Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “PRICES”

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 757 records · Page 42
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2012

Modeling, Analysis, and Control of Demand Response Resources

While the traditional goal of an electric power system has been to control supply to fulfill demand, the demand-side can plan an active role in power systems via Demand Response (DR), defined by the Department of Energy (DOE) as “a tariff or program established to motivate changes in electric use by end-use customers in response to changes in the price of electricity over time, or to give incentive payments designed to induce lower electricity use at times of high market prices or when grid reliability is jeopardized” [29]. DR can provide a variety of benefits including reducing peak electric loads when the power system is stressed and fast timescale energy balancing. Therefore, DR can improve grid reliability and reduce wholesale energy prices and their volatility. This dissertation focuses on analyzing both recent and emerging DR paradigms. Recent DR programs have focused on peak load reduction in commercial buildings and industrial facilities (C&I facilities). We present methods for using 15-minute-interval electric load data, commonly available from C&I facilities, to help building managers understand building energy consumption and ‘ask the right questions’ to discover opportunities for DR. Additionally, we present a regression-based model of whole building electric load, i.e., a baseline model, which allows us to quantify DR performance. We use this baseline model to understand the performance of 38 C&I facilities participating in an automated dynamic pricing DR program in California. In this program, facilities are expected to exhibit the same response each DR event. We find that baseline model error makes it difficult to precisely quantify changes in electricity consumption and understand if C&I facilities exhibit event-to-event variability in their response to DR signals. Therefore, we present a method to compute baseline model error and a metric to determine how much observed DR variability results from baseline model error rather than real variability in response. We find that, in general, baseline model error is large. Though some facilities exhibit real DR variability, most observed variability results from baseline model error. In some cases, however, aggregations of C&I facilities exhibit real DR variability, which could create challenges for power system operation. These results have implications for DR program design and deployment. Emerging DR paradigms focus on faster timescale DR. Here, we investigate methods to coordinate aggregations of residential thermostatically controlled loads (TCLs), including air conditioners and refrigerators, to manage frequency and energy imbalances in power systems. We focus on opportunities to centrally control loads with high accuracy but low requirements for sensing and communications infrastructure. Specifically, we compare cases when measured load state information (e.g., power consumption and temperature) is 1) available in real time; 2) available, but not in real time; and 3) not available. We develop Markov Chain models to describe the temperature state evolution of heterogeneous populations of TCLs, and use Kalman filtering for both state and joint parameter/state estimation. We present a look-ahead proportional controller to broadcast control signals to all TCLs, which always remain in their temperature dead-band. Simulations indicate that it is possible to achieve power tracking RMS errors in the range of 0.26–9.3% of steady state aggregated power consumption. Results depend upon the information available for system identification, state estimation, and control. We find that, depending upon the performance required, TCLs may not need to provide state information to the central controller in real time or at all. We also estimate the size of the TCL potential resource; potential revenue from participation in markets; and break-even costs associated with deploying DR-enabling technologies. We find that current TCL energy storage capacity in California is 8–11 GWh, with refrigerators contributing the most. Annual revenues from participation in regulation vary from $10 to $220 per TCL per year depending upon the type of TCL and climate zone, while load following and arbitrage revenues are more modest at $2 to $35 per TCL per year. These results lead to a number of policy recommendations that will make it easier to engage residential loads in fast timescale DR.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2015

Do Energy Efficiency Standards Improve Quality? Evidence from a Revealed Preference Approach

Minimum energy efficiency standards have occupied a central role in U.S. energy policy for more than three decades, but little is known about their welfare effects. In this paper, we employ a revealed preference approach to quantify the impact of past revisions in energy efficiency standards on product quality. The micro-foundation of our approach is a discrete choice model that allows us to compute a price-adjusted index of vertical quality. Focusing on the appliance market, we show that several standard revisions during the period 2001-2011 have led to an increase in quality. We also show that these standards have had a modest effect on prices, and in some cases they even led to decreases in prices. For revision events where overall quality increases and prices decrease, the consumer welfare effect of tightening the standards is unambiguously positive. Finally, we show that after controlling for the effect of improvement in energy efficiency, standards have induced an expansion of quality in the non-energy dimension. We discuss how imperfect competition can rationalize these results.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2016

Considering the Role of Natural Gas in the Deep Decarbonization of the U.S. Electricity Sector. Natural Gas and the Evolving U.S. Power Sector Monograph Series: Number 2

