advance and demonstrate the utility of integrated T&D modeling.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

DOE OSTI2024

Innovating the next generation of commercial smart building software

Nearly 30% of commercial building energy use is wasted due to equipment faults and HVAC controls problems. The result is increased emissions, compromised comfort and productivity, and less reliable coordination of building power needs with a clean grid. The energy impact alone represents $17 billion in potential savings. Today’s smart building software provides a robust solution to address these operational deficiencies. Energy management and information systems (EMIS) are saving up to 9% on average, with two-year paybacks. They are being incorporated into energy management processes, commissioning services, and utility programs. As effective as they are, two barriers prevent even deeper benefits; limited personnel to fix problems once they are identified, and the expense and time to manually implement changes in control systems. In partnership with the research community, the EMIS industry is developing new capabilities to overcome these barriers. Moving beyond siloed products for either fault detection and diagnostics, or optimal control, these new capabilities empower users to not only automatically identify faults, but also to push corrective action, and control improvements to their buildings. In this paper, several areas for enhancements are documented: ‘one-time’ correction of faults such as setpoints, schedules, and economizer lockouts; short-term active testing for automated proportional integral derivative (PID) loop tuning and functional testing; and continuous supervisory control for demand flexibility and year-round efficiency. Results are presented from a pair of partner implementations out of a dozen providers integrating these enhancements into their products, including field tests from across the country, and insights into operator acceptance and integration into operations and maintenance practices.

Casillas, Armando↗

DOE OSTI2020

Evaluating the Adaptability of Reinforcement Learning Based HVAC Control for Residential Houses

Intelligent Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) control using deep reinforcement learning (DRL) has recently gained a lot of attention due to its ability to optimally control the complex behavior of the HVAC system. However, more exploration is needed on understanding the adaptability challenges that the DRL agent could face during the deployment phase. Using online learning for such applications is not realistic due to the long learning period and likely poor comfort control during the learning process. Alternatively, DRL can be pre-trained using a building model prior to deployment. However, developing an accurate building model for every house and deploying a pre-trained DRL model for HVAC control would not be cost-effective. In this study, we focus on evaluating the ability of DRL-based HVAC control to provide cost savings when pre-trained on one building model and deployed on different house models with varying user comforts. We observed around 30% of cost reduction by pre-trained model over baseline when validated in a simulation environment and achieved up to 21% cost reduction when deployed in the real house. This finding provides experimental evidence that the pre-trained DRL has the potential to adapt to different house environments and comfort settings.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2021

Comprehensive Assessment of On-And Off-Board Vehicle-To-Grid Technology Performance and Impacts on Battery and the Grid

This project defined, developed, and tested the open standards-based requirements, engineering design and system integration of on and off-vehicle Vehicle-to-Grid technologies both on the grid and on the PEV, to assess their effectiveness in implementing the use cases that create value for the grid, which in turn, can be passed on to the ratepayers and the PEV owners. The project comprised of three key categories of work and four key sub-areas of work. The three key categories were: On-Vehicle V2G, Off-Vehicle V2G, and impact of V2G operation on the battery capacity degradation. The four key sub-areas of work under each of these categories were: defining requirements, implementing the technology, performing system integration testing, and estimating the value of each of the grid services under specific assumptions, on a per-vehicle and on an aggregated basis. The technical implementation demonstrated the validity of standards-based approach to grid integration that led to interoperability, in addition to assessing the operational details with grid constraints imposed at the transformer level. The technology implementation also identified the subtle gaps in the standards definition to close the feedback loop on the accuracy of the standards as written, which are being implemented as revisions to the appropriate protocols. The battery impacts assessment developed a test cycle that the batteries from a real PHEV were subjected to for both the mobility-only and mobility with V2G specific energy cycling. While the battery impact results show a clear incremental degradation in response to additional throughput for V2G application purposes, the amount of additional kWh that can be made available without exceeding the end-of-life capacity definition of the battery at its 10-year warranty period was found to be significant. Given that the PEV battery being exercised during testing was a PHEV battery (smaller energy capacity), and 44% of its usable energy (i.e., SOC) was utilized daily for V2G applications, the EVs with much larger batteries will fare much better, either in terms of extracting more value in terms of incremental kWh for V2G, or in terms of relative incremental degradation of the capacity through the battery lifespan. Further, this battery was the second-generation Lithium-Ion chemistry circa 2015, which is at least two generations ago. Continual improvements in electrochemistry and manufacturing techniques as well as on-board capacity will enable the future batteries to provide even more energy for non-mobility-related services. Finally, the valuation of V2G energy services at the premise, distribution, and the ISO/market level was carried out for both the on-vehicle and off-vehicle cases, to understand both the GHG mitigation and operational efficiency improvements in quantitative terms. The analysis indicates that between $\$400$ and $\$1400$ per year of total value to the grid can be realized. When netted of costs to implement V2G either on or off-vehicle, the net value is available to be shared between the ratepayers and the EV owners. Over the life of the EV, therefore, this value becomes significant and can easily provide both ratepayer and EV owner benefits more than the cost of the equipment, either on or off-board, in addition to providing GHG mitigation benefits both on the grid and on the mobility sides. For these benefits to accrue, the key learnings from both the on- and off-vehicle V2G parts of the project indicate the need for at-scale demonstrations through involvement of real EV owners to validate both the technical feasibility, interoperability, as well as real grid benefits by performing extensive data collection and analysis. This will help inform the grid planners, the program designs, and tariff designers, as well as automotive and equipment manufacturers how best to create their products to maximize grid, ratepayer, and EV owner value.

