Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Negotiation”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Under-capacitated and over-powered? Rural austerity and asymmetrical negotiating relationships in US wind energy development

Though rural local governments are central actors in renewable energy development, local governments in the United States (US) remain systematically under-funded. This paper considers what the manifestations of austerity in local governments broadly and rural localities specifically mean for renewable energy development and for energy transitions. Drawing on a survey of 262 elected county officials with experience with wind energy in eight US states, this paper asks how local officials understand the impacts of wind development, how local governments are involved in wind energy negotiations, how the resources and expertise needed to navigate negotiations are distributed among counties, and analyze the relationship between local capacity, access to resources, and involvement in negotiations. We find that local officials express simultaneously affective and material concerns with the impacts of wind development and see negotiations with the developer as central to realizing local benefits. However, the expertise and staffing needed to negotiate with developers is less accessible to poorer or sparsely populated counties, and counties with lower overall revenues have narrower scopes of negotiation, and counties incre. Our results suggest that uneven rural capacity heightens an already asymmetrical relationship between localities and developers. In analyzing how infrastructure developments are shaped by relationships between localities and developers that are conditioned by austerity and (under)capacity, this paper contributes to and bridges scholarly discussions on rural austerity, rescaling, and renewable energy transitions. These results challenge conventional wisdoms around centralizing energy siting processes, contextualize popular and academic debates about opposition to renewable energy development, and highlight the need for rural reinvestment to realize meaningfully participatory energy developments.

Elmallah, Salma↗
DOE OSTI2025

Corrigendum to ‘Under-capacitated and over-powered? Rural austerity and asymmetrical negotiating relationships in US wind energy development’ [J. Rural Stud., 119 (2025) 1–14]

The authors regret that there is an incomplete sentence in the abstract of the article, and request that the portion “, and counties incre” be deleted from the abstract (found at the end of the sentence beginning with “However …”). The portion to be deleted is underlined and bolded below. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. Current abstract: Though rural local governments are central actors in renewable energy development, local governments in the United States (US) remain systematically under-funded. This paper considers what the manifestations of austerity in local governments broadly and rural localities specifically mean for renewable energy development and for energy transitions. Drawing on a survey of 262 elected county officials with experience with wind energy in eight US states, this paper asks how local officials understand the impacts of wind development, how local governments are involved in wind energy negotiations, how the resources and expertise needed to navigate negotiations are distributed among counties, and analyze the relationship between local capacity, access to resources, and involvement in negotiations. We find that local officials express simultaneously affective and material concerns with the impacts of wind development and see negotiations with the developer as central to realizing local benefits. However, the expertise and staffing needed to negotiate with developers is less accessible to poorer or sparsely populated counties, and counties with lower overall revenues have narrower scopes of negotiation, and counties incre. Our results suggest that uneven rural capacity heightens an already asymmetrical relationship between localities and developers. In analyzing how infrastructure developments are shaped by relationships between localities and developers that are conditioned by austerity and (under)capacity, this paper contributes to and bridges scholarly discussions on rural austerity, rescaling, and renewable energy transitions. These results challenge conventional wisdoms around centralizing energy siting processes, contextualize popular and academic debates about opposition to renewable energy development, and highlight the need for rural reinvestment to realize meaningfully participatory energy developments.

Elmallah, Salma↗
DOE OSTI2025

Can Collaboration Succeed in Siting a Spent Nuclear Fuel Facility in the United States?—A Challenge in Political Sustainability

We examine the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)’s collaborative process to locate, build, and operate one or more federal consolidated interim storage facilities (FCISFs) for commercial U.S. spent nuclear fuel—instead of continuing to store the material at over 70 nuclear reactor sites. Technocratic siting of nuclear facilities in the U.S., most of which did not involve meaningful public participation, was not successful. We consider increasing pressure to find at least one FCISF site, as well as the critical role of trust in engaging communities and reaching agreement—leading some observers to assert that DOE is in the “trust building business”, not the siting business. We present case studies with the following: (1) illustrating community engagement that led to a more satisfactory outcome than had been anticipated (Fernald); (2) a planned voluntary process that failed to produce an operating CISF (Office of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator); and (3) a site that demonstrates the ongoing need for negotiations to keep a site open and operational (Waste Isolation Pilot Plant). The essay concludes with the observation that a collaboration-based siting effort can succeed in the U.S., but that five main challenges—related to trust and requiring patience—will need to be addressed.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2026

