Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “finance”

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 595 records · Page 33
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2019

Boosting Energy Efficiency and Economic Development through Chambers of Commerce (Final Technical Report)

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Building Technology Office (BTO), in its mission to improve energy efficiency in commercial and residential buildings, recognized the unique challenges posed by small- and medium-sized commercial buildings. This project targeted these buildings by using a business-to-business model originally pioneered in Cleveland, Ohio, by the Greater Cleveland Partnership’s Council of Smaller Enterprises (COSE). Rather than attempting to take programs and materials designed for large commercial buildings and simply disseminate them to owners of small- and medium-sized buildings, COSE targeted the tenants and owners of these buildings directly through existing business partnership channels and built additional business partnerships with banks willing to finance cost-effective retrofits, and leveraging utility efficiency programs that enabled them to provide free audits via an established network of auditors. By delivering a customized message to their members and leveraging their connections in the local business community, Chambers of Commerce and other business-oriented organizations use their existing relationship and trust to deliver clear and concise messages about the opportunities, impacts, and value of energy efficiency investments.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2014

Investigations of Dual-Purpose Canister Direct Disposal Feasibility (FY14)

Results reported here continue to support the FY13 conclusion that direct disposal of DPCs is technically feasible, at least for some DPCs, and for some disposal concepts (geologic host media). Much of the work performed has reached a point where site-specific information would be needed for further resolution. Several activities in FY14 have focused on clay/shale media because of potential complications resulting from low thermal conductivity, limited temperature tolerance, and the need to construct hundreds of kilometers of emplacement drifts that will remain stable for at least 50 years. Technologies for rapid excavation and liner installation have significantly advanced in the past 20 years. Tunnel boring machines are the clear choice for large-scale excavation. The first TBM excavations, including some constructed in clay or shale media, are now approaching 50 years of service. Open-type TBMs are a good choice but the repository host formation would need to have sufficient compressive strength for the excavation face to be self-supporting. One way to improve the strength-stress relationship is to reduce the repository depth in soft formations (e.g., 300 m depth). The fastest construction appears to be possible using TBMs with a single-pass liner made of pre-fabricated concrete segments. Major projects have been constructed with prefabricated segmented liner systems, and with cast-in-place concrete liners. Cost comparisons show that differences in project management and financing may be larger cost factors than the choice of liner systems. Costs for large-scale excavation and construction in clay/shale media vary widely but can probably be limited to $10,000 per linear meter, which is similar to previous estimates for repository construction. Concepts for disposal of DPC-based waste packages in clay/shale media are associated with thermal management challenges because of the relatively low thermal conductivity and limited temperature tolerance. Peak temperature limits of 100°C or lower for clay-rich materials have been selected by some international programs, but a limit above 100°C could help to shorten the duration of surface decay storage and repository ventilation. The effects of locally higher peak temperatures on repository performance need to be evaluated (in addition to the effects at lower temperatures). This report describes a modeling approach that couples the TOUGH2 and FLAC3D codes to represent thermally driven THM processes, as a demonstration of the types of models needed.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Optimizing an Integrated Renewable-Electrolysis System

