Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “grid codes”

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.

528 records · Page 30
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Package Data for CERF-Data Centers

This dataset contains sample input 100m resolution raster files for running the CERF-DC python package (see https://github.com/IMMM-SFA/cerf_data_centers) at the state level across the CONUS. Due to data availability constraints, some of the items included in this dataset are proxies or assumptions for siting factors used in the model. These are individually noted in the item descriptions and can be exchanged with more detailed information upon availability. Data Descriptions The following raster files are included in the data download: state_siting_region.tif — State areas identified by state FIPS code composite_siting_suitability.tif — Value of 1 indicates suitable siting location, 0 otherwise. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway or within an airport area boundary Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) GAP status 1, 2, or 3 areas US National Parks Wetlands USFWS critical habitats BIA land areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands land_value_dollar_per_sqft.tif — USD per square foot (sqft) derived from USDA $/acre land cost personal_property_tax_rate.tif — Personal property tax rate by state. Uses an assumed 0.0125 personal property tax rate for states with personal property tax, 0 for states without personal property tax. real_property_tax_rate.tif — Real property tax rate. Based on county level residential real estate property tax rates. sales_tax_rate.tif — Sales tax rate by state. mechanical_cooling_fraction.tif — Fraction of year (values between 0 and 1, inclusive) that the data center would be cooled through mechanical processes based on local water stress and humidity levels. water_cooling_fraction.tif — Fraction of year (values between 0 and 1, inclusive) that the data center would be cooled through evaporative (water cooled) processes based on local water stress and humidity levels. distance_to_substation.tif — Distance to nearest substation in hundreds of meters (i.e., value of 1 equals a distance of 100m). Offshore areas have a value of 0. industrial_electricity_rates_dollar_per_kwh.tif — USD/kWh industrial electricity rates. Represents the average industrial rate across all utilities that operate within a given county. Values are derived from the US Utility Rate Database. commercial_electricity_rates_dollar_per_kwh.tif — USD/kWh commercial electricity rates. Represents the average commercial rate across all utilities that operate within a given county. Values are derived from the US Utility Rate Database. data_center_market_locations.tif — Grid cells with positive values represent the centroid of existing data center market clusters. The value of non-zero grid cells represents the number of data centers in the market cluster. All other grid cells have a value of 0. Geospatial Metadata CRS: Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) Extent: -2415585.0000000023283064,-1441981.2605773280374706 : 2384414.9999999976716936,1708018.7394226719625294 Dimensions: X: 48000 Y: 31500 Bands: 1 Origin: -2415585.0000000023283064,1708018.7394226719625294 Pixel Size: 100,-100 Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall↗
DOE OSTI2022

Environmental Flow Requirements from FERC Licenses Across the US

Environmental flow requirements included in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) hydropower licenses are important for balancing natural properties and benefits of river ecosystems (e.g., healthy species, recreation, water supply, flood control) supporting hydropower production. In some cases, environmental flow requirements may limit operational flexibility given current operational schemes and make a hydropower plant less able to provide power to the electric grid on demand. Hydropower plants may gain some flexibility as hydropower scheduling time periods are made to be more responsive to the short-term needs of an energy grid increasingly reliant on intermittent renewables. However, many flow requirements focus on the daily, monthly, or seasonal flow fluctuations which matches the time scale of most paradigms linking flow alterations to the health of river ecosystems. This dataset seeks to provide a greater understanding of how flexibility in environmental requirements can be leveraged to create positive outcomes for both the power system and the environment. It contains information on environmental flow requirements from the Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement section of 50 randomly selected FERC licenses: 25 issued from 1998-2013 that were also included in the ORNL Mitigation Database (Schramm et al. 2015) and 25 issued from 2014-present. The information on environmental flow requirements was extracted from the PM&E section of 50 randomly selected FERC licenses: 25 issued from 1998-2013 that were also included in the ORNL Mitigation Database (Schramm et al. 2015) and 25 issued from 2014-present. The flow requirements were then categorized into flow augmentation categories based on whether the license stated a specific water management purpose for the given requirement called augmentation categories (i.e., fisheries or habitat, recreation or boating, industry, and general or unspecified; Table B). Requirements were also grouped into flow type categories (e.g., minimum flow rate, maximum flow rate, ramping rate). Additional information related to flow requirements such as the augmentation time-period and whether the flow rate was continuous (i.e., condition must be present at all-times) or instantaneous (i.e., condition present at a point in time) was also extracted from the licenses. Some licenses had specific flow requirements based on whether the project was in a wet, dry, or normal water year. If that information was presented in the license, it was also included in the data set. The location within the project was noted, hereafter, zone, in the dataset for flow requirements relating to specific areas of hydropower projects (Dam, Powerhouse, Bypass Reach). Maximum discharge capacities of hydropower facilities were also extracted from both the Existing Hydropower Assets (EHA) data set and the National Inventory of Dams (NID) databases. Each facility was coded with project identification codes from the EHA dataset to facilitate cross-referencing between datasets.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Efficient high-fidelity TRISO statistical failure analysis using Bison: Applications to AGR-2 irradiation testing

