SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “airborne wind energy siting”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

12 records

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2021

Airborne Wind Energy

Airborne wind energy (AWE) is “the conversion of wind energy into electricity using tethered flying devices”. Pursuit of AWE and airborne wind energy systems began in 1980. Interest and investment in AWE have grown substantially in the last decade, with approximately 70 active research entities including over 20 technology developers globally. This report describes technical analyses of various aspects of AWE and insight gained from dedicated outreach provided to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Wind Energy Technologies Office to underpin its response to the congressional request in the Energy Act of 2020 for a report on the “potential for, and technical viability of, airborne wind energy systems to provide a significant source of energy in the United States.”

17 WIND ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2024

Development of an Airborne Wind Energy Test Site in the United States

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Houchens, Brent C.↗

DOE OSTI2024

Unseen Winds: Harnessing High-Altitude Winds in the Southeast USA

This project aims to identify potential sites in the United States for further testing and development of airborne wind energy systems (AWES). Through industry questionnaires and interviews with AWES companies, the study assesses existing test sites' capabilities and gaps, leading to a three-tiered test site strategy: short-duration prototype demonstrations, long-duration technical assessments and power validations, and airspace interaction and deconfliction studies. Notably, the southeastern United States presents significant potential for AWES due to its lack of traditional wind turbines, which is attributed to low wind speeds at lower altitudes. However, wind conditions improve significantly at higher altitudes, making this region a promising candidate for AWES deployment. The project considers factors such as wind resources, infrastructure proximity, social acceptance, and environmental impacts to recommend sites that can support the unique needs of AWES manufacturers and facilitate their commercialization. Early findings suggest rural communities with low grid resiliency could benefit economically and technologically from hosting AWES test sites, especially with operator training centers and potential for long-term skilled employment in future disaster relief and other applications.

17 WIND ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2021

Proceedings of the 2021 Airborne Wind Energy Workshop

On March 2-3, 2021, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) conducted a virtual workshop to evaluate the status, potential development, and technical viability of AWE systems as a source of energy in the United States. Stakeholder input provided at the workshop will contribute to the report to Congress. This report summarizes key workshop findings, current technology research and development activities in the United States, and opportunities and potential modes of collaboration and coordination for future technology research and development activities. The workshop focused on U.S. stakeholders in AWE, with approximately 100 experts and industry stakeholders from AWE technology developers, operators, engineering firms, consultants, government, national laboratories, and university researchers. The workshop began with an explanation from DOE's Wind Energy Technologies Office (WETO) Technology Manager, Ben Hallissy, of the context and purpose of the workshop, including a request from Congress that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) deliver a "report on the potential for, and technical viability of, airborne wind energy systems to provide a significant source of energy in the United States, including a summary of research, development, demonstration, and commercialization needs, including an estimate of Federal funding requirements, to further examine and validate the technical and economic viability of airborne wind energy concepts over the 10-year period." The workshop began with brief introductions from attendees who explained their interest in AWE. Nicolas El Hayek of Planair summarized the proceedings from the AWE workshop held in September 2020 by the International Energy Agency (IEA) Wind Task 11. This was followed by a presentation by Roland Schmehl of TU-Delft summarizing European AWE R&D efforts. Chris Vermillion of North Carolina State University and Jason Jonkman of NREL presented an overview of U.S. R&D efforts. Then five panelists discussed AWE markets, sizes of AWE systems, challenges, and opportunities. Panelists included: Cristina Archer, professor at the College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment and associate director at the Center for Research in Wind (CReW) at the University of Delaware; Stephan Brabeck, chief technology officer at SkySails; Thierry Delahave, innovation and technology development lead at Saipem; Rob Creighton, founder and chief executive officer at WindLift; and David Schaefer, founder and chief executive officer at eWind Solutions. The second day of the workshop began with a brief overview of five key topics that are crucial to enabling AWE in the United States. These topics range from estimates of the U.S. wind resource, technical generation potential, economic analysis, environmental challenges, status of current technology and R&D activities, and needed activities to enable commercialization of AWE. This set the stage for a robust discussion in breakout groups where individuals could offer their opinions on the potential opportunities for AWE in the United States. The following topics were discussed in the breakout groups: resource potential and energy output, technical potential, social and environmental impacts, and permitting, techno-economic analysis and markets, technology assessment and upscaling and demonstration and commercialization needs. The second day concluded with reports by the NREL research team, communicating the key themes and outcomes from each of the breakout group discussions.

