SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
The capital cost estimate for the nuclear process heat source (NPHS) plant was made by: (1) using costs from the current commercial HTGR for electricity production as a base for items that are essentially the same and (2) development of new estimates for modified or new equipment that is specifically for the process heat application. Results are given in tabular form and cover the total investment required for each process temperature studied.
The framework developed in this study is provided both as an excel sheet (https://inl.gov/content/uploads/2023/11/Nuclear-Reactor-Cost-Reduction-Pathway-Spreadsheet-Tool.xlsx) and a Python (Jupyter) Notebook (link: https://github.com/accert-dev/ACCERT/tree/main/Cost%20Reduction). Capital cost considerations are one of the primary inhibitors to the large-scale deployment of nuclear power plants. While it is widely accepted that first units will likely be expensive and relatively uncompetitive, it is reasonable to expect that subsequent units, built in relative quick succession, will be cheaper as they benefit from the so-called “learning effects”. However, the large degree of uncertