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.
Collects space systems cost and related data (flight rate, payload, etc.) over time. Gathers only public data. Non-recurring and recurring. Minimal data processing. Graph, visualize, add context. Focus on US space systems competitiveness. Keep fresh update as data arises, launches occur, etc. Keep fresh focus on recent data, indicative of the future.
Collects space systems cost and related data (flight rate, payload, etc.) over time. Gathers only public data. Non-recurring and recurring. Minimal data processing. Graph, visualize, add context. Focus on US space systems competitiveness. Keep fresh update as data arises, launches occur, etc. Keep fresh focus on recent data, indicative of the future.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
This talk focuses on observations and data over 15 years of PV module and system cost modelling. It also dives into the value proposition of next generation PV technologies including improved efficiency and energy yield.
In this paper, we develop a model with which allows us to measure not only the changes in equilibrium outcomes and welfare consequences of liberalizing a bilateral air transport agreement, but also the distribution of the gains and losses to carriers and consumers of each bilateral country and those of the third foreign countries. Our model also allows to measure the effects of changes in a bilateral agreement on the amount of traffic diversion between the direct bilateral routes and the indirect routes via a third country. We also provide an extension of our model to a case of oligopoly market outcome (Coumot Nash equilibrium). In our model, quality aspects are treated in the framework of hedonic price theory by specifying the quality-adjusted price (quantity) as a multiplication of the observed price (quantity) by the reciprocal quality index function (the quality index function). Numerical simulations were conducted to measure the effects of changing the following major policy levers in a bilateral air transport agreement: 1) Removing price regulation while retaining frequency and entry restrictions; 2) Removing price and entry regulation while retaining frequency restrictions; 3) Removing frequency regulations while retaining price and entry regulations; 4) Removing frequency and entry regulations while retaining price regulation; 5) Removing price and frequency regulations while retaining entry restriction; and 6) Removing all price, frequency and entry regulations (de facto, open skies).
In recent years fuel prices have been growing at a rapid pace. Current conservative projections predict that this is only a function of the natural volatility of oil prices, similar to the oil price spikes experienced in the 1970s. However, there is growing concern among analysts that the current price increases may not only be permanent, but that prices may continue to increase into the future before settling down at a much higher level than today. At high enough fuel prices, the aircraft industry would become very sensitive to fuel price. In this paper, the likelihood of fuel price increase is considered in three different price increase scenarios: "low," "medium," and "high." The impact of these scenarios on the aviation industry and alternatives are also addressed.
In recent years fuel prices have been growing at a rapid pace. Current conservative projections predict that this is only a function of the natural volatility of oil prices, similar to the oil price spikes experienced in the 1970s. However, there is growing concern among analysts that the current price increases may not only be permanent, but that prices may continue to increase into the future before settling down at a much higher level than today. At high enough fuel prices, the aircraft industry would become very sensitive to fuel price. In this paper, the likelihood of fuel price increase is considered in three different price increase scenarios: "low," "medium," and "high." The impact of these scenarios on the aviation industry and alternatives are also addressed.
Model Predictive Control (MPC) for building Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems is beginning to gain traction in the market, with a few controls companies incorporating it into their product offerings. However, it remains difficult to assess whether the energy cost savings are enough to justify the cost of MPC implementation for a particular building, given the limited number of reported demonstrations. For small commercial and residential buildings with relatively uniform systems, standardized approaches can help lower implementation costs. In contrast, for large buildings or district systems, the potential magnitude of cost savings could justify more customized solutions. Estimating the cost-effectiveness of MPC becomes more challenging for medium and large commercial buildings, where a one-size-fits-all solution may not be suitable, and the potential energy cost savings may be insufficient to justify a customized solution. To make MPC technology more appealing, incorporating additional value streams beyond energy efficiency alone can significantly increase its attractiveness. One such revenue stream is demand flexibility, in response to dynamic electricity prices, where MPC can leverage the thermal mass of the building to shift the load and support the grid. Building on an extensive literature review of MPC field studies focused on cost savings and demand flexibility, this paper presents the results of implementing MPC control in a large office building HVAC system in Berkeley, CA. Four different dynamic electricity price profiles were integrated into the MPC objective function to shift building demand while maintaining comfort, and field testing was performed with each price profile across four seasons. The results show potential for 40–65 % demand decrease percentage and up to 61 % annual cost savings compared to the existing rule-based control strategy, under the tested dynamic price scenarios. This paper also presents a sensitivity analysis on the cost savings with respect to the price profile variability, discusses the implementation effort for the price-responsive MPC, and compares the cost savings found in this study to those found in literature on the basis of dynamic price variability, or so-called Electricity Price Relative Standard Deviation.