Natural gas generation in the U.S. electricity sector has grown substantially in recent years, while the sector's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions have generally declined. This relationship highlights the concept of natural gas as a potential enabler of a transition to a lower-carbon future. This work considers that concept by using the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Renewable Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) model. ReEDS is a long-term capacity expansion model of the U.S. electricity sector. We examine the role of natural gas within the ReEDS modeling framework as increasingly strict carbon emission targets are imposed on the electricity sector. In addition to various natural gas price futures, we also consider scenarios that emphasize a low-carbon technology in order to better understand the role of natural gas if that low-carbon technology shows particular promise. Specifically, we consider scenarios with high amounts of energy efficiency (EE), low nuclear power costs, low renewable energy (RE) costs, and low carbon capture and storage (CCS) costs. Within these scenarios we find that requiring the electricity sector to lower CO2 emissions over time increases near-to-mid-term (through 2030) natural gas generation (see Figure 1 - left). The long-term (2050) role of natural gas generation in the electricity sector is dependent on the level of CO2 emission reduction required. Moderate reductions in long-term CO2 emissions have relatively little impact on long-term natural gas generation, while more stringent CO2 emission limits lower long-term natural gas generation (see Figure 1 - right). More stringent carbon targets also impact other generating technologies, with the scenarios considered here seeing significant decreases in coal generation, and new capacity of nuclear and renewable energy technologies over time. Figure 1 also demonstrates the role of natural gas in the context of scenarios where a specific low-carbon technology is advantaged. In 2030, natural gas generation in the technology scenarios is quite similar to that in the reference scenarios, indicating relatively little change in the role of natural gas in the near-to-mid-term due to advancements in those technology areas. The 2050 natural gas generation shows more significant differences, suggesting that technology advancements will likely have substantial impacts on the role of natural gas in the longer-term timeframe. Natural gas generation differences are most strongly driven by alternative natural gas price trajectories--changes in natural gas generation in the Low NG Price and High NG Price scenarios are much larger than in any other scenario in both the 2030 and 2050 timeframes. The only low-carbon technology scenarios that showed any increase in long-term natural gas generation relative to the reference case were the Low CCS cost scenarios. Carbon capture and storage technology costs are currently high, but have the potential to allow fossil fuels to play a larger role in low-carbon grid. This work considers three CCS cost trajectories for natural gas and coal generators: a baseline trajectory and two lower cost trajectories where CO2 capture costs reach $40/metric ton and $10/metric ton, respectively. We find that in the context of the ReEDS model and with these assumed cost trajectories, CCS can increase the long-term natural gas generation under a low carbon target (see Figure 2). Under less stringent carbon targets we do not see ReEDS electing to use CCS as part of its electricity generating portfolio for the scenarios considered in this work.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2016

Wabash Valley Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, Coal to Fischer Tropsch Jet Fuel Conversion Study

This reports examines the feasibility of converting the existing Wabash Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant into a liquid fuel facility, with the goal of maximizing jet fuel production. The fuels produced are required to be in compliance with Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007 §526) lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions requirements, so lifecycle GHG emissions from the fuel must be equal to or better than conventional fuels. Retrofitting an existing gasification facility reduces the technical risk and capital costs associated with a coal to liquids project, leading to a higher probability of implementation and more competitive liquid fuel prices. The existing combustion turbine will continue to operate on low cost natural gas and low carbon fuel gas from the gasification facility. The gasification technology utilized at Wabash is the E-Gas™ Technology and has been in commercial operation since 1995. In order to minimize capital costs, the study maximizes reuse of existing equipment with minimal modifications. Plant data and process models were used to develop process data for downstream units. Process modeling was utilized for the syngas conditioning, acid gas removal, CO 2 compression and utility units. Syngas conversion to Fischer Tropsch (FT) liquids and upgrading of the liquids was modeled and designed by Johnson Matthey Davy Technologies (JM Davy). In order to maintain the GHG emission profile below that of conventional fuels, the CO 2 from the process must be captured and exported for sequestration or enhanced oil recovery. In addition the power utilized for the plant’s auxiliary loads had to be supplied by a low carbon fuel source. Since the process produces a fuel gas with sufficient energy content to power the plant’s loads, this fuel gas was converted to hydrogen and exported to the existing gas turbine for low carbon power production. Utilizing low carbon fuel gas and process steam in the existing combined cycle power plant provides sufficient power for all plant loads. The lifecycle GHG profile of the produced jet fuel is 95% of conventional jet fuel. Without converting the fuel gas to a low carbon fuel gas, the emissions would be 108% of conventional jet fuel and without any GHG mitigation, the profile would be 206%. Oil prices greater than $120 per barrel are required to reach a targeted internal rate of return on equity (IRROE) of 12%. Although capital expenditure is much less than if a greenfield facility was built, the relatively small size of the plant, assumed coal price, and the CTL risk profile used in the economic assumptions lead to a high cost of production. Assuming more favorable factors, the economic oil price could be reduced to $78 per barrel with GHG mitigation and $55 per barrel with no GHG mitigation.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2017

