Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Investments”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 163 records · Page 9
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Gasification of Coal and Biomass: The Route to Net-Negative-Carbon Power and Hydrogen

One promising process that is a candidate for meeting the goals of the US Department of Energy’s 21st Century Power Plant initiative is to gasify a mixture of coal and biomass to yield a syngas, which can have CO2 removed and then be used to produce hydrogen as well as an off-gas that can be used to flexibly produce power. This concept would overall be carbon net-negative and readily meet the 21st Century Power Plant initiative targets of smaller scale MW generation, high ramp rates and turndown, feedstock flexibility, and high efficiency—at a reasonable cost. Moreover, adding the large-scale production of “ultra-green” hydrogen yields a system tailored for the coming hydrogen economy, providing long-term energy storage and an attractive co-product for sale. The objective of the work being led by the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. (EPRI), with support by Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel), Gas Technology Institute (GTI), Hamilton Mauer International, Inc. (HMI), Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD), NexantECA, Inc. (Nexant), and Wärtsilä, is to perform a front-end design and engineering (FEED) study on an oxygen-blown gasification system coupled with water-gas shift, pre-combustion CO2 capture, and pressure-swing adsorption working off a coal/biomass mix to yield high-purity hydrogen and a fuel off-gas that can generate power. Several designs are being considered that will be capable of producing 50 MW net from a flexible generator, over 8500 kg/hr of hydrogen, and net-negative CO2 emissions, at an efficiency of 50% net HHV. The plant would be hosted at an NPPD site, where opportunities for enhanced oil recovery and sequestration have been investigated and the need for low-carbon power and hydrogen is imminent. The principal biomass to be used is corn stover—prevalent in Nebraska where the plant will be located—mixed with Powder River Basin (PRB) coal, necessitating a gasifier that can use this feedstock and be flexible to allow other types. Waste plastics will also be reviewed for use. Two oxygen-blown gasifiers have been identified as candidates that have done testing with biomass including corn stover: the GTI gasifier—a high-pressure, fluidized-bed type—and HMI’s, a lower pressure moving-bed type. Both have relative advantages that are being investigated in the Phase I design study, with a resultant down select of one system for which the FEED will be performed in Phase II. The technical tasks for the proposed project are: • Design Development: Completion of design activities necessary to provide inputs for the FEED study. Multiple design cases will be assessed with the selection of the optimal one for the FEED. • Investment Case Preparation: Development of the draft investment case for the proposed process with business cases performed for the proposed host site and two other locations. • Host Site Selection: Evaluation of the two potential host sites within NPPD’s portfolio to select the preferred candidate based on technical, economic, and environmental considerations. • Environmental Information Volume (EIV) Development: Completion of the EIV for the host site. • FEED Study: Completion of a FEED study based on the design selected in Phase I. A Greenhouse Gas Life Cycle Analysis will also be performed for the process. • Update Investment Case: Finalization of the investment case based on findings from the FEED. The advantages of the proposed project are significant. Having an engaged U.S. power utility willing to provide a host site that will produce energy from coal plus a deep and experienced team is critical; the process meets all the goals of DOE’s 21st Century Power Plant initiative at an estimated total plant cost of ~$880M and a production cost of hydrogen of ~$2/kg-H2 while producing net-negative carbon power. If developed, this process has real commercial potential in the United States—supported by EPRI’s initial review of the considerable interest from selected U.S. utilities—and elsewhere around the globe. The process has fewer environmental hurdles compared to other concepts, lowering regulatory and protest risks—providing a pathway to preserving the viability of a critical indigenous energy source by transforming its use to match a changing world. This presentation will outline the motivation for the effort, summarize project plans, work completed to date, results of the Design Development task, and detailed work scope for the remainder of the project.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2023

Quantifying the Financial Impacts of Electric Vehicles on Utility Ratepayers and Shareholders [Slides]

