SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
In this session at the SETO Peer Review, several solar cybersecurity projects will be discussed. INL will provide an overview of the multi-lab Securing Solar for the Grid (S2G) project. We will highlight the focus areas of standards development and best practices, cybersecurity tool kits and supply chain analysis, and education and workforce development.
New aircraft, such as electric vertical take-off and landing vehicles, are being developed to support advanced air mobility. This talk will address gaps and risks in the aerospace supply chain and discuss how to identify and develop resiliency approaches.
Background: The world is experiencing frequent extreme weather events like droughts, floods, snowstorms, and shifting of seasons due to climate change. Increasing frequencies and severity of these extreme weather events threaten food security because agriculture is extremely vulnerable to climate change. Higher temperature reduces overall yields of the desirable crops but proliferates weeds and harmful pests. Current data shows that every year U.S. farmers spend more than 11 billion USD to fight weeds and this number is expected to rise in the coming years due to climate change. Due to droughts, the water required for irrigation is becoming scarcer. Since many areas are becoming climatically unusable for crop production, the amount of farmland area is shrinking rapidly. In addition, changes in precipitation patterns are causing crop failures and negatively impacting expected yields. In this study, we investigated how different extreme climate events impact different stages of a food supply chain. Approach: As a case study, we chose Idaho’s potato supply chain (SC). Idaho is the top potato producing state in the U.S. and contributes around 30% of the nation’s potato production. Using the agent-based modeling (ABM) approach, we developed a multi-echelon potato supply chain computer simulation model with six types of agents – seed producers, farmers, shippers, processors, retailers, and logistics companies. In addition to the baseline scenario, we developed two additional climate-related disruption events – drought and snowstorm. We investigated how each of these disruption events impacts different stakeholders across the supply chain in terms of revenue and some other key performance metrics such as lead time, food waste, number of delayed orders, and order fulfillment rate. Results: Extreme climate events not only impact the growers but there is also cascading ripple effects downstream of the supply chain. The methodology developed in this study could be applied to other food and agricultural SC to understand the vulnerabilities of the different links. The findings would potentially help to adopt new policies for the well-being of the overall SC.
The report “America’s Strategy to Secure the Supply Chain for a Robust Clean Energy Transition” lays out the challenges and opportunities faced by the United States in the energy supply chain as well as the federal government plans to address these challenges and opportunities. It is accompanied by several issue-specific deep dive assessments, including this one, in response to Executive Order 14017 “America’s Supply Chains,” which directs the Secretary of Energy to submit a report on supply chains for the energy sector industrial base. The Executive Order is helping the federal government to build more secure and diverse U.S. supply chains, including energy supply chains. Competitive U.S.-based clean energy manufacturers and rapid commercialization of U.S.-developed technologies are critical to secure energy supply chains, generate high quality jobs, and meet the United States’ national security, energy and climate objectives. The February 2021 “Executive Order on America’s Supply Chains” (E.O. 14017) directs the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to evaluate supply chains that encompass the energy industrial base, focusing on technologies that are critical to meet U.S. decarbonization goals by 2050. Understanding and analyzing the end-to-end supply chain through economic analysis is crucial to mitigating risks and identifying opportunities to enhance U.S. competitiveness in the clean energy industry. This insight will allow the Department of Energy (DOE) to leverage its research, development, demonstration and deployment (RDD&D) capabilities to most fully realize the objectives of E.O. 14017.