A Study of China s Explosive Growth in the Plug-in Electric Vehicle Market

The year 2015 marks a turning point in China s plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) or new energy vehicle (NEV) industry, with an explosive growth in both productions and sales, following the gloomy period of 2009-2012. The PEV production in 2015 reached a record level of nearly 380,000 units, a 352 % increase from 2014, making China the largest PEV market in the world. For the potential implications on energy and the environment, it is worth studying the driving forces of China s PEV market and understanding its future trajectory and dynamics. The key findings of this report are listed in the following. Though controversial, the government monetary incentives have played a significant role to impel China to be the largest light PEV (191,100 units) market in the world. Chinese vehicle buyers appear more price sensitive on PEVs. Inexpensive low-cost micro electric vehicles are the most popular vehicle model in China s PEV market (38.9 % of the PEV market in 2015). In contrast, the premium or luxury vehicles are more popular in the gasoline vehicle segment. In fact, China is expected to be the largest premium car market in 2016. The PEV sales growth is primarily possible because of the young domestic private-owned auto manufacturers, which are mostly located in south China. Top-tier conventional vehicle automakers in China appear to be less proactive in the PEV market, based on market shares. This is in clear contrast to the U.S. market, where major automakers are generally the primary players in the PEV market. The PEVs produced by the domestic automakers are concentrated in the low-end market segment, while the high-end vehicle segment is dominated by the foreign brands. At present, the substantial market growth and government subsidies afford the domestic entrants to quickly gain profits in the low-end segment. The PEV consumers in China are very sensitive to the vehicle price, thus prefer the PEVs with cheaper prices after government subsidies, and care less about the driving quality and comfort. In contrast, most PEV consumers in the United States (U.S.) have higher incomes, view the PEVs as a high-status symbol, and care less about the vehicle prices, and therefore welcome the premium PEVs more in the U.S. The PEV financial subsidies by the Chinese government are divided into three stages based on the strategic directions and policies. In 2009 2012, government incentives concentrated on the public fleet vehicles, while excluding the individual consumers from the subsidies in most cities. In 2013 2015, comprehensive central/local government incentives were extended to all vehicle purchasers including the individual buyers in most cities, which was conducive to the phenomenal growth of the PEV sales. For years 2016 to 2020, monetary incentives are being phased out and will be substituted by other non-monetary incentives (such as the standards for Chinese Cooperate Average Fuel Consumption and New Energy Vehicle Credits) for the sustainable development of the PEV market. The PEV subsidy fraud has drawn attention by the central government, which prompts the government to be more prudent about monetary incentives. With the advantage of high acceptance in the PEV market and integrated EV charging infrastructure, the region with better economic development brings a more aggressive PEV roll-out plan to the municipalities who are more willing to solve the local urban pollution while keeping the automotive market in sustainable growth. On the one hand, the local automakers are offered abundant subsidies from the Chinese government to those who intend to help the Chinese automotive industry seize the industrial upgrading opportunity to transform its manufacturing sector, and they have taken most shares of the PEV market. On the other hand, facing the trade barriers, the foreign automakers have dominated the premium PEV sales in China, although their total market shares in the PEV market are much less than the domestic automakers. In diverse selectable alternative fuel vehicle technologies, China has put its focus on the PEV technologies for the technological modernization in the automotive industry; the research and development in fuel cell vehicle technologies in China is less competitive compared with other countries such as Japan and the U.S. With the demand of batteries from the PEV automakers, the Chinese EV battery industry is aggressively expanding. It has risks in excessive production capacity, and faces the challenges from the competitors from Japan and South Korea.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2016

Environmentally Friendly Economical Sequestration of Rare Earth Metals from Geothermal Waters

The purpose of this work was to complete a proof of concept study to apply and validate a novel method developed by Tusaar for the capture and recovery of rare earth elements (known as REEs) and other critical and valuable elements from geothermal waters produced from deep within the earth. Geothermal water provides heat for power production at many geothermal power plants in the western United States. The target elements, the REEs, are vital to modern day electronics, batteries, motors, automobiles and many other consumer favorites and necessities. Currently there are no domestic sources of REEs while domestic and international demand for the products they are used in continues to rise. Many of the REEs are considered “strategically” important. A secure supply of REEs in the USA would benefit consumers and the country at large. A new method to recover these REEs from geothermal waters used at existing geothermal power plants around the country is a high priority and would benefit consumers and the USA. The result of this project was the successful development and demonstration of an integrated process for removal and recovery of the REEs from synthetic geothermal brines on a small laboratory scale. The work included preparation of model geothermal brines to test, selection of the most effective proprietary sorbent media to capture the REEs and testing of the media under a variety of potential operating conditions. Geothermal brines are generally very high in salt content and contain a wide range of elements and anions associated with the rock layers from which they are produced. Processing the geothermal water is difficult because it is corrosive and the dissolved minerals in the water precipitate easily once the temperature and pressure change. No commercial technologies have been shown to be effective or robust enough under these geothermal brine conditions to be commercially viable for removal of REEs. Technologies including ion exchange, traditional sorptive media and membrane concentration are too expensive, difficult or impossible to regenerate and easily rendered ineffective under these working conditions. The work completed during this project has demonstrated that a selective media that is robust and durable under the conditions associated with geothermal brines is possible. The initial economic analysis indicates that the process would not be financially viable at current market prices for REEs. The world market price for REEs has been turbulent over the past several years and are currently near historical lows. Historical trends and market forces suggest that the world price is stabilizing and will rise. At the same time, further development has the potential to reduce the costs associated with the technology. This work opened the door to the idea that a large scale process for removal and recovery of REEs from geothermal brines is possible. Upward price pressures coupled with technology improvements suggest that this process has the opportunity to be commercially successful at a point in the future.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2017

