SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “Cash Flow”
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.
Economic and sustainability prospects for wet waste valorization: The case for sustainable aviation fuel from arrested anaerobic digestion
Not Available
Techno-Economic and life cycle assessment of standalone Single-Stream material recovery facilities in the United states
Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) are crucial players in achieving a circular economy. MRFs receive complex waste streams and separate valuable recyclables from these mixtures. This study conducts techno-economic analysis (TEA) to estimate the net present value (NPV) and life cycle assessment (LCA) to estimate different environmental impacts of a commercial scale standalone, single-stream MRF to assess the economic feasibility and environmental impacts of recovering valuable recyclables from an MRF processing 120,000 tonnes per year (t/y). The TEA employs a discounted cash flow rate of return (DCFROR) analysis over a 20-year facility lifetime, along with a sensitivity analysis on the impact of different operating and economic parameters. Results show that the total fixed cost of building the MRF facility is $\$ $23 MM, and the operating cost is $\$ $45.48/tonne. Further the NPV of the MRF can vary from $\$ $3.57 MM to $\$ $60 MM, while 100-year global warming potential can range from 5.98 to 8.53 kg carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-eq) per tonne of MSW. We have also found that MSW composition (arising from regional effects) significantly impacts costs, 100-year global warming potential, and other impact categories such as acidification potential, eutrophication potential, ecotoxicity, ozone depletion, photochemical oxidation, carcinogenic effects, and non-carcinogenic effects. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis indicate that waste composition and market prices significantly impact the profitability of the MRF, and the waste composition mostly impacts global warming potential. Our analysis also indicates that facility capacity, fixed capital cost, and waste tipping fees are vital parameters that affect the economic viability of MRF operations.
The Economic Impact of Battery Degradation Modelling Uncertainty
Battery energy storage systems (BESS) are used for a variety of applications, with their economic benefit often being the decisive factor for deployment. A multitude of physico-chemical aging mechanisms lead to capacity fade over a BESS life cycle. The models that are used to describe this capacity fade are prone to inherent model errors. Through a holistic techno-economic modelling approach, we investigate the impact of battery degradation modelling uncertainty on the economic benefit of representative BESS applications. Here, it is shown how improved parameter fit quality can reduce the resulting economic uncertainty. Furthermore, we highlight that the consideration of degradation modelling uncertainty is especially crucial when: (i) the cash flow highly depends on the available battery capacity, (ii) a fixed, e.g. warranty mandated, state of health limit acts as the threshold for battery end-of-life, (iii) long evaluation periods and low discount rates are the focus of economic evaluation.
Economic, Exergy, and Environmental Analyses of the Energy Assessments for U.S. Industries
Abstract This paper highlights the expected versus actual outcomes of 152 energy assessments that were performed between 2011 and 2020. The 1317 energy-assessment recommendations (ARs) are grouped into eight categories. This study adopted four measures per each category of recommendations: annual electricity savings, annual gas savings, annual cost savings, and annual CO2 emission reduction. The first part of the analysis compares the expected to the actually implemented values of the measures applied to each recommendation’s category. It was found that the percentages of the actual to the expected electricity, gas, and cost savings are 26.6%, 11.4%, and 17.1%, respectively, while the percentage of the actual to the expected CO2 reduction is 22%. Moreover, the second part of the analysis presents each category's implementation rate and the reasons for rejecting the unimplemented ARs. Cash flow and expensive initial investment resulted in rejecting 25% of ARs. Furthermore, the study proposes techniques and strategies to increase ARs’ implementation rate and improve private energy services companies’ implementation rate. Finally, exergy analysis is added to show the improvement that energy assessment achieves regarding exergy and exergy efficiencies of different industrial applications.
ProFAST (Production Financial Analysis Scenario Tool) [SWR-23-88]
The Production Financial Analysis Scenario Tool (ProFAST) provides a quick and convenient in-depth financial analysis for production facilities. The model uses a generally accepted accounting principles analysis framework and provides annual projections of income statements, cash flow statements, and balance sheets. ProFAST allows users to calculate the levelized cost of the produced commodity by providing an expected financial performance, or on the other hand, calculate the financial performance based on an input price. Model inputs generally capital expenditures, operating expenditures, and financing structure. The programmatic approach of ProFAST allows users to easily perform large sensitivity analyses and integrates easily with other python tools.