One of the primary hindrances to producing a viable, sustainable domestic biomass industry for renewable biofuels, bio-products and bio-power is the lack of understanding and quantification of the risks associated with both the biomass supply chain and preprocessing and conversion technologies. Currently a consistent method for assessing, comparing, and quantifying risks in biomass supply chains does not exist, creating a major investment barrier to bioenergy projects in the U.S. The lack of a standardized approach has resulted in bioenergy stakeholders independently using inconsistent approaches and evaluation criteria, leading to unreliable and incomparable assessments of risks and financing barriers to bio-project development. Along with the challenges of inconsistent risk assessment for supply chain risk, technology specific risks based on variability in biomass properties are not fully understood and can pose significant unforeseen challenges for bioenergy projects. In many cases these properties have not yet been identified and the impacts on the proposed technology and products unquantified. This is particularly challenging for emerging preprocessing and conversion technologies. Without a firm understanding of the preprocessing/conversion technology-specific critical properties, the risk of a proposed bio-project cannot be fully evaluated. To address inconsistent risk evaluation in the biomass supply chain supporting project financing, a Biomass Supply Chain Risk Standards (BSCRS) framework was developed. The BSCRS framework includes a comprehensive list of known and perceived risks (Risk Indicators) to the supply chain developed through 100’s of interviews with bioenergy industry experts spanning from feedstock growers and suppliers to representatives from the financial sector. These risks have been organized into a manageable hierarchy of Risk Categories and Risk Factors that can be practically assessed. This BSCRS framework also provides mitigation strategies for multiple Risk Indicators from best available industry practices and research findings. Additionally, a risk quantification methodology for each Risk Factor, Risk Category, and the bio-project as a whole was developed to enable capital markets to assess feedstock risk more efficiently and more accurately. Multiple case studies representing existing bio-projects have been used to evaluate and verify the BSCRS framework and scoring methodology. To address technological risk along with the supply chain risk captured in the developed BSCRS framework, this work also focuses on development of a systematic criticality assessment tool using well-accepted, quantitative risk analysis methods to evaluate bioenergy feedstock critical properties impacting system unit operations. The proposed Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) approach uses a team of subject area experts (SAEs) for each targeted unit operation within a system. Collectively, the team will develop and use a quantitative scoring system to assess the material attributes, process parameters, and quality attributes for key unit operations that have already been identified. The FMEA process generates Risk Priority Numbers (RPNs) for the various failures and predominant causes for each material/process unit/product combination resulting in a semi-quantitative, standardized methodology for assessing technological risk and biomass properties contributing to that risk.
The work by the United States Department of Energy (U.S. DOE)/Ohio Coal Development Office (OCDO) Advanced Ultra-Supercritical (AUSC) Steam Boiler and Turbine Materials Consortia from 2001 through September 2015 was primarily focused on lab scale and pilot scale materials testing. The field testing included air-cooled probes and steam-cooled “loops” that were installed into existing utility boilers to gain exposure of these materials to realistic conditions of high temperature and corrosion due to the constituents in the coal ash. Successful research and development resulted in identification of metallic alloy materials and fabrication processes suited for power generation applications with metal temperatures up to approximately 1472°F (800°C). These materials or alloys have shown, in extensive laboratory tests and shop fabrication studies, to have excellent applicability for high-efficiency low CO2 transformational power generation technologies. However, as valuable as these material field tests have been for obtaining information, their scale is significantly below that required to minimize the risk associated with a power company building a multi-billion-dollar AUSC power plant. To decrease the identified risk barriers to full-scale implementation of these advanced materials, the U.S. DOE/OCDO AUSC Steam Boiler and Turbine Materials Consortia identified the key areas of the technology that need to be tested at a larger scale. Based upon the recommendations and outcome of a Consortia-sponsored workshop with the U.S.’s leading utilities, a Component Test (ComTest) Program for AUSC was proposed. The AUSC ComTest program would define materials performance requirements, plan for overall advanced system integration, design critical component tests, fabricate components for testing from advanced materials, and carry out the tests. A Pre-FEED evaluation of the test facility including the evaluation of three potential sites has been completed and previously reported. This report describes the Front-End Engineering Design (FEED), Detailed Engineering and the Environmental Assessment of the ComTest project. A significant amount of work was accomplished during Phase 1 to identity the components, as well as the component size, that would be manufactured from advanced alloys such as INCONEL 740H or HAYNES 282 alloys. Pathways to supply these components for ComTest have been identified as well as any further development that would be required. Every project of this nature