U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System Cost Benchmark: Q1 2017

NREL has been modeling U.S. photovoltaic (PV) system costs since 2009. This year, our report benchmarks costs of U.S. solar PV for residential, commercial, and utility-scale systems built in the first quarter of 2017 (Q1 2017). Costs are represented from the perspective of the developer/installer, thus all hardware costs represent the price at which components are purchased by the developer/installer, not accounting for preexisting supply agreements or other contracts. Importantly, the benchmark this year (2017) also represents the sales price paid to the installer; therefore, it includes profit in the cost of the hardware, along with the profit the installer/developer receives, as a separate cost category. However, it does not include any additional net profit, such as a developer fee or price gross-up, which are common in the marketplace. We adopt this approach owing to the wide variation in developer profits in all three sectors, where project pricing is highly dependent on region and project specifics such as local retail electricity rate structures, local rebate and incentive structures, competitive environment, and overall project or deal structures.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2017

U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System Cost Benchmark: Q1 2017

This report benchmarks U.S. solar photovoltaic (PV) system installed costs as of the first quarter of 2017 (Q1 2017). We use a bottom-up methodology, accounting for all system and projectdevelopment costs incurred during the installation to model the costs for residential, commercial, and utility-scale systems. In general, we attempt to model the typical installation techniques and business operations from an installed-cost perspective. Costs are represented from the perspective of the developer/installer; thus, all hardware costs represent the price at which components are purchased by the developer/installer, not accounting for preexisting supply agreements or other contracts. Importantly, the benchmark also represents the sales price paid to the installer; therefore, it includes profit in the cost of the hardware, 1 along with the profit the installer/developer receives, as a separate cost category. However, it does not include any additional net profit, such as a developer fee or price gross-up, which is common in the marketplace. We adopt this approach owing to the wide variation in developer profits in all three sectors, where project pricing is highly dependent on region and project specifics such as local retail electricity rate structures, local rebate and incentive structures, competitive environment, and overall project or deal structures. Finally, our benchmarks are national averages weighted by state installed capacities.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2017

Twistact techno-economic analysis for wind turbine applications.

This report is the final deliverable for a techno-economic analysis of the Sandia National Laboratories-developed Twistact rotary electrical conductor. The U.S. Department of Energy Wind Energy Technologies Office supported a team of researchers at Sandia National Laboratories and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to evaluate the potential of the Twistact technology to serve as a viable replacement to rare-earth materials used in permanent-magnet direct-drive wind turbine generators. This report compares three detailed generator models, two as baseline technologies and a third incorporating the Twistact technology. These models are then used to calculate the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for three comparable offshore wind plants using the three generator topologies. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory s techno-economic analysis indicates that Twistact technology can be used to design low-maintenance, brush-free, and wire-wound (instead of rare-earth-element (REE) permanent-magnet), direct-drive wind turbine generators without a significant change in LCOE and generation efficiency. Twistact technology acts as a hedge against sources of uncertain costs for direct-drive generators. On the one hand, for permanent-magnet direct-drive (PMDD) generators, the long-term price of REEs may increase due to increases in future demand, from electric vehicles and other technologies, whereas the supply remains limited and geographically concentrated. The potential higher prices in the future adversely affect the cost competitiveness of PMDD generators and may thwart industry investment in the development of the technology for wind turbine applications. Twistact technology can eliminate industry risk around the uncertainty of REE price and availability. Traditional wire-wound direct-drive generators experience reliability issues and higher maintenance costs because of the wear on the contact brushes necessary for field excitation. The brushes experience significant wear and require regular replacement over the lifetime of operation (on the order of a year or potentially less time). For offshore wind applications, the focus of this study, maintenance costs are higher than typical land-based systems due to the added time it often requires to access the site for repairs. Thus, eliminating the need for regular brush replacements reduces the uncertain costs and energy production losses associated with maintenance and replacement of contact brushes. Further, Twistact has a relatively negligible impact on LCOE but hedges risks associated with the current dominant designs for direct-drive generators for PMDD REE price volatility and wire-wound generator contact brush reliability. A final section looks at the overall supply chain of REEs considering the supply-side and demand-side drivers that encourage the risk of depending on these materials to support future deployment of not only wind energy but other industries as well.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2017

Ensuring Reliable Natural Gas-Fired Generation with Fuel Contracts and Storage - DOE/NETL-2017/1816

This report finds that natural gas-fired power plants purchase fuel both on the spot market and through firm supply contracts; there do not appear to be clear drivers propelling power plants toward one or the other type. Most natural gas-fired power generators are located near major natural gas transmission pipelines, and most natural gas contracts are currently procured on the spot market. Although there is some regional variation in the type of contract used, a strong regional pattern does not emerge. Whether gas prices are higher with spot or firm contracts varies by both region and year. Natural gas prices that push the generators higher in the supply curve would make them less likely to dispatch. Most of the natural gas generators discussed in this report would be unlikely to enter firm contracts if the agreed price would decrease their dispatch frequency. The price points at which these generators would be unlikely to enter a firm contract depends upon the region that the generator is in, and how dependent that region is on natural gas. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) is more dependent on natural gas than either Eastern Interconnection or Western Interconnection. This report shows that above-ground storage is prohibitively expensive with respect to providing storage for an extended operational fuel reserve comparable to the amount of on-site fuel storage used for coal-fired plants. Further, both pressurized and atmospheric tanks require a significant amount of land for storage, even to support one day’s operation at full output. Underground storage offers the only viable option for 30-day operational storage of natural gas, and that is limited by the location of suitable geologic formations and depleted fields.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2018

Cost-Reduction Roadmap for Residential Solar Photovoltaics (PV), 2017-2030

The installed cost of solar photovoltaics (PV) has fallen rapidly in recent years and is expected to continue declining in the future. In this report, we focus on the potential for continued PV cost reductions in the residential market. From 2010 to 2017, the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for residential PV declined from 52 cents per kilowatt-hour (cents/kWh) to 16 cents/kWh (Fu et al. 2017). The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Solar Energy Technologies Office (SETO) recently set new LCOE targets for 2030, including a target of 5 cents/kWh for residential PV. We present a roadmap for achieving the SETO 2030 residential PV target. Because the 2030 target likely will not be achieved under business-as-usual trends (NREL 2017), we examine two key market segments that demonstrate significant opportunities for cost savings and market growth: installing PV at the time of roof replacement and installing PV as part of the new home construction process. Within both market segments, we identify four key cost-reduction opportunities: market maturation, business model integration, product innovation, and economies of scale. To assess the potential impact of these cost reductions, we compare modeled residential PV system prices in 2030 to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL's) quarter one 2017 (Q1 2017) residential PV system price benchmark (Fu et al. 2017). We use a bottom-up accounting framework to model all component and project-development costs incurred when installing a PV system. The result is a granular accounting for 11 direct and indirect costs associated with installing a residential PV system in 2030. All four modeled pathways demonstrate significant installed-system price savings over the Q1 2017 benchmark, with the visionary pathways yielding the greatest price benefits. The largest modeled cost savings are in the supply chain, sales and marketing, overhead, and installation labor cost categories. When we translate these installed-system costs into LCOE, we find that the less-aggressive pathways achieve significant cost reductions, but may not achieve the 2030 LCOE target. On the other hand, both visionary pathways could get very close to (for roof replacement) or achieve (for new construction) the 2030 target. Our analysis has two key implications. First, because installed-system soft cost reductions account for about 65 percent of the LCOE reductions in 2030 for both visionary pathways, residential PV stakeholders may need to emphasize these soft cost reductions to achieve the 2030 target. Second, capturing these savings will likely require considerable innovation in the technologies and business practices employed by the PV industry.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2019

California Time-of-Use (TOU) Transition: Effects on Distributed Wind and Solar Economic Potential

Time-of-use (TOU) retail energy rates price electricity differently by the time of day, thereby communicating to consumers the costs of supplying electricity throughout the day. This study evaluates the impact of Decision D.15.07-001, which mandates a transition to default TOU rates in California, on the economic viability of behind-the-meter distributed wind and solar systems. We assess viability through 'economic potential,' a metric we define as the amount of generation capacity that exceeds a specified rate of return (5.4%) and therefore would be economic to construct; we do not attempt to project deployment or adoption. In addition, we identify cost improvements needed for a robust distributed wind market and the specific counties and sectors with substantial economic potential. Over the scenarios considered, model results indicate realistic pathways to reaching a robust, 1-GW distributed wind market in California though solar economic potential was found to be substantially larger than that of wind. Distributed wind's capacity factor does not appear to be strongly correlated to the periods of peak electricity prices as set by utility's TOU periods. Because of this disassociation and nuances in the billing of tiered electricity, the transition to TOU is projected to moderately decrease distributed wind economic potential and increase that of distributed solar. However, a limitation of this analysis is that it does not factor in the change in rate values as California works toward its goal of 100% renewables. As variable renewable energy penetration increases to meet this goal, our results suggest that wind generation will become increasingly correlated to periods of peak electricity prices. Increased variable renewable penetration, especially of solar, is likely to shift periods of higher electricity demand to later in the evening, and any periodic adjustments in TOU periods to reflect these new periods of demand will positively affect the value of wind generation more than the value of solar generation. High distributed wind capital costs are a significant barrier to large scale adoption; we explore the sensitivity of capital cost reductions on distributed wind economic potential. We find that distributed wind economic potential increases substantially in 2020 for capital costs below 3 dollars/W - particularly for residential- and commercial-scale turbines; capital costs must fall below 2 dollars/W in 2030 to support a significant increase in economic potential, in large part due to the expected continued cost reductions in solar. We identified an upper limit to the state's behind-the-meter distributed wind economic potential at approximately 5 GW. Overall, California exhibits over 1 GW of economic potential for distributed wind by 2030, even with the moderate decrease in potential under TOU. This potential is represented mostly by Southern California, which sees the most notable increase in economic viability as capital expenditure prices decline.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2019

