Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “resource selection functions”

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.

290 records · Page 17
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2014

Clearance Analysis of Node 3 Aft CBM to the Stowed FGB Solar Array

In early 2011, the ISS Vehicle Configuration Office began considering the relocation of the Permanent Multipurpose Module (PMM) to the aft facing Common Berthing Mechanism (CBM) on Node 3 to open a berthing location for visiting vehicles on the Node 1 nadir CBM. In this position, computer-aided design (CAD) models indicated that the aft end of the PMM would be only a few inches from the stowed Functional Cargo Block (FGB) port solar array. To validate the CAD model clearance analysis, in the late summer of 2011 the Image Science and Analysis Group (ISAG) was asked to determine the true geometric relationship between the on-orbit aft facing Node 3 CBM and the FGB port solar array. The desired measurements could be computed easily by photogrammetric analysis if current imagery of the ISS hardware were obtained. Beginning in the fall of 2011, ISAG used the Dynamic Onboard Ubiquitous Graphics (DOUG) program to design a way to acquire imagery of the aft face of Node 3, the aft end-cone of Node 1, the port side of pressurized mating adapter 1 (PMA1), and the port side of the FGB out to the tip of the port solar array using cameras on the Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS). This was complicated by the need to thread the SSRMS under the truss, past Node 3 and the Cupola, and into the space between the aft side of Node 3 and the FGB solar array to acquire more than 100 images from multiple positions. To minimize the number of SSRMS movements, the Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator (SPDM) would be attached to the SSRMS. This would make it possible to park the SPDM in one position and acquire multiple images by changing the viewing orientation of the SPDM body cameras using the pan/tilt units on which the cameras are mounted. Using this implementation concept, ISAG identified four SSRMS/SPDM positions from which all of the needed imagery could be acquired. Based on a photogrammetric simulation, it was estimated that the location of the FGB solar array could be measured within an accuracy of about 1 in. in each axis relative to the ISS Analysis Coordinate System (ISSACS). In October 2011, a proposed image-acquisition plan was drafted by ISAG and released for review. The ISS Robotics flight control team (ROBO) proposed minor changes to SPDM positions 1 and 4 to meet ISS proximity requirements. The updated image acquisition plan and draft chit were presented to and approved by the Systems Working Group (SWG) November 18 and were sent to the Vehicle Configuration Board (VCB) in early December 2011. Working with ROBO on 3 successive days (February 21, 22, and 23), ISAG collected 161 images of the ISS. Approximately 40 images were collected from each of the four different SSRMS/SPDM positions, with each set mapping the region from the Node 3 end cone, across Node 1, along the forward port side portion of the FGB, and out the port side FGB solar arrays. From this imagery, the best 80 images were selected for use in the analysis. The images were radiometrically enhanced to improve color and contrast and loaded into the FotoG analysis software along with the camera parameters and control data, which consisted of the coordinates for 54 handrail attachment bolts on the aft face of Node 3, in the ISSACS coordinate system. The results of this analysis produced the measured coordinates of 116 points distributed across the face of the FGB solar array panels (see figure 3) along with propagated uncertainty estimates in each coordinate axis. These results were sent to the ISS Vehicle Configuration Office, which sent them to the Configuration Analysis Modeling and Mass Properties (CAMMP) team for comparison with the Russian-provided CAD model for the retracted FGB solar arrays. The CAMMP analysis unexpectedly showed that the measured location of the port FGB solar array was up to 41-in. further outboard than the design and was slightly twisted about its rotational axis. The unexpected comparison results produced some initial concern regarding the accuracy of the photogrammetric measurements. To verify the measured results, ISAG personnel conducted a second analysis using just the imagery of the solar arrays in an arbitrary coordinate system defined by the three corner points of the inboard-most panel, with the design distance between points A1 and A10 as the only scale. The new measurements agreed with the original results to within less than 1 in. RMS in each axis, confirming the original solar array measurements. ISAG produced a final report for the ISS Vehicle Configuration Office documenting an apparent anomaly in the retracted configuration of the port FGB solar arrays. A copy of the measurement report was translated and sent to the Russian Space Agency. During a Vehicle Integrated Performance and Resources (VIPeR) teleconference September 24, 2012, the Russians acknowledged receipt of a translated copy of the ISAG report. The Russian representative stated that the head of the solar array design team claimed that the measured configuration was impossible unless the structure was physically broken. The Russians acknowledged that they had no expertise in photogrammetry, so the analysis technique employed was a "black box" to them, and they did not know how to use the ISAG results. They asked for a single image in which the overextension of the port solar array could be obviously seen. On November 10, 2012, during a face-to-face meeting with their Russian counterparts at JSC, ISAG presented nadir-view imagery of the FGB acquired during Space Shuttle rendezvous. Using the known width of the pressurized portion of the FGB as a scale, this analysis clearly showed that the port FGB solar array was extended outboard further than the Russian design for the retracted solar array.