The ability of tri-structural isotropic (TRISO) fuel to contain fission products is largely dictated by the quality of the manufacturing process, since most of the fission product release is expected to occur due to coating layer failure in a small number of particles containing defects. The Bison fuel performance code has capabilities to predict failure in individual particles, accounting for the presence of defects, and to apply statistical analysis methods to compute the probability of failure in a set of fuel particles. Bison has recently undergone significant development both to improve its physical representations of fuel particle behavior and to improve the efficiency of its statistical failure calculations. Physical model improvements include new capabilities to account for the pressure generated by fission gases on inner pyrolytic carbon (IPyC) crack surfaces and to use local material coordinate orientation to accurately incorporate the anisotropy in the material properties in aspherical particles. To improve statistical modeling efficiency, a direct integration approach which involves directly integrating the failure probability function associated with statistically varying parameters has been developed. The direct integration approach is much more efficient than the Monte Carlo (MC) schemes commonly employed, and allows Bison to directly run high-dimensional fuel performance models, which improves the accuracy of failure probability calculations. Finally, a set of benchmark problems is considered here to compare the MC and direct integration approaches, and a statistical failure analysis of compacts in the Advanced Gas Reactor (AGR)-2 experiments is performed using the direct integration approach.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2020

Demonstration of μCHP in Light Commercial Hot Water Applications

Internal combustion engine driven combined heat and power (CHP) systems produce power while the waste heat is recovered and used for another purpose. For µCHP systems (less than 50kWe output) overall efficiencies can reach over 90% for products currently on the market throughout the world. On a fuel basis this offers an advantage over using grid-based power and another fuel for heat. Additionally, the cost of natural gas on an energy unit basis is significantly less expensive than electric power. This difference can lead to substantial savings for the end user of a CHP system. In some parts of the world, particularly Germany and Japan, µCHP has become a common part of the heat and distributed generation equipment mix. Market analysis conducted in 2012 showed that in North America there is potential of a 5,300 units per year market for µCHP, resulting in an annual energy savings of approximately 13.5 TBtu and more than $84 million in annual customer savings. However, µCHP still has not seen much market penetration in North America. This study helps to identify some of the reasons why, address roadblocks that still need to be overcome and provide experience to established best practices. Nine commercial sites were initially identified (fitness club, surgical center, senior community, resort and spa, commercial laundry, two multi-family housing, restaurant and manufacturing facility). Systems from two different manufacturers were installed at five sites total, but due to unforeseen circumstances, only three of those sites were finally commissioned: test data were collected by Oak Ridge National Laboratory. While not all systems were installed as intended, the project resulted in the following key findings: Micro combined heat and power is an unfamiliar technology for building owners and plumbing and electrical contractors that serve the buildings most suited for µCHP. Manufacturers will need to be aggressive in providing training and providing broad support to successfully bring the technology to market.; The proper integration of µCHP into other building systems is the most critical part of a successful installation. Manufacturers will need to be able to provide the expertise to train, advise and support the mechanical contractors during the design and installation of the heat integration system.; Regulations governing µCHP varies across the country. There are a few UL standards (UL 2200 and UL 1741) that apply nationally. Emissions are governed by EPA except in California where the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has established their own standard. Requirements that dictate installation and interconnection are dependent on local building codes and local utility processes and requirements. Some out of date building codes do not offer clear guidance for these requirements, leading to confusion. This makes developing training and determining broadly applicable best practices difficult.; Installation costs of µCHP are a key factor in making an installation successful. It is critical that these costs and all national, state and local regulations be understood and accounted for by all parties involved in the installation before a project is undertaken.; A robust customer service organization is important to meet the needs of the customers. These systems require annual maintenance and service and local capability is needed to keep costs inline.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2020