17 WIND ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2020

NNSS Soils Monitoring: Plutonium Valley (CAU 366) FY2019

Desert Research Institute (DRI) conducted a field assessment of the potential for radionuclide-contaminated soil to be transported from the Plutonium Valley Dispersion Sites Contamination Area (CA) because of both wind and storm water runoff. This activity supported U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Management Nevada Program (EM NV) efforts to establish post-closure monitoring plans for the Plutonium Valley Dispersion Sites Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 366. The DRI task was intended to identify the likely mechanism(s) of transport and determine the meteorological conditions that might cause the movement of radionuclide-contaminated soils. The emphasis of the work was on collecting sediment transported by channelized storm runoff and measuring airborne dust concentrations and associated wind conditions. These data will facilitate an appropriate post-closure monitoring program. In 2011, DRI installed meteorological monitoring stations north and south of the Plutonium Valley CA—known as Pu Valley North and Pu Valley South, respectively—as well as a fluvial sediment sampling station within the CA. Since installation, temperature, wind speed, wind direction, relative humidity, precipitation, solar radiation, barometric pressure, soil temperature, volumetric soil moisture content, and airborne particulate concentrations have been collected at both meteorological stations. The maximum, minimum, and average or total (as appropriate) for each of these parameters were recorded for each 10-minute interval. The sediment sampling station included an automatically activated sampling pump with collection bottles for suspended sediment, which was activated when sufficient flow was present in the channel, and passive traps for bedload material that was transported down the channel during runoff events. This report presents data collected from these stations during fiscal year (FY) 2019. During the FY2019 (October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2019) reporting period, the warmest month was July and the coldest month was February. Monthly total solar radiation was highest in June or July (depending on the station) and lowest in December. Monthly mean wind speeds were highest during February. At the Pu Valley North station, winds were commonly northerly, northwesterly, and southerly. At the Pu Valley South station, the wind direction was more variable and winds frequently came from most directions, excluding westerly and northwesterly winds. Winds above 15.0 miles per hour (mph) (24.1 kilometers per hour [km/hr]) were frequently southerly at both stations, and less-frequent strong winds were northerly (at the Pu Valley South station) or northwesterly (at the Pu Valley North station). Monthly average relative humidity ranged from 18 percent in August to 62 percent in January and February. Monthly total precipitation ranged from zero at both stations in September to 2.23 inches (in) (56.6 millimeters [mm]) during February at the Pu Valley South station and 2.09 in (53.1 mm) during March at the Pu Valley North station. From October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2019, the total precipitation was 8.23 in (209 mm) and 8.15 in (207 mm) at the Pu Valley South and Pu Valley North stations, respectively. The largest daily precipitation totals of 1.46 in (37.1 mm) and 1.14 in (29.0 mm) occurred at the Pu Valley South and Pu Valley North stations, respectively, on March 6, 2019. However, the ISCO autosampler was not activated during any storm event in FY2019 because the channel water depth measurements were insufficient for suspended sediment sample