Liddle, Donn↗
DOE OSTI2022

Liquid Salt Combined-Cycle Pilot Plant Design

The work described in this report is responsive to the Office of Fossil Energy program ‘Energy Storage for Fossil Power Generation.’ This Phase I report has been prepared by Pintail Power LLC, with support from Nexant ECA, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and Southern Company Services as a deliverable for the U.S. Department of Energy for NETL Award DE-FE-00320016. The Liquid Salt Combined Cycle™ (LSCC™) technology provides large-scale energy storage integrated with Fossil Electric Generating Units (FEGUs) to meet critical needs in the energy transition by providing: • the lowest cost large-scale storage for time-shifting of renewable energy, • superior fuel efficiency to reduce GHGs from dispatchable resources, • flexible capacity and ramping to balance variability of wind and solar resources, • essential grid stability services to assure reliability of a low-carbon grid. The LSCC approach: • employs equipment that has already been proven in utility service, • uses safe, non-toxic, non-degrading, perpetual-life storage medium, • leverages and repurposes existing FEGU assets, • expands the value stack of energy storage to reduce market, financing, and commodity risks. Pintail Power has developed the LSCC technology to meet the need for reliable, efficient, and cost-effective integration of Variable Renewable Energy (VRE) into a low-carbon electric grid by coupling proven thermal energy storage with proven gas turbines, steam turbines, and heat transfer equipment. This novel approach is intended to address the key issues facing the grid and operators of renewable and fossil generating units including: • Overgeneration and curtailment of renewables, • Need for fast ramping dispatchable resources, • Improved efficiency and flexibility of fossil units, • Additional peaking capacity to support electrification of transportation and heating, • Provision of reliability services to support high penetration of VRE, especially synchronous inertia and fast frequency response. A Technology Readiness assessment by EPRI confirmed that LSCC technology consists of commercially proven hardware used in industrial and utility applications. Although the novel LSCC approach has not yet been demonstrated as a complete system, interfaces between major components have been conservatively specified. A Phase III pilot is planned to demonstrate equipment integration and operation. The patented innovation is removal of the evaporator section from the exhaust heat recovery system, with the evaporation performed by stored energy in a separate steam generator. This arrangement couples renewable and fossil power generation via long-duration energy storage to deliver cost, performance, and operational synergies, including superior charging and discharging flexibility, reduced fuel consumption and lower CO 2 emissions compared to conventional Combined Cycle Power Plants, and low-cost, large-scale energy storage. The LSCC technology is composed of proven equipment integrated with gas turbine exhaust heat in a novel system. During charging, electric heaters raise the salt temperature as it flows from the Cold Salt Tank to the Hot Salt Tank. During discharging, hot salt produces steam from feedwater that is heated with gas turbine exhaust, which also superheats steam to drive a steam turbine. LSCC technology can be added to any combustion-turbine to integrate renewable energy, provide needed grid services, and increase the value of fossil electric generating units based on the technology’s following attributes: • Long-duration storage enables time-shifting of VRE to avoid curtailment and impairment of renewable assets. • Long storage duration combined with fast-charging capability increases arbitrage opportunities by storing more energy when the price is low and discharging more hours when the price is high. • Long storage duration allows resource adequacy to be supplied across multiple days to increase reliability and reduce risk. • The stored energy reduces fuel heat rate and GHG emissions, and increases merit, so the LSCC dispatches earlier and longer to increase the plant’s capacity factor and asset value. • The stored energy enables pre-heating and startup of the steam cycle, without operating the gas turbine, to enable fast startup and ramping when dispatched for discharge. • The steam turbine can operate without the gas turbine so it can provide valuable synchronous inertia during charging without consuming fuel. • Fast frequency response and regulation services can be provided during charging using solid-state heater and pump controls to vary the charge power input in response to grid signals. • The LSCC system can be