has challenges and this project was no exception. The greatest challenge has been the project cost. Largely due to the infrastructure and balance of plant equipment upgrades required for Youngstown Thermal, the estimated project cost for the “base case” project was greater than originally budgeted. The project team spent a significant amount of time exploring opportunities for reducing the project cost. These options included: • Youngstown Thermal was exploring building a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) unit at their facility. The Youngstown Thermal staff, supported by Thermal Engineering Group, worked with the project team to determine whether it was economically desirable to supply ComTest with steam and other utilities, which would be supplied by the CHP project. • The project team also evaluated opportunities to optimize the project scope to reduce cost, such as reducing project scope by eliminating the Superheater Outlet Header test. • Southern Company had offered two sites as possible host locations for ComTest. Both sites had infrastructure in place such as steam from an existing unit, natural gas, cooling water and ample electrical power that would be required to be added at the Youngstown Thermal site. Utilizing this existing infrastructure could reduce the project cost. An additional project challenge was the departure of Babcock and Wilcox from the project in September 2016. This project setback was overcome by GE Power’s willingness to assume the design of the ComTest superheater. Since the project could not proceed without the superheater, this was a very positive project development. The merger of the GE Power and Alstom Power steam turbine divisions created synergies leading to the conclusion that instead of building a small-scale turbine, a more practical and useful endeavor would be to validate the manufacturing technology and supplier readiness for fabricating and machining full scale steam turbine components. Consequently, in March 2017, GE Power decided that a steam turbine test would not be necessary as part of the ComTest demonstration. Removing the operational testing of the steam turbine from ComTest further reduced the total project cost. Additionally, there was an opportunity to move ComTest from Youngstown Thermal to one of the Southern Company sites and operate ComTest at supercritical steam conditions and test the steam turbine main stop/control valve at a temperature and pressure that would be representative of the conditions of a high pressure steam turbine inlet valve. The steam could also possibly be returned to the host boiler so there would be no economic penalty of using this steam for ComTest. Relocating the project could further reduce the project cost due to the infrastructure already in place, including high pressure natural gas and cooling water, and the potential for heat integration, allowing a reduction of operating costs. Due to these potential cost reductions, it was decided to move the project away from Youngstown Thermal in March 2017. As integrating ComTest at the Southern Company site was explored, an issue was raised regarding the integration of the ComTest cycle with the plant steam cycle. Steam would be supplied to ComTest at nominally ~3865 psia and 775°F. The steam would be heated with natural gas to 1400°F for the valve test and then cooled to 1000°F so that the steam would be returned to the host boiler at the same conditions as their high pressure steam turbine inlet. However, there were concerns raised that the addition of the energy (natural gas) to the steam could trigger a New Source Review on the unit. Southern Company did not want ComTest to cause this review, so condensing all of the steam exiting ComTest and returning it to the host steam cycle as condensate was explored to insure there would be no implication that ComTest was adding energy to the host plant’s steam cycle. Ultimately, Southern Company decided that they wanted to “decouple” ComTest from the operating unit, making ComTest self-supporting, similar to the Youngstown Thermal “base case.” Without the steam turbine, the project team reached a consensus that operating the ComTest Superheater and steam turbine valves at the typical pressure of a package boiler (~1000 psig) would not generate enough useful technical information to justify the cost of the test. Therefore, it was decided in the December 2017 project quarterly meeting to cancel the operational phase of ComTest. Throughout the engineering phase of ComTest, manufacturing and supply chain challenges were identified. When GE Power recommended dropping the steam turbine test from ComTest, they identified many important manufacturing issues that should be evaluated and demonstrated. Other challenges had been raised by the GE Power group designing the superheater as well as those engineering components such as pressure relief and steam turbine bypass valves. In the December 2017 meeting, the project team decided that it was more beneficial to the AUSC technology to pursue these manufacturing and supply chain issues as Phase 2 of the ComTest project. This report is organized in the following manner: • Section 2 discusses the ComTest project background and organization. • Section 3 discussed project management. • Section 4 discusses the design of the ComTest AUSC components – the Superheater, steam turbine and Superheater Outlet Header. • Section 5 discusses the implementation of ComTest at Youngstown Thermal and the Southern Company site. • Section 6 discusses the development of the AUSC Supply Chain • Section 7 discusses the recommended plan for Phase 2 of ComTest
The purpose of this presentation is to describe how the input assumptions for transmission grid supply constraints were developed. These assumptions will be used in a subsequent paper to evaluate the ability of transmission supply chains to meet anticipated transmission development needs.