Demand response event simulator and risk-aware bidding tool for industrial customers

Incentive Based Demand Response (IBDR) program participation delivers financial benefits to the consumers and resiliency benefits to the electricity grid. Effectively participating in these programs as an industrial consumer requires bidding strategies that balance financial risk with operational constraints. Existing bidding tools tend not to fully incorporate stochastic IBDR event modeling, program specific baseline and payment/penalty calculations, or demand reduction process control schemes that account for the cascading impacts of shutdown in complex facilities. Here, this work presents an IBDR event simulator and risk-aware bidding framework tool integrating three key components: a flexible, parameterized demand response event generator that rigorously accounts for program structures and stochasticity, a demand response operational simulation model that generates explicit control strategies for load reduction, and a Monte Carlo simulator to evaluate financial risk for varied capacity bids. A case study at a wastewater treatment plant participating in PG&E's Capacity Bidding Program demonstrates the framework's utility. In the peak capacity price month of August, optimal bidding by the wastewater treatment plant nets a mean IBDR benefit of $101,000 (67% of the August electricity bill) with 0.4% probability of a financial loss. This framework enables industrial operators to make informed bidding decisions, negotiate better program terms with demand response load aggregators, and analyze energy flexibility investments at their facilities. Ultimately, this work reduces participation barriers in IBDR programs and supports the broader goal of enhancing grid reliability and renewable energy integration.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Evaluating alternative steam generation pathways in the food industry

Steam generation in the food sector requires substantial energy and cost expenditures, requiring nearly half of its energy intake. Here, we used life cycle assessment and life cycle cost assessment to investigate the cost and energy impacts of steam generating alternatives: NG, biomass and hydrogen boilers and grid-supplied and self-generated electric steam generation systems (electric boilers, renewable thermal energy storage and industrial heat pumps). The analysis starts with a set of average U.S. conditions, where biomass boilers are the most cost-competitive alternative to NG. In a series of scenarios beyond average conditions, the analysis shows energy procurement costs dominate the total life cycle cost for all technologies and, unfortunately, are highly variable geographically and temporally, significantly affecting the viability of the alternatives. Results show that site-energy consumption ranges from 0.3 MMBtu/klb for industrial heat pumps to 1.6 MMBtu/klb for biomass boilers, with heat pumps achieving up to 78% lower energy use compared to natural gas systems. For the steam costs, the results show a range between $\$$8 and $\$$50/klb for NG, with biomass following closely ($\$$11 – $\$$44/klb) and grey hydrogen and IHP next ($\$$13 – $\$$33/klb and $\$$6 - $\$$78/klb), with cost reductions if IHP's cooling is utilized. Factors like operating hours, the need for cooling, and the ability to negotiate utility rates complicate the decision, making site-specific analyses critical. Therefore, we present a decision-making matrix to help manufacturers identify which steam generating technology is the best business decision for their situation. Overall, these results highlight the importance of steam generation for the facility's organizational goals, as well as the criticality of conducting individual site analyses.

Biomass boilers↗
DOE OSTI2024

An editorial to the Special Issue on “Severe climate Risks”

