Engineering Papers⌕ Search

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.

At least 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

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.

Kee, Jamie↗
DOE OSTI2026

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.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2025

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.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2022

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.

Fracture Network Model↗
DOE OSTI2022

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.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2022

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.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2022

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.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2023

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.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2021

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.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2024

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.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2024

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.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2024

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.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Hydrogen Production Cost with Anion Exchange Membrane Electrolysis

Rigorous stakeholder-vetted techno-economic analysis was performed to assess the cost of hydrogen (H 2 ) produced using state-of-the-art Anion Exchange Membrane (AEM) electrolysis. Projected high-volume, untaxed and unsubsidized levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH)1 range from 2020 $\$$1.78 to $\$$3.68/kg H 2 depending on technology year, process design, and electrolyzer project scale, assuming an electricity price of $\$$0.03/kWh and a capacity factor of 97%. The total installed capital cost for an AEM electrolysis plant was estimated from bottom-up stack and process plant cost models. The stack cost model accounts for manufacturing equipment, equipment maintenance, material, tooling, cycle time, yield, labor, utilities and general overhead. The process plant cost model accounts for purchased equipment, installation costs, site preparation, and general overhead costs. For this study, the AEM electrolysis plant is assumed to be a stick-built, greenfield project developed by an engineering, procurement, and construction (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 (H2A) production model, a peer-reviewed national laboratory-developed discounted cash flow (DCF) model, were used to calculate the production LCOH 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.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2024

Rooftop Solar in Lawrence, MA: Community Perspectives, Deceptive Practices, and Financing Options

This report was prepared as part of the U.S. Department of Energy's Communities Local Energy Action Program (Communities LEAP) pilot competitive technical assistance for the Lawrence Massachusetts Stakeholder Coalition (LSC) composed of The City of Lawrence, All In Energy, MassDevelopment, Mill City Community Investments, BlocPower and Groundwork Lawrence, and led by Browning the Green Space. The LSC identified rooftop solar photovoltaics as a top priority for this technical assistance opportunity. Lawrence faces high energy burden and electricity prices, thus rooftop solar can be a tool to help lower those costs. However, the coalition received feedback that some solar companies were using deceptive and unfair practices when marketing, selling, or financing solar energy, costing residents more money than utility rates and increasing the energy burden. This project sought to address rooftop solar community priorities through two pathways: 1. facilitating community engagement to understand community perspectives and experiences with rooftop solar development; and 2. conducting a financial cash-flow analysis highlighting the varying fiscal outcomes for rooftop solar adopters based off rooftop solar leasing, ownership, or buying electricity from the utility (National Grid).

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Hydrogen Production Cost from Proton-Conducting Solid Oxide Electrolysis

Rigorous stakeholder-vetted techno-economic analysis (TEA) was conducted to estimate the cost of hydrogen (H 2 ) production using Proton-Conducting Solid Oxide (PSO) electrolysis. The analysis evaluates Current (2025) and Future (2035) technology cases at centralized plant scales of 50 and 500 metric tonnes per day (MTD), assuming electricity, water, and air as the only system inputs. Untaxed, unsubsidized levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) is projected to range from 2020 $\$$1.81 to $\$$2.47/kg H 2 at an electricity price of $\$$0.03/kWh and 97% capacity factor under Nth-of-a-kind (NOAK) deployment assumptions. Total installed capital cost was developed using bottom-up Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DFMA) stack cost modeling and detailed balance-of-plant estimates, including mechanical and electrical subsystems, installation, site preparation, engineering, and contingency. Stack performance assumptions include thermoneutral operation, degradation over time, and periodic replacement. LCOH was calculated using the Hydrogen Analysis (H2A) discounted cash flow model in constant 2020 dollars. Results indicate PSO electrolysis has potential for competitive hydrogen production costs under low-cost electricity and mature manufacturing conditions.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2024

Effects of the U.S. inflation reduction act on SMR economics

The U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 provides a wide array of tax credits and other incentives for low-carbon energy. The technology-neutral clean generation production tax credit (PTC) (Section 45Y of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code) and the technology-neutral investment tax credit (ITC) (Section 48E) lower the net cost of new electricity generation projects with zero or negative greenhouse gas emission rates. We evaluate the impact of the IRA legislation—specifically the PTC and ITC—on the cost-competitiveness of small modular reactors (SMRs). We use the Argonne Low-carbon Energy Analysis Framework (A-LEAF) model to calculate the capacity factor of an SMR with a range of hypothetical variable operating and maintenance (O&M) costs in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) electricity market. We selected ERCOT for market modeling because of its competitive structure, available data, and extensive use in prior literature. We use a discounted cash flow model to calculate the SMR’s net present value based on the market prices and capacity factors from A-LEAF, hypothetical ranges of capital and variable O&M costs, and other input parameters, with or without the IRA tax credits. We determine the SMR owner’s optimal choice of PTC or ITC for the hypothetical ranges of capital and variable O&M costs. We also evaluate potential shifts in the SMR owner’s optimal choice of PTC or ITC based on historical patterns of nuclear capital cost overruns in the United States. We also assess the sensitivity of our results to longer PTC period and electricity prices from the New England market, which tend to be higher than electricity prices in ERCOT. We find that even with the IRA tax credits, only SMRs with low capital and variable O&M costs would be economically feasible in the low-price ERCOT market scenario modeled. A longer PTC period and higher-price market such as New England, however, would significantly expand the economic feasibility of SMRs in the United States.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Valuation of Wind Energy Turbines Using Volatility of Wind and Price

The limitedness of the nonrenewable local energy resources in Israel, even in the background of the later gas fields’ findings, continues to force the state to devote various efforts towards ‘green’ energy development. These efforts include installations, both for the solar and for wind energy, thus improving the diversity of energy sources. While the standard discounted cash flow (DCF) method using the net present value (NPV) criterion is extensively adopted to evaluate investments, the standard DCF method is inappropriate for the rapidly changing investment climate and for the managerial flexibility in investment decisions. In recent years, the real options analysis (ROA) technique has been widely applied in many studies for the valuation of renewable energy investment projects. Taking into account the above background, we apply, in this study, the real options analysis approach for the valuation of wind energy turbines and apply it to the analysis of wind energy economic potential in Israel, which is the context of our work. We hypothesize that due to nature of wind energy production uncertainties, the ROA method is better than the alternative. The novelty of this paper includes the following: real world wind statistics of the Merom Golan site in Israel (velocity 3.73 m/s, with a standard deviation of 2.03 m/s), a realistic power generation estimation (power generation of 1205.84 kW with a standard deviation of about 0.5% in annual value which is worth about 1.3 M$ per annum), and an economic model to evaluate the profitability of such a project. We thus discuss the existing challenges of diversifying renewable energy sources in Israel by adding wind installations. Our motivation is to introduce a method which will allow investors and officials to take into account uncertainties when deciding in investing in such wind installations. The outcomes of the paper, which are obtained using the method of Weibull statistics and the Black–Scholes ROA technique, include the result that market price volatility adds to the uncertainties much more than any wind fluctuations, provided that the analysis is integrated over a long enough time.

17 WIND ENERGY↗