2023 National Offshore Wind data set (NOW-23)

The 2023 National Offshore Wind data set (NOW-23) is the latest wind resource data set for offshore regions in the United States, which supersedes, for its offshore component, the Wind Integration National Dataset (WIND) Toolkit, which was published about a decade ago and is currently one of the primary resources for stakeholders conducting wind resource assessments in the continental United States. The NOW-23 data set was produced using the Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF) version 4.2.1. A regional approach was used: for each offshore region, the WRF setup was selected based on validation against available observations. The WRF model was initialized with the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts 5 Reanalysis (ERA-5) data set, using a 6-hour refresh rate. The model is configured with an initial horizontal grid spacing of 6 km and an internal nested domain that refined the spatial resolution to 2 km. The model is run with 61 vertical levels, with 12 levels in the lower 300m of the atmosphere, stretching from 5 m to 45 m in height. The MYNN planetary boundary layer and surface layer schemes were used the North Atlantic, Mid Atlantic, Great Lakes, Hawaii, and North Pacific regions. On the other hand, using the YSU planetary boundary layer and MM5 surface layer schemes resulted in a better skill in the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and South Pacific regions. A more detailed description of the WRF model setup can be found in the WRF namelist files linked at the bottom of this page. For all regions, the NOW-23 data set coverage starts on January 1, 2000. For Hawaii and the North Pacific regions, NOW-23 goes until December 31, 2019. For the South Pacific region, the model goes until 31 December, 2022. For all other regions, the model covers until December 31, 2020. Outputs are available at 5 minute resolution, and for all regions we have also included output files at hourly resolution. The NOW-23 data are provided here as HDF5 files. Examples of how to use the HSDS Service to Access the NOW-23 files are linked below. A list of the variables included in the NOW-23 files is also linked below. No filters have been applied to the raw WRF output.

Array↗
DOE OSTI2026

Technoeconomic Design Optimization for Fast Reactors. Part II: Impact of Technoeconomic Constraints on Optimal Design

There is a current drive toward optimizing reactors, particularly small/micro reactors to minimize cost and maximize performance. Previous work has investigated the development of technoeconomic workflows for the design optimization of pool-type fast reactors that aim to deploy into district energy grids. Initial scoping studies verified that the workflow was capable of capturing design trends throughout a variety of design configurations and problem formulations while remaining sufficiently flexible. In this paper, this methodology is applied to understand how cost functions and technoeconomic constraints can drive optimal reactor design. Specifically, the UPu10Zr-fueled fast reactor model from Part I is adapted to include changes in the fissile content limits, control rod worth limits, control rod drive cost, and assumed fuel form. In the case of constraint relaxation at fixed power (fissile content and control rod worth limits), cost sensitivities of 5% to 10% were uncovered. Multi-objective optimization at varying reactor power levels with individualized control rod drives for each assembly (as opposed to one operational and one safety drive) increased cost by $\$10$ to $\$25$ million and substantially altered the optimal core geometry, favoring geometries with substantially fewer control rod placements relative to baseline optimization. Finally, a multi-objective optimization was performed at varying power levels with the fuel form overhauled to metallic, high-assay low-enriched uranium–based U10Zr with more refined fuel cost models. In the case of uranium fueling, the costs increased by at least $50 million relative to the baseline case. Furthermore, economic fuel zoning and lower reactivity swing cores were recovered. Each case serves to demonstrate the value of applying technoeconomic workflows to initial reactor design scoping studies to better understand the trade-off for a proposed concept between different design options.

Argonne Reactor Computation (ARC) codes↗