Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “cost”

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 73 records · Page 4

Role of Hydrogen as Fuel in Decarbonizing US Clinker Manufacturing for Cement Production: Costs and CO2 Emissions Reduction Potentials

As a low-carbon fuel, feedstock, and energy source, hydrogen is expected to play a vital role in the decarbonization of high-temperature process heat during the pyroprocessing steps of clinker production in cement manufacturing. However, to accurately assess its potential for reducing CO2 emissions and the associated costs in clinker production applications, a techno-economic analysis and a study of facility-level CO2 emissions are necessary. Assuming that up to 20% hydrogen can be blended in clinker fuel mix without significant changes in equipment configuration, this study evaluates the potential reduction in CO2 emissions (scopes 1 and 2) and cost implications when replacing current carbon-intensive fuels with hydrogen. Using the direct energy substitution method, we developed an Excel-based model of clinker production, considering different hydrogen–blend scenarios. Hydrogen from steam methane reformer (gray) and renewable-based electrolysis (green) are considered as sources of hydrogen fuel for blend scenarios of 5%–20%. Metrics such as the cost of cement production, facility-level CO2 emissions, and cost of CO2 avoided were computed. Results show that for hydrogen blends (gray or green) between 5% and 20%, the cost of cement increases by 0.6% to 16%, with only a 0.4% to 6% reduction in CO2 emissions. When the cost of CO2 avoided was computed, the extra cost required to reduce CO2 emissions is $229 to $358/ metric ton CO2. In summary, although green hydrogen shows promise as a low-carbon fuel, its adoption for decarbonizing clinker production is currently impeded by costs.

Okeke, Ikenna J.↗

Uncertainty Quantification and Sensitivity Analysis of Nuclear Construction Cost Reduction Pathways

High construction costs have plagued recent nuclear projects and they hamper the widespread deployment of nuclear technology. The Nuclear Cost Reduction Tool is a plant economic framework that quantifies the impact that various plant design and construction attributes have on construction costs and cost overruns and shows the positive effects of learning over a series of deployments. However, a downside of the current model is that all model outputs and capabilities are deterministic. To provide a more comprehensive view, this study evaluated the impact of model parameter uncertainty through a sensitivity analysis applied to 18 model parameters. This approach quantified the impact of model uncertainty on the output variables of Net Overnight Capital Cost (Net OCC), Construction Duration (CD), and Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE). Monte Carlo analysis revealed uncertainty distributions for these variables, showing that absolute uncertainty decreases over a series of deployments. A local sensitivity analysis showed that even small parameter perturbations (5%) can have a significant impact on project execution, highlighting areas that could reduce costs by billions across an order book of plants. The results of this study have improved the understanding of the model and identified the most impactful model parameters and construction attributes.

Levelized Cost of Electricity↗

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies: Capital Cost Scaling Methodology: Revision 4b Report

The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) regularly updates legacy analysis with new studies and cases as the Department of Energy objectives change, technology performance improves, costs are reduced, regulations change, market drivers are established, fuel prices fluctuate, and any number of other relevant factors vary in the market. As legacy studies are updated by NETL, the underlying performance and cost of the cases presented changes, and as such, the methods for interpreting and scaling the cost estimates change. Therefore, it is important that NETL maintain public guidance documents associated with different sets of cost estimates that delineate how a specific set, based on report vintage and/or year published, should be scaled. This Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies report, providing guidance on capital cost scaling, should generally be applied to NETL case costs included in the report “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity Revision 4b,” (NETL, 2025) or any cases derived from the cases presented in the referenced report.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Cost Analysis of Heavy-Duty Vehicle Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell Stationary Power Plants

Heavy-duty PEM fuel cells could be a low-cost, low emission alternative to combustion turbines for re-electrifying hydrogen if used as part of a long duration grid energy storage systems. Many studies expect heavy duty PEM fuel cell production costs to reduce as manufacturing volumes ramp up and their expected durability of 25,000-30,000 hours aligns well with a 30-year life for hydrogen seasonal energy storage plants that would likely operate less than 10% of the year. The labor, material, and equipment costs associated with installing PEM fuel cells and their required balance of plant for stationary applications have not been thoroughly explored, however. This study performs a detailed design and cost analysis of a 100 MW stationary PEM fuel cell power plant, capturing costs such as cooling, power electronics, pipes, valves, fittings, cabling, conduit, concrete foundations, buildings, and land. It employs methods consistent with NLR's solar PV benchmarking cost analysis and annual technology baseline to derive the total installed costs of stationary PEM fuel cell plants that utilize heavy duty PEM fuel cells.