The history of this Special Issue (https://www.sciencedirect.com/special-issue/10JD7LNJNQ0) indirectly dates back to the early 1990s, when the signature of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change kicked-off an international political process based on one overarching and foundational principle: to avoid “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” at the global level. More than three decades later, such a principle remains central, though complementary aims made their way through the climate negotiation process, such as the importance of ensuring equity and justice, to give just one example here. Scientific knowledge also considerably progressed and we know more about the range of risks that climate change imposes and will continue to impose to the biosphere and humankind, worldwide and at all territorial levels. It is also clear that societal responses to these risks —“climate adaptation” as we know it— are increasingly happening, but definitely not at the pace of climate risk trends (Berrang-Ford et al., 2021, Erisken et al., 2021, Olazabal and Ruiz De Gopegui, 2021, Magnan et al., 2023a, Reckien et al., 2023, UNEP, 2023). As a result, concerns have emerged over the recent years in both the scientific and policy arenas around the idea that societies may not be able to address all climate risks, and that limits to adaptation and induced residual risks need to be considered more seriously. Such concerns further highlight the continuing importance of the imperative to minimise dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, at any scale. But what does “dangerous interference” mean? How can we decide that we are entering the “dangerous” space, compared to a broader range of climate risks that would qualify as problematic but not necessarily “dangerous”? Who should make such a decision? Which conditions drive risk severity over time, including in the future? And what would be the environmental, economic, social and cultural implications of prioritising some climate risks over others? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was a pioneer in addressing such questions through the development of the “Key Risks” framing that describes those climate risks having the potential to become dangerous or “severe” over the course of this century (Schellnhuber et al., 2006, Schneider et al., 2007, Oppenheimer et al., 2014, O’Neill et al., 2022). The Fifth and Sixth assessment cycles (AR5 and AR6) went a step further by identifying about 120 Key Risks across regions and sectors, and clustering them into 8 “Representative Key Risks” covering a range of geographical systems (low-lying coasts, and to terrestrial and ocean ecosystems), sectors (critical infrastructure, living standards, human health, food security, and water security) and human dimensions (peace and mobility) (Oppenheimer et al., 2014, O’Neill et al., 2022). This Special Issue was born of the efforts of a range of authors, during the development of the IPCC AR6 main Assessment Report between 2019 and 2022, to characterise Key Risks and Representative Key Risks, and advance knowledge on what shapes “severe climate risks” conceptually as well as in the real-world. The series of papers forming this Special Issue is not intended to cover the topic exhaustively, but rather to give readers an overview through the following narrative: defining “severe climate risks” is highly challenging (Magnan et al., 2023b), but knowledge is expanding on the driving climate hazards (Tebaldi et al., 2023) and their implications on geographical systems, sectors and human dimensions, using here food security (Mirzabaev et al., 2023), human mobility (Gilmore et al., 2024) and peace (Buhaug et al., 2023) as illustrative examples. The overall intention is to support especially decision-makers, whatever the scale or sector considered, in asking severity-driven questions to identify sector- and context-specific “priority” risks from climate change.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

A hierarchical framework for aggregating grid-interactive buildings with thermal and battery energy storage

The behind-the-meter (BTM) thermal and battery energy storage can help improve energy efficiency, reduce energy costs, and enhance energy resilience, particularly in rural areas and for disadvantaged communities. Aggregating numerous BTM energy storage systems can act as a price influencer with a significant source of load shifting and peak demand reduction. An integrated and scalable control mechanism is required to effectively utilize energy storage systems and flexible building loads to maximize the economic benefits, considering various distribution system constraints. Here, this paper presents an innovative hierarchical coordination framework for energy storage and flexible load in buildings, considering various factors such as electricity prices, thermal comfort, and distribution system modeling and constraints. At the upper level, a distribution system operator optimizes the power flow to minimize its power procurement costs from the electricity wholesale market, while at the lower level, aggregators determine the optimal dispatch of battery and thermal energy storage systems in multiple buildings on behalf of end-users to minimize operating costs according to the power prices. These problems are solved using a game-theoretic approach through negotiations between the distribution system operator and aggregators as a bi-level decision model. Simulation case studies have been performed for a test distribution network with a number of building end-users using energy storage systems to quantify the performance of aggregators. The results demonstrate that the proposed strategy can reduce peak load for a reliable electricity distribution network while saving electricity bills for customers.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2026

Shadow of the Future: Developing Trust and Software within the Exascale Computing Project

