Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “micro grid”

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.

78 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

Hybrid gausslet/Gaussian basis sets

We introduce hybrid gausslet/Gaussian basis sets, where a standard Gaussian basis is added to a gausslet basis in order to increase accuracy near the nuclei while keeping the spacing of the grid of gausslets relatively large. The Gaussians are orthogonalized to the gausslets, which are already orthonormal, and approximations are introduced to maintain the diagonal property of the two electron part of the Hamiltonian so that it continues to scale as the second power of the number of basis functions rather than the fourth. We introduce several corrections to the Hamiltonian designed to enforce certain exact properties, such as the values of certain two-electron integrals. We also introduce a simple universal energy correction that compensates for the incompleteness of the basis stemming from the electron–electron cusps based on the measured double occupancy of each basis function. We perform a number of Hartree Fock and full configuration interaction (full-CI) test calculations on two electron systems and Hartree Fock on a ten-atom hydrogen chain to benchmark these techniques. The inclusion of the cusp correction allows us to obtain complete basis set full-CI results for the two electron cases at the level of several micro-Hartrees, and we see similar apparent accuracy for Hartree Fock on the ten-atom hydrogen chain.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2022

Kimberlina 1.2 CCUS Geophysical Models and Synthetic Data Sets

This synthetic multi-scale and multi-physics data set was produced in collaboration with teams at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Colorado School of Mines through the Science-informed Machine Learning for Accelerating Real-Time Decisions in Subsurface Applications (SMART) Initiative. Data are associated with the following publication: Alumbaugh, D., Gasperikova, E., Crandall, D., Commer, M., Feng, S., Harbert, W., Li, Y., Lin, Y., and Samarasinghe, S., “The Kimberlina Synthetic Geophysical Model and Data Set for CO2 Monitoring Investigations”, The Geoscience Data Journal, 2023, DOI: 10.1002/gdj3.191. The dataset uses the Kimberlina 1.2 CO2 reservoir flow model simulations based on a hypothetical CO2 storage site in California (Birkholzer et al., 2011; Wainwright et al., 2013). Geophysical properties models (P- and S-wave seismic velocities, saturated density, and electrical resistivity) were produced with an approach similar to that of Yang et al. (2019) and Gasperikova et al. (2022) for 100 Kimberlina 1.2 reservoir models. Links to individual resources are provided below: [CO2 Saturation Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-co2-saturation-models); Resistivity Models – [part 1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-1), [part 2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-2), and [part 3](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-3); [Vp Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vp-velocity-models); [Vs Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vs-velocity-models); [Density Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-density-models). The 3D distributions of geophysical properties for the 33 time stamps of the SIM001 model were used to generate synthetic seismic, gravity, and electromagnetic (EM) responses for 33 times between zero and 200 years. Synthetic surface seismic data were generated using 2D and 3D finite-difference codes that simulate the acoustic wave equation (Moczo et al., 2007). 2D data were simulated for six point-pressure sources along a 2D line with 10 m receiver spacing and a time spacing of 0.0005 s. 3D simulations were completed for 25 surface pressure sources using a source separation of 1 km in both the x and y directions and a time spacing of 0.001 s. Links to individual resources are provided below: [2D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-velocity-models) and [2D surface seismic data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-surface-seismic-data). [3D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-velocity-models), and 3D seismic data [year0](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year0), [year1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year1), [year2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year2), [year5](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year5), [year10](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year10), [year15](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year15), [year20](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year20), [year25](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year25), [year30](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year30), [year35](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year35), [year40](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year40), [year45](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year45), [year49](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year49), [year50](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year50), [year51](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year51), [year52](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year52), [year55](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year55), [year60](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year60), [year65](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year65), [year70](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year70), [year75](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year75), [year80](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year80), [year85](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year85), [year90](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year90), [year95](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year95), [year100](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year100), [year110](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year110), [year120](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year120), [year130](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year130), [year140](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year140), [year150](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year150), [year175](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year175), [year200](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year200). The Python scripts to read these models and data are provided [here](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-python-scripts). EM simulations used a borehole-to-surface survey configuration, with the source located near the reservoir level and receivers on the surface using the code developed by Commer and Newman (2008). Pseudo-2D data for the source at [2500 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz2500m) and [3025 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz3025m), used a 2D inline receiver configuration to simulate a response over 3D resistivity models. The [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-csem-data) contain electric fields generated by borehole sources at monitoring well locations and measured over a surface receiver grid. Vector gravity data, both on the surface and in boreholes, were simulated using a modeling code developed by Rim and Li (2015). The simulation scenarios were parallel to those used for the EM: [pseudo-2D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were calculated along the same lines and within the same boreholes, and [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were simulated over 3D models on the surface and in three monitoring wells. A series of [synthetic well logs](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-well-logs) of CO2 saturation, acoustic velocity, density, and induction resistivity in the injection well and three monitoring wells are also provided at 0, 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after the initiation of injection. These were constructed by combining the low-frequency trend of the geophysical models with the high-frequency variations of actual well logs collected in the Kimberlina 1 well that was drilled at the proposed site. Measurements of permeability and pore connectivity were made on cores of Vedder Sandstone, which forms the primary reservoir unit: [CT micro scans](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-ct-micro-scans-of-vedder-formation) and [Industrial CT Images](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-industrial-ct-images-vedder-formation). These measurements provide the range of scales in the otherwise synthetic data set to be as close to a real-world situation as possible. References: Birkholzer, J.T., Zhou, Q., Cortis, A. and Finsterle, S., 2011. A sensitivity study on regional pressure buildup from large-scale CO2 storage projects. Energy Procedia, 4, 4371-4378. Commer, M., and Newman, G.A., 2008. New advances in three-dimensional controlled-source electromagnetic inversion, Geophysical Journal International, 172, 513-535. Gasperikova, E., Appriou, D., Bonneville, A., Feng, Z., Huang, L., Gao, K., Yang, X., Daley, T., 2022, Sensitivity of geophysical techniques for monitoring secondary CO2 storage plumes, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control, Volume 114, 103585, ISSN 1750-5836, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2022.103585. Moczo, P., J.O. Robertsson and L. Eisner, 2007, The finite-difference time-domain method for modeling of seismic wave propagation: Advances in geophysics, 48, 421-516. Rim, H., and Y. Li, 2015, Advantages of borehole vector gravity in density imaging, Geophysics, 80, G1-G13. Wainwright, H. M.; Finsterle, S.; Zhou, Q.; Birkholzer, J. T., 2013. Modeling the Performance of Large-Scale CO2 Storage Systems: A Comparison of Different Sensitivity Analysis Methods. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 17, 189205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.05.007, DOI: 10.18141/1603331. Yang, X., Buscheck, T.A., Mansoor, K., Wang, Z., Gao, K., Huang, L., Appriou, D., and Carroll, S.A., 2019. Assessment of geophysical monitoring methods for detection of brine and CO2 leakage in drinking water aquifers, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 90, 102803, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102803.