08 HYDROGEN↗

Methodology for Evaluating Energy Savings, Cost-Effectiveness, and Societal Impacts of Commercial Energy Code Changes

This document lays out the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) methodology for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of energy code and standard proposals and editions. The evaluation is applied to new provisions or editions of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 and the International Energy Conservation Code. The methodology follows standard lifecycle cost (LCC) economic analysis procedures. A cost-effectiveness evaluation requires three steps: 1) evaluating the energy and energy cost savings of code changes; 2) evaluating the incremental and replacement costs related to the changes; and 3) determining the cost-effectiveness of energy code changes based on those costs and savings over time.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Triple Effect Economics: How Do Electric Vehicles, Solar Photovoltaics, and Work-from-Home Transform Household Electricity Cost?

Solutions for deep decarbonization need to be affordable as well as sustainable to garner widespread adoption. The past two decades have seen the introduction of new technologies and paradigms such as electric vehicles (EVs), solar photovoltaics (PVs), and increased work-from-home (WFH), which impact a household's overall energy consumption and cost in different ways. However, much attention has not been paid to explore the joint impact these technologies have on a household's electricity cost burden. Leveraging the 2020 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), this study presents an integrated model to unravel the extent to which the bundled adoption of EV-PV and stay-at-home decisions impact the total electricity cost of households. National level RECS data revealed that, compared to the baseline (i.e., households that did not own any of these technologies), households that own EVs, PVs, and engage in WFH observed a 13.5% decline in their electricity bills, despite a 25% increase in electricity consumption. The model results indicated that bundled adoption of EVs-PVs reduces electricity costs more significantly for a household, compared to the increased costs imposed by more household members staying at home. This holistic assessment presents an opportunity for decision makers to contextualize the changing energy costs and design effective strategies to foster a sustainable and cost saving mechanism. Policies such as bundled incentivization to motivate co-adoption, education about energy-management strategies, and add-on subsidies to adopt energy-efficient appliances, will not only accelerate decarbonization but increase household financial savings.

ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS,ENERGY PLANNING, POLIC↗

Wind Turbine Maintenance Costs: Assessing the Potential of Gear Oil Improvements

Wind turbine operations & maintenance (O&M) costs constitute a sizable portion of total energy cost for wind power. There are many components in a utility-scale wind turbine that need to be lubricated with either oil or grease. This study uses gearbox oil as an example and assesses how lubricant technology improvements may impact wind turbine power production and levelized cost of energy. Using the modeling tools (i.e., WOMBAT, reV, and SAM) developed at National Renewable Energy Laboratory and lubrication oil technology scenarios defined based on inputs provided by ExxonMobil and industry stakeholders, we quantify the potential for increasing energy production and reducing maintenance costs across the current and future U.S. fleet of wind turbines as a result of improvements in lubrication technologies. The modeled improvements reduce the median levelized cost of energy by 1-2% across the U.S. fleet. Cumulative saving from gear oil technology improvements in 2050 for U.S. fleet is estimated to be approximately $6 billion. Extending the lubricant replacement interval has a larger impact on total cost and energy production than reducing lubricant cost.

costs↗

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↗

An Analysis of Future Wind Energy Resources and Cost Uncertainties Across the United States

Wind power is a growing source of energy generation that relies on complex global atmospheric and earth system processes. There has been evidence of reductions in average wind speeds over land in North America since the 1980s, and several models project that average wind speeds will continue to decrease. Concurrently, the cost of wind energy systems in the United States has been decreasing since around 2010, a trend also projected to continue. There is considerable uncertainty in these future projections, with quantitative estimates of future wind resource and system costs varying widely. To study this, we run wind energy models with possible future system costs, turbine designs, and meteorological inputs from multiple downscaled earth system models over the contiguous United States. Changes in mean annual energy production from 2000-2019 to 2040-2059 can be as high as +10% in South Texas or as low as -20% in Iowa. Larger turbines and moderate reductions in system costs can offset the largest projected decreases in wind resource, but much uncertainty remains in the extent to which wind resources will change and to what extent system costs can be reduced. An analysis of variance shows, in several states in the Midwest, uncertainty in future wind resources can influence the cost of wind energy nearly as much as uncertainty in future system costs.