Risk assessment is used in many industries to identify and manage risks. Initially developed for use on aeronautical and nuclear systems, risk assessment has been applied to transportation, chemical, computer, financial, and security systems among others. It is used to gain an understanding of the weaknesses or vulnerabilities in a system so modification can be made to increase operability, efficiency, and safety and to reduce failure and down-time. Risk assessment results are primary inputs to risk-informed decision making; where risk information including uncertainty is used along with other pertinent information to assist management in the decision-making process. Therefore, to be useful, a risk assessment must be directed at specific objectives. As the world embraces the globalization of trade and manufacturing, understanding the associated risk become important to decision making. Applying risk assessment techniques to a global system of development, manufacturing, and transportation can provide insight into how the system can fail, the likelihood of system failure and the consequences of system failure. The risk assessment can identify those elements that contribute most to risk and identify measures to prevent and mitigate failures, disruptions, and damaging outcomes. In addition, risk associated with public and environment impact can be identified. The risk insights gained can be applied to making decisions concerning suitable development and manufacturing locations, supply chains, and transportation strategies. While risk assessment has been mostly applied to mechanical and electrical systems, the concepts and techniques can be applied across other systems and activities. This paper provides a basic overview of the development of a risk assessment.
The potential impacts of man-made and natural disasters on chemical plants, complexes, and supply chains are of great importance to homeland security. To be able to estimate these impacts, we developed an agent-based chemical supply chain model that includes: chemical plants with enterprise operations such as purchasing, production scheduling, and inventories; merchant chemical markets, and multi-modal chemical shipments. Large-scale simulations of chemical-plant activities and supply chain interactions, running on desktop computers, are used to estimate the scope and duration of disruptive-event impacts, and overall system resilience, based on the extent to which individual chemical plants can adjust their internal operations (e.g., production mixes and levels) versus their external interactions (market sales and purchases, and transportation routes and modes). As a result, to illustrate how the model estimates the impacts of a hurricane disruption, a simple example model centered on 1,4-butanediol is presented.