Hydrogen is a versatile energy carrier that is used in a wide variety of chemical and industrial processes. Producing hydrogen using electrolysis can enable integration of multiple sectors including electricity, heating, and industrial sectors; however, the cost of producing hydrogen from electrolysis remains a challenge for encouraging greater adoption. With growing amounts of renewable generation on the California grid, there is downward pressure on wholesale electricity prices, particularly during the afternoon from photovoltaics (PV). These lower, or even potentially negative prices, challenge the business cases for new and existing PV plants. In addition, as the grid transitions to less flexible generation, there is greater need for system flexibility. To help improve the economics for both solar PV and hydrogen production using electrolyzers, we explore the benefit of combining PV and electrolysis systems. The optimal breakeven hydrogen production cost for six unique market participation configurations is calculated at six candidate locations where PV is already installed. The six market configurations include islanded, separated, retail, net energy metering (NEM), hybrid retail/wholesale and wholesale. Using the Revenue Operation and Device Optimization Model (RODeO) model, the optimal breakeven hydrogen price over the lifetime of the equipment is calculated. The cost includes production, storage, and compression in preparation for gaseous delivery trucks. Revenue streams include the sale of hydrogen, low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) credits, renewable electricity sold to the grid, and Renewable Energy Credits (REC). The costs included are the electricity costs, capital and fixed operation and maintenance cost (FOM) for the electrolyzer, PV, and storage and compression systems as well as taxes and financing costs. In addition, cost reductions are achieved through retail and wholesale rate optimization, by which electricity is purchased at the lowest price and sold, if possible, at the highest price. For all locations, the breakeven hydrogen production cost results show that, in the order of decreasing cost, the system configurations are islanded (highest), separated, NEM, retail, hybrid retail/wholesale, and wholesale (lowest). The resulting system design balances between the capital and maintenance cost components, the operation costs (i.e., electricity costs) and the additional market revenues. The integration of solar PV and electrolysis is shown to provide a mutually beneficial relationship. For PV, integration with electrolysis offers the potential to hedge against wholesale market price volatility, and integration with electrolysis may offer the potential to defer or avoid transmission investment to deliver power to the point-of-use and instead use it on-site. When compared with SMR without considering any renewable hydrogen premiums, this study finds that PV + Electrolysis systems with current costs are likely not competitive; however, with cost reductions for electrolysis equipment consistent with DOE projections, it was found that systems with wholesale market access would be competitive, largely on account of both low capital costs and low-cost electricity. The electrolysis units can provide greater flexibility than is required based on retail rate optimization, so there is an opportunity for a utility or CAISO to increase system flexibility with PV + Electrolysis systems in return for commensurate compensation. In this way, there are potentially several solutions that fall between the hybrid configuration and the wholesale configuration that could provide sufficient compensation for a PV + Electrolysis unit to compete with SMR while also providing greater flexibility to the grid.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2020

ION Engineering Commercial Carbon Capture Design & Costing (C3DC) (Final Report)

ION Engineering LLC (ION) has coupled its proven, solvent-based CO 2 capture technology with an exceptionally qualified design and engineering team to complete a pre FEED for a 300-megawatt equivalent commercial-scale CO 2 capture plant for Gerald Gentleman Station’s (GGS) Generation Unit 2 (GGS2). The remarkable team was comprised of ION, Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD), Sargent & Lundy (S&L) with continued support from Koch Modular Process Systems (KMPS), and Siemens. The overall objective of the project was to provide the engineering design and cost estimate at an American Association of Cost Engineers (AACE) Class 3 estimate, resulting in accuracy ranges of -20 to +30% for the capital cost estimate. The project team was successful in completing this objective and was able to overcome the challenges that were presented during the process. A conservative interest rate of 7.0% with a financing term of 20 years was used based on interest rates utilized by S&L for this level of study. The resulting annualization factor is multiplied by the total EPC cost to calculate an annualized capital expenditure. It is estimated that the carbon capture facility treating a 300 MWe slipstream will capture 1.9 million tonnes per year of CO 2 at a capacity factor of 85%. The resulting cost of capture for the CO 2 island was determined to be $\$$36.55/tonne. Utilizing an interest rate of 4.5%, supported by historical rates for previous large capital projects in the power industry, reduces the cost of capture to $32.52/tonne. These cost of capture numbers continue to further ION’s case for commercial deployment of ION’s solvent technology.

20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2020

First Look West (FLoW 2.0) (Final Technical Report for Closeout)

DOE’s Cleantech UP was an annual business plan competition, operating nationally between 2015 and 2018 through eight regional nodes that included Caltech’s FLOW. Cleantech UP focused on supporting university students at all levels creating cleantech startups. FLOW operated nationally with a focus on California. In support of the DOE’s objectives FLOW developed an immersive five point program that targeted major gaps in the educational support and practical resources available to scientists and engineers starting their first cleantech companies that prevented such young innovators from becoming entrepreneurs. Specifically, the FLOW program augmented the number of participants entering the energy entrepreneurship pipeline via the Cleantech UP competition; helped the US remain competitive by increasing the viability and financing potential of these cleantech companies started by young academics; and helped build the regional, state and national infrastructure that spurs and supports entrepreneurship. Each year the FLOW featured two major judging rounds for candidates drawn from as many as 80 applicants annually, providing essential experience and feedback that helped define the direction of these young entrepreneurs. The FLOW winners competed at the DOE’s national event, and FLOW companies took the top prize twice in the total history of the DOE program which was started in 2011.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗
DOE OSTI2020

Montana Community-Scale Solar Strategy Project (Final Technical Report)