Charging Hub Scenario Sheet Screenshot
The Excel-based CHECT tool estimates the LCOC ($/kWh) by charger type (Level 1, Level 2, and DC fast charging) for a given charging hub scenario. CHECT requires users to input certain charging hub scenario parameters, including the number of chargers, daily utilization, and charger replacement frequency by charger type. Additional inputs such as the charging schedule, local utility rates, capital/operational costs, and financial inputs can be customized by the user, or the tool can generate results using appropriate default values from literature for the charging hub scenario and service location(s). Using the above inputs, CHECT performs a robust techno-economic analysis to generate the LCOC by charger type, broken down by cost category (e.g., capital, operational, utility, taxes) for various combinations of charging hub types (multiunit dwelling or public) and ownership models (residential, utility, or private company). It also outputs the annual discounted cash flows and determines the most sensitive input variables. In addition, the tool allows users to easily compare the LCOC across various ownership models or across different states.
Brazilian CBP - Technoeconomic analysis data
This data is related to the paper entitled "Techno-economic analysis of sugarcane bagasse and straw conversion into cellulosic ethanol via consolidated bioprocessing". That features the evaluation of sugarcane bagasse and straw conversion to ethanol at stand-alone facilities generating electricity from residues. The following scenarios were evaluated: Conventional, featuring hydrothermal pretreatment, fungal cellulase, and yeast fermentation (current commercial standard); Mid-term consolidated bioprocessing (CBP), relying on bagasse solubilization without pretreatment or cotreatment; and Mature CBP, incorporating cotreatment but no pretreatment and considering significant technological advance of the CBP. Available here are the spreadsheets used for Material and Energy balance calculation, Capital and Operational costs estimation and Cash flow analysis. Also available are the description and python code used for Monte Carlo analysis of the ethanol and capital investment variations. This data can be used as a source to implement other techno-economic analysis in the biorefinary context.
Supplementary Data for "Evaluation of the Economic Implications of Varied Pressure Drawdown Strategies Generated Using a Real-time, Rapid Predictive, Multi-fidelity Model for Unconventional Oil and Gas Wells" by Bello, K., Vikara, D., Sheriff, A., Viswanathan, H., Carr, T., Sweeney, M., O'Malley, D., Marquis, M., Vactor, R.T., and Cunha, L.
The Bello et al. study evaluates the impact of contrasting pressure drawdown on gas productivity and the resulting economics of a well in the Marcellus Shale of the Appalachian Basin. This research applies a techno-economic analysis approach to help identify potential ways pressure management strategies can be used to improve cumulative recovery of hydraulically fractured horizontal wells while maintaining project profitability. Gas production forecast outlook scenarios of the Marcellus Shale Energy and Environment Laboratory Laboratory's MIP-3H well were generated under varying pressure drawdowns using two approaches: 1) a novel physics-informed machine learning (PIML) workflow and 2) via traditional reservoir simulation in Computer Modeling Group’s (CMG) GEM Compositional & Unconventional Simulator. Cash flow and other economic metrics of interest were compiled on the production outlook using the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) Unconventional Shale Well Economic Model (UShWEM).The sheets within this Microsoft ExcelTM workbook provide the economic metric outputs for the baseline condition and the one-at-a-time (OAT) sensitivity analysis of UShWEM's input parameters for each of the production scenarios evaluated.
DSO+T: Valuation Methodology and Economic Metrics (DSO+T Study: Volume 4)
This report summarizes a rigorous valuation analysis methodology used by the Distribution System Operator with Transactive (DSO+T) study to estimate the financial benefits and costs of adopting Transactive Energy coordination of distributed energy resources for key stakeholders (for example distribution system operators and customers). This was achieved by modeling the value exchanges between stakeholders and determining the annualized costs and revenues experienced by stakeholders, enabling the evaluation of overall impact on stakeholder’s annualized cash flow. Extensive work was conducted developing methods to estimate the operating costs of distribution system operators at a level of granularity that would allow the financial impact of implementing a transactive energy approach to be estimated. This work included developing parametric models for labor and software costs, distribution system capital and maintenance costs, growth rates, and factors to determine annualized costs of capital investments. Simulation results were used to calculate wholesale energy costs and revenues from retail sales. Valuation analysis methods were also developed for other stakeholders including customers, the transmission system operator, independent system operator, and generators. The resulting capability allows a complete mapping of the flow of financial value between stakeholders that can be directly integrated with the results of demand flexibility simulations. Example results are provided for a business-as-usual case and compared to a transactive energy case as well as to actual cost data.