The price gap between the market and breakeven prices of cellulosic biomass for farmers represents a significant barrier to the development of a low-carbon cellulosic bioeconomy. Using a bottom-up, agent-based modeling tool that replicates the behaviors and interactions of key stakeholders, this study analyzes the emergence of a cellulosic bioeconomy at the local scale through a wedge approach that examines an integrated portfolio of multiple policy options, including subsidies for small-scale bioproducts and environmental credits. The role of collaboration among multiple stakeholders, such as biomass producers (farmers), bio-refinery industry, government, and society, is assessed for filling the price gap. Using the Sangamon River Basin as a case study site, we evaluate the effectiveness of the wedge approach by comparing simulation results from multiple scenarios, each incorporating different combinations of bioeconomy wedges, with and without stakeholder collaboration. Results underscore that active collaboration among stakeholders acts as a catalyst enlarging the effectiveness of bioeconomy wedges. Including the carbon credits and environmental value in the policy portfolio is found to bridge the price gap through collective contributions from diverse stakeholders, where the cellulosic biofuel and bioproduct industry plays a pivotal role. Although this study is conducted at the local watershed scale, the methodology and findings offer valuable insights for market development in other watersheds and the potential scaling of local markets to regional and national levels.
While transactive energy, which is defined as an allocation of electricity based on dynamically discovered values or prices, has been extensively studied, its uptake and use has been slow. This report describes a tool, the transactive network template, which should hasten the creation and uptake of transactive energy networks. Some basic principles of transactive energy are familiar from existing wholesale electricity markets. Locational prices are calculated today for zones within bulk electric transmission systems. Locational prices differ while accounting for the locational costs of electricity generation and the losses and constraints incurred when electricity is transmitted from generators and distributed to consumers. A transactive energy network might include these transmission zones. However, current research strives to apply transactive energy also in electricity distribution circuits, buildings, and even for individual generating and consuming devices. At the same time, researchers explore how to apply transactive energy in real time during increasingly shorter time intervals. Automated computational agents become necessary as transactive energy becomes applied to smaller circuit zones and at faster dynamic timescales. A transactive energy network is an example of a multi-agent system. Each zone in the network is represented by its transactive agent, which makes decisions for and acts on behalf of a business entity that is responsible for and manages one of the circuit regions. A transactive energy network is also an example of a decentralized, distributed control system. Control decisions and responsibilities are distributed among the network’s transactive agents. The transactive agents are independent; that is, there typically is no centralized authority or oversight function. Instead, transactive agents exchange transactive signals and thereby negotiate the prices and quantities of electricity that they will exchange. Initially, the circuit regions and responsibilities of transactive agents appear to be very dissimilar. Each circuit region may comprise transmission, distribution, or building-level circuits. Each has a unique position and electrical connectivity within the transactive energy network. Each possesses unique assets that either generate or consume electricity, and these (e.g., renewable energy generator, diesel generator, aggregate utility load, building load, space conditioning, refrigerator, etc.) may further differ in their price flexibility and in their strategies for responding to dynamic electricity prices. Given such diversity, an implementer’s first inclination might be to start from scratch to define all these devices and to engineer their seemingly unique interactions. Given that each implementer’s perspective may be narrow within a transactive energy network, it is unlikely that uniquely engineered systems would interact well. This is where the transactive network template is applicable. The transactive network template is a metamodel that has been developed to guide implementers as they configure their own transactive agent within a network of such agents. The object-oriented design of the transactive network template provides basic code object types that may be used and extended by implementers to represent each of the assets in their circuit region. These objects further facilitate the transactive