CCUS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Simulating many-engine spacecraft: Exceeding 1 quadrillion degrees of freedom via information geometric regularization

We present an optimized implementation of the recently proposed information geometric regularization (IGR) for unprecedented scale simulation of compressible fluid flows applied to multi-engine spacecraft boosters. We improve upon state-of-the-art computational fluid dynamics (CFD) techniques in terms of computational cost, memory footprint, and energy-to-solution metrics. Unified memory on coupled CPU–GPU or APU platforms increases problem size with negligible overhead. Mixed half/single-precision storage and computation are used on well-conditioned numerics. We simulate flow at 200 trillion grid points and 1 quadrillion degrees of freedom, exceeding the current record by a factor of 20. A factor of 4 wall-time speedup is achieved over optimized baselines. Ideal weak scaling is observed on OLCF Frontier, LLNL El Capitan, and CSCS Alps using the full systems. Strong scaling is near ideal at extreme conditions, including 80% efficiency on CSCS Alps with an 8 node baseline and stretching to the full system.

Wilfong, Benjamin [Georgia Institute of Technology↗
DOE OSTI2023

A Self-Sustained CPS Design for Reliable Wildfire Monitoring

Continuous monitoring of areas nearby the electric grid is critical for preventing and early detection of devastating wildfires. Existing wildfire monitoring systems are intermittent and oblivious to local ambient risk factors, resulting in poor wildfire awareness. Ambient sensor suites deployed near the gridlines can increase the monitoring granularity and detection accuracy. However, these sensors must address two challenging and competing objectives at the same time. First, they must remain powered for years without manual maintenance due to their remote locations. Second, they must provide and transmit reliable information if and when a wildfire starts. The first objective requires aggressive energy savings and ambient energy harvesting, while the second requires continuous operation of a range of sensors. To the best of our knowledge, this paper presents the first self-sustained cyber-physical system that dynamically co-optimizes the wildfire detection accuracy and active time of sensors. The proposed approach employs reinforcement learning to train a policy that controls the sensor operations as a function of the environment (i.e., current sensor readings), harvested energy, and battery level. Here, the proposed cyber-physical system is evaluated extensively using real-life temperature, wind, and solar energy harvesting datasets and an open-source wildfire simulator. In long-term (5 years) evaluations, the proposed framework achieves 89% uptime, which is 46% higher than a carefully tuned heuristic approach. At the same time, it averages a 2-minute initial response time, which is at least 2.5× faster than the same heuristic approach. Furthermore, the policy network consumes 0.6 mJ per day on the TI CC2652R microcontroller using TensorFlow Lite for Micro, which is negligible compared to the daily sensor suite energy consumption.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Monthly averages of ED2 model simulations initialized with airborne lidar structure, Jan 1981-Dec 2018, Brazilian Amazon