17 WIND ENERGY↗

Scale effects on core design, fuel costs, and spent fuel volume of pressurized water reactors

The desire to improve the economic competitiveness and deployment pace of nuclear energy through modularization, manufacturing, and series production had led to the development of smaller size reactors. As the standard 17x17 fuel technology is mainly maintained in the pressurized water reactors (PWRs) category, this translates into a lower number of fuel assemblies in the core and sometimes a reduced fuel height. To assess the impact of such scale change in core design on fuel cycle cost and spent fuel volume, a scoping analysis tool is developed based on infinite lattice calculations, leakage, fuel management reduced models, and levelized unit cost of electricity (LCOE) estimate. As such, cost dynamics driven by fuel specific power, burnup, core leakage, feed, cycle length, fuel assembly height as well as uranium market data are captured with consistent set of assumptions and analysis methods. A selection of 5 reactor designs representative of leading PWR developers is assessed and compared. Pursuing higher specific powers and optimal burnups are highlighted as the main fuel cost reduction drivers, nevertheless, practical limitations and opportunities must be evaluated to establish the feasibility of such enhanced fuel operation. In consequence, a detailed core design is performed using SIMULATE3 code for 5 PWR variations including natural and forced coolant circulation modes, two reactor scales, power densities of 73, 112, and 123 kW/l and higher discharge burnups. Design and optimization are performed at the lattice level, for the reflector, and at the core loading level. Satisfactory steady-state operation including power distribution, coolant operating limits, and reactivity requirements are analyzed and reported in this paper. The fuel economics of the detailed core designs confirm the scoping analysis findings. Despite the unlocked power uprates in small PWRs, the achievable burnup for a given fuel specific power requires more enrichment and shorter fuel height results in higher fabrication costs per mass of fuel, which makes scaling down core size a more expensive endeavor on the fuel cycle front. Spent fuel volumes are reported for the PWRs designed in this paper. Furthermore, these volumes are driven by the core average discharge burnup regardless of the scale in consideration. Additional cost and core performance aspects related to heavy reflector gains, fuel-reflector substitution, and disposal cost policy in the U.S. are examined.

42 ENGINEERING↗

Iso-cost-performance of thermal energy storage

As thermal energy storage (TES) systems gain increasing recognition as next-generation energy storage solutions, evaluating their techno-economic performance is crucial. This perspective analyzes the cost-performance of latent heat-based TES systems and introduces the concept of iso-cost-performance—maintaining a constant cost per unit energy ($\$$/kWh) despite material degradation. Using an empirical degradation model, we show that after 1200 thermal cycles, the thermal conductivity and volumetric energy density of a paraffin-based phase change material (PCM) decreased by 36.0% and 26.1%, respectively, resulting in a 31.2% reduction in the figure of merit (FOM) and, consequently, the system cost-performance. However, by introducing thermally conductive additives to enhance effective thermal conductivity, the TES system can recover its initial FOM, achieving iso-cost-performance operation. This framework quantitatively demonstrates how degradation-mitigation strategies—such as improving thermal conductivity—can offset material degradations and maintain long-term cost-effectiveness. Beyond PCM-based TES, the proposed FOM-based approach provides a generalized pathway for cost-performance optimization across various TES technologies.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗

Logarithmic Resilience Risk Metrics That Address the Huge Variations in Blackout Cost

Resilience risk metrics must address the customer cost of the largest blackouts of greatest impact. However, there are huge variations in blackout cost in observed distribution utility data that make it impractical to properly estimate the mean large blackout cost and the corresponding risk. These problems are caused by the heavy tail observed in the distribution of customer costs. To solve these problems, we propose resilience metrics that describe large blackout risk using the mean of the logarithm of the cost of large-cost blackouts, the slope index of the heavy tail, and the frequency of large-cost blackouts.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

Optimal Design Approaches for Cost-Effective Manufacturing & Deployment of Chemical Process Families with Economies of Numbers

This work builds on our optimization formulation for process family design and extends it to explicitly include the benefits of economies of numbers. Economies of numbers (sometimes referred to as economies of learning) is a well-documented cost saving phenomenon. It characterizes the manufacturing cost savings due to standardization; in particular, it is capturing the correlation between cost reduction and the number of times a particular product has been manufactured. Following an approach similar to that in Gazzaneo et al. (2022), we develop a costing expression that captures material costs and manufacturing costs as a function of the number of unit modules produced. If the platform has a small number of unit module designs, we will be manufacturing a large number of each of these designs and gaining increased benefits from economies of numbers. However, increasing the number of unit module designs in the platform gives each process variant more choices to consider (at the cost of reducing economies of numbers). The optimization formulation in Stinchfield et al. (2023) pre-specified the number of unit module designs to be included in the platform. Here, by including the economies of numbers explicitly, we allow the mathematical programming formulation to determine the optimal number of unit module designs to include in the platform. We demonstrate this approach on multiple case studies, including MEA-based carbon capture and water desalination.

