Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “variable energy generation”

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.

1,487 records · Page 83
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Innovative Method for Welding in Generation 3 CSP to Enable Reliable Manufacturing of Solar Receivers to withstand Daily Cycling at Temperatures Above 700°C (Final Technical Report)

Inconel® Alloy 740H® (alloy 740H) was the first age-hardenable nickel-based alloy approved by the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code for use in pressure-boundary applications. Over the past ~20 years the alloy has been optimized for weldability and high-temperature stability, approved for use in different applications. Development of a supply chain combined with the advantageous properties of the alloy (high-temperature creep strength, oxidation and corrosion resistance, etc.) have resulted in the alloy being applied to new high-temperature power cycle demonstration projects, and of particular interest are applications to concentrating solar power (CSP) to enable higher-efficiency Generation 3 CSP systems and the corresponding supercritical CO 2 (sCO 2 ) power cycle components (heat exchangers, piping, etc.). The high allowable stresses of alloy 740H also make it a desirable material for current Generation 2 CSP solar power receivers to improve cyclic capability and/or reduce receiver height. Recent experiences in demonstration projects utilizing alloy 740H identified cracking issues during welding and fabrication. In this project, a detailed study was done to confirm and clarify the Stress Relaxation Cracking (SRxC) mechanism, also known as stress relief cracking or strain-age cracking (SAC), during post-weld heat-treatment (PWHT). This involved detailed microscopy and advanced characterization to understand the root cause(s) of three failures obtained from industry. Based in-part on these findings, a targeted laboratory based SRxC test method was utilized to evaluate variables such as heat-to-heat variations, strain level, PWHT temperature, and starting material condition on three heats of alloy 740H. Industrial shop welding of cold-worked plates was also conducted. The research showed the following: SRxC was confirmed as the cracking mechanism for all field failures; Stress state (from residual stresses, constraint, deformation, and local stress concentrations) was playing a significant role in field failures and laboratory testing confirmed increasing susceptibility for all heats with increasing strain levels. High levels of microstructural strain were identified at crack initiation locations, in some cases leading to local recrystallization; Precipitate free zones (PFZs) at grain boundaries were found at relaxation cracks and crack initiation locations uniquely associated with SRxC in alloy 740H. Laboratory testing reproduced this microstructural feature which had only previously been reported in long-term creep testing of weldments. Advanced nano-scale characterization confirmed the presence of a moving boundary leading to coarsening of precipitates and PFZs where damage accumulated; The research suggested heat-to-heat variations due to local chemistry and processing may influence SRxC susceptibility, but more work is needed to fully clarify these effects. To disseminate the key learnings from this research to the scientific and engineering communities and alloy 740H end users, multiple technical publications and presentations were made, an industrial alloy 740H users meeting was held, and a new industry guideline specification document which can be directly implemented by end-users of alloy 740H was produced.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Community Centered Solar Development (CCSD) Case Study Interviews [Slides]

Large-scale solar (LSS, defined here as ground-mounted photovoltaic projects ≥1 MWDC) has grown rapidly in the U.S., accounting for nearly half of new electric generating capacity added to the U.S. grid in 2022. All sources of electricity bring positive and negative impacts to hosting communities and the rapid growth of LSS has increased the urgency to understand those impacts. Yet, information about the potential positive and negative impacts of LSS on host communities, and the factors or drivers leading to support or opposition to a project, is lacking. This information gap limits how project developers, municipalities, and local siting authorities can address community concerns and appropriately align proposed projects to best suit and benefit local communities. As part of Berkeley Lab’s Community-Centered Solar Development (CCSD) project, this research set out to explore deep insights and perceptions from LSS stakeholders that only qualitative data can provide to identify key factors driving project success or threatened failure. Case studies, such as those utilized in this research, are uniquely adept at capturing the subjective experience of individuals and at identifying variables, structures, and interactions between stakeholders. Our case studies included 54 semi-structured interviews across 7 different LSS sites, representing a diversity of geographies, project sizes (MW), site types (i.e., greenfield, agrivoltaic, and brownfield / contaminated sites), zoning jurisdiction types, and more (Table 1). In addition to local residents living in close proximity to these LSS sites, we interviewed other key stakeholders involved in the projects such as developers, decision-makers, utility representatives, landowners, and individuals from community-based organizations. The overarching aim of this case study research was two-fold: (1) to inform subsequent tasks in the CCSD research project (including an upcoming national survey of LSS neighbors), and (2) to provide insights into the following set of research questions: -What are the key positive and negative drivers leading to support and opposition to LSS projects? -To what extent do LSS projects exacerbate or mitigate perceived inequities and marginalization within hosting communities and how can those inequities be mitigated going forward? -What strategies can communities employ to align LSS development with local land-use plans and community needs and values? The research findings and next steps are described in this slide deck report.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Packages of Distributed Energy Technologies Demonstrating Demand Flexibility at Community Scale

The combination of increased electric load growth across all sectors, deferred electrical infrastructure investment, and other factors resulting in variable electric power supply, has created technical challenges to maintaining a resilient and reliable grid. Many federal, regional, and local efforts are in play to modernize the electric grid, including advancing building technologies and distributed energy resources (DERs) that are utilizing smarter controls to become responsive to both occupant and grid needs. This report reviews ten pilot projects demonstrating how groups of buildings combined with behind-the-meter (BTM) DERs such as electric vehicle (EV) charging, battery storage, flexible HVAC and domestic hot water systems, and photovoltaic systems can reliably and cost effectively provide grid services. Each of the ten pilot projects aim to deliver both energy efficiency and demand flexibility (DF) while supporting load growth. The ten demonstration teams are piloting flexible DER packages across diverse communities of residential and commercial buildings to address a variety of regional grid needs. The outcomes of these pilot projects will be used to inform future scaling through utility program development. This paper characterizes the ten teams, showcasing the decision-making process used by each group to develop their packages (Section 2), the grid services they plan to deliver (Section 3), the types of DER packages selected for deployment within building sectors (Section 4) and trends between building sector, DER types, and grid services In order to achieve community scale benefits, the pilot projects must utilize aggregated control mechanisms for coordinating buildings and DERs together. Several types of coordinated control architectures have evolved amongst the teams, influenced by use type, existing market conditions, and integration type. Three coordinated controls architectures have been characterized, highlighting their use cases, benefits, challenges, and tradeoffs in their design. These insights can aid utilities, control vendors, and developers in scaling community-level energy systems (Paul, 2024). Ultimately, the technology packages selected by the ten teams will be coordinated to provide power system services, also known as grid services. Insights from these demonstrations will be useful for grid operators, regulators, aggregators and other stakeholders as they look to deploy demand flexible resources as grid services in the future. The grid services that each team is targeting for demonstration are described in Section 3 and Section 4. Methods for evaluating the grid services have been described in the paper Metrics for Evaluating Grid Service Provision from Communities of Grid-interactive and Efficient Buildings and other DER (MacDonald, 2023). To identify technology packages for demonstration, Section 2 shows that project teams used a range of analysis approaches, including building energy modeling, AMI data analysis, cost-benefit frameworks, and utility pilot data. Some teams emphasized technical modeling to quantify grid impacts and demand reduction potential, while others prioritized economic evaluations, stakeholder input, or exploratory pilots to inform deployment decisions. This diversity reflects the need to tailor selection methods to project goals, available data, and organizational context. Section 5 discusses trends between the DER technologies deployed and the grid service provisions from each team. Residential buildings (multifamily and single family) lean towards technologies that enhance energy efficiency (e.g. weatherization upgrades, smart thermostats) and onsite power generation integration (e.g. solar PV). Commercial building demonstrations prioritize technologies that ensure operational reliability (e.g. battery storage) and centralized energy management systems and optimization solutions. Teams that are deploying controllable storage-based technologies are more likely to provide grid services that require a near real-time response. Teams incorporating load shifting technologies like smart thermostats with HEMs are likely to include energy markets participation and customer bill management offerings. Campus demonstrations are adopting diverse sets of DERs to emphasize renewable generation, paired with centralized control. This section also describes technologies that were considered during project planning but ultimately excluded from final deployment. These demonstrations reveal that effective DER package design should be tailored to building type, customer segment, and construction vintage. Multifamily buildings benefit from centralized HVAC upgrades and supervisory controls, while single-family homes are well-suited for individualized technologies like solar, storage, and smart home energy monitors. Commercial and campus settings prioritize EMIS integration and load optimization. New construction enables cost-effective integration of DER-ready infrastructure, whereas retrofits require deployments aligned with owner and tenant value streams. For utility program planners, early coordination with developers and building owners, paired with segmented and modular program offerings, can improve adoption, scalability, and grid impact.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2023

TRACER-Coastal Urban Boundary-Layer Interactions with Convection (TRACER-CUBIC) Field Campaign Report

To better understand the complicated web of processes governing convective cloud life cycle and aerosol-convection interactions, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)’s Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) user facility supported deployment of a variety of advanced atmospheric measurement systems to the greater Houston, Texas, area from 1 October 2021 to 30 September 2022 as part of the Tracking Aerosol Convection Interactions Experiment (TRACER). Houston was selected as a study area because isolated convection and a variety of aerosol conditions are common in this region. This one-year ARM Mobile Facility (AMF) deployment featured a four-month intensive operational period (IOP) during summer 2022 (1 June–30 September). The ARM instrumentation was deployed at three sites along an east-west transect from La Porte, Texas to an ancillary site in a less-polluted rural region southwest of downtown Houston (Figure 1). At the La Porte Site, which is located near the Houston ship channel in an area that experiences significant pollution, the first ARM Mobile Facility (AMF1) was deployed. During the IOP, the ARM tethered balloon system (TBS) operated at the ancillary site. The second-generation C-Band Scanning ARM Precipitation Radar (CSAPR) operated near Pearland, Texas, roughly halfway between the Laporte and ancillary sites. As part of the TRACER- Coastal Urban Boundary-Layer Interactions with Convection (CUBIC) project, three boundary-layer profiling systems) were deployed along a north-south transect spanning from the University of Houston Coastal Center to the Aldine site north of downtown Houston (also blue dot in Figure 1) during the TRACER IOP. These systems included the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Severe Storms Laboratory CLAMPS2 (C2), which was deployed at the UHCC, the University of Wisconsin SPARC, which was deployed at the ARM CSAPR site near Pearland (orange diamond in middle of map in Figure 1), and the University of Oklahoma CLAMPS1 (C1), which was deployed at Aldine. These three systems have been successfully operated in various field campaigns, providing data sets that collectively offer new insights into atmospheric-boundary-layer (ABL) processes, sea-breeze (SB) circulations, and convection initiation (CI). For the TRACER IOP window, these systems ran continuously between 1 June and 26 September, 2022. Due to commitments to NOAA projects, the Doppler lidar at the UHCC site was not available until 24 June 2022. The CLAMPS and SPARC profiling systems are self-contained platforms that have benefited from several years of development and deployment. Instruments and data processing were maintained remotely, which made the 4-month deployment for the TRACER-CUBIC IOP period possible. The same basic instrument configuration comprises each system: a scanning Doppler wind lidar for flow characterization and passive profiler(s) for characterizing planetary-boundary-layer (PBL) thermodynamic properties. Each platform includes a Halo Streamline Doppler wind lidar, an Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI), and a surface meteorology station. CLAMPS1 and CLAMPS2 each also include a microwave radiometer (MWR, Figure 1d). The TRACER-CUBIC hypotheses included (i) Interactions of SB and urban circulations and how they affect the PBL structure in the Houston environment, causing spatially (horizontally and vertically) and temporally highly variable flow patterns, (ii) heat, moisture, and aerosol transport and mixing depend on these flow dynamics, and (iii) an improved understanding of the flow patterns and PBL structure are critical for investigating the processes leading to CI. To test these hypotheses, the project aimed at (i) characterizing SB circulations and their impacts on the diurnal evolution of the structure of the ABL, (ii) studying the evolution of Houston’s complex urban boundary layer, and (iii) identifying effects of urban-induced circulations on pre-convective environments. TRACER-CUBIC observations generally provide good coverage during the summer IOP. Initial screening of the data indicates a good number of cases with bay-breeze (BB) and/or SB signatures, local CI, and interesting boundary-layer features such as strong nocturnal low-level jets (LLJs, Table 1). The numbers listed in rows 3-5 in this table will be further updated as part of ongoing in-depth analyses and systematic identification of local circulations and CI events. More detailed information about the data availability and quality for each instrument is provided in the “readme” files that were submitted to the ARM Data Center along with each archived data sets. These “readme” files also provide instrument descriptions, information about the data collection and processing procedures, data formats, and any additional information relevant for further data analysis.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Synergies and trade-offs between storage, transmission, and sector coupling in high renewable energy systems

Energy storage, transmission, and sector coupling are some prominent flexibility solutions to support variable renewable energy (VRE) integration. However, investment cost uncertainties and public acceptance could hamper the deployment of these flexibility solutions. This raises questions about the development and cost-effectiveness of future energy systems, especially on how the dependence on local and cross-border solutions of flexibility would evolve if the uptake of these solutions is restricted. In this context, this paper identifies the synergies among flexibility options under restrictions on transmission expansion or increased costs of energy storage. It contributes to determining whether investments in energy storage and/or transmission expansion offer the least-cost transition and investigates the impact of sector coupling on these solutions. A long-term energy system planning and optimisation model towards 2050 is developed using the open-source energy system optimisation tool Balmorel, and a case study of the countries surrounding the Baltic Sea and the North Sea is established. Five cases with restrictions imposed on transmission expansion and higher energy storage technology costs are analysed at different levels of sector coupling. The results highlight the importance of transmission expansion at all levels of sector coupling. As the level of sector coupling increases, uncertainties around the cost of energy storage drive the least-cost pathways. Optimal investment solutions are found to have a mix of transmission and energy storage in capacity expansion at all levels of sector coupling.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2022

Impact of Concurrent Solubilization and Fines Migration on Fracture Aperture Growth in Shales during Acidized Brine Injection

Acidic hydraulic fracturing fluid chemically and physically alters shale rock fabric during injection and shut-in, creating a “reaction-altered zone” along the fracture faces. To better characterize the variable thickness and composition of this reaction-altered zone under advective flow, we take a coupled experimental and modeling approach. A fluidic cell, with six fiducial markers, is first fabricated to keep the rock sample in place during the core floods and to allow image alignment of acquired images. Then, we conduct a series of reactive core floods in a clay-rich siliceous Wolfcamp shale sample with 10 wt % carbonate, using a synthetic fracturing fluid under no confining stress and at room temperature. High-resolution computed tomography (CT) scans are periodically conducted to observe the spatial alteration of the fracture network. We then perform scanning electron microscopy (SEM-EDS) on the two orthogonal surfaces (fracture surface and freshly cut profile face) to generate high-resolution elemental maps that show the change in mineralogy, both with distance along a given flow path along a fracture surface and with depth from the fracture surface into the shale matrix. These results are contrasted against a two-dimensional (2D) advection-diffusion reaction model developed previously for batch reactions between shale and synthetic fracturing fluids. The model simulates the geochemical interaction occurring at the fracture/matrix interface and penetrating into the shale matrix during the reactive core flood. Both model and experimental results show that the acidic brine is neutralized during the core flood, corresponding to an increase in fracture aperture as a function of fluid volume injected with the greatest change near the inlet. SEM-EDS scans reveal significant dissolution of carbonates on the fracture surface without pyrite oxidation. The reactive transport model indicates that carbonate depletion into the shale interior should be observable, yet SEM-EDS shows no discernible loss of carbonate in the orthogonal profile face. The combination of these observations suggests an additional fracture evolution mechanism in the reactive system, i.e., fines migration. We show that fines migration enhances the access of fracturing fluid to the matrix resulting in a more pronounced fracture widening. Finally, we conclude that coupled mineral dissolution and fines migration govern fracture aperture growth during acidized brine injection. In this work, we effectively show the underlying risk of relying solely on models that do not include an important (transport) process that can alter the system significantly and propose a combined chemomechanical mechanism for fracture evolution appropriate for this shale mineralogy.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Models and Strategies for Optimal Demand Side Management in the Chemical Industries

Deregulation and the increase of renewable electricity generation from wind and solar photovoltaics have transformed the U.S. electricity market. Economic and environmental benefits notwithstanding, the presence of renewables has increased variability and uncertainty on the supply side of the grid. Managing demand, rather than generation – a strategy referred to as “demand response (DR)” – is an attractive approach for mitigating this imbalance. DR efforts aim to reduce electricity usage during peak demand times, lessening stress on the grid. Industrial users are particularly attractive entities for DR participation since they present large, localized loads that can provide significant relief on grid demand and –unlike other large loads, such as buildings – are minimally dependent on human needs and preferences. In this project, we accomplished three main objectives. (1) We developed data-driven low-order DR scheduling-relevant dynamic models of chemical processes. Concurrently, we studied the formulation and solution of the associated optimal DR production scheduling problems. (a) A prototype air separation unit (ASU) model was used to generate simulated operating data for initial modeling efforts, which enabled the later use of industrial data for data-driven modeling. (b) We utilized Hammerstein-Wiener (HW) and Finite Step Response (FSR) models to represent nonlinear plant dynamics. (c) The HW models were linearized using exact linearization so they could potentially be embedded in power system models, which are formulated as mixed integer linear programs (MILPs). (d) We solved DR optimization problems under uncertainty and found that even naïve predictions of electricity price and product demand led to significant cost savings benefits. (2) Our DR scheduling optimization problem formulations are amenable to real-time solution. (a) We utilized Lagrangian Relaxation (LR) to efficiently solve the optimization problem by decoupling subproblems linked by complicating constraints. (b) We have achieved computation times for the 3-day DR scheduling problem of an ASU as low as 1.88 minutes. (3) Our representations of the DR behavior of chemical process as grid-level batteries were embedded in power system models. (a) For a small-scale grid, we found that incorporating the dynamics of the chemical plant in the optimal power flow calculations resulted in better resource management leading to up to 15% and 46% cost reduction for the grid and chemical plant operations, respectively, during periods of power line congestion. We have published several works dedicated to modeling and solving DR optimization problems from the user side. These were published in top peer-reviewed journals and are summarized in this report. The most recent work (and papers in preparation) considers DR scheduling from the grid side. Future efforts will consider networked plants (e.g., air separation units operating on a common pipeline) for DR participation, which is expected to amplify the capabilities of industrial DR participants to perform load-shifting. Our consideration of uncertainty in DR has inspired future directions in this area as well: we plan to develop multistage methods to fully account for the effects of uncertainty in DR scheduling.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2024

Performance Demonstration of an Occupancy Sensor-enabled Integrated Solution for Commercial Buildings

Traditionally, a single-loop fixed-gain controller is applied to supply fan (SF) and cooling coil (CC) valve controls while a fixed-damper position control is applied to outdoor air (OA) damper control at air handling units (AHUs) in commercial buildings. With the increasing application of occupancy sensors, the information generated by occupancy sensors is applied to not only reduce the electricity loads from lighting and controllable plug loads, but also reset OA intake and minimum supply airflow setpoints. Meanwhile, these intermittent operation actions greatly elevate the dynamics of AHU systems, which may introduce unstable SF and CC valve operations and inaccurate OA flow control at AHUs and consequently degrade maximum energy efficiency gains. With virtual fan and valve flow meter technologies, two advanced controls, including cascade control and gain scheduling control, can be implemented on both the SF and CC valve, and an advanced control using a virtual OA flow meter can be implemented on OA damper integrated with occupancy sensors. The goal of this project is to demonstrate the savings, cost, and performance of an integrated solution that integrates the three advanced HVAC controls with occupancy sensors to allow accurate and stable AHU operations in real buildings. The project objectives are to: 1) develop and validate an advance SF control algorithm; 2) develop and validate an advanced CC valve control algorithm; 3) validate an algorithm to implement a virtual OA flow meter; and 4) demonstrate the savings, cost, and performance of the integrated solution in real buildings. The technical approaches are to: 1) select a test system at the University of Oklahoma; 2) develop and implement the algorithms of advanced SF and CC valve controls and validate the performance; 3) develop and implement the advanced OA control using a virtual OA flow meter and validate the performance; 4) demonstrate the savings, cost, and performance of the proposed integrated solution with and without three advanced HVAC controls; and 5) disseminate the project results through publications and presentations. For the SF control, both the gain scheduling and cascade controls can improve the fan energy performance by reducing the fan power during the transient period and the fan control performance at lower speeds by reducing fan speed variation. Moreover, the gain scheduling control provides a simple and low-cost solution and is recommended. The fan power savings can reach 30% in a transient period. For the CC valve control, the gain scheduling control can considerably reduce the supply air temperature oscillation range and frequency under both higher and lower load conditions and the control valve response is much more stable. As a result, the gain scheduling control is recommended. The projected pump energy consumption can be reduced by 68.5%. With the developed virtual OA flow meter, the OA can be accurately controlled at its setpoint, which is determined based on the actual number of occupants in the building provided by occupancy sensors. The RMSE of the proposed OA control is 15.9 L/s. The energy data shows that the fan power and CC cooling energy were significantly reduced. On the other hand, the energy savings majorly results from the occupancy sensors and the energy savings by the advanced HVAC controls is minimal because that the controllers in the test AHU were tuned with very slow response. An annual technical savings potential is estimated as 0.5 quads in the commercial sector.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2019