Deforestation and forest degradation (selective logging, fires, fragmentation) have impacted nearly 40% of the original extent of the Brazilian Amazon, and have markedly impacted forest structure across the region. To date, few studies analysed how shifts in forest structure from degradation influence the forest sensitivity to climate extremes, because of the complex interactions between forest structure and micro-environmental conditions. To address this knowledge gap, we carried out a series of simulations across the Brazilian Amazon using the Ecosystem Demography Model (ED2), using observed forest structure derived from 541 airborne lidar transects (375 ha each) and two scenarios representing forest recovery and expansion of degradation to investigate how shifts in forest structure impact ecosystem function under near-average and extreme climate conditions, as part of the manuscript Longo et al 2025 "Degradation and Deforestation Increase the Sensitivity of the Amazon Forest to Climate Extremes". This dataset provides the output results from the ED2 model simulations for the three simulations at monthly time scales, in NetCDF format. For all simulations, we used bias-corrected hourly reanalyses (WFDE5) for most meteorological drivers, except for precipitation, which was obtained from CHIRPS. The meteorological drivers used in the study span 38 years (Jan 1981–Dec 2018). The output results correspond to the last 38 years of simulation (one full cycle of meteorological drivers), in which ED2 simulations used static stand structure (i.e., the forest structure was held constant). The following files are provided:ED2_emean_Global_R004_BrAmaz_s1c0t0l0f0.nc. This corresponds to the Control simulation. The forest structure was obtained from the airborne lidar.ED2_emean_Global_R005_BrAmaz_s1c0t1l1f0.nc. This corresponds to the Degraded simulation. The forest structure was obtained from a spin-up simulation initialized with airborne lidar and a scenario that expanded deforestation and selective logging across the Amazon.ED2_emean_Global_R006_BrAmaz_s1c0t1l0f0.nc. This corresponds to the Recovery simulation. The forest structure was obtained from a spin-up simulation initialized with airborne lidar and a scenario that completely halted deforestation and degradation, allowing degraded forests to recover for 38 years.We also provide file ED2_zones_R004_BrAmaz_s1c0t0l0f0.nc, which classifies each grid cell into zones used in the reference manuscript: 1: Southeast. 2: South. 3: West. 4: Central. 5: Northeast. 6: North. 7: Northwest". Index 0 corresponds to grid cells excluded from sub-region analyses because they were dominated by flooded forests, deforestation, and naturally non-forest vegetation.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Powering Data Centers with Clean Energy: A Techno-Economic Case Study of Nuclear and Renewable Energy Dependability

Rising data demands from artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) generating images, videos, and text have prompted increased need for larger and more robust data centers in the United States. Major companies interested in these larger data centers face the choice of linking them to existing regional grids, building stand-alone power supplies onsite, or a combination of both. The request, review, and approval process for new transmission lines to grids in the United States, however, has grown in recent years to times spans rivaling those of new construction for nuclear power plants. Building an islanded power supply for each data center is therefore becoming a prominent option. In this case study, several technologies are modeled in techno-economic simulations for long-term system costs subject to fixed electricity demand from a singular data center. A 250 MWe data center is assumed with additional 50 MWe for resiliency. Techno-economic simulations are conducted using the Holistic Energy Resource Optimization Network (HERON) software, which is a part of the Framework for Optimization of Resources and Economics (FORCE) tool suite. Technologies considered include solar, wind, lithium-ion batteries, and several types of nuclear reactors: large-scale reactors, small modular reactors, and microreactors. A low- and high-cost estimate for each technology is assumed to develop a range of expected economic performance. Low-cost estimates included several clean energy production tax credits. Different combinations of renewable energy generators with nuclear reactors are considered, ranging from a fully renewable-powered data center to a fully nuclear-powered data center. Historic time series of wind and solar availability from the Texas grid are used to train a reduced order model; this model then generates unique time series with similar characteristics of the training dataset. Multiple scenarios of weather and subsequent operations are simulated for each renewable-nuclear combination to determine total costs throughout the project lifetime. Fully renewable-powered configurations required large amounts of installed capacity (GW scale) in the simulations to meet the fixed demand of the data center. This is due to some scenarios in the historical dataset which captured low-wind and low-solar days, requiring over-building of these technologies as well as batteries to compensate for the low amounts of electricity generation. Fully nuclear-powered configurations outperformed the fully renewable and mixed renewable-nuclear configurations in terms of cost, with ranges between $1B and $10B in 2023 USDs compared to $40B+ for fully renewable configurations. Of the nuclear technologies, small modular reactors performed better economically than large-scale nuclear models due to lower projected capital costs, and both performed better than the microreactor models. These results demonstrate the applicability of firm, dispatchable electricity resources from baseload generators like nuclear power plants for operating facilities that run at constant power without daily variability.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