Stinchfield, Georgia↗

Utility-Scale Solar, 2024 Edition: Empirical Trends in Deployment, Technology, Cost, Performance, PPA Pricing, and Value in the United States [Slides]

Berkeley Lab’s “Utility-Scale Solar, 2024 Edition” presents analysis of empirical plant-level data from the U.S. fleet of ground-mounted photovoltaic (PV), PV+battery, and concentrating solar-thermal power (CSP) plants with capacities exceeding 5 MWAC (PV plants of 5 MWAC or less, including residential rooftop systems, are covered separately in Berkeley Lab’s companion annual report, Tracking the Sun). Key findings from this year’s report include: -18.5 GWAC of new utility-scale PV capacity came online in 2023, bringing cumulative installed capacity to more than 80.2 GWAC across 47 states. Installed costs continued to fall in 2023. Relative to 2022, capacity-weighted averages decreased by 8% to -$\$1.43$/WAC (or $\$1.08$/WDC). Costs, based on a 7.1 GWAC sample of 76 plants completed in 2023, have fallen by 75% (averaging 10% annually) since 2010. Plant-level capacity factors vary widely, from 6% to 36% (on an AC basis), with a sample median of 24%. -Levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of new 2023 projects increased slightly to $\$46$/MWh prior to the application of tax credits but continued to fall to $\$31$/MWh when accounting for federal incentives. PPA prices have largely followed the decline in solar’s LCOE over time, but newly signed longer-term PPA prices have increased since 2021, to an average of $\$35$/MWh (levelized, in 2023 dollars). -Solar’s average energy and capacity value (i.e., ability to offset costs of other power generation sources) across the U.S. was $\$45$/MWh in 2023. Solar’s average market value was lowest in CAISO ($\$27$/MWh), the market with the greatest solar generation share, and highest in ERCOT ($\$67$/MWh). -Newer solar projects had greater market value in 2023 than their generation costs, yielding $\$1.1$ billion in benefits. Projects built in 2022 delivered on average $\$15$/MWh more market value than their costs in 2023. -Solar’s combined value from wholesale electricity markets, public health and climate damage reduction were greater than generation costs and incentives, yielding $\$13.7$ billion in net benefits in 2023. We estimate U.S. health benefits of $\$24$/MWh and reduced global climate damages of $\$101$/MWh. -Adding battery storage is one way to increase the value of solar. Deployment of 52 new PV+battery hybrid plants set a record with 5.3 GW installed in 2023. Our public data file tracks metadata and PPA prices from more than 100 PV+battery hybrid projects that are already online or that have secured offtake arrangements. -Looking ahead, a massive pipeline of at least 1,085 GW of solar capacity dominates the nation’s interconnection queues at the end of 2023. Nearly 571 GW, or 53%, of that total was paired with a battery – in CAISO it was a staggering 98%. Historically only 10% of the requested solar capacity is built. -For more information, and to explore related interactive data visualizations, go to utilityscalesolar.lbl.gov.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

ICE Calculator 2.0: Final Report for Phase 1 of the National Initiative to Update the Interruption Cost Estimate (ICE) Calculator

In 2021, Berkeley Lab and Resource Innovations, Inc. launched the “ICE 2.0 Initiative” – a national study to refresh the underlying data and enhance the functionality of the ICE Calculator. The Initiative involves Berkeley Lab contracting with sponsoring utilities to administer identical, updated and comprehensive interruption cost surveys to statistically representative samples of each utility’s customers. Berkeley Lab and Resource Innovations then pool the survey results across the utilities and use them to update the analytical engines that drive the ICE Calculator. The ICE 2.0 Initiative is being conducted in phases. Each phase involves the administration of interruption cost surveys to the customers of sponsoring utilities, followed by an update to the ICE Calculator based on analysis of the pooled survey results. This report describes the activities and findings from Phase 1 of the ICE 2.0 Initiative. Phase 1 was sponsored by eight utilities: American Electric Power, Commonwealth Edison, Dominion Energy, Duke Energy, DTE Electric, Exelon, National Grid, and Puget Sound Energy. Phase 1 involved 11 customer interruption cost survey activities representing a total of 24 electricity distribution service territories, 23 of them located in the Eastern and Midwestern regions of the U.S. and one located in the Pacific Northwest. ICE 2.0 vs. 1.0 Comparison This memorandum compares customer power interruption costs estimated using the recently updated Interruption Cost Estimate (ICE) Calculator (“ICE 2.0”) to the original ICE Calculator (“ICE 1.0”). ICE 1.0 was developed in 2009 based on 15 independent power interruption cost surveys conducted by 10 electric utilities between 1989 and 2012. ICE 2.0 was developed in 2025 through a national initiative based on a consistent set of power interruption cost surveys and 11 surveying efforts conducted across 24 electric utility service territories between 2022 and 2024.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Cost Projections for Utility-Scale Battery Storage: 2025 Update