Collaboration and team science are emerging areas of interest in software production. Historically, multi-institutional research collaborations are difficult to initiate and maintain, negatively impacting communication, negotiation, and dialogue between industry, government, and academic researchers. The Exascale Computing Project (ECP), a massive, multi-team, high-stakes initiative, facilitated broader research collaboration under a shared funding structure and extended timeline to support scientific discovery. Here, we conducted interviews with ECP teams, representing a variety of domain specialties, research institutions, and programming backgrounds. Using thematic analysis, we assessed how ECP’s structure created an environment of increased trust among projects and how software shared between teams facilitated sustained collaboration. We found that the expectation of future collaboration, i.e., the shadow of the future, greatly enhanced trust among teams and the quality of scientific software produced. Based on our findings within ECP projects, we connect to the existing literature on trust in software engineering and share recommendations for sustainable multi-institutional collaboration and shared best software practices.

Exascale computing project↗
DOE OSTI2026

Chemically Recyclable Analogs of Styrene–Butadiene Copolymers Enabling Perfectly Linear Ethylene–Styrene Materials with Random Phenyl Distribution

Copolymerization of cyclopentene (CP) and 4-phenylcyclopentene (4PCP) at a full range of comonomer feed ratios is reported using Ru-based ring-opening metathesis polymerization (ROMP) yielding homogeneous copolymers analogous to poly(styrene-ran-1,4-butadiene) and poly(ethylene-ran-styrene) copolymers following hydrogenation under mild conditions. In all cases, total monomer conversions of 86%–92% yielded copolymers with compositions within 4% of monomer feeds. Analysis of equilibrium copolymerization thermodynamics, rarely performed on two cycloolefin monomers with low ring strain energies, provides rational design strategies for negotiating two monomers with different equilibrium monomer concentrations. Inverse-gated decoupled 13 C NMR analysis of dyad sequences on the resulting copolymer microstructures concludes a near-random distribution of comonomer units. The copolymers produced from ROMP have number-average molar masses up to 60 kg mol –1 , moderate dispersities (1.5 ± 0.1), and high trans olefin content (86% ± 2%) while glass-transitions temperatures follow the Fox equation and span the full range between homopolymer extremities of PCP (−96 °C) and P4PCP (17 °C). Unlike most prevulcanized elastomers, these materials undergo facile chemical recycling to monomer, producing complete ring-closing metathesis depolymerization (RCMD) of the polymer back to the CP comonomers. Quantitative olefin hydrogenation produced perfectly linear polyethylene with 4%–16% of the backbone carbons containing a phenyl pendant, analogous to ES copolymers with up to 71.5% w/w styrene units but with random distribution of the aromatic pendants. Thermal properties of these materials are discussed, which span from semicrystalline to amorphous, and with T g values notably less than the reported ES copolymer analogs at similar compositions.