agent’s necessary computations, which are divided among responsibilities to schedule power usage, balance electric supply and demand, and coordinate the exchange of electricity with the other transactive agents. This report addresses the conceptual transactive network template design. Implementers are directed to more formal design documents and reference implementations. A Python™-based1 reference implementation of the transactive network template has been coded, and three implementations have been configured to represent a national laboratory and two university campuses. Version 2 of the transactive node template generalizes the market class and its methods to facilitate multiple, and more diverse market coordination mechanisms than were facilitated by and demonstrated using Version 1. Version 3 includes new Appendix B, which addresses the designs of methods that would make dynamic prices track approved electricity rates. In the future, the author wishes to make the transactive network template more generally applicable to networks that require more accurate power flow. Development of the transactive network template is jointly funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the DOE Office of Electricity. In late 2015, one of the first projects to be funded by the DOE Grid Laboratory Modernization Laboratory Consortium was the Clean Energy and Transactive Campus project, led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. DOE funds were matched by an investment by the Washington Department of Commerce through its Clean Energy Fund. The transactive network template was developed to guide the implementation of transactive energy networks within this project’s scope.
With increasing electric vehicle (EV) adoption, managing public fast-charging demand effectively is crucial to avoid grid strain. This study investigates the potential of using dynamic pricing schemes to address this challenge. Presented in this study is a scalable agent-based simulation framework, which is applied to a case study in Richmond, Virginia, that assumes a 50% EV adoption rate in 2040. Two pricing schemes are compared: (1) a dynamic-pricing scheme based on station utilization and (2) a dynamic-pricing scheme based on peak power at the station. These schemes are compared to two baseline scenarios: (1) unscheduled first-come, first-served and (2) scheduled with constant price. The study’s results suggest that dynamic pricing has the potential to influence EV charging behavior, inducing both spatial and temporal shifts, but does so at the cost of inducing inconvenience to EV drivers. The results suggest the peak-power dynamic pricing scheme has the potential to mitigate peak demand pressures on the grid with minimal inconvenience, offering a promising approach for sustainable EV charging infrastructure expansion.
Concurrent differences in energy price between different parts of the electric grid are a key indicator of the value of additional transmission. In areas without a wholesale electricity market, such as the Southeast, an alternative indicator to price is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) system lambda data. This economic metric represents the minimized marginal production costs of thermal generators, including fuel and other variable operation and maintenance expenses. Balancing Authorities report a single system lambda for their entire balancing area. Most Southeastern lambdas exhibit sufficient price variation to support a transmission valuation analysis, although incomplete accounting of congestion costs or scarcity rents during peak load hours may underestimate the true value of transmission capacity. With transmission value defined as the annual average hourly absolute price difference between two regions and FERC’s system lambda data used as a price proxy, we find the following results in the Southeast region during 2012-2023 (reported in $\$2024$/MWh): Intra‐regional findings: Annual averages historically span $\$2$–$\$28$/MWh and average $\$12$/MWh in SERTP and span $\$4$–$\$19$/MWh and average $\$9$/MWh in FRCC, disregarding transmission value driven by anomalous data. The ranges of transmission value reported here are large, spanning an order of magnitude in some cases. Much of this variation is driven by year-to-year changes, with 2022 having a particularly high intra-regional transmission value due to elevated natural gas prices. Inter‐regional corridors: Annual average transmission values across three broader regions range from $\$6$ to $\$28$/MWh with a long-term average of $\$11$/MWh. Much of the transmission value is concentrated in a small portion of hours. Across all regions, severe weather—particularly polar vortex events in January 2018, February 2021, and December 2022—drives the largest price spreads. Seasonal patterns also emerge, with summer afternoons and fall mornings contributing consistently to transmission value, as for example between MISO and SOCO in 2023.