Widespread electric vehicle (EV) adoption is critical for meeting economy-wide decarbonization goals and, as a result, states are considering enabling policies and rate designs to accelerate EV deployment. EVs can provide possible financial upside to electric utilities and ratepayers in several ways. For example, from the utility perspective, EVs could drive increased electricity sales and new earnings opportunities through increased capital investments. From the ratepayer perspective, increased electric loads from EVs could reduce average all-in retail rates. The degree to which there are net benefits or costs to shareholders and/or ratepayers depends on how EVs are integrated and managed through enabling grid investments and charging strategies. Using Berkeley Lab’s Financial Impacts of Distributed Energy Resources (FINDER) model that mimics the electric utility investment planning and ratemaking processes, we estimate the utility earnings and customer rate impacts of EVs using a bookend approach of “managed” (i.e., best case) and “mismanaged” (i.e., worst case) charging strategies for a generic summer-peaking, investor-owned, and vertically integrated utility. The analysis also examines the sensitivity of results to different assumptions of EV deployment characteristics, EV impacts on retail electricity sales, incremental distribution system costs, EV charging location, and utility EV enablement costs (i.e., utility costs to invest in EV charging, controls, and communication to deliver and administer EV programs). The results are intended to inform EV policies and deployment strategies that maximize utility system benefits and minimize ratepayer costs.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Evaluating Impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law on the U.S. Power System

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, commonly referred to as the 'Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL),' collectively represent the largest commitment of the U.S. Federal Government to invest in the modernization and decarbonization of the U.S. energy system. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that total support for the broad range of climate and clean energy programs, tax credits, and other incentives authorized through the two laws will exceed $430 billion from 2022 through 2031 (CRS 2022; CBO 2021, 2022). While the climate and clean energy provisions are numerous and have the potential to impact all aspects of the U.S. energy system from fuel and electricity production to final consumption in industry, transportation, and buildings, the provisions relevant to the electricity sector - in particular the suite of tax credits for clean generation, storage, and carbon dioxide ( CO 2 ) capture and storage - are expected to be some of the most consequential in terms of emissions reduction and clean energy deployment (Larsen et al. 2022; Jenkins, Mayfield, et al. 2022; Mahajan et al. 2022; Zhao et al. 2022). In this report, we detail the methods and results of a study estimating the potential impacts of key provisions of IRA and BIL on the contiguous U.S. power sector from present day through 2030. The analysis employs an advanced power system planning model, the Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS), to evaluate how major provisions from both laws impact investment in and operation of utility-scale generation, storage, and transmission, and, in turn, how those changes impact power system costs, emissions, and climate and health damages. While not exhaustive in capturing every provision, the analysis estimates the possible scale of power-sector impacts that could result from the modeled provisions in IRA and BIL. The study is structured around two scenarios to evaluate the potential impacts of both laws on the power sector: 1) No New Policy: A counter-factual scenario that reflects all Federal and state policies enacted as of September 2022, with exception to IRA and BIL, and assumes load growth consistent with the Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook 2022 (AEO22) Reference case (EIA 2022a); 2) IRA-BIL: A scenario reflecting all Federal and state policies enacted as of September 2022, including key IRA and BIL provisions, most notably the investment and production tax credits for zero-carbon emitting electricity generation and storage (ITC and PTC), the tax credit for CO 2 capture and storage (45Q), and the tax credit for existing nuclear plants (described further in Section 2.3). To account for the impacts of IRA and BIL on electrification, assumes increased load growth consistent with a scaled version of the Medium Electrification scenario from the Electrification Futures Study (Mai et al. 2018). These scenarios are simulated across seven sets of assumptions with varying projected future electricity market conditions, including technology costs and performance, natural gas prices, and the degree of availability, feasibility, and cost of development of renewable resources, electricity transmission, and CO 2 pipeline, injection, and storage infrastructure. In addition, we simulate two sensitivities on the 'policy' treatment in which we vary key assumptions pertaining to the realized value of the clean electricity ITC and PTC: 1) the cost of monetization of tax credits, and 2) the level of bonus crediting realized by project developers. We demonstrate that IRA and BIL have the collective potential to drive substantial growth in clean electricity by 2030, while reducing costs for consumers, mitigating climate change, and decreasing the human health impacts of power sector emissions. However, we also demonstrate that if expected cost improvements of clean technologies are not realized and/or constraints on deployment driven by factors such as supply-chain challenges, regulatory hurdles, and the social acceptability of energy infrastructure development limit the rate of clean energy and associated infrastructure deployment (such as transmission), then the share of clean generation achieved and the associated emissions benefits realized may be substantively reduced.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Gasification of Coal and Biomass: The Route to Net-Negative-Carbon Power and Hydrogen