30 DIRECT ENERGY CONVERSION↗

DOE OSTI2020

Soft-Switching Solid-State Transformer With Reduced Conduction Loss

Solid-state transformers (SSTs) are a promising solution photovoltaic (PV), wind, traction, data center, battery energy storage system (BESS), and fast charging electric vehicle (EV) applications. The traditional SSTs are typically three-stage, i.e., hard-switching cascaded multilevel rectifiers and inverters with dual active bridge (DAB) converters, which leads to bulky passives, low efficiency, and high electromagnetic interference (EMI). This article proposes a new soft-switching solid-state transformer (S4T). The S4T has full-range zero-voltage switching (ZVS), electrolytic capacitor-less dc link, and controlled dv/dt, which reduces EMI. The S4T comprises two reverse-blocking current-source inverter (CSI) bridges, auxiliary branches for ZVS, and transformer magnetizing inductor as a reduced dc link with 60% ripple. Compared with the prior S4T, an effective change on the leakage inductance diode is made to reduce the number of the devices on the main power path by 20% for significant conduction loss saving and retain the same functionality of damping the resonance between the leakage and resonant capacitors and recycling trapped leakage energy. The conduction loss saving is crucial, being the dominating loss mechanism in SSTs. Importantly, the proposed single-stage SST not only holds the potential for high power density and high efficiency but also has full functionality, e.g., multiport dc loads integration, voltage regulation, and reactive power compensation, unlike the traditional single-stage matrix SST. The S4T can achieve single-stage isolated bidirectional dc–dc, ac–dc, dc–ac, or ac–ac conversion. It can also be configured input-series output-parallel (ISOP) in a modular way for medium-voltage (MV) grids. Hence, the S4T is a promising candidate for the SST. The full functionality, e.g., voltage buck–boost, multiport, etc., and the universality of the S4T for the dc–dc, dc–ac, and ac–ac conversion are verified through the simulations and experiments of two-port and three-port MV prototypes based on 3.3 kV SiC MOSFETs in dc–dc, dc–ac, and ac–ac modes at 2 kV.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2022