Unpacking the Disconnect Between Wholesale and Retail Electric Rates [PowerPoint]

The 2017 DOE Staff Report to the Secretary on Electricity Markets and Reliability noted a disconnect between falling wholesale electricity prices and flat or rising retail investor-owned utility (IOU) electricity prices between 2008 and 2016. This analysis sought to assess recent trends in utility costs, retail sales, and/or retail rates vis-à-vis wholesale market prices in order to help explain this disconnect. Using FERC Form 1 and ICE Power Indices data, Berkeley Lab researchers developed key annual metrics between 2007 and 2016 at a regional level for five of the seven NERC regions: Midwest Reliability Organization (MRO), Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC), ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RFC), SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC), and Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC). The analyses of these metrics enabled Berkeley Lab researchers to arrive at the following conclusions: Retail and wholesale rates were increasingly disconnected across all included NERC regions; Reductions in wholesale electricity market prices happened concurrently with reductions in IOU fuel and purchased power (FPP) costs, but sizable regional differences in the degree of FPP cost reductions existed; Reductions in IOU FPP costs were offset in part by increases in non-fuel operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, but modest regional differences in the degree of these cost impacts existed; Reductions in IOU FPP costs were also offset in part by increases in capital expenditures, but regional differences in the magnitude and type of investments existed; and, Reductions in retail sales tended to mitigate the effect on retail rates from reductions in total utility costs, but regional differences existed that were sometimes counterintuitive and suggest the value in a more detailed analysis of utility costs vis-à-vis general rate case filings and decisions to better understand retail rate changes over time.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Comparing Offshore Wind Energy Procurement and Project Revenue Sources Across U.S. States

The pace of offshore wind energy procurement in the United States has rapidly accelerated in recent years. U.S. states along the Atlantic Coast have set procurement goals for offshore wind energy to meet renewable portfolio standards and serve state policy needs. By the end of 2019, projects with a total capacity of 6.4 gigawatts (GW) had established long-term contracts (or equivalent regulatory requirements) with utility off-takers. The prices established in these contracts since 2017 have been well below expectations from many industry observers, prompting stakeholders to compare price levels across U.S. states and globally. However, comparing procurement prices across projects and jurisdictions is often challenging because of differences in project parameters, support regimes, supply chains, and the applicable tax and regulatory environment. These characteristics provide critical context for understanding project revenue streams, delivery obligations, and risk allocation, which need to be accounted for when comparing across different projects. In combination, variation in these characteristics between projects results in measurable differences in project costs and revenues and, consequently, in different offer bids. In this report, we systematically analyze offshore wind energy support regimes across U.S. states. Because offshore wind energy procurement prices from U.S. projects are often compared not only among states but also with European tenders, this report also provides an overview of support regimes and taxonomy used in European offshore wind markets. The content of this report was derived from a literature review, primarily regulatory filings and summary reports, and 16 interviews with leading industry experts from state agencies, energy sector consultancies, and law practices. The comparison between U.S. states focuses on several dimensions, including statutory authority, solicitation procedures, procurement goals and awards, and the structuring of physical and transactional delivery of energy services.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Austin Sustainable and Holistic Integration of Energy Storage and Solar PV [Austin SHINES]. Final Report, Version 2