configured for resilience including black start, islanded/micro-grid operation, and even self-recharging of storage using either gas turbine power or gas turbine exhaust heat. The commercialization plan is to add LSCC technology to existing simple cycle gas turbine power plants with the 50MW GE LM6000 aero-derivative gas turbine as the reference design basis. A Techno-economic assessment of the reference design evaluated the benefits (Levelized Avoided Cost of Energy) and costs (Levelized Cost of Energy). The plant definition included all major systems and budgetary vendor quotes. Pintail Power and NexantECA developed the overall cost estimate for the LSCC plant up to the total plant cost level, following the DOE-NETL cost estimate guidelines at AACE Class 3 (-20%/+30%). This includes the equipment cost, bulk material, direct and indirect labor costs to arrive at the bare erected cost. Engineering costs are factored from the BEC and added to it to arrive at the EPC cost. Process and project contingencies were then factored from the EPC cost and rolled-up to yield the total plant cost of $\$$184 million for 1746 MWh of discharge electricity. • At $\$$105/kWh, the reference plant costs less than any of the Energy Storage Systems evaluated by PNNL in 2020 for the Energy Storage Grand Challenge. Operations and Maintenance cost estimates were scaled from combined cycle practice, assuming that the LSCC unit was co-located with and sharing some labor expense with other units, to arrive at $\$$2.2 million per year. Plant economics were evaluated using prices from the ERCOT Day-Ahead Market for calendar year 2019 (excluding the market disruptions from the COVID pandemic and the February 2020 deep freeze event). Assuming economic dispatch in the ERCOT Day-Ahead market, the reference plant capacity factor would have discharged for 2777 hours at 91.9 MW, a 31.66% capacity factor, with a marginal cost of $\$$25.59/MWh, and a LACE of $\$$82.41/MWh. Fixed charges were calculated according to EIA guidelines to arrive at an LCOE of $\$$83.48. The benefit-to-cost ratio of 0.99 suggests that the reference plant would have been cost-effective and competitive in the market. EPRI interviewed selected utilities to gauge the need for, applicability of and interest in the LSCC system. Several utilities are currently managing increased load growth along with the inclusion of increasing levels of renewable generation, putting pressure on conventional generation by requiring increased turndown requirements and ultimately lower capacity factors. All of the utilities interviewed have CO 2 reduction targets in the 2030-2050 timeframe that will severely limit the participation of fossil generation and require better utilization of carbon free generation. While there is limited opportunity for storage in the current markets, the utilities interviewed stated that there will be a substantial need for long duration energy storage in the future given the expected trends. Utilizing an energy storage system will generally be preferred over new gas capacity in some cases, with the capabilities of the LSCC system being a potential option for retrofit to existing simple cycle gas turbine units, allowing them to deliver greater participation in the market with lower carbon intensity. A technology gap assessment and technology maturation plan identified a pilot-scale demonstration as the final step before commercialization. Key gaps to be addressed during the Phase II FEED (Front-End Engineering Design) are component selection and design, commissioning procedures, and operational procedures and the control system for LSCC charging and discharging. The project team has been expanded to include Wood Group PLC as EPC. The proposed Phase II work leads to a pilot-scale engineering demonstration (TRL 6) to be conducted at Southern Company’s Plant Rowan, where the prototype system will perform “all the functions that will be required of the operational system.” The proposed pilot will facilitate commercialization (TRL-9) by scale-up to utility-scale systems integrated with peaking GTs or directly to facility scale systems using industrial GTs. The conceptual design for the pilot plant focuses on the novel integration aspects of LSCC technology. A slipstream of gas turbine exhaust will feed a waste heat recovery unit coupled to a molten salt steam generator heated by stored energy. The pilot is intended to demonstrate all key operating modes of the LSCC technology during charging, discharging and standby. The pilot equipment will be approximately one-seventh scale of the LM6000 commercial target and is expected to have commercial off-ramp potential for facility-scale applications.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