Kimberlina 1.2 CCUS Geophysical Models and Synthetic Data Sets

This synthetic multi-scale and multi-physics data set was produced in collaboration with teams at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Colorado School of Mines through the Science-informed Machine Learning for Accelerating Real-Time Decisions in Subsurface Applications (SMART) Initiative. Data are associated with the following publication: Alumbaugh, D., Gasperikova, E., Crandall, D., Commer, M., Feng, S., Harbert, W., Li, Y., Lin, Y., and Samarasinghe, S., “The Kimberlina Synthetic Geophysical Model and Data Set for CO2 Monitoring Investigations”, The Geoscience Data Journal, 2023, DOI: 10.1002/gdj3.191. The dataset uses the Kimberlina 1.2 CO2 reservoir flow model simulations based on a hypothetical CO2 storage site in California (Birkholzer et al., 2011; Wainwright et al., 2013). Geophysical properties models (P- and S-wave seismic velocities, saturated density, and electrical resistivity) were produced with an approach similar to that of Yang et al. (2019) and Gasperikova et al. (2022) for 100 Kimberlina 1.2 reservoir models. Links to individual resources are provided below: [CO2 Saturation Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-co2-saturation-models); Resistivity Models – [part 1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-1), [part 2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-2), and [part 3](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-3); [Vp Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vp-velocity-models); [Vs Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vs-velocity-models); [Density Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-density-models). The 3D distributions of geophysical properties for the 33 time stamps of the SIM001 model were used to generate synthetic seismic, gravity, and electromagnetic (EM) responses for 33 times between zero and 200 years. Synthetic surface seismic data were generated using 2D and 3D finite-difference codes that simulate the acoustic wave equation (Moczo et al., 2007). 2D data were simulated for six point-pressure sources along a 2D line with 10 m receiver spacing and a time spacing of 0.0005 s. 3D simulations were completed for 25 surface pressure sources using a source separation of 1 km in both the x and y directions and a time spacing of 0.001 s. Links to individual resources are provided below: [2D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-velocity-models) and [2D surface seismic data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-surface-seismic-data). [3D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-velocity-models), and 3D seismic data [year0](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year0), [year1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year1), [year2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year2), [year5](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year5), [year10](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year10), [year15](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year15), [year20](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year20), [year25](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year25), [year30](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year30), [year35](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year35), [year40](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year40), [year45](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year45), [year49](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year49), [year50](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year50), [year51](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year51), [year52](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year52), [year55](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year55), [year60](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year60), [year65](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year65), [year70](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year70), [year75](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year75), [year80](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year80), [year85](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year85), [year90](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year90), [year95](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year95), [year100](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year100), [year110](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year110), [year120](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year120), [year130](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year130), [year140](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year140), [year150](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year150), [year175](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year175), [year200](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year200). The Python scripts to read these models and data are provided [here](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-python-scripts). EM simulations used a borehole-to-surface survey configuration, with the source located near the reservoir level and receivers on the surface using the code developed by Commer and Newman (2008). Pseudo-2D data for the source at [2500 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz2500m) and [3025 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz3025m), used a 2D inline receiver configuration to simulate a response over 3D resistivity models. The [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-csem-data) contain electric fields generated by borehole sources at monitoring well locations and measured over a surface receiver grid. Vector gravity data, both on the surface and in boreholes, were simulated using a modeling code developed by Rim and Li (2015). The simulation scenarios were parallel to those used for the EM: [pseudo-2D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were calculated along the same lines and within the same boreholes, and [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were simulated over 3D models on the surface and in three monitoring wells. A series of [synthetic well logs](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-well-logs) of CO2 saturation, acoustic velocity, density, and induction resistivity in the injection well and three monitoring wells are also provided at 0, 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after the initiation of injection. These were constructed by combining the low-frequency trend of the geophysical models with the high-frequency variations of actual well logs collected in the Kimberlina 1 well that was drilled at the proposed site. Measurements of permeability and pore connectivity were made on cores of Vedder Sandstone, which forms the primary reservoir unit: [CT micro scans](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-ct-micro-scans-of-vedder-formation) and [Industrial CT Images](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-industrial-ct-images-vedder-formation). These measurements provide the range of scales in the otherwise synthetic data set to be as close to a real-world situation as possible. References: Birkholzer, J.T., Zhou, Q., Cortis, A. and Finsterle, S., 2011. A sensitivity study on regional pressure buildup from large-scale CO2 storage projects. Energy Procedia, 4, 4371-4378. Commer, M., and Newman, G.A., 2008. New advances in three-dimensional controlled-source electromagnetic inversion, Geophysical Journal International, 172, 513-535. Gasperikova, E., Appriou, D., Bonneville, A., Feng, Z., Huang, L., Gao, K., Yang, X., Daley, T., 2022, Sensitivity of geophysical techniques for monitoring secondary CO2 storage plumes, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control, Volume 114, 103585, ISSN 1750-5836, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2022.103585. Moczo, P., J.O. Robertsson and L. Eisner, 2007, The finite-difference time-domain method for modeling of seismic wave propagation: Advances in geophysics, 48, 421-516. Rim, H., and Y. Li, 2015, Advantages of borehole vector gravity in density imaging, Geophysics, 80, G1-G13. Wainwright, H. M.; Finsterle, S.; Zhou, Q.; Birkholzer, J. T., 2013. Modeling the Performance of Large-Scale CO2 Storage Systems: A Comparison of Different Sensitivity Analysis Methods. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 17, 189205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.05.007, DOI: 10.18141/1603331. Yang, X., Buscheck, T.A., Mansoor, K., Wang, Z., Gao, K., Huang, L., Appriou, D., and Carroll, S.A., 2019. Assessment of geophysical monitoring methods for detection of brine and CO2 leakage in drinking water aquifers, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 90, 102803, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102803.

CCUS↗