The Austin SHINES project and solution is a software management platform, for an electric grid with a high penetration of dispersed photovoltaic (PV) solar generation sites, which maintains the traditional power quality and reliability associated with grid service. This project developed and deployed the platform as a Distributed Energy Resource Management System (DERMS), engaging multiple advanced controls, to evaluate operation and optimization of a fleet of diverse DER assets, installed at several locations among Austin Energy’s customers and distribution system. The project also produced a methodology to create a replicable DERMS template, adaptable to other regions and market structures. Last, Austin SHINES aimed to demonstrate the solution’s methodology would enable the DER grid ecosystem to serve load at a technical cost (System Levelized Cost of Electricity, or System LCOE) of less than the U.S. Department of Energy SHINES program metric of $0.14/kWh, in a defined boundary, while enabling a high penetration of distributed PV. Research was categorized in 6 reports (Final Deliverables = FD) listed below, with titles and descriptions indicating which area of understanding was investigated: FD-1: System Levelized Cost of Electricity (System LCOE) Methodology The creation and use of the System LCOE to Serve Load metric that encompasses the holistic, system-level costs and benefits of all resources, and enables them to be evaluated based on their ability to support an efficient and low-cost integrated grid ecosystem. FD-2: Software Platform Product Description The creation of new DER control methodologies deployable within a utility-grade software platform that enable DER's to maximize their benefit within a grid, that is capable of serving load enabling a high penetration of distributed PV generation. FD-3: Optimal Design Methodology Optimal design methodologies for individual DER installations that enable utilities to determine the optimal combinations and sizing for individual DER sites. FD-4: Austin SHINES Ownership and Operation Models for DER System Performance A comparison of multiple DER aggregation and ownership methodologies including direct utility control, third-party aggregator, and autonomous. FD-5: Economic Modeling & Optimization A comparison of multiple DER technology mixes and configurations within the distribution system, providing insight into an optimal blend of technologies that best enable the distribution system to serve load at the lowest cost at high penetrations of solar. FD-6: Fielded Assets Deployed DER assets within the Austin Energy SHINES circuits. Austin SHINES provided an opening for state-of-the-art technology products to be deployed, providing a rich opportunity for improving how each of the products perform as stand-alone products, and in concert with other complementary products. The Austin SHINES project comprised of two key metrics for System LCOE: SystemLCOE_SHINES<$0.14/kWh Modeled ΔSystemLCOE_SHINES/ΔSystemLCOE_Base≥20% at same solar penetration The System LCOE calculation uses the costs of the utility-owned infrastructure as it exists today, the cost of the DERs that exist in the system today, and the cost of the purchase of energy from ERCOT wholesale markets over the course of the calendar year. All costs are on an annualized basis. The capital and operating costs are derived from the rate case, which produces a yearly cost. The net cost of energy and services imported to the system is integrated over the test year, as is the load served and solar penetration. The first metric was easily achieved by every scenario considered. The goal was set when the Department of Energy’s SHINES Funding Opportunity Announcement was written in 2015 and was a more difficult target at the time. Due mostly to rapidly declining costs for DERs and the significant decrease in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) energy market prices, which results in lower net cost of energy purchases, the System LCOE is well below this target for all scenarios considered. A fleet of DERs can assume different mixtures, each of which serves the load at a different LCOE. The optimal mixture of DERs serves load at the smallest System LCOE. The second metric (hereinafter %delta metric) asks that the holistic DERMS controls reduce the incremental cost above the baseline of going to a high solar penetration future by at least 20% as compared to the case of a DER deployment with no sophisticated controls (autonomous). Many comparison sets were created throughout this project. Physical technology was installed for informing utility engineering and testing several types of operational control schemes, through the DERMS. The types of operational control which were compared for valuation of the System LCOE Metric were: Holistic control = using the full suite of the DERMS platform to decide and optimize how/why the systems operate depending on weather, market, and reliability signal input. Autonomous control = a local mode at the asset site, wherein a schedule operates the asset, with visibility into performance only No control = the baseline for comparing value against the other two types of control The types of ownership control included: Direct Utility control = the utility dispatches a signal to each asset Third-Party Aggregator = a third party aggregates a fleet of assets and the utility dispatches one signal for all Autonomous = a local mode is set for operation at the asset site, wherein a schedule operates the asset, with visibility into performance only The types of control methodologies deployable within a utility-grade software platform included: Utility Peak Load Reduction = Lower transmission cost obligation Day-Ahead Energy Arbitrage = Realize economic value through price differential Real-Time Price Dispatch = Realize economic value from real-time price spikes Voltage support = Reduce losses and increase solar generation Distribution Congestion Management = Increase local grid reliability Demand Charge Reduction = Lower customer bills and realize system benefit The fielded assets deployed for the project were: Utility Scale Kingsbery Energy Storage System: 1.5 MW / 3 MWh Li-Ion battery storage Mueller Energy Storage System: 1.75 MW / 3.2 MWh Li-Ion battery storage, 7 Energy Storage Units (250 kW each) La Loma Community Solar: 2.6 MW Commercial Scale Aggregated storage installations at 3 sites, with existing solar (300+ kW): One 18 kW / 36 kWh Li-Ion battery storage Two 72 kW / 144 kWh Li-Ion battery storage Residential Scale Aggregated storage installations: -Six stationary battery storage systems (10 kWh each) at homes with existing solar -One Electric Vehicle installed as Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) Utility-Controlled Solar via Smart Inverters at 12 homes Autonomously-Controlled Smart Inverters at 6 homes Over the course of the project, Austin SHINES undertook installing more than 3 MW of distributed battery energy storage, smart PV inverters, a DER control platform, and other enabling technologies utilizing customer and utility locations and aggregation models. All of these resources were to be integrated and optimized at the utility level. DER assets and control methodologies were designed to achieve a credible pathway to a System LCOE for energy delivered to load of $0.14//kWh or less by 2020, while maximizing distributed solar generation and maintaining acceptable standards of power quality. The project also established a template for other regions to follow, to maximize the adoption of distributed solar PV in support of an economic and efficient grid. In total, the Austin SHINES project added value to the DER subject area in each layer of integration. From utility, to commercial to residential scales, the sheer hierarchy of communication and coordination was a significant accomplishment in addition to learnings from what these communications revealed was unique to each. Economically, the most effective method demonstrated was the criticality of planning phases. Contingencies and multiple projection scenarios helped guide the project to deploy optimal design as close as feasible, in real world conditions. The project and reports will serve public benefit by outlining specific areas of DER strategy and installation where many stakeholders and needs can be addressed with improved efficiency. Overall, communities and utilities should use the results to guide the increasing options available for powering the grid with DER, renewables, and carbon considerate energy.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Utility-Scale Solar Data Update (2020 Edition) [Slides]