In this work we describe the development of cost and performance projections for utility-scale lithium-ion battery systems, with a focus on 4-hour duration systems. The projections are developed from an analysis of recent publications that include utility-scale storage costs. The suite of publications demonstrates wide variation in projected cost reductions for battery storage over time. We present the suite of projected cost reductions collected from the literature as well as the low, mid, and high cost projections developed in this work. Storage cost projections are $\$$152/kWh, $\$$247/kWh, and $\$$349/kWh in 2035 and $\$$111/kWh, $\$$184/kWh, and $\$$333/kWh in 2050 for the low, mid, and high cases respectively. Battery variable operations and maintenance costs, lifetimes, and efficiencies are also discussed, with recommended values selected based on the publications surveyed.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗

Cost Model for Pumped Storage Hydropower Geomembrane Lining Systems

The Cost Model for Pumped Storage Hydropower Geomembrane Lining Systems offers an approximation of geomembrane lining system costs for pumped storage hydropower (PSH) reservoirs. Geomembrane lining systems have been used around the world for over 60 years for the construction of dams and reservoirs. Although geomembrane lining systems have found widespread use in the construction of canals and waste containment systems, they have not been utilized in the construction of new PSH facilities in the United States since the Mount Elbert PSH powerplant in Colorado. For this reason, PSH developers in the United States expressed the need for a tool that would allow them to estimate the costs of geomembrane lining systems for their PSH projects. To meet this need, the Cost Model for Pumped Storage Hydropower Geomembrane Lining Systems was developed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory with support from Argonne National Laboratory and Stantec, Inc. This Cost Model will enable PSH developers to develop a preliminary estimate of the cost of geomembrane lining systems and to better understand different reservoir lining options and their cost and performance characteristics, thus enabling them to make informed decisions related to preferred reservoir lining systems for their PSH projects.

DeNeale, Scott [Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORN↗

Nationwide cost and capacity estimates for sedimentary basin geothermal power and implications for geologic CO 2 storage

Sedimentary basins are naturally porous and permeable subsurface formations that underlie approximately half of the United States. In addition to being targets for geologic CO 2 storage, these resources could supply geothermal power: sedimentary basin geothermal heat can be extracted with water or CO 2 and used to generate electricity. The geothermal power potential of these basins and the accompanying implication for geologic CO 2 storage are, however, understudied. Here, we use the Sequestration of CO 2 Tool (SCO2T PRO ) and the generalizable GEOthermal techno-economic simulator (genGEO) to address this gap by a) estimating the cost and capacity of sedimentary basin geothermal power plants across the United States and b) comparing those results to nationwide CO 2 sequestration cost and storage potential estimates. We find that across the United States, using CO 2 as a geothermal heat extraction fluid reduces the cost of sedimentary basin power compared to using water, and some of the lowest cost capacity occurs in locations not typically considered for their geothermal resources (e.g., Louisiana, South Dakota). Additionally, using CO 2 effectively doubles the sedimentary basin geothermal resource base, equating to hundreds of gigawatts of new capacity, by enabling electricity generation in geologies that are otherwise (with water) too impermeable, too thin, too cold, or not deep enough. We find there is competition for the best sedimentary basin resources between water- and CO 2 -based power, but no overlap between the lowest-cost resources for CO 2 storage and CO 2 -based power. In this way, our results suggest that deploying CO 2 -based power may increase the cost of water based systems (by using the best resources) and the cost of CO 2 storage (by storing CO 2 in locations that otherwise may not be targeted). As such, our findings demonstrate that determining the best role for sedimentary basins within the energy transition may require balancing tradeoffs between competing priorities.

CPG↗