This project, “Ecosystem Services and Farm Entrepreneurship Technical Assistance,” was a three-year project originally planned for FY22–FY24. Due to a late start and a few extensions, it is being completed in early FY25. This project explored opportunities to support the deployment of a bioeconomy with a circular, more sustainable supply chain. Using a tool developed by Argonne to identify agricultural areas suitable for use in the bioeconomy, we sought to create opportunities in the bioeconomy as biomass producers, bioenergy users, and environmental entrepreneurs. We proposed to focus at the beginning on enhancing the tool’s capabilities, while engaging with key stakeholders to improve and expand the tool’s functionality for all potential stakeholders in the bioeconomy. We believe that expanding our tools and technologies, coupled with conversations in agricultural spaces, will be needed as we continue to explore how best to offer farmers whole-of supply-chain opportunities to participate in the bioeconomy. Through this project we have continued to gain a better understanding of the ways in which farmers, landowners, bioenergy users, and environmental entrepreneurs may approach the bioeconomy. In addition, as we improve our analytic toolkit, we can continue to refine our communication and the ways in which we can valuate the bioeconomy. Refining these tools allows us to dive deeper into conversations around plausible policies and drivers for future bioeconomy investment and engagement by stakeholders. By working with farmers and agricultural landowners to enable a sustainable bioeconomy business model, enhance their energy options, and recover resources from their waste streams, this project directly responds to the Bioenergy Technology Office’s (BETO) priorities of building a resilient energy economy. It addresses BETO’s focus on fostering the development and adoption of energy technologies that enable the conversion of waste to energy, efficient land use, and robust job creation. By establishing a technical assistance program that develops capabilities and practices in agricultural areas to implement a bioeconomy future, this program will develop an important linkage between technology being developed at U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories and the agricultural communities of the Midwest. This project focuses on farmers with lower productivity farmland. Because less productive lands create a more difficult revenue stream for conventional crops, these farmers may therefore be more open to alternative agricultural land management regimes. Consequently, the technical assistance program and the methodologies for targeting perennial bioenergy crop application on marginal land provide a distinct opportunity to engage with and invest in the bioeconomy in these economically stressed areas. Stakeholders in this project include farmers and landowners, local conservation organizations (NRCS, SWCS, etc.), universities, non-profit environmental and agricultural entities, farm consultants, environmental regulators, and industry, including the industries working on conversion technologies, anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis, and biochar generation, and the companies interested in trading or purchasing/supporting the valuation of ecosystem services (ES).
We report carinata is a purpose-grown oilseed feedstock for renewable fuels, including sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) that can replace conventional aviation fuel (CAF). Given carinata is a new crop in the Southeastern United States, it is crucial to analyze its sustainability from a supply chain perspective. This study developed a mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) model and simulated it for 20 years, starting from a farm (county-level data) and ending at the airport. About 2.06 million ha in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia combined were found suitable for carinata production. Given the three-year rotation period, about 0.69 million hectares can be cultivated annually, approximately 65% of which was in Georgia. About 2.4% of the combined SAF annual demand of four major airports (about 210 thousand t) in the study area is satisfied at that level of carinata cultivation. However, all available SAF was supplied to the Atlanta airport as this decision minimizes the supply chain cost. A total of 1343 storage units, one oil extraction mill, and one biorefinery were needed to meet the overall demand. We found that SW Georgia is the top supplier of carinata seeds. The unit cost of production and carbon intensity were estimated to be $\$$0.89 L -1 (or $\$$26.79 GJ -1 ) and 0.91 kg CO 2 e L -1 (or 27.28 kg CO 2 e GJ -1 ), respectively. This carbon intensity of carinata-based SAF was 67.8% lower than that of CAF. With variations included in SAF demand, yield, and soil carbon sequestration, carbon savings remained between 66.5% and 67.8%. Given the GHG advantage of SAF over CAF, there is justification for subsidies required to make SAF competitive.
This study is the summation of several analyses to assess the size and benefits of a Billion Ton Bioeconomy, a vision to enable a sustainable market for producing and converting a billion tons of US biomass to bio-based energy, fuels, and products by 2030. Two alternative biomass availability scenarios in 2030, defined as the (i) Business-as-usual (598 million dry tons) and (ii) Billion Ton (1042 million dry tons), establish a range of possible outcomes for the future bioeconomy. The biomass utilized in the current (2014) (365 million dry tons) economy is estimated to displace approximately 2.4% of fossil energy consumption and avoid 116 million tons of CO 2 -equivalent (CO 2 e) emissions, whereas the Billion Ton bioeconomy of 2030 could displace 9.5% of fossil energy consumption and avoid as much as 446 million tons of CO 2 equivalent emissions annually. Developing the integrated systems, supply chains, and infrastructure to efficiently grow, harvest, transport, and convert large quantities of biomass in a sustainable way could support the transition to a low-carbon economy. Bio-based activities in the current (2014) economy are estimated to have directly generated more than 48 billion in revenue and 285 000 jobs. Our estimates show that developing biomass resources and addressing current limitations to achieve a Billion Ton bioeconomy could expand direct bioeconomy revenue by a factor of 5 to contribute nearly 259 billion and 1.1 million jobs to the US economy by 2030.