animal feed↗
DOE OSTI2024

Carbon Management Projects (CONNECT) Database and Explorer

Overview The Carbon Management Projects (CONNECT) Toolkit is an online exploratory visualization tool developed by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM) with support from other federal agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). It provides a single point of access to authoritative information on federal agency investment in a portfolio of research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) projects that have been publicly announced to advance technologies for point source carbon capture, carbon dioxide removal, transport, storage, and conversion, collectively referred to as carbon management. The RD&D programs covered in this tool are authorized by annual congressional appropriations ("Base Program") and the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The tool also incorporates public information on other federal initiatives, such as the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs, and public information released by other government agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) and Primacy States’ Underground Injection Control Class VI permits and EPA’s facility level greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Developed in a geographic information system, the tool organizes carbon management projects into five groups based on the primary technology that a project aims to advance, each visually represented as a digital layer ("carbon management project layer"). Only federally funded projects are included, which can be awarded projects that are completed or ongoing, or projects that have been selected but are currently under negotiation. Project information can be viewed in the map or in the attribute table below it when turned on. In the map view, each project is displayed at either its host site (for field work), where available, or its performer site (project lead's location, further explained in the table below). Host sites and performer sites are represented in distinct icons. Several reference layers offer additional public information on infrastructural and natural resource environment for carbon management. These reference layers, combined with multiple geographical basemaps, enable users to visualize the carbon management project layers in context. Carbon management project information will be updated monthly based on feedback and information availability. Carbon management project layers Point Source Carbon Capture (PSC) This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from power plants or industrial facilities. Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on capturing CO2 from the atmosphere, including direct air capture (DAC) and DAC hubs, direct ocean capture, enhanced mineralization, and biomass carbon removal and storage. For projects with multiple host sites, each of the sites are displayed individually with the project cost and cost sharing information representing the total for the entire project. Carbon Transport This layer contains DOE- and DOT-funded projects focused on CO2 transport. The Transport Research and Development sublayer contains projects that do not involve physical infrastructure; the Proposed Transport Corridor sublayer contains projects for which either a route for the transport infrastructure has been proposed or a general area for the transport infrastructure has been identified. Carbon Storage This layer contains DOE-funded key projects focused on CO2 storage. For projects with multiple field-work sites, each of the sites are displayed individually on the map with the project cost and cost sharing information representing the overall total for the entire project. Carbon Conversion This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on converting CO2 into economically valuable products. Reference layers The following layers provide additional information in the geographic proximity of carbon management projects. Users should reference the original sources for more details (weblinks provided below and in pop-up windows on the map). Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub and Facility These layers illustrate the approximate areas of the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs announced by DOE's Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) and the approximate locations of individual facilities that constitute the hubs (see "Where are the H2Hubs located?" on the webpage linked above). EPA Facility Level GHG Emissions (direct emitter) This layer shows direct CO2 emissions from stationary sources in 2022, using data extracted from EPA's Facility Level Information on GreenHouse gases Tool (FLIGHT). Captured and injected CO2 are not deducted from direct emitters’ total emissions. Contact EPA for additional details. Underground Injection Control Class VI permit/permit application This layer shows the locations of CO2 injection wells that are granted or in the process of applying for an Underground Injection Control Class VI permit by EPA or a Primacy State (currently Louisiana, North Dakota, and Wyoming). The URLs for the permits or permit applications are provided in the pop-up windows associated with the well locations. Contact EPA for additional details. Carbon Storage Resource This layer contains information on prospective CO2 storage resources in saline formations and oil and gas reservoirs provided by the National Carbon Sequestration Database and Geographic Information System (NATCARB) spatial database. Contact NETL for additional details. Existing CO2 pipeline This layer shows active CO2 pipelines based on information digitized from the map issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). Contact PHMSA for additional details.

Carbon Conversion↗
DOE OSTI2025

LAMP Project Facility and Space Requirements

The project will require significant space over the lifetime of the project to successfully execute design, technology maturation, component testing and verification, and final removal and installation. The types of space required falls into three general categories: office, storage, and laboratory. Figure 1 below summarizes the project space requirements by project lifecycle. The specific color coding indicates the availability (and potential risk to the project) of the particular type of space: green indicates space that is already allocated and in use by the LAMP project; yellow indicates space that is expected to be easily transitioned from its current use to the project; red indicates a space that is use by multiple users or other projects, and will most likely require high-level negotiations and planning to become available to the project. Figure 2 summarizes the LAMP Space Requirements by calendar year and type throughout the duration of the project. As can be seen in Fig. 2, the maximum space needed by the project exceeds 40,000 square feet, with an average space requirement over the lifetime of the project equal to approximately 25,000 square feet.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

PROACTIVE FA4: Progress Update 2024

The Priority Research Objectives for Arms Control Technology Innovation, Verification, and Evaluation (PROACTIVE) venture’s overall goal is to address the technical challenges that will “enable the negotiation and implementation of future nuclear arms limitation/reduction treaties with verification at the level of individual warheads by advancing the state of the art in verification and monitoring capabilities.” One of the four focus areas of the venture, Focus Area 4 (FA4), is a system-of-systems effort to establish methodologies for the integration of monitoring and verification (M&V) technologies into verification systems that support treaty objectives.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗
DOE OSTI2024

The Transactive Energy Network Template Metamodel

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.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2025