Economic Analysis of Battery (NMC) Cathode Material Production in Flame Spray Process with Sustainable Solvents
To reduce the cathode material manufacturing cost, our lab has developed a flame spray process that utilize sustainable solvent glycerol as solvent to manufacture the cathode material. The economic analysis of the new green chemical process was studied based on discounted cash flow method. The major economic indicator used in this study is the minimum cathode material selling price (MCSP), whereas the co-precipitation method for NMC333 production was selected as the reference for economic analysis.
Preliminary Pilot-scale Study and Techno-economic Analysis of Chemical Heat Pump with Conventional Nuclear Reactors
The energy economy is continually evolving, particularly in terms of primary energy sources, their conversions to useful forms such as electricity and heat, and their utilization in different sectors, in response to socio-political factors. Because nuclear source is clean and non-carbon-emitting energy source, it is crucial to consider its role in the evolution of the energy economy. A pilot-scale study was conducted for Chemical Heat Pump (ChHP) system at three different scales (25-, 100-, and 1000-kW thermal outputs) using steady state thermal model. To establish the viability of selling heat rather than electricity alone, techno-economic analysis was undertaken for advanced Small Modular Reactor (SMR), and SMR paired with varied thermal output ChHP systems was referred to as the nuclear hybrid energy system (NHES) in this study. Using the U.S. Energy Information Administration statistics, pricing for electricity and natural gas were anticipated for U.S. regions (California, Northwest, Midwest, Southwest, New England, and PJM). Based on thermal output from ChHP, advanced SMR with 100 MWth and four alternative NHES scenarios were explored, namely 50-, 10-, 5-, and 1-MWth. Net present value, payback period, discounted cash flow return, and levelized cost of energy were evaluated for all scenarios. Based on the economic analysis, selling heat to high-temperature industrial processes is more profitable compared to selling electricity only. Higher carbon taxes showed significant improvement in economic parameters for NHESs. Providing heat to high-temperature industries could be beneficial, helping to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions by slashing the fossil fuel consumption.
Hydrogen Production Cost with Alkaline Electrolysis
Rigorous stakeholder-vetted techno-economic analysis was performed to assess the cost of hydrogen (H 2 ) produced using state-of-the-art Liquid Alkaline (LA) electrolysis. Projected high-volume, untaxed levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) range from 2020US $\$ 1.84$ to $\$ 2.88$/kg-H 2 depending on technology year, process design, and electrolyzer project scale, assuming an electricity price of $\$ 0.03$/kWh. The total installed capital cost for a LA electrolysis plant was estimated from bottom-up stack and installed cost models that account for purchased equipment, installation costs, site preparation, and general overhead costs. For this study, the LA electrolysis plant is assumed to be a stick-built, greenfield project developed by an EPC firm with electrolysis stacks purchased directly from an electrolysis stack manufacturer. The price of the electrolysis stacks is based on a bottom-up cost assessment with business markup for the electrolysis company fabricator. Methods from the Hydrogen Analysis (H 2 A) production model, a peer-reviewed national laboratory-developed discounted cash flow model, were used to calculate the LCOH production in 2020$/kg-H 2 . The baseline electricity price case ($\$ 0.03$/kWh) corresponds to average wholesale electricity prices currently possible in U.S. markets with plentiful wind. Similar low-cost electricity pricing is possible from solar Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) although these prices are typically limited by renewable energy capacity factors.