Technology Overview: The RAMPT (Rapid Analysis and Manufacturing Propulsion Technology) project will develop and advance large scale light-weight multi-metallic freeform manufacturing and composite overwrap techniques and analysis capabilities required to implement them to reduce design and fabrication cycles for regeneratively-cooled liquid rocket engine components; RAMPT will reduce design, fabrication, assembly schedules while allowing for reduced parts, increased reliability, significant weight reduction and a healthy American supply chain. Four technology areas developed: 1) Freeform Blown Powder Nozzle; 2) Composite overwrap structural jacket; 3) Bimetallic radial deposition for manifolds; 4) Modeling and analysis tools for Additive and Regen design. Exploration & Science Impact: Addresses longest lead, highest cost and heaviest component in engine; Applicable to Lunar Lander Engine, Booster Engines, Upper Stage Engines, and NTP (Nuclear Thermal Propulsion) Technology; Public-private partnerships with specialty industry vendors, government partners, Commercial Crew, and infusion into commercial space companies and manufacturers; SSTIP (NASA's Strategic Space Technology Investment Plan) Core Investment Area - Launch Propulsion Systems (TA01 (NASA Technology Area 01); Lightweight Space Structures and Materials (TA12); Manufacturing (TA12).
The Jobs and Economic Development Impact (JEDI) models are user-friendly tools that estimate the economic impacts of constructing and operating power generation and biofuel plants at the local (usually state) level. First developed by NREL’s researchers to model wind energy jobs and impacts, JEDI has been expanded to also estimate the economic impacts of biofuels, coal, conventional hydro, concentrating solar power, geothermal, marine and hydrokinetic power, natural gas, photovoltaics, and transmission lines. This fact sheet focuses on JEDI for wind energy projects.
The Jobs and Economic Development Impact (JEDI) models are user-friendly tools that estimate the economic impacts of constructing and operating power generation and biofuel plants at the local (usually state) level. First developed by NREL's researchers to model wind energy jobs and impacts, JEDI has been expanded to also estimate the economic impacts of biofuels, coal, conventional hydro, concentrating solar power, geothermal, marine and hydrokinetic power, natural gas, photovoltaics, and transmission lines. This fact sheet focuses on JEDI for wind energy projects and is revised with 2017 figures.
The goal of the project was to develop a greater understanding of the key factors determining wind energy component manufacturing costs and pricing on a global basis in order to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers, and to reduce installed systems cost. Multiple stakeholders including DOE, turbine OEMs, and large component manufactures will all benefit by better understanding the factors determining domestic competitiveness in the emerging offshore and next generation land-based wind industries. Major objectives of this project were to: 1. Carry out global cost and process comparisons for 5MW jacket foundations, blades, towers, and permanent magnet generators; 2. Assess U.S. manufacturers’ competitiveness and potential for cost reduction; 3. Facilitate informed decision-making on investments in U.S. manufacturing; 4. Develop an industry scorecard representing the readiness of the U.S. manufacturers’ to produce components for the next generations of wind turbines, nominally 3MW land-based and 5MW offshore; 5. Disseminate results through the GLWN Wind Supply Chain GIS Map, a free website that is the most comprehensive public database of U.S. wind energy suppliers; 6. Identify areas and develop recommendations to DOE on potential R&D areas to target for increasing domestic manufacturing competitiveness, per DOE’s Clean Energy Manufacturing Initiative (CEMI). Lists of Deliverables 1. Cost Breakdown Competitive Analyses of four product categories: tower, jacket foundation, blade, and permanent magnet (PM) generator. The cost breakdown for each component includes a complete Bill of Materials with net weights; general process steps for labor; and burden adjusted by each manufacturer for their process categories of SGA (sales general and administrative), engineering, logistics cost to a common U.S. port, and profit. 2. Value Stream Map Competitiveness Analysis: A tool that illustrates both information and material flow from the point of getting a customer order at the manufacturing plant; to the orders being forwarded by the manufacturing plant to the material suppliers; to the material being received at the manufacturing plant and processed through the system; to the final product being shipped to the Customer. 3. Competitiveness Scorecard: GLWN developed a Wind Industry Supply Chain Scorecard that reflects U.S. component manufacturers’ readiness to supply the next generation wind turbines, 3MW and 5MW, for land-based and offshore applications. 4. Wind Supply Chain Database & Map: Expand the current GLWN GIS Wind Supply Chain Map to include offshore elements. This is an on-line, free access, wind supply chain map that provides a platform for identifying active and emerging suppliers for the land-based and offshore wind industry, including turbine component manufacturers and wind farm construction service suppliers.
Offshore wind energy is a rapidly growing global industry that creates electricity from wind turbines installed in coastal waters on either rigid or floating substructures anchored to the seabed or lake bottom. The 2018 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report was developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) with support from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and is intended to provide offshore wind policymakers, regulators, developers, researchers, engineers, financiers, supply chain participants, and other stakeholders with up-to-date quantitative information about the offshore wind market, technology, and cost trends in the United States and worldwide. This report provides detailed information on the domestic offshore wind industry to contextualize the U.S. market and help policymakers, researchers, and the general public understand technical and market barriers and opportunities. Globally, the scope of the report covers the status of the 176 operating offshore wind projects through December 31, 2018, and provides the status of, and analysis on, a broader global pipeline of 838 projects in various stages of development. To provide the most up-to-date discussion of this dynamically evolving industry, this report also tracks the most significant domestic developments and events from January 1, 2018, through March 31, 2019. The following is a summary of the key offshore wind market findings.
Fusion energy represents a transformative opportunity to deliver a safe, plentiful, and carbon-free source of reliable primary power. In recent years, fusion research and development have accelerated significantly, particularly within the US, driven by decades of foundational public investment. Notably, in 2024 the US Department of Energy (DOE) established a comprehensive Fusion Energy Strategy aimed at collaborating with industry partners to enable the deployment of fusion power plants and grid integration by the 2030s. This strategy is chiefly implemented through the DOE Office of Science (SC) Fusion Energy Sciences program. This project was initiated to identify potential approaches for the Office of Environment, Safety, and Health (NA-ESH-12) within DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration to begin engagement with the fusion community on future accountable material needs. The goal of the project is to inform and influence the supply of and demand for accountable nuclear materials as fusion energy is developed and commercialized. NA-ESH-12 must proactively engage with the fusion community regarding the production and management of accountable nuclear materials. Given the complexity and scale of materials required for research, pilot projects, and eventual commercial reactors, early coordination is vital. The project’s objective is to provide insights that will shape the supply and demand landscape for critical nuclear materials, ensuring that DOE is prepared to effectively support fusion energy development and commercialization. In FY 2025, an initial limited review was conducted to identify the status of the fusion energy community’s progress toward full-scale energy production and the need for accountable nuclear material. This included communications with SC, NA-ESH-12, Savannah River National Laboratory, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and attending the Rutgers University–sponsored Supply Chain Workshop: Scaling the Fusion Industry and the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Ninth DEMO Programme Workshop. The review to date indicates that the amounts of tritium, lithium-6, and deuterium required by the fusion industry will be dependent on fuel type, breeding technology, blankets, and R&D improvements. One concern is that the commercial sector does not have a sufficient supply chain to meet the demand for development and commercialization for fusion energy production. The supply and demand estimates for these materials should be routinely reviewed as fusion technologies mature.