Grid-tied solar photovoltaic (PV) development began gradually in Montana, initially taking root in the early 2000s, largely in the form of small residential systems, rarely larger than two kilowatts. Utility support for solar technology through public benefit funding triggered the installation of the state’s first solar PV installations on community-owned facilities including schools, libraries, fire stations and local government buildings in the mid-2000s. By 2016, solar PV installations totaled approximately 28 megawatts of installed capacity, generating less than 0.05% of electricity sold in Montana. Montana’s solar fleet in 2016 included 17 megawatts of utility-scale solar farms, and three shared solar projects developed by rural electric cooperatives that ranged from 25 to 50 kilowatts in size. However, with only 3,000 households utilizing solar PV, either through an on-site installation or participation in a shared solar project, the potential benefits and reach of solar technology was limited. The Montana Solar Community Project (MSCP) was developed by the Montana Energy Office (MEO) at the Department of Environmental Quality in order to implement a “community-scale” solar energy strategy for the state that would cost-effectively expand Montanans’ access to solar PV. This project defines three types of community-scale solar projects: shared solar, community-sited solar, and group purchasing programs. The MSCP project conducted research and stakeholder engagement that helped to inform and develop model community-scale initiatives and an overarching community-scale solar strategy for Montana. Specifically, the project included a solar market assessment, stakeholder meetings across Montana, development of a menu of community-scale solar options, a study of solar potential on schools, community solar market research, and community-scale project implementation support. MSCP activities were successful in implementing solar projects and supporting solar development in communities across Montana. Project activities realized 280 kW of newly installed solar from two solarize programs, a shared solar array at a rural electric cooperative, and a solar array atop a Bozeman high school. The community-scale project implementation support and Solar on Schools components of the project resulted directly in the analysis and design of nearly 2 MW of distributed solar systems across the state. The Solar on Schools analysis alone produced solar designs for 25 schools, representing 920.8 kW of solar potential. Many of the deliverables from this project provide guidance on future development of community-scale solar in Montana, and resulted in a number of important conclusions about community-scale solar in Montana. There is strong interest in community-scale solar in Montana, as noted during stakeholder meetings, in response to solar market research surveys, and as seen by applications for implementation support grants provided by MEO. Project activities also suggest that Montanans demonstrated a desire and need for more information about solar energy technology, solar financing options, and the state’s policy and regulatory framework. Additionally, the project found that schools will be key partners for future community-scale solar programs. In addition to being excellent hosts for solar arrays, schools have the opportunity to use the installation of a solar array to develop educational materials and curricula to educate Montana’s future leaders about these technologies, which can be shared and replicated across the state. Project activities laid a clear path forward for solar energy in Montana. Certain activities have concrete next steps. For example, numerous solar arrays were designed for schools and other public buildings around the state. Many of those designs will be used as soon as funding becomes available. Other activities have less developed next steps, though lay the foundation for future work. The solar market assessment, solar market research, and community stakeholder meetings are good examples. These documents can be used as stepping stones to increase renewable energy education, increase stakeholder outreach, and support communities as they seek to develop community-scale solar projects.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Benchmarking Utility-Scale PV Operational Expenses and Project Lifetimes: Results from a Survey of U.S. Solar Industry Professionals