H 2 Production Pathways Cost Analysis (2016 - 2021) (Final Report)
This final report documents cost analysis conducted for the Department of Energy over a five year period (2016 to 2021) pertaining to hydrogen production and delivery system components, focusing on the key remaining challenges of the technology pathways within the Hydrogen Production and Delivery sub-program portfolio. A particular focus was placed on electrolysis for the generation of hydrogen. The effort primarily used the H2A discounted cash flow computational model as a tool to project hydrogen cost ($/kgH 2 ) and determine status improvements resulting from technology advancements. The effort also considered cost as a function of production volume, employed error bars to illustrate uncertainties in the cost estimates, and utilized sensitivity analyses to show the potential for cost reductions. The project examined a range of hydrogen production and delivery related systems. These included WireTough wire-wrapped pressure vessels for hydrogen storage, proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysis, solid oxide electrolysis (SOE), anion exchange membrane (AEM) electrolysis, photoelectrochemical (PEC) electrolysis, solar thermochemical hydrogen (STCH) production, the cost of energy transmission, and a study on the necessary price of hydrogen to produce competitively-priced electricity via fuel cell conversion.
Community Planning for Solar: Understanding and Evaluating Solar Financing and Ownership Options
This guide is intended for town officials and constituents to provide a high-level understanding of how solar development can be owned and financed. The guide particularly highlights solar project cash flows of costs and benefits, how they accrue over time between local and non-local project participants, and how financial risk is appropriated.
Capital Structure for Techno-Economic Analysis of Hydrogen Projects
This report provides updated generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) parameter estimates of assumptions that may be used to reflect the cost of financing hydrogen infrastructure deployment. The report also provides parameter estimation for more streamlined financial analysis frameworks such as discounted cash flow and annualized financial models. Parameter values are derived from industry feedback and are reflective of current macro-economic factors such as higher interest rates and higher risk profile of emerging hydrogen technologies, given a myriad of factors such as projects’ construction inexperience, capital costs, and rising inflation, among others.
FECM/NETL Natural Gas with Hydrogen Pipeline Cost Model (2024): Description and User’s Manual
This is the user’s manual for The FECM/NETL Natural Gas with Hydrogen Pipeline Cost Model (NG-H2_P_COM) that estimates costs for transporting gaseous hydrogen with natural gas in a pipeline from a source, such as a hydrogen production facility, to a final destination which may be a user of the hydrogen and natural gas or a distribution center where hydrogen in the pipeline with natural gas is diverted to multiple end users. This user’s manual provides two main functions. First, the detailed statement describes the equations and algorithms that are used by the model to calculate technical quantities (such as blend hydrogen percentage, reuse percentage of the pipeline and stations, the pipe diameter size and length needed to transport a user-specified hydrogen with natural gas rate in a specified distance) and engineering-economic quantities (such as capital costs, operating costs, and cash flows). Second, the document is a user’s manual for the model that describes the procedures the user must follow to configure and setup the model, run the model, analyze the results, and visualize the outcomes. Such details offer user a quick and handy way to utilize the model for their application and decision making. The model can be accessed at this URL: https://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analysis/details?id=cf3f6564-3c55-4aa5-b712-7160e558d9f6. The Model Results and Comparative Analysis can be accessed here: https://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analysis/details?id=83862799-a28c-4944-a809-90b7e23d4af6.
Understanding the Challenges of Financing Modular Construction: A Case Study for Prospective Multifamily Units
Compared to traditional site build, modular construction can significantly shorten construction schedules and speed income generation. Modular construction may also reduce construction costs. Yet access to commercial financing remains one of the most significant barriers to modular construction. Materials must be purchased, and production lines reconfigured for each project months ahead of fabrication. Materials alone can be 60% or more of the total cost of production. As a result, manufacturers require large upfront deposits—often 30% or more of the off-site contract. In addition, the capital-intensive nature of modular construction requires frequent progress payments for manufacturers to maintain cash flow. For those lenders willing to fund modular projects, many require the developer to share more of the risk. This may include the developer paying for line reservation fees and material deposits 3–6 months prior to production. Because these are unsecured loans, interest rates may be higher and loan amounts lower. As suppliers, modular manufacturers discourage retainage. Together, these and other factors may contribute to higher equity requirements for the developer—particularly at the beginning of the project.