Demand Response in Residential Energy Code: Technical Brief

As buildings account for over 75% of U.S. electricity use, effectively managing their loads can greatly facilitate the transition towards a clean, reliable grid. Grid-interactive efficient buildings (GEBs) combine efficiency and demand flexibility with smart technologies and communication to provide occupant comfort and productivity while serving the grid as a distributed energy resource (DER). In turn, GEBs can play a key role in ensuring access to an affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern U.S. electric power system. Their national adoption could provide $\$$100-200 billion in U.S. electric power system cost savings over the next two decades. The associated reduction in CO 2 emissions is estimated at 6% per year by 2030 (DOE 2021). Building codes represent standard design practice in the construction industry and continually evolve to include advanced technologies and innovative practices. Historically, national model energy codes establish minimum efficiency requirements for new construction (ICC 2020). Expanding codes to support GEB capabilities is a pivotal step towards realizing demand flexibility in support of a clean grid by addressing capabilities to improve interoperability between smart building systems, the grid, and renewable energy resources. Realizing GEBs requires buildings with automated demand response (DR) capabilities that enable standardized communication with or control of, subject to explicit consumer consent, energy smart appliances or home energy management systems. This is achieved through direct or indirect (i.e., via an aggregator) communication between appliances and the electric grid. Energy codes can also support DR communication standardization and advance the deployment of building-integrated DERs such as energy storage, generation, and electric vehicles (EVs). Incorporating automated DR capabilities in energy codes provides many benefits to the consumers. Specifically, it aligns building electric load demand with intermittent renewable energy source availability, decreases peak load on the electric grid, allows buildings to respond to utility price signals, supports electrical network reliability and market growth of products and processes aligned with clean economic growth. The incorporation of DR into the model residential energy codes was considered for both the 2021 and 2024 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) code development cycles. The approved DR measures in the 2021 cycle were removed in response to appeals (ICC 2020). Updated language was presented for consideration again for the 2024 IECC, where it was negotiated and again approved, and again removed in response to appeals (ICC 2024). This resulted in many sections, including sections on demand responsive controls, being moved to the credits options or an appendix as a voluntary application. This technical brief updates the proposed DR components such that they can be considered by states and local governments for direct incorporation into their codes, as well as for future IECC energy code development. The proposal refinements are intended to support consistency in approach and provide a degree of certainty for building owners, designers, contractors, manufacturers, and building and fire safety professionals. The scope of this technical brief includes three strategies for DR in residential buildings: 1) smart thermostats with demand-responsive control, 2) electric water heating incorporating demand-responsive controls and communication and 3) grid Integrated solar and energy storage systems.

2021 IECC↗
DOE OSTI2025

Charpy Impact Characterization of Surveillance Specimens Harvested from Palisades High Fluence A-60 Capsule

Located on the shores of Lake Michigan, the Palisades Nuclear Generating Station (PNGS) was a nuclear power plant that operated in Covert Township, Michigan. The plant had a single pressurized water reactor that produced electricity for the region. The PNGS was shut down in 2022 after more than four decades of service. The PNGS included in its surveillance program a surveillance capsule, designated A-60, containing specimens of a weld metal with nickel content of about 1.36 wt% and copper content of about 0.25 wt%. The capsule was removed from its surveillance position in early 1995 and has been resident in the spent fuel pool since that time. This capsule was irradiated to a fluence of 1.96×10 20 n/cm 2 (E>1MeV) that is equivalent for more than 150 effective full power years (EFPYs) for the US reactor pressure vessel (RPV) fleet. The material is also of special interest because of its very high nickel content and potential for development of NiMnSi (nickel-manganese-silicon) precipitates. Combination of very high fluence and very high Ni and Cu content makes the material in this capsule of great interest as benchmark for currently developing embrittlement trend curves (ETC) aiming to predict embrittlement at high fluences. Multi-year efforts by the Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) Program personnel from the Materials Research Pathway (MRP) to harvest this capsule finally succeeded in 2023. As a result, the Westinghouse Electric Company (WEC) through contract with Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) came to PNGS site, retrieved the A-60 capsule, brought it to WEC Churchill hot cell facility, opened the capsule and sent all surveillance specimens in the capsule to ORNL for future characterization by July 2023. Total of 9 tensile and 48 Charpy specimens were inventoried in the ORNL hot cells. Testing plan has been developed based on available specimens. It includes hardness, tensile, Charpy impact, Mini-CT fracture toughness testing, in-situ thermal annealing, and microstructural characterization, including Atom Probe Tomography (APT). Charpy impact testing has been completed and results are presented in this report. Moreover, negotiations with Pressurized Water Reactors Owners Group (PWROG) and Westinghouse resulted in Westinghouse donating to ORNL a piece of archive weld and base metal such that unirradiated characterization of these materials can be performed as part of this project. Comparison of measured hardening and embrittlement has been performed and data are compared to available large database.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