One promising process that is a candidate for meeting the goals of the US Department of Energy’s 21st Century Power Plant initiative is to gasify a mixture of coal and biomass to yield a syngas, which can have CO2 removed and then be used to produce hydrogen as well as an off-gas that can be used to flexibly produce power. This concept would overall be carbon net-negative and readily meet the 21st Century Power Plant initiative targets of smaller scale MW generation, high ramp rates and turndown, feedstock flexibility, and high efficiency—at a reasonable cost. Moreover, adding the large-scale production of “ultra-green” hydrogen yields a system tailored for the coming hydrogen economy, providing long-term energy storage and an attractive co-product for sale. The objective of the work being led by the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. (EPRI), with support by Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel), Gas Technology Institute (GTI), Hamilton Mauer International, Inc. (HMI), Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD), NexantECA, Inc. (Nexant), and Wärtsilä, is to perform a front-end design and engineering (FEED) study on an oxygen-blown gasification system coupled with water-gas shift, pre-combustion CO2 capture, and pressure-swing adsorption working off a coal/biomass mix to yield high-purity hydrogen and a fuel off-gas that can generate power. Several designs are being considered that will be capable of producing 50 MW net from a flexible generator, over 8500 kg/hr of hydrogen, and net-negative CO2 emissions, at an efficiency of 50% net HHV. The plant would be hosted at an NPPD site, where opportunities for enhanced oil recovery and sequestration have been investigated and the need for low-carbon power and hydrogen is imminent. The principal biomass to be used is corn stover—prevalent in Nebraska where the plant will be located—mixed with Powder River Basin (PRB) coal, necessitating a gasifier that can use this feedstock and be flexible to allow other types. Waste plastics will also be reviewed for use. Two oxygen-blown gasifiers have been identified as candidates that have done testing with biomass including corn stover: the GTI gasifier—a high-pressure, fluidized-bed type—and HMI’s, a lower pressure moving-bed type. Both have relative advantages that were investigated in the Phase I design study, with a resultant down select of one system for which the FEED will be performed in Phase II. The technical tasks for the project are: • Design Development: Completion of design activities necessary to provide inputs for the FEED study. Multiple design cases will be assessed with the selection of the optimal one for the FEED. • Investment Case Preparation: Development of the draft investment case for the proposed process with business cases performed for the proposed host site and two other locations. • Host Site Selection: Evaluation of the two potential host sites within NPPD’s portfolio to select the preferred candidate based on technical, economic, and environmental considerations. • Environmental Information Volume (EIV) Development: Completion of the EIV for the host site. • FEED Study: Completion of a FEED study based on the design selected in Phase I. A Greenhouse Gas Life Cycle Analysis will also be performed for the process. • Update Investment Case: Finalization of the investment case based on findings from the FEED. The advantages of the proposed project are significant. Having an engaged U.S. power utility willing to provide a host site that will produce energy from coal plus a deep and experienced team is critical; the process meets all the goals of DOE’s 21st Century Power Plant initiative at an estimated total plant cost of ~$880M and a production cost of hydrogen of ~$2/kg-H2 while producing net-negative carbon power. If developed, this process has real commercial potential in the United States—supported by EPRI’s initial review of the considerable interest from selected U.S. utilities—and elsewhere around the globe. The process has fewer environmental hurdles compared to other concepts, lowering regulatory and protest risks—providing a pathway to preserving the viability of a critical indigenous energy source by transforming its use to match a changing world. This presentation outlines the motivation for the effort, summarizes project plans, work completed to date, results of the Phase I effort and, and detailed work scope for the remainder of the project in the Phase II FEED effort.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2024

Multi-State Transportation Electrification Impact Study: Preparing the Grid for Light-, Medium-, and Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicles

Recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notices of proposed rulemakings for GHG emissions standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty on-road vehicles would accelerate ongoing advancements already happening in the industry because of private investment, consumer demand, state-level policies, and federal incentives. As the EPA finalizes these regulations, questions persist regarding the cost of the requisite charging infrastructure and associated upgrades to the nation's electric grid. With support from the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, and the EPA, a multidisciplinary team conducted a Multi-State Transportation Electrification Impact Study that quantitatively assesses the incremental investment necessary to enable the levels of vehicle electrification expected to be induced by pending EPA regulations and to estimate the potential value of deferred investments in electric distribution infrastructure stemming from proactive vehicle-grid integration planning and deployment. This study finds the simulated incremental capital cost of charging infrastructure (including grid upgrades) to be at least 2.5 times smaller than the lifetime net benefits of vehicle electrification (including fuel savings but excluding the value of avoided emissions). Additionally, the incremental distribution grid upgrade cost of the EPA Action-Unmanaged scenario was found to be approximately 3% of existing utility distribution system investments (on an annual basis). Finally, the potential for managed charging to defer distribution grid upgrades was found to be significant with costs found to decrease from $2.3 billion to an incremental cost of $1 billion across five states in the Action-Managed scenario (relative to the No Action-Unmanaged scenario).