This paper draws on a survey of solar industry professionals and other sources to clarify trends in the expected useful life and operational expenditure (OpEx) of utility-scale photovoltaic (PV) plants in the United States. Solar project developers, sponsors, long-term owners, and consultants have increased project-life assumptions over time, from an average of ~21.5 years in 2007 to ~32.5 years in 2019. Current assumptions range from 25 years to more than 35 years depending on the organization; 17 out of 19 organizations surveyed or reviewed use 30 years or more. Levelized, lifetime OpEx estimates have declined from an average of ~$\$$35/kW DC -yr for projects built in 2007 to an average of ~$\$$17/kW DC -yr in 2019. Across 13 sources, the range in average lifetime OpEx for projects built in 2019 is broad, from $\$$13 to $\$$25/kW DC -yr. Operations and maintenance (O&M) costs—one component of OpEx—have declined precipitously in recent years, to $\$$5-8/kW DC -yr in many cases. Property taxes and land lease costs are highly variable across sites, but on average are—together—of similar magnitude. Other OpEx line items include security, insurance, and asset management. Given 2007-2009 values for not only project life and OpEx but also other drivers of the levelized cost of energy (LCOE, excluding the investment tax credit), the LCOE for utility-scale PV projects built from 2007 through 2009 averaged $\$$305 /MWh. Using 2019 values for all parameters yields an average LCOE of $\$$51 /MWh. The decline in LCOE from $\$$305 /MWh to $\$$51 /MWh was predominantly caused by reductions in up-front expenditures (and, to a much lesser extent, by changes in capacity factors, financing costs, and tax rates), but 9% ($\$$22 /MWh) of the overall decline is due to improvements in project life and OpEx. Project life extensions and OpEx reductions have had similarly sized impacts on LCOE over this period, at $\$$11 /MWh each. Had project life and OpEx not improved over the last decade, LCOE in 2019 would have instead been $\$$73 /MWh—43% higher. Given the limited quantity and comparability of previously available data on these cost drivers, the data and trends presented here may inform assumptions used by electric system planners, modelers, and analysts. The results may also provide useful benchmarks to the solar industry, helping developers and assets owners compare their expectations for project life and OpEx with those of their peers.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Pumped Storage Hydropower (PSH) FAST Commissioning Prize Technical Analysis

The US energy landscape has undergone major changes over the past 10 years and will continue to see significant changes in future decades as the power grid increases its reliance on variable renewable energy resources. Because of the inherent variability of these resources, renewable energy growth may require additional energy storage capacity to provide flexible load-following capabilities and other grid services that can quickly adjust to changes in energy demand and generation. Pumped storage hydropower (PSH)—one such energy storage technology—uses pumps to convey water from a lower reservoir to an upper reservoir for energy storage and releases water back to the lower reservoir via a powerhouse for hydropower generation. PSH facility pump and generation cycling often follows economic and energy demand conditions. Across the United States, 43 PSH facilities are in operation and 55 projects are in various permitting or licensing stages. Altogether, the 43 operational projects provide the wide majority (95%) of utility-scale electricity storage in the United States. These facilities also provide significant power and nonpower grid benefits, including large-scale electrical system reserve capacity, grid reliability support, and electricity supply-demand balancing through quick-response capabilities and operational flexibility. PSH systems can accomplish these at a scale (e.g., size) and cost that makes these systems highly attractive from a technical standpoint. Although these research concepts are still in their infancy, they demonstrate promising potential as future PSH energy storage technologies. Although PSH has many advantages, development in the United States has effectively stalled since the 1990s, partially because of the magnitude of project costs and financing interest during development and construction, the length of time from project investment until project revenue begins, permitting challenges, construction risks, competition from other storage technologies (e.g., batteries, hydrogen storage), and electricity market evolution and uncertainty. In short, the time, cost, and risk associated with modern PSH development have resulted in limited growth in the United States recently, despite the growing energy storage demand stemming from increased wind and solar power deployment. Technology innovation is needed to help reduce PSH commissioning time, cost, and risk, particularly during the post-licensing phase of project development. To address challenges facing the PSH industry and to improve PSH commissioning timelines, the US Department of Energy (DOE) Water Power Technologies Office (WPTO) initiated the PSH Furthering Advancements to Shorten Time to (FAST) Commissioning Prize project.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Addressing Soiling: From Interface Chemistry to Practicality

Natural soiling has reduced the energy output of photovoltaic (PV) systems since the technology was first used. Projecting even a small average annual soiling loss translates to billions of dollars in annual lost revenue worldwide. Production losses due to soiling can be very high in some locations, substantially increasing the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) due to lost power production, increased operating and maintenance costs, and/or increased finance cost due to the uncertainty. Furthermore, although soiling has been discussed in the literature for more than 70 years, solutions to many problems are still needed. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is working with the PV industry to develop the tools/knowledge so that the effects of soiling can be predicted for different environmental conditions and cost-effective mitigation can be implemented. For this project, NREL performed a number of research and development tasks/subtasks in the following general areas to 1) predict PV module soiling losses based on environmental factors at a PV installation and from its energy production data, 2) quantitatively measure the adhesion forces to understand the physics enabling soiling, and 3) develop related standards on PV module coatings and artificial soiling. At the inception of the project, the PV industry considered these efforts to be the most important and immediate soiling issues that we could address to have the highest impact on LCOE. These focused efforts have led to outstanding accomplishments that have been communicated and very well received by the community.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