collection. Additionally, because no significant flow through the channel was indicated, no bedload samples were collected. Light breezes of 0.0 mph to 5.0 mph (0.0 km/hr to 8.0 km/hr) occurred most frequently (approximately 55 percent to 57 percent of the time). The frequency of occurrence diminished exponentially as the wind speed increased such that winds in excess of 25.0 mph (40.2 km/hr) occurred less than 0.01 percent of the time. Winds in excess of 15.0 mph (24.1 km/hr) were most commonly southerly, which is likely controlled by the topography of the valley because topographic highs define the east and west sides of the valley and converge toward the north.The concentrations of PM2.5 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter ≤2.5 micrometers [μm]) and PM10 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter ≤10 μm) in the air generally increase as wind speed increases. However, the particle profiler at the Pu Valley South station regularly malfunctioned, which resulted in poor data quality and a limited period of record within FY2019. Therefore, discussion of the annual dust observations is mostly limited to the Pu Valley North station. At the Pu Valley North station, significant increases in windblown dust concentrations were observed when wind speeds exceeded 15.0 mph (24.1 km/hr), especially during southerly winds. When all wind speeds were considered, high dust concentrations at the Pu Valley North station were frequently associated with northerly, northwesterly, or southerly winds. The majority of PM10 transport at the Pu Valley North station occurred when winds were blowing northerly and northwesterly because of the high frequency of winds up to 15.0 mph (24.1 km/hr). The ratio of PM10 to PM2.5 is a qualitative indicator of the proximity of dust sources to the observation point and the values of the PM10 to PM2.5 ratio tend to be higher nearer to the source. The PM10 to PM2.5 ratio increased from 1.2 to 2.8 with higher wind speeds at the Pu Valley North station. This increase suggests that some locally sourced PM10 was present in the air when local winds exceeded 15.0 mph (24.1 km/hr). Local dust suspension is interpreted during major dust events when peaks in the PM10 to PM2.5 ratio occur simultaneously with the maximum wind speed and the peak PM10 concentration. Analysis of the five major dust events in FY2019 revealed that northerly winds were dominant in three events and southerly winds were dominant in two events. Local suspension of dust within Plutonium Valley is suspected to have occurred during two of the five major events (April 9, 2019, and September 28 to 29, 2019), and a nonlocal source of dust is presumed for the three other major dust events (October 14, 2018; May 16, 2019; and September 2, 2019). The three suspected regional dust transport events exhibited winds that typically did not exceed the 15.0 mph (24.1 km/hr) wind speed threshold for local dust transport and featured PM10 to PM2.5 ratios that indicate large-scale regional dust transport. Similar event characteristics (e.g., wind speed and PM10 concentration) were observed at air monitoring stations approximately 70 mi (113 km) to the northwest within the Tonopah Test Range (TTR). Therefore, these three regional events may not reflect transport from the Plutonium Valley CA. Routine monitoring of meteorological and hydrologic parameters at Plutonium Valley has been discontinued at the request of EM NV, effective at the conclusion of FY2019. Environmental data acquisition has been completed, and both Pu Valley North and Pu Valley South meteorological stations within Plutonium Valley as well as the ISCO autosampler station within the CA were removed on October 14, 2019.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2026