Renewable Energy and Efficiency Technologies in Scenarios of U.S. Decarbonization in Two Types of Models: Comparison of GCAM Modeling and Sector-Specific Modeling

Energy system projections from analytic models inform actions ranging from short-term and local decisions, such as technology and infrastructure deployment, to global and long-term negotiations and targets. Computational limits require the designers of these models to trade off between coverage and resolution. Some models, such as the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM), represent all energy sources and uses but at a relatively coarse level of resolution. GCAM balances global supply and demand of all energy carriers by endogenously projecting prices for energy sources and costs of greenhouse gas mitigation while capturing interlinkages between the energy system, water, agriculture and land use, the economy, and the climate. This global model was used to frame the Long-Term Strategy released by the White House in 2021 and has been used to inform national and global economy-wide decarbonization discussions and strategy development for decades. Other models instead focus on a portion of the energy sector with greater detail and resolution. The Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) electricity-sector model, for example, projects capacity expansion with an emphasis on integration of variable renewable energy into the grid of the future. The Transportation Energy and Mobility Pathway Options (TEMPO) transportation-sector model enables analysis of household choices in adoption, charging, and use of electric vehicles. The Scout buildings-sector model supports detailed consideration of the policies and markets that can accelerate the adoption of energy conservation measures in buildings. Such sector-specific models are instrumental in informing technology research, sectoral planning strategies, and sector-specific aspects of greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation strategies in the United States. These global and sector-specific modeling approaches can complement each other. The global approach ensures consistent, endogenous energy pricing and resource allocation, which can substantially diverge from current conditions in transformative scenarios, while the sector-specific approach facilitates representation of granular details across spatial, temporal, technological, and market dimensions that enable exploration of particular interactions and trade-offs. This report presents the results of recent work to explore the differences and tradeoffs between these approaches by comparing GCAM with the sector-specific ReEDS, TEMPO, and Scout models. The report compares both model structures and results, and discusses their potential relevance and applications.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2025

MSD CoP Webinar: Energy and AI

Context: This webinar was hosted by the MultiSector Dynamics Community of Practice (MSD CoP; https://multisectordynamics.org). Abstract: Projections of the need for new data centers to support Artificial Intelligence (AI) are large but highly uncertain. Recent projections indicate up to a 15% annual growth rate in data center electricity demand within the next 5-10 years. Given that most electric utilities are required to have a reserve margin of roughly the same magnitude as the projected growth in demand, these new data center loads could soon threaten resource adequacy and reliability unless data centers build their own generation, interruptible loads are negotiated, commensurate new capacity and/or transmission is built, or some combination of these options. Similarly, depending on the cooling technology and geographic location of new data centers, they could threaten water adequacy in water scarce regions. This webinar will provide an overview of the interactions between energy and AI and highlight two MSD projects exploring the grid and water implications of new data centers to support AI. Presenters : Dr. Casey Burleyson (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory); Dr. Stephanie Morris (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory); Kendall Mongird (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory) Moderator: Patrick M. Reed (MSD CoP Facilitation Team) This webinar was held on: June 16th, 2025 from 1-2 PM EST.

Artificial Intelligence↗