Overview The Capacity Expansion Regional Feasibility (CERF) model is an open-source geospatial python package that provides new power plant locations at a 1km resolution. The model ingests U.S. state or regional-scale electricity system capacity expansion plans, such as those produced by the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM-USA), and identifies feasible, site-specific locations for individual new power plants (renewable and non-renewable). CERF combines high-resolution geospatial suitability analyses with an economic algorithm that selects individual plant siting locations based on grid interconnection costs and the locational marginal value of new generation. The model incorporates a wide range of dynamic constraints and opportunities, such as protected lands, population density, existing infrastructure, and water availability. This dataset provides CERF power plant siting results for IM3 Phase 2 simulations across eight different scenarios for the Western US through 2055. The scenarios include combinations of two Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP3 and SSP5) with four high-resolution climate projections specific to the United States (see, https://tgw-data.msdlive.org/). These climate projections include "hotter" and "cooler" variants for two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The resulting eight simulations are: rcp45cooler_ssp3 rcp45cooler_ssp5 rcp45hotter_ssp3 rcp45hotter_ssp5 rcp85cooler_ssp3 rcp85cooler_ssp5 rcp85hotter_ssp3 rcp85hotter_ssp5 CERF siting results in this dataset correspond to capacity expansion plans in the GCAM-USA IM3 Phase 2 simulation data and are available for each of the above scenarios. Data Details Temporal Range: 2015-2055 in 5-year timesteps. Note that 2015 is the experiment base year and 2020 and beyond represent model simulation years. Spatial Range: Plant locations are provided for the eleven states in the Western US including Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Spatial Resolution: 1 km-squared, provided in x and y coordinates Geospatial Projection: Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) File Type: csv The dataset contains subdirectories for each of the eight scenarios described in the overview. Each scenario folder contains two subfolders with the following information: 1. Power Plant Data This directory contains a single .csv file of power plant locations for both pre-existing (non-CERF sited plants in operation in 2015) and new (CERF-sited) power plants across the temporal range along with additional CERF model output parameters for CERF-sited plants. Plant with a siting year earlier than 2020 correspond to facilities that are operational leading into the first timestep CERF simulation. For a more detailed description of CERF model output parameters, see the CERF model documentation. Note that the cerf_plant_id parameter is unique within each scenario file but not across scenario files. Parameter Descriptions scenario - Name of scenario cerf_plant_id - Unique siting identifier cerf_sited - If True, indicates that plant was sited by CERF model. If False, indicates pre-existing facility region_name - Name of region (state) tech_id - Technology ID tech_name - Full generation technology name inclusive of cooling type (if applicable) and additional characteristics tech_simple - Simplified generation technology type unit_size_mw - Power plant unit size (MW) xcoord - X coordinate in the default CRS (meters) ycoord - Y coordinate in the default CRS (meters) index - Index position in the flattend 2D array buffer_in_km - Exclusion buffer around site (km) sited_year - Year of siting retirement_year - Year of retirement lmp_zone - Locational marginal price (LMP) zone ID locational_marginal_price_usd_per_mwh - Locational marginal price ($/MWh) generation_mwh_per_year - Generation output (MWh/yr) operating_cost_usd_per_year - Cost of plant operations ($/yr) net_operational_value - Net operational value based on LMP and and operating costs ($/yr) interconnection_cost - Cost of interconnection for transmission & gas pipeline (if applicable) net_locational_cost -- Difference of interconnection cost and operating value ($/yr) capacity_factor_fraction - Capacity factor (fraction) carbon_capture_rate_fraction - Carbon capture rate (fraction) fuel_co2_content_tons_per_btu - Fuel CO2 content (tons/Btu) fuel_price_usd_per_mmbtu - Fuel price ($/MMBtu) fuel_price_esc_rate_fraction - Fuel price escalation rate (fraction) heat_rate_btu_per_kWh - Heat rate (Btu/kWh) lifetime_yrs - Technology lifetime for annuity (years) operational_life_yrs - Operational lifetime for retirement (years) variable_om_usd_per_mwh - Variable operation and maintenance costs of yearly capacity use ($/MWh) variable_om_esc_rate_fraction - Variable operation and maintenance costs escalation rate (fraction) carbon_tax_usd_per_ton - Carbon tax ($/ton) carbon_tax_esc_rate_fraction - Carbon tax escalation rate (fraction) 2. Storage Data This directory contains information on new and pre-existing energy storage facilities operational in each timestep along with various storage operational parameters. The 2015 timestep provides pre-existing energy storage data and corresponds with facilities that are operational leading into the first model simulation timestep. Note that coordinates in the storage files correspond to the interconnection point on the grid (substation location), not individual energy storage locations. Energy storage is added in a cumulative process at each given interconnection point. That is, each individual file provides the total operational storage capacity interconnected to the specified substation for the given timestep, inclusive of previously installed storage at that location and new storage installed in that timestep at that location. Parameters scenario - Name of scenario timestep - Simulation timestep name - Unique storage identifier s_typ - Type of energy storage technology (battery or pumped storage hydro) s_node - Node ID of interconnecting substation xcoord - X coordinate in the default CRS (meters) ycoord - Y coordinate in the default CRS (meters) charge_rate - Maximum charge rate (power capacity) of storage system (MW) discharge_rate - Maximum discharge rate (power capacity) of storage system (MW) duration - Duration of storage system (hours) max_SoC - Allowed maximum state of charge (energy capacity) of storage system (MWh) min_SoC -Allowed minimum state of charge (energy capacity) of storage system (MWh) charge_eff - Efficiency of charge (fraction between 0 and 1) discharge_eff - Efficiency of discharge (fraction between 0 and 1) Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program.
A process model was developed for estimating the cost of manufacturing lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (LiNi x Mn y Co z O 2 , NMCxyz), the main cathode active material in lithium-ion batteries used for electric vehicles in the United States. The model was used to estimate the prices of NMC622, NMC811, and NMC955 with poly- and single-crystalline morphologies. The Battery Performance and Cost Model (BatPaC) was used to translate the NMC prices into battery pack prices. A decrease in cobalt content from NMC622 (20% Co) to NMC955 (5% Ni) decreases the material price by $\$$0.85/kg (−3%) due to a decrease in the cost of battery materials, which account for >60% of the total price. NMC622 only produce cheaper packs if the nickel sulfate cost is > 4 × its baseline, indicating higher nickel materials will lower pack cost under normal market conditions. Single-crystalline materials are $\$$2/kg (+8%) more expensive than their polycrystalline counterparts due to higher manufacturing costs from longer, hotter calcinations in less densely packed saggars. This increases the pack price by ∼$\$$3/kWh, assuming identical electrochemical properties. In conclusion, the single-crystalline materials could yield cheaper packs if cycled to higher upper cutoff voltages (i.e., 4.35 to 4.43 V for the single-crystalline material vs. 4.25 V for their polycrystalline counterparts).
This paper presents a techno-economic evaluation of the proposed 600 MW, 8-hour Craig – Hayden pumped storage hydropower project using the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pumped Storage Hydropower Valuation Tool. The analysis integrates plant technical characteristics, regional grid conditions, and market-based operating assumptions to quantify stacked value streams from energy arbitrage, capacity, ancillary services, transmission congestion relief, and reliability. Both price taker and price influencer frameworks are applied to examine the impact of market participation and system interactions on lifecycle economic performance using Benefit - Cost Analysis and Multi - Criteria Decision Analysis. The results show that the price taker approach provides higher revenue estimates based on exogenous price signals, while the price influencer approach captures production cost savings, renewable curtailment reduction, and market price formation, yielding more conservative but system-representative outcomes. The study demonstrates the strategic value of long-duration PSH for enhancing operational flexibility, resource adequacy, and grid reliability in a high-renewable Western Interconnection.