Temperature profiling at the American WAKE ExperimeNt (AWAKEN): methodology and uncertainty quantification

We quantify the accuracy of the temperature profiling from ground-based spectral infrared radiance observations at the American WAKE ExperimeNt (AWAKEN). Results from pre-campaign tests and comparisons with in-situ ground-based and airborne sensors at AWAKEN indicate that temperature profiles agree satisfactorily with traditional instruments for wind energy applications. The bias is within a fraction of a degree and appears to be related to atmospheric stability. Root-mean-square differences from the reference instruments are always smaller than a degree and are often well described by the online uncertainty estimation product. Height-to-height and site-to-site temperature differences are in excellent agreement with in-situ observations, which justifies the use of temperature profilers to characterize static stability and spatial gradients of temperature.

17 WIND ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2021

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants – Radionuclide Emissions Calendar Year 2020

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) operates the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) and the North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF). From 1951 through 1992, the NNSS was the continental testing location for U.S. nuclear weapons. Radionuclides in air from NNSS activities have been monitored since the initiation of atmospheric testing. After 1962, testing was limited to underground detonations, which greatly reduced radiation exposure to the public. Since the end of nuclear testing in 1992, radiation monitoring has focused on detecting airborne radionuclides from historically contaminated soils because this sources dominates the potential offsite dose. These radionuclides are derived from re-suspension of soil (primarily by wind) and emission of tritium-contaminated soil moisture through evapotranspiration. Low amounts of legacy-related tritium are also emitted to air at the NLVF, an NNSS support complex in North Las Vegas. To protect the public from harmful levels of manmade radiation, the Clean Air Act, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), specifically the National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other Than Radon From Department of Energy Facilities (40 CFR 61, Subpart H, 2020) limits the release of radioactivity from a DOE facility to that which would cause 10 millirem per year (mrem/y) effective dose equivalent (EDE) to any member of the public. This limit does not include radiation unrelated to NNSS activities. Unrelated doses could come from naturally occurring radioactive elements, from sources such as medically or commercially used radionuclides, or from sources outside of the United States, such as Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant, which was damaged in 2011. NNSA/NFO demonstrates compliance with the NESHAP limit by reporting environmental measurements of radionuclide air concentrations at critical receptor locations on the NNSS. This alternative was proposed and formerly submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2001 (EPA 2001a) and has been the method used to demonstrate compliance with the 40 CFR 61.92 dose standard since 2005. Six locations on the NNSS have been established to act as critical receptor locations to demonstrate compliance with the NESHAP limit. These locations are closer to radionuclide releases than where the public resides so they act as protective substitutes for public receptor locations. Compliance is demonstrated if the measured annual average concentration is less than the NESHAP Concentration Level (CL) for Environmental Compliance listed in Table 2 of 40 CFR 61, Appendix E. For multiple radionuclides, compliance is demonstrated when the sum of the fractions (determined by dividing each radionuclide’s concentration by its CL and then adding the fractions together) is less than 1.0. The EPAapproved air transport model, called the Clean Air Package 1988 (CAP88-PC) is also used to calculate the effective dose equivalent to the maximally exposed individual from NNSS air emissions. CAP88-PC was also used to calculate the population dose, or the collective EDE (expressed as person-rem [roentgen equivalent man] per year [person-rem/y]) for all individuals combined who reside within 80 kilometers (km) of NNSS emission sources. In 2020, the potential dose from radiological emissions to air from both current and past NNSS activities was well below the 10 mrem/y dose limit. This is demonstrated by both the air sampling data collected at critical receptor air monitoring stations and CAP88-PC modeling. The average concentrations of radioactivity at air critical receptor stations ranged from 0.2% to a maximum of 4.2% of the allowed NESHAP limit. CAP88-PC modeling of all 2020 NNSS radionuclide emissions showed the maximally exposed individual to be in Amargosa Valley and this individual received a potential dose of 0.063 mrem/y. The collective dose was calculated to be 0.29 person-rem/year for the 521,300 people who lived within 80 km of NNSS emission sources.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

DOE OSTI2020

Using a coupled dispersion model to estimate depletion of a tritium oxide plume by a forest

Tritium processing facilities may release tritium oxide (HTO) to the atmosphere which poses potential health risks to exposed co-located workers and to offsite individuals. Most radiological consequence analyses determine HTO dose by applying Gaussian plume models to simulate the transport of HTO. Within these models, deposition velocity is used to assess the sum of all deposition processes acting on the plume. While this may account for vegetative and soil uptake or respiration processes, it may currently lack inclusion of the complex interactions within heterogeneous forested environments. In this complex morphology, dispersion patterns are significantly altered by changing flow regimes above and below the forest canopy and by the transfer of plume material across the canopy boundary. To determine the effects of a heterogeneous forest canopy on an airborne HTO plume, a Gaussian plume model coupled with an advection-diffusion plume model was applied to estimate transport in the free atmosphere above the forest and within the forest canopy and understory. During 2012, wind speed and wind direction measurements taken at 5 heights, ranging from 2-m to 28-m, on an instrumented meteorological tower located in a loblolly pine forest at the Department of Energy (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS), near Aiken, SC. From these measurements, model predictions were made over a full spectrum of meteorological conditions. Deposition and resuspension velocities were calculated based on the model-predicted flux of plume material across the top of the forest canopy. Additionally, net deposition velocity of the plume material was calculated as the difference between the deposition and resuspension velocities. The 1st and 5th percentile net deposition velocities were estimated to be 0.7 cm s-1 and 1.2 cm s-1, respectively.