User's Manual for the FE/NETL Onshore CO 2 EOR Cost Model, Version 1

This user's manual describes the conceptual and mathematical basis for the FE/NETL Onshore CO 2 EOR Cost Model (a Fortran program). The model performs a cash flow analysis to estimate the cost of implementing CO 2 EOR using supercritical CO 2 by incorporating oil field performance outputs for a pattern from the FE/NETL CO 2 Prophet Model (available on NETL's website along with its associated user's manuals under the Collection Name: FE/NETL CO 2 Prophet Model) and implementing patterns to develop an oil field for CO 2 EOR. The model calculates capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, and financing costs. The user’s manual also describes how to run the FE/NETL Onshore CO 2 EOR Cost Model, along with the model’s file structure, inputs and outputs. The FE/NETL Onshore CO 2 EOR Cost Model is available on NETL's website under the Collection Name: FE/NETL Onshore CO 2 EOR Cost Model.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Industrial Energy Management During a Pandemic: Lessons Learned from DOE Better Plants Program Partners

The COVID-19 pandemic is causing many challenges for manufacturers, especially those that depend on workers whose jobs cannot be performed remotely. This has detrimentally impacted the energy management workforce, energy support system performance, as well as operations and supply chains.This article discusses four primary challenges for industrial energy management caused by the pandemic, strained budget for energy projects, increased energy intensity caused by low production rates and other safety practices, limited access to energy systems, and the lost knowledge and experience of senior staff. This article also proposes some potential solutions for these challenges that include implementing no- and low-cost energy conservation measures, adopting alternative financing options, improving shutdown procedures, reducing baseloads, creating an effective online energy-monitoring system, performing virtual energy assessments, building a robust EnMS, and attending online and in-person training events.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Working in Partnership for a Resilient and Innovative Energy Future (Progress Report 2020)

This annual report from the Better Buildings Initiative contains information about partner projects, energy and cost savings, and new program initiatives. The 2020 Progress Report also recognizes the latest group of Better Buildings Goal Achievers - organizations who have met their energy, water, and/or financing commitments under the Better Buildings or Better Plants Challenge.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2019

Progress Report 2019: Working Toward a More Innovative, Affordable, and Energy Efficient Future

This annual report from the Better Buildings Initiative contains information about partner projects, energy and cost savings, and new program initiatives. The 2019 Progress Report also recognizes the latest group of Better Buildings Goal Achievers - organizations who have met their energy, water, and/or financing commitments under the Better Buildings or Better Plants Challenge.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2018

Progress Report 2018: Innovation Through Collaboration - Securing a More Affordable and Reliable Energy Future

This annual report from the Better Buildings Initiative contains information about partner projects, energy and cost savings, and new program initiatives. The 2018 Progress Report also recognizes the latest group of Better Buildings Goal Achievers - organizations who have met their energy, water, and/or financing commitments under the Better Buildings or Better Plants Challenge.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2015

Better Buildings Progress Report 2015

This report from the Better Buildings Challenge contains information about partner projects, energy and cost savings, and new program initiatives. The 2015 Progress Report also recognizes the latest group of Better Buildings Goal Achievers - organizations who have met their energy, water, and/or financing commitments under the Better Buildings or Better Plants Challenge.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2014

Better Buildings Challenge: Progress Update: Spring 2014

This report from the Better Buildings Challenge contains information about partner projects, energy and cost savings, and new program initiatives. The 2014 Progress Report also recognizes the latest group of Better Buildings Goal Achievers - organizations who have met their energy, water, and/or financing commitments under the Better Buildings or Better Plants Challenge.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2017

Progress Report 2017: Successful Strategies Driving Innovation & Results

This annual report from the Better Buildings Initiative contains information about partner projects, energy and cost savings, and new program initiatives. The 2017 Progress Report also recognizes the latest group of Better Buildings Goal Achievers - organizations who have met their energy, water, and/or financing commitments under the Better Buildings or Better Plants Challenge.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2016

Progress Report 2016: Moving Our Nation Forward, Faster

This annual report from the Better Buildings Initiative contains information about partner projects, energy and cost savings, and new program initiatives. The 2016 Progress Report also recognizes the latest group of Better Buildings Goal Achievers - organizations who have met their energy, water, and/or financing commitments under the Better Buildings or Better Plants Challenge.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