This report provides an overview and status update on U.S. state renewables portfolio standards (RPS) and has been expanded from previous editions to also cover 100% clean electricity standards (CES) adopted by a growing number of states. The report, published in slide-deck form along with accompanying data files, describes recent legislative revisions, key policy design features, compliance with interim targets, past and projected impacts on clean electricity development, and compliance costs. The 2023 edition presents historical data through year-end 2023 and projections out to 2050. Key trends from this edition of the report include the following: -Evolution of state RPS and CES programs: States continue to refine and revise their RPS policies, often by adopting higher targets and/or broader CES policies. Among the 29 states plus DC with an RPS, 16 have RPS targets of at least 50% of retail sales, and 4 states have a 100% RPS. An additional 16 states have adopted a broader 100% CES. -Historical impacts on renewables development: Almost half of all growth in U.S. renewable electricity (RE) generation and capacity since 2000 is nominally associated with state RPS requirements. That percentage has declined over time to 35% of all U.S. RE capacity additions in 2023, though in certain regions RPS policies continue to play a dominant role in driving RE growth. -Future RPS and CES demand and incremental needs: The combined demand for clean electricity from RPS and CES policies will grow from roughly 500 TWh today to 1700 TWh by 2050. Accounting for current supplies—including existing nuclear and hydroelectric generation eligible for CES targets—RPS and CES policies will require 900 TWh of new clean electricity by 2050, equivalent to roughly 3x the historical rate of RPS-buildout. -RPS target achievement to-date: States have generally met their interim RPS targets in recent years, with only a few exceptions reflecting unique, state-specific issues. Most CES targets are not yet in force, and so little compliance experience to-date. -REC pricing trends: Prices for NEPOOL Class I RECs remained at roughly $\$40$/MWh over the past year, just below ACP rates in the larger state markets, while PJM Tier I REC prices continued to rise, reaching $\$35$/MWh by year-end 2023 and surpassing ACP levels in some states. Prices for solar RECs remained relatively stable, and continue to exhibit wide variation across states, with the highest prices ($200-450/MWh) in NJ, MA, and DC. -RPS compliance costs: RPS compliance costs average roughly 4% of retail electricity bills across RPS states, though vary widely from state to state, with the highest costs (11-12% of retail bills) in states with solar carve-outs and high SREC prices.
Rigorous stakeholder-vetted techno-economic analysis was performed to assess the cost of hydrogen (H 2 ) produced using state-of-the-art Anion Exchange Membrane (AEM) electrolysis. Projected high-volume, untaxed and unsubsidized levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH)1 range from 2020 $\$$1.78 to $\$$3.68/kg H 2 depending on technology year, process design, and electrolyzer project scale, assuming an electricity price of $\$$0.03/kWh and a capacity factor of 97%. The total installed capital cost for an AEM electrolysis plant was estimated from bottom-up stack and process plant cost models. The stack cost model accounts for manufacturing equipment, equipment maintenance, material, tooling, cycle time, yield, labor, utilities and general overhead. The process plant cost model accounts for purchased equipment, installation costs, site preparation, and general overhead costs. For this study, the AEM electrolysis plant is assumed to be a stick-built, greenfield project developed by an engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) firm with electrolysis stacks purchased directly from an electrolysis stack manufacturer. The price of the electrolysis stacks is based on a bottom-up cost assessment with business markup for the electrolysis company fabricator. Methods from the Hydrogen Analysis (H2A) production model, a peer-reviewed national laboratory-developed discounted cash flow (DCF) model, were used to calculate the production LCOH in 2020 $\$$/kg H 2 . The baseline electricity price case ($\$$0.03/kWh) corresponds to average wholesale electricity prices currently possible in U.S. markets with plentiful wind. Similar low-cost electricity pricing is possible from solar Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) although these prices are typically limited by renewable energy capacity factors.
'Ariadne', the European rocket, was found to be less costly than the American space shuttle, judging by the price proposals sent to Intelsat for the orbiting of its three latest telecommunications satellites in the Intelsat 5 series. The 'Ariadne' is being offered by the ESA and CNES at a ceiling price of $20 million, while the shuttle is priced by NASA at $22.5 million under the same condition. Neither the U. S. nor ESA have endorsed these prices officially. They are being presented as estimates. The 'Ariadne' has a ceiling price, which can only be adjusted downwards, if need be. The launching prices of both of these spacecraft do not include the cost of adapting the Intelsat 5 satellites, designed for the Atlas Centaur rocket.