63 RADIATION, THERMAL, AND OTHER ENVIRON. POLLUTAN↗

DOE OSTI2020

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants – Radionuclide Emissions (CY 2019)

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

DOE OSTI2022

The Application of a Genetic Algorithm to the Optimization of a Mesoscale Model for Emergency Response

Besides solving the equations of momentum, heat, and moisture transport on the model grid, mesoscale weather models must account for subgrid-scale processes that affect the resolved model variables. These are simulated with model parameterizations, which often rely on values preset by the user. Such “free” model parameters, along with others set to initialize the model, are often poorly constrained, requiring that a user select each from a range of plausible values. Finding the values to optimize any forecasting tool can be accomplished with a search algorithm, and one such process—the genetic algorithm (GA)—has become especially popular. As applied to modeling, GAs represent a Darwinian process: an ensemble of simulations is run with a different set of parameter values for each member, and the members subsequently judged to be most accurate are selected as “parents” who pass their parameters onto a new generation. At the U.S. Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site in South Carolina, we are applying a GA to the Regional Atmospheric Modeling System (RAMS) mesoscale weather model, which supplies input to a model to simulate the dispersion of an airborne contaminant as part of the site’s emergency response preparations. An ensemble of forecasts is run each day, weather data are used to “score” the individual members of the ensemble, and the parameters from the best members are used for the next day’s forecasts. As meteorological conditions change, the parameters change as well, maintaining a model configuration that is best adapted to atmospheric conditions. Significance Statement We wanted to develop a forecasting system by which a weather model is run over the Savannah River Site each day and repeatedly adjusted according to how well it performed the previous day. To run the model, a series of values (parameters) must be set to control how the model will calculate winds, temperatures, and other desired variables. Each day the model was run several times using different combinations of these parameters and later compared with observed meteorological conditions. Parameters that produced the most accurate forecasts were preferentially reused to create the forecasts for the next day. The process was tested for the summer of 2020 and exhibited lower errors than forecasts produced by the model using default values of the parameters.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2025

Turbulent Parameters by airborne measurements over BNF in March 2025

The original data were collected during the AAF Engineering Flights (AEF2025) in the vicinity of the ARM Bankhead National Forest (BNF) Atmospheric Observatory (https://www.arm.gov/capabilities/observatories/bnf ) in northwestern Alabama in March 2025. The ARM Aerial Facility ArcticShark uncrewed aerial system (UAS, https://www.arm.gov/capabilities/observatories/aaf/uas) was based at the public-use airport of Posey Field, Alabama (FAA LID: 1M4, 34.28027778° N, 87.60055556° W, 283m MSL) from March 10 through March 24, 2025. The ArcticShark UAS performed nine flights, including eight research flights over the AMF3 (BNF Main Site) and Supplemental Facilities to measure atmospheric state, turbulence, surface IR temperature and imagery, and aerosol number concentration and size distribution. The current data set presents a collection of turbulent parameters in the atmospheric boundary layer or lower free troposphere based on airborne measurement throughout the field campaign. The primary instruments used to create the current data set were the Aircraft Integrated Meteorological Measurement System (AIMMS-30) and the fine-wire thermocouple probe.

Atmosphere↗

DOE OSTI2025

CHELAX-BNF: Turbulent Parameters by airborne measurements

The original data were collected on board the ARM Aerial Facility ArcticShark uncrewed aerial system (UAS; https://www.arm.gov/capabilities/observatories/aaf/uas ) during the “Characterizing HEterogeneous Land-Atmosphere eXchanges at BNF” field campaign (CHEAX-BNF; https://arm.gov/research/campaigns/aaf2025CHELAX-BNF ). The ARM Aerial Facility ArcticShark UAS was based at the public-use airport of Posey Field, AL (FAA LID: 1M4, 34.28027778° N, 87.60055556° W, 283m MSL) from May 28 through June 23, 2025. The ArcticShark UAS performed 5 flights, including 4 research flights over the BNF Main Site (ARM Mobile Facility 3, https://arm.gov/capabilities/observatories/amf ) and Supplemental Facilities to measure atmospheric state, turbulence, surface IR temperature and imagery, aerosol number concentration, and aerosol size distribution. The current data set presents a collection of turbulent parameters in the atmospheric boundary layer or lower free troposphere based on airborne measurement throughout the field campaign. The primary instruments used to create the current data set were the Aircraft Integrated Meteorological Measurement System (AIMMS-30) and the fine-wire thermocouple probe.

Aircraft Integrated Meteorological Measurement Sys↗