Berkeley Lab’s 2020 update of utility-scale solar data and trends provides an overview of key trends in the U.S. market, with a focus on 2019. Highlights of this year’s update include: More than 4.5 GWAC of utility-scale solar (i.e., ground-mounted solar projects larger than 5 MWAC) achieved commercial operations in 2019, bringing cumulative capacity to 29 GWAC. Projects are spread across all 10 regions that we track, though more heavily concentrated in the sunniest regions. The median installed cost of projects that came online in 2019 fell to $\$$1.4/WAC ($\$$1.2/WDC), down 20% from 2018 and down by more than 70% from 2010. 77% of projects and 88% of capacity added in 2019 used single-axis tracking. Average capacity factors range from 17% in the least-sunny regions to 30% where it is sunniest. Single-axis tracking adds roughly five percentage points to capacity factor in the regions with the strongest solar resource. Nationwide average levelized power purchase agreement (PPA) prices fell to $\$$24/MWh in 2019, down 17% from 2018 and more than 80% since 2010. Thirty-nine projects (totaling 4.2 GWAC) in our PPA price sample include battery storage (totaling 2.3 GWAC and 9.5 GWh). In the “lower 48” states, a number of these recent PV+battery PPAs have been inked in the mid-$\$$20/MWh range (levelized in 2019 dollars).Not including the 30% investment tax credit (ITC), the median levelized cost of energy (LCOE) from utility-scale PV has declined by 85% since 2010, to $\$$40/MWh in 2019. When the 30% ITC is included within the LCOE calculation, the median LCOE closely tracks the median PPA price over time. In higher-penetration markets like CAISO, the value of solar has been declining, but falling PPA prices have largely kept pace, preserving solar's net value. At the end of 2019, there were nearly 370 GW of solar in interconnection queues from all 7 ISOs and 30 additional utilities across the country. Nearly a third of this proposed solar capacity is paired with battery storage.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Primer on the Cost of Marine Fuels Compliant with IMO 2020 Rule

This report aims to provide information for owners and operators of U.S. ocean-going marine cargo vessels on the cost of different approaches to compliance with the IMO mandate to reduce the sulfur content of marine fuels (outside emission control areas) to no more than 0.5%. The IMO 2020 rule came into effect on January 1, 2020. The report discusses a suite of options for compliance including low-sulfur petroleum-based fuels and alternative fuels. Since fuel prices are a primary factor in determining the cost of the various alternatives, the document also includes a discussion of the main drivers of marine fuel prices. The cost analysis compares the average annual costs (capital and fuel) out to 2050 of each compliance approach under alternative scenarios regarding fuel prices, policy, and technology innovation. The cost calculations focus on representative U.S. fleet vessels for containership and tanker types. Even though the analysis focuses on average cost of approaches to comply with IMO 2020, the comparison of approaches also acknowledges other benefits or risks including fuel price risk and the contribution of the approach to achieving other potential environmental performance objectives or regulations.

02 PETROLEUM↗
DOE OSTI2021

Clean Grid Vision: A U.S. Perspective - Chapter 5. Global Power Market Trends

The evolution of the electricity sector toward competitive modern markets is occurring over a long period and responding to rapid changes in technologies, business models, and other market factors. No reformed power market anywhere in the world looks the same today as it did a decade ago. Technology has enabled some of the evolution, but perhaps it is more important that people and institutions learn from experience how to make markets better over time. Governments still have an important role—not as the authority controlling prices, but as the authority safeguarding the integrity of the economic processes that create prices in response to supply and demand and ensure reliability and other objectives are met. More VRE resources will change market conditions, but they will not change market fundamentals. Prices provide important signals for new investments and how the grid operates—including new technologies and processes discussed elsewhere in this report. If poor market design or the exercise of market power by a large entity distort these signals, outcomes will cease to be efficient and the public will bear the additional cost. Fundamentally, prices reflect supply, demand, and the cost of technological options.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