Integrated Solutions for Optimized Performance (ISOP) Final Technical Report

The goal of this project was to demonstrate technical feasibility of an integrated approach for deep energy retrofits by packaging innovative technologies with smart communicating controls that represent the next generation of energy efficiency. The integrated solutions for optimized performance (ISOP) package integrates (i) advanced lighting and plug load controls; (ii) intelligent daylight harvesting through automated self-powered shades and window films; (iii) advanced HVAC controls sequences (ASHRAE Guideline (GDL) 36); and (iv) fault detection and diagnosis (FDD) and continuous commissioning (CCx) using advanced analytics. These technologies address energy use across multiple building end uses that represent more than 60% of the energy consumption in all commercial buildings. The project was structured to be implemented over three budget periods: Budget Period 1 scope included site selection, project design, site-specific customization of technology packages, procurement of technologies, initiation of installation of technologies, the development of a measurement and verification plan and collection of pre-retrofit data collection. The first year go/no-go decision was based on securing host sites representing 250,000 sq. ft. of occupied operational spaces, savings analysis, technology procurement and initiation of installation. Budget Period 2 planned to complete technology installations and initiate data collection of post-retrofit performance data. The second year go/no-go was to be the completion of technology installations and commissioning, metering and data collecting to support the requirements laid out in site specific M&V plans. Budget Period 3 planned to collect and analyze post-retrofit performance data and provide data and reporting to support energy efficiency rebate programs. After the team completed activities planned for Budget Period 1, the team reached a Go/No-Go Decision Point. At that point, TRC recommended that DOE discontinue the project without prejudice due to challenges with securing demonstration sites to meet the full 250,000 sf of occupied operational spaces and DOE concurred. In Budget Period 1, the TRC team developed criteria to recruit and evaluate potential demonstration host sites. TRC worked with Princeton University, the project demonstration partner, to identify buildings on their campus as potential candidates for the demonstration. Following the selection of demonstration sites, the TRC team customized energy technology packages according to the needs and characteristics of each site. TRC defined technology specifications, identified vendors, and conducted analysis to estimate energy and cost savings potential. The project team then developed schedules for technology procurement processes and scheduled for installation at all selected demonstration sites. The project team worked with Princeton University and DOE to develop an approach to verify energy savings achieved through measurement and verification (M&V) 2.0 methods. Princeton University initiated open bids to procure the necessary materials and installation contractors. Bid results came back higher than estimates due to a couple of factors – lack of familiarity of the bidders with the proposed technologies and lack of local trained installers to execute the installation of these new measures. Due to the higher bids, projects no longer met the internal cost-effectiveness criteria used by Princeton to proceed with procurement of the full suite of technologies as proposed in ISOP. Princeton had already procured parts of the ISOP package as part of a campus-wide initiative for FDD and lighting retrofits, but with the higher costs for other ISOP components, Princeton could no longer commit to the full ISOP package on the selected sites. Based on this, the team reached the Go/No-Go decision point, where they decided not to proceed with the project. Princeton is separately installing portions of the ISOP package where they individually meet Princeton’s payback criteria but on a different schedule than would have been needed for the DOE ISOP project. The team has learned several lessons from project progress in the first budget period. The team will utilize these lessons in future projects, as should any team which proceeds with a project around the ISOP technology. The first lesson is that more information about the proposed sites is required earlier in the process (perhaps even at the proposal stage) in order to have a successful demonstration. Technical details not evident earlier in the process (such as the TLED limitations for ALCS) can derail project execution. The second lesson is that pricing of emerging technologies is highly variable due to lack of familiarity of local installers and distributor with the proposed technologies as well as alternate bids using products they were more familiar with, but that cost more than the ones proposed by TRC. Finally, the last major lesson is that the host site’s internal project criteria is of critical importance. Based on these higher installed costs and lack of an informed installer base for the products proposed for this project, the project does not meet Princeton’s simple payback goals of five years.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2020

LLNL Kimberlina 1.2 NUFT Simulations June 2018 (v2)

This dataset contains the output 6,000, 3-dimensional reactive multi-phase flow and transport aquifer simulations of brine and CO2 leakage into a protective aquiver in California’s San Joaquin Valley and input data files detailing the geologic mesh, aquifer physical properties and CO2 and brine injection rates. This data set was generated as an ongoing effort with the US DOE National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) to evaluate the effectiveness of monitoring techniques to detect brine and CO2 leakage from legacy wells into underground sources of drinking water overlaying a CO2 storage reservoir. Each simulation contains a unique set of input parameters, generated stochastically. The outputs consist of these upper three geologic layers (from top): the Etchegoin, Macoma-Chanac, Santa Margarita-McLure formations. These simulations span the several distances (1, 3 and 6 km or wells W31-0.2, W31-0.5 and W31-1.0, respectively) from the CO2 injector, initiated from bottom hole pressure and saturation to calculate wellbore leakage from the storage reservoir, with low and high regional groundwater gradients and wellbore leakage into 5 leaky nodes. The dataset includes 1,000 unique simulations for each distance, which each contain a unique aquifer heterogeneity, aquifer and caprock permeability, and two model generations are included with a high permeability (prod07) and hybrid permeability (prod09). The range of permeability distributions is listed in Table 1. Each model generation consists of 3,000 simulations. Included in the dataset are the leakage rates determined from 2D wellbore models which utilize the pressure and CO2 saturation from LBL's reservoir simulations, NUFT mesh files with distributed lithology, NUFT rocktab files which describe the material properties for the geologic layers and the NUFT input files and post-processed output 'ntab' files. Each ntab file contains spatial (rows) and temporal (columns) model output tables for each model cell, the locations (x,y,z) and dimensions for each cells (dx, dy, dz). Table 1. Permeability distribution ranges for prod07 and prod09 model generations Geologic Layer: Permeability Range (log10 m^2) prod07 prod09 Etchegoin -12.92 to -10.92 -13.70 to -11.44 Macoma-Chanac -12.72 to -10.72 -13.50 to -11.24 Santa Margarita-McLure -12.70 to -10.70 -13.48 to -11.22 The input files used to generate the model include which are included in the dataset are: Time series of CO2 leakage input into the model (ex: Q_brn.W31-0.2.sim1000.layers123.tab) Time series of CO2 leakage input into the model (ex: Q_CO2.W31-0.2.sim1000.layers123.tab) Physical properties of the aquifer materials detailing the aquifer porosity, solid density, partitioning coefficients, permeabilities and van-Genuchten parameters detailed in a NUFT rocktab file: (ex: sim1000.usnt.rocktab) Numerical mesh and geologic data assigned to each model cell detailed in a NUFT genmsh format (ex: sim1000.mesh_k16.prod07.trans.genmsh) The primary output parameters are: pH (use absolute value) Change in TDS (mg/kg) Change in Pressure (Pa) Change CO2 gas saturation (fraction range 0.0-1.0) for example, the directory /p/lscratchh/mansoor1/nrap/kimberlina/prod09/mainfiles/sim1000/W31- 0.2 contains: sim1000.W31-0.2.trans.pH.red.ntab sim1000.W31-0.2.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab sim1000.W31-0.2.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab sim1000.W31-0.2.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab Each row in the NTAB files consist of model output per numerical grid cell. Each output file contains 33 columns (variables), including the information of numerical records, geologic location and sizes and the simulated parameter values over time. The first 13 variables are about numerical records and relative geologic information for a simulation grid: 1. index: simulation index 2. i: the ith grid of x-axis 3. j: the ith grid of y-axis 4. k: the ith grid of z-axis 5. element_ref: element reference 6. nuft_ind: nuft index 7. x: grid location in the x axis direction 8. y: grid location in the y axis direction 9. z: grid location in the z axis direction 10. dx: grid length in the x axis direction 11. dy: grid length in the y axis direction 12. dz: grid length in the z axis direction 13. volume: volume of the simulation grid The remainder (14, 15, 16...) variables are the simulated parameter values over time, take Pressure as an example, are: 14. 0.0y: initial pressure per cell. 15. 10.0y: simulated pressure at the end of the 10th year. 16. 20.0y: simulated pressure at the end of the 20th year. ... (repeated for every 10 years until 200 years)... The model extends 10,000 m, 5,000 m and 1,411 m in the x,y and z dimensions, respectively. The mesh consists of 164,832 cells with mesh dimensions of 101 x 51 x 32 (nx, ny, nz), with cell dimensions ranging from 100 m laterally (along x and y-axis) and model layers are as designated in the z-axis: Layer 1: atmosphere (1e-30 m thick) Layer 2: upper caprock (10 m thick) Layers 3-13: Etchegoin (536.23 m thck) Layers 14-27: Macoma-Chanac (679.04 m thick) Layers 28-32: Santa Margarita-McLure (185.94 m thick) The wellbore is placed along node i=51, j=26, and extends vertically along 5 nodes from the top to the bottom of the model. Special instructions when extracting files: Each Gzip archive (ex: prod07.sim1000-sim00099.tar.gz) contains 100 simulations. Gzip archives should be transferred into base directories (ie. In Linux: mkdir prod07; mv prod07.*.tar.gz prod07/.) before extracting, or files will be overwritten. Each sub-simulation tree should have the following file structure pattern (using the linux 'tree' command): |-- prod07 | |-- sim0001 | |-- W31-0.2 | | |-- Q_brn.W31-0.2.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- Q_co2.W31-0.2.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.trans.pH.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab | |-- W31-0.5 | | |-- Q_brn.W31-0.5.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- Q_co2.W31-0.5.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.trans.pH.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab | |-- W31-1.0 | | |-- Q_brn.W31-1.0.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- Q_co2.W31-1.0.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.trans.pH.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab | |-- sim0001.mesh_k16.prod07.trans.genmsh Disclaimer This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is operated by Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. This report was reviewed and released as LLNL-MI-753464.

aquifer↗
DOE OSTI2023

Technology Strategy Assessment: Findings from Storage Innovations 2030 Bidirectional Hydrogen Storage

Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, comprising nearly 75% of all normal matter, and it has been used by scientists for centuries, but it was not fully recognized as an element until 1766, when it was isolated by Henry Cavendish. Early work focused on the generation of hydrogen through the oxidation of metals in water, which released hydrogen gas. Hydrogen’s lighter-than-air and flammable properties were immediately used in engines, zeppelins, and as feedstock for a wide variety of chemical reactions. Several approaches were developed for the production of hydrogen with the most common being associated with the production and conversion of hydrocarbon-based fuels. Coal gasification, steam methane reforming, and other reformation processes provide the majority of current hydrogen production due to the relatively low cost of hydrogen produced through these processes. More than 95% of hydrogen production is used for industrial processes rather than energy storage. To facilitate affordable decarbonization of these industrial processes and to advance the use of hydrogen as a fuel in transportation, DOE launched the Hydrogen Shot as part of the Energy Earthshots Initiative. The goal of the Hydrogen Shot is to reduce the cost of clean hydrogen by 80% to $1/kg of clean hydrogen production within one decade (known as the “1 1 1” goal). This is distinct from the Long-Duration Storage Shot, which is the primary focus of this report; however, it is intrinsically linked to bidirectional hydrogen storage. Several important chemical synthesis processes are dependent upon hydrogen, and the production and use of hydrogen is generally driven by its connection to one of these markets. For example, ammonia is one of the most highly produced chemicals in the world and it depends chiefly on hydrogen. Ammonia is primarily used for agricultural fertilizer and is considered to be largely responsible for a doubling of agricultural production per unit of land over the last century. Another one of hydrogen’s primary uses is as a catalyst in petroleum refining during the desulfurization process. Beyond chemical production, hydrogen is used as a reductant in the production of steel and has been demonstrated as a substitute for metallurgical coal in the production of raw iron. It is even used in the hydrogenation reaction for food products to create more shelf-stable semi-solid fats. However, while hydrogen is produced on the order of 100 million metric tons/year globally to feed these industries, more than 95% of hydrogen is produced from hydrocarbons that emit CO2 during the process. Conversely, electrolysis is a process by which electricity is used to separate hydrogen and oxygen in water molecules, usually across a membrane. Hydrogen production via electrolysis lowers the carbon intensity of produced hydrogen when coupled with low-carbon electricity. Currently, global electrolysis capacity is on the order of 1 GW, which equates to about 500 metric tons/day of hydrogen production. To support large-scale industrial decarbonization, capacity will likely need to increase by two to three orders of magnitude. Electrolysis technology is broadly separated into groups that are defined by the electrolyte used, with further subdivision based on the operating characteristics. The majority of commercial electrolyzer systems are based around three main technology groups: liquid alkaline, proton exchange membrane, and solid oxide. Liquid Alkaline (LA) electrolysis is the oldest, most mature, least expensive, and most common commercial technology, with 400 plants in operation by 1902. Its hydrogen output is low relative to the size of the system due to a low current density. LA electrolysis utilizes a liquid potassium hydroxide solution as the electrolyte. Proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysis (also known as polymer electrolyte membrane electrolysis), described in 1960, relies on an acid-impregnated polymer membrane as the electrolyte and typically offers three to six times higher hydrogen production per unit cell area than LA electrolysis. Solid oxide electrolysis, or high-temperature electrolysis, utilizes a ceramic cell as the electrolyte and operates on steam rather than liquid water, enabling electrical efficiencies of more than 90%, which is up from 60% with PEM. Two pre-commercial electrolyzer technologies to note are alkaline exchange membrane (AEM) and proton-conducting solid oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC). AEM potentially has the advantages of both LA and PEM technologies in that it is able to use low-cost materials like LA but with the ability to operate at higher output pressures with a smaller footprint like PEM. Proton-conducting SOEC is similar to commercial SOEC, which uses an oxide-conducting ceramic; however, it uses a proton-conducting ceramic that has the potential to operate at lower temperatures and has lower capital costs. Each of these technologies is experiencing a rapid improvement in performance and a reduction in installed cost, and each appears to be well suited to specific applications. Besides differences in the type of electrolyzer used, the main difference in the architecture of bidirectional hydrogen systems is how the hydrogen is stored. Currently, the most cost-effective way to store large amounts of hydrogen gas is underground, such as in large salt caverns that have been hollowed out. These salt caverns are geographically concentrated in small portions of the United States and are not generally near large metropolitan areas; however, other subsurface architectures are being investigated to expand this reach. A more widely deployable option is aboveground pressurized tanks. These systems are about 10 times as expensive because of the materials and safety margins required to hold hydrogen at high pressures. A third option is using materials-based storage, such as liquid organic hydrogen carriers. By reversibly attaching the produced hydrogen to other molecules, it can be stored at near atmospheric pressure and room temperature. This has the potential to reduce the material cost of storage but may result in a reduction in the efficiency of the process because there are both hydrogen uptake and release processes. While materials-based storage has not been used extensively for large-scale hydrogen storage in the past, there is currently significant activity regarding developing materials and processes for use in large-scale hydrogen storage applications. Electrolysis-produced hydrogen offers an unusual opportunity for energy storage applications. Unlike more conventional energy storage approaches, such as batteries, which operate entirely within electrical markets, hydrogen is a valuable product beyond the electric market and can be directed to the most lucrative use. Hydrogen also can be directly converted back to electricity using either a fuel cell or turbine, or it can be sold to other markets, such as chemical synthesis, steel production, or even export. In this way, excess electricity can be upgraded to the most valuable product. Finally, its use can be actively managed between multiple off-takers; for example, local hydrogen storage can provide a specific amount of stored electricity and any excess can be exported to ammonia production. This flexibility is amplified by the fact that hydrogen storage has fully decoupled power and energy components, which allows for affordable scaling options. Together, this allows a substantial amount of creativity to enable the economic utilization of variable power resources while supporting decarbonization of the industry.

08 HYDROGEN↗