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Bridging the Gap on Data and Analysis for Distribution System Planning: Information That Utilities Can Provide Regulators, State Energy Offices and Other Stakeholders

Electric utilities conduct planning annually to ensure their distribution system meets technical standards, policies, and regulations; addresses forecasted grid conditions; satisfies customer needs; and advances utility priorities. The plan identifies grid deficiencies, analyzes potential solutions, and prioritizes capital investments and other expenditures. About 20 U.S. states and jurisdictions require regulated utilities to file some type of distribution system plan with the public utility commission for review. Requirements for sharing distribution system data and analyses vary widely, from few specific requirements to a detailed list of information that must be provided. While utilities conduct extensive analysis to develop distribution system plans, in most jurisdictions regulators and stakeholders do not know what data are available and how the utility uses the data in planning and investing. This report aims to bridge the gap by increasing understanding of the types of data and analyses utilities employ to develop distribution system plans and how the information affects their decision-making. The report describes information that states and stakeholders can ask for related to 11 data categories: -Forecasting loads and distributed energy resources (DERs) -Scenario analysis -Worst-performing circuits -Asset management strategy -Hosting capacity analysis -Value of DERs -Grid needs assessment -Cost-effectiveness framework for investments -Distribution system investment strategy and implementation -Geotargeted programs -Non-wires alternatives procurements.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2025

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Framework for Water Efficiency Measures

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Framework for Water Efficiency Measures: Guidance Designed for Federal Agencies (hereafter referred to as “this report”) provides a technical framework for federal agencies to conduct a life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) for water efficiency projects in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 8253. This report leverages insights from the 2023 report, PNNL-34006, Water and Wastewater Annual Price Escalation Rates for Selected Cities Across the United States: 2023 Edition (Unger et al. 2023). The primary objective of this report is to provide a framework to assist federal agencies with evaluating the full economic impact of water efficiency projects by assessing both initial investments and long-term operational benefits. An LCCA can provide a comprehensive view of all costs associated with a water efficiency project, including initial investment, ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M), and eventual disposal or replacement, ensuring the most cost-effective solution is selected. The LCCA methodology outlined in this report enables users to compare base case scenarios with potential alternatives using a standardized present value approach. It incorporates key cost components such as energy, water and wastewater, installation, O&M, and equipment replacement. Additionally, the framework introduces relevant evaluation metrics, such as the net savings and the savings-to-investment ratio, to ensure that water efficiency measures are economically justified over the lifespan of the project. To support practical application, this report also describes various water efficiency strategies that may be analyzed using an LCCA, including plumbing retrofits, irrigation upgrades, alternative water use, and cooling system improvements. By applying this framework, federal agencies can ensure compliance with regulatory mandates while maximizing the return on investment and contributing to resilient water management practices. The information provided in this report is aligned with the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) life-cycle cost (LCC) methodology, as conveyed in National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 135 (Kneifel and Webb 2022). This report is intended to provide relatively high-level guidance, acting as a complement to, rather than a substitute for, that resource.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2021

Optimal Sizing of an Electric Vehicle Charging Station with Integration of PV and Energy Storage

This paper proposes an optimization model for the optimal configuration of an grid-connected electric vehicle (EV) extreme fast charging station considering integration of photovoltaic (PV) and energy storage. The proposed model minimizes the annualized net cost (i.e., maximizes the annualized net profit) of the extreme fast charging station, including investment and maintenance cost of charging ports, PV and energy storage, net cost of purchasing energy from utility and selling energy to EV customers, degradation cost of energy storage and demand charge. The decision variables are number of charging ports, capacity of invested PV and the power and energy ratings of invested energy storage. The Erlang-loss system is adopted to model the EV mobility. Results of numerical simulations indicate that investment of PV and energy storage could increase the annualized profit of the extreme fast charging station. In addition, the impacts of various parameters on the optimal solution are investigated by sensitivity analysis.

Liu, Guodong↗
DOE OSTI2022

Energy I-Corps Annual Report 2021

The U.S. Department of Energy invests millions of dollars every year into the national lab complex. This investment allows the national laboratories to tackle the critical scientific challenges of our time - from renewable energy to quantum computing to creating a more resilient energy grid. The discoveries and innovations being developed by the labs have an even greater impact when we invest in bringing these ideas to the market where they can benefit the nation and world. To better arm researchers to collaborate with industry and turn research and development into demonstration and deployment, DOE employs Energy I-Corps to help researchers gain industry insight to guide innovation. Energy I-Corps invites teams of researchers to participate in an intensive two-month training during which the researchers define technology value propositions, conduct customer discovery interviews, and explore viable market pathways for their technologies. Researchers return to their labs with a framework for industry engagement to guide future research and inform a culture of market engagement within the lab environment. In this way, Energy I-Corps ensures our investment in the national labs and maintains and strengthens long-term U.S. competitiveness.

cohort↗
DOE OSTI2024

Transportation Electrification Impact Study (TEIS)

Recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notices of proposed rulemakings for GHG emissions standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty on-road vehicles would accelerate ongoing advancements already happening in the industry because of private investment, consumer demand, state-level policies, and federal incentives. As the EPA finalizes these regulations, questions persist regarding the cost of the requisite charging infrastructure and associated upgrades to the nation's electric grid. With support from the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, and the EPA, a multidisciplinary team conducted a Multi-State Transportation Electrification Impact Study that quantitatively assesses the incremental investment necessary to enable the levels of vehicle electrification expected to be induced by pending EPA regulations and to estimate the potential value of deferred investments in electric distribution infrastructure stemming from proactive vehicle-grid integration planning and deployment. This study finds the simulated incremental capital cost of charging infrastructure (including grid upgrades) to be at least 2.5 times smaller than the lifetime net benefits of vehicle electrification (including fuel savings but excluding the value of avoided emissions). Additionally, the incremental distribution grid upgrade cost of the EPA Action-Unmanaged scenario was found to be approximately 3% of existing utility distribution system investments (on an annual basis). Finally, the potential for managed charging to defer distribution grid upgrades was found to be significant with costs found to decrease from $2.3 billion to an incremental cost of $1 billion across five states in the Action-Managed scenario (relative to the No Action-Unmanaged scenario).

ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS,POWER TRANSMISSION AND↗
DOE OSTI2024

State of Innovation 2024: Paving the Way for Low-Carbon Cement and Concrete

Concrete production in the U.S. accounted for nearly 393 million cubic yards in 2023, with $38.8 billion in revenue. While cement, the key ingredient in concrete, is only 10%-15% of concrete's mixture by mass, 8% of total global emissions come from the production of cement. A significant challenge lies in the fact that roughly 51% of concrete emissions stem from the material calcination process of cement production. Stakeholders ranging from cement producers to government agencies are beginning to take measures to significantly reduce concrete emissions by 2050 and are seeking novel technologies from the startup community. Strategies to lower carbon emissions include reducing quantities of cement in concrete formulas; optimizing digital and automated production; lower temperature processing; carbon capture, utilization, and durable storage; and other cost-saving approaches to energy and material efficiencies. New materials based on carbon mineralization and novel cement chemistries hold the potential to reach net-zero or even carbon-negative concrete production; however, there is presently no readily available substitute that can replicate concrete's unique properties and versatility at the volume demanded by construction worldwide. The nature of concrete's raw materials, diverse applications, and scale of demand means that complete decarbonization will rely on a combination of innovative production methods and novel cement chemistries. Low-carbon solutions will need to compete economically with traditional concrete to become viable in a high-volume commodity market, although consumer demand and regulation will play important roles. Despite these challenges, this analysis reveals that venture capital (VC) investments in low-carbon concrete reflect a growing awareness of the decarbonized cement market opportunity. Between 2022 and 2023 emerging low-carbon technologies garnered more than $700 million in VC investments, representing a growing share of investment in the built environment. An investment gap appears after Series A for technology solutions, demonstrating the sector's potential, as well as the need for additional performance assurance and technology incubation.

cement↗
DOE OSTI2020

Advancing Electric System Resilience with Distributed Energy Resources: Key Questions and Resources

This resource has two complementary parts: (1) A list of questions that offers an initial starting point for state public utility commissions (commissions) to frame how they review proposed utility investments and considerations that could offer resilience benefits; (2) A list of relevant resources to improve a regulator's ability to oversee resilience investments and obtain the best possible solutions for customers. The list of resources includes a synopsis of relevant topics covered in each resource. This document is not intended to offer a complete picture of resilience literature, but instead suggests strategies for state regulators to convene conversations and make decisions to achieve better resilience outcomes for customers. It is meant to serve as a starting point for commissions to understand and incorporate resilience into regulatory processes. The list of questions and resources will not be perfectly suited to the particular needs of each commission. As the resilience conversation advances, regulators will need to take advantage of available resources to build their capacity to assess resilience risks, compare investment options, and evaluate performance.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Proactive Regulatory Approaches to Electrification and Load Growth: Workshop Report

On July 10 and 11, 2024, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and RMI led a workshop in Aurora, Colorado, to explore novel and proactive approaches to electrification and load growth while minimizing risks and costs to customers. Over the next decade, a unique opportunity exists to invest strategically in the electricity system to enable electrification across the transportation, industrial, and building sectors and respond to data and technology-based load growth. However, current utility and regulatory planning practices are insufficient to identify and enable the right investments, and work must be done to reduce the risk and decisional uncertainty faced by utility regulatory commissions and utilities. Ensuring timely electrification investments may require new approaches to address risk, uncertainty, prudence, and cost recovery. Understanding the decision-making process and information needs of utilities and regulators is critical. New policies (or application of policies), financial tools, systems analysis, regulatory mechanisms, and enhanced process transparency may be required. The workshop's goal was to identify proactive regulatory approaches for electrification and load growth that minimize costs and risks to customers. Our intention was that the conversations and the resulting solutions and takeaways would be specific and tactical rather than general and theoretical and that together we would create actionable next steps for key actors in the system, including utilities, regulators, thought leaders, researchers, and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). This report is intended to provide workshop attendees with a record and summary of the discussion and proposals raised at the workshop and to provide interested entities who did not attend, such as other regulators, policymakers, utilities, and U.S. DOE offices, with an understanding of what was discussed and with ideas to explore in their organizations.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2021

Long-Term Planning for the Tamil Nadu Power System

Increased deployment of wind and solar raises new questions for power system planners regarding the future mix of generation technologies, optimal siting of generation capacity, trade-offs between generation and transmission investments, and system flexibility needs. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is working with Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Company (TANGEDCO) to answer the following questions: How much—and what type—of generation and transmission investments are needed to serve future demand at least cost? How can variable resources such as wind and solar be considered in the planning process? What are the key drivers (e.g., policies, technology costs, fuel constraints) for investments?

Children's Investment Fund Foundation↗
DOE OSTI2022

Compartment-specific energy requirements of photosynthetic carbon metabolism in Camelina sativa leaves

Abstract Main conclusion The oxidative pentose phosphate pathway provides cytosolic NADPH yet reduces carbon and energy use efficiency. Repressing this pathway and introducing cytosolic NADPH-dependent malate dehydrogenase may increase crop yields by ≈5%. Abstract Detailed knowledge about plant energy metabolism may aid crop improvements. Using published estimates of flux through central carbon metabolism, we phenotype energy metabolism in illuminated Camelina sativa leaves (grown at 22 °C, 500 µmol photons m −2 s −1 ) and report several findings. First, the oxidative pentose phosphate pathway (OPPP) transfers 3.3% of the NADPH consumed in the Calvin–Benson cycle to the cytosol. NADPH supply proceeds at about 10% of the rate of net carbon assimilation. However, concomitantly respired CO 2 accounts for 4.8% of total rubisco activity. Hence, 4.8% of the flux through the Calvin–Benson cycle and photorespiration is spent on supplying cytosolic NADPH, a significant investment. Associated energy requirements exceed the energy output of the OPPP. Thus, autotrophic carbon metabolism is not simply optimised for flux into carbon sinks but sacrifices carbon and energy use efficiency to support cytosolic energy metabolism. To reduce these costs, we suggest bioengineering plants with a repressed cytosolic OPPP, and an inserted cytosolic NADPH-dependent malate dehydrogenase tuned to compensate for the loss in OPPP activity (if required). Second, sucrose cycling is a minor investment in overall leaf energy metabolism but a significant investment in cytosolic energy metabolism. Third, leaf energy balancing strictly requires oxidative phosphorylation, cofactor export from chloroplasts, and peroxisomal NADH import. Fourth, mitochondria are energetically self-sufficient. Fifth, carbon metabolism has an ATP/NADPH demand ratio of 1.52 which is met if ≤ 21.7% of whole electron flux is cyclic. Sixth, electron transport has a photon use efficiency of ≥ 62%. Last, we discuss interactions between the OPPP and the cytosolic oxidation–reduction cycle in supplying leaf cytosolic NADPH.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Renewable electricity capacity planning with uncertainty at multiple scales

Abstract We formulate and compare optimization models of investment in renewable generation using a suite of social planning models that compute optimal generation capacity investments for a hydro-dominated electricity system where inflow uncertainty results in a risk of energy shortage. The models optimize the expected cost of capacity expansion and operation allowing for investments in hydro, geothermal, solar, wind, and thermal plant, as well as battery storage for smoothing load profiles. A novel feature is the integration of uncertain seasonal hydroelectric energy supply and short-term variability in renewable supply in a two-stage stochastic programming framework. The models are applied to data from the New Zealand electricity system and used to estimate the costs of moving to a 100% renewable electricity system by 2035. We also explore the outcomes obtained when applying different forms of CO 2 constraint that limit respectively non-renewable capacity, non-renewable generation, and CO 2 emissions on average, almost surely, or in a chance-constrained setting, and show how our models can be used to investigate the merits of a proposed pumped-hydro scheme in New Zealand’s South Island.

Ferris, Michael C.↗
DOE OSTI2021

Energy sector portfolio analysis with uncertainty

Governments are dealing with the challenge of how to efficiently invest in research and development portfolios related to energy technologies. Research and development investment decisions in the energy space are especially difficult due to numerous risks and uncertainties, and due to the complexity of energy's interactions with the broad economy. Historically, much of the U.S. Department of Energy's in-depth research and development analyses focused on assessing the impact of a research and development activity in isolation from other available opportunities and did not substantially consider risk and uncertainty. Endeavoring to combine integrated energy-economy modeling with uncertainty analysis and technology-specific research and development activities, the U.S. Department of Energy commissioned the development of the Stochastic Energy Deployment System to support and improve public energy research and development decision-making. The Stochastic Energy Deployment System draws from expert-elicited probability distributions for research and development-driven improvements in technology cost and performance, and it uses Monte Carlo simulations to evaluate the likelihood of outcomes within a system dynamics energy-economy model. The framework estimates the uncertain benefits and costs of various research and development portfolios and provides insight into the probability of meeting national technology goals, while accounting for interactions with the larger economy and for interactions among research and development investments spanning many energy sectors.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Can Wholesale Electricity Markets Achieve Resource Adequacy and High Clean Energy Generation Targets in the Presence of Self-Interested Actors?

Wholesale electricity markets are intended to incentivize system generation investments and operations outcomes that meet evolving system needs. In this work, we evaluate the effectiveness of wholesale market structures, rules and policies in achieving system resource adequacy (RA) and clean energy targets in the presence of self-interested generation investors using the Electricity Markets and Investment Suite Agent-based Simulation (EMIS-AS) model. Results highlight that both capacity markets and operating reserve demand curves (ORDCs) can help achieve a reliable system but with different RA compliance timelines and distribution of generation technologies. Structures with capacity markets tend to favor more capital-intensive peaking technologies while reducing wind and solar build-outs due to suppressed energy and clean energy market prices, particularly in the absence of strong clean energy targets. Conversely, ORDCs improve the commitment of available generation units, but this comes at the expense of higher system costs and renewable generation curtailment. We also find that well-calibrated static capacity demand curves can yield similar reliability and total cost compared to capacity market demand curves informed dynamically by resource adequacy while also yielding stable annual capacity prices. Different approaches to formulating ORDC curves can also yield key trade-offs, namely that a more efficient treatment of storage chronology results in lower ORDC curves and prices, yielding less investment and cost but at the expense of reliability. Finally, the effectiveness of wholesale electricity markets in practically achieving very high clean energy generation targets highly depends on the cost-competitiveness of clean energy technologies that can support critical balancing needs across multiple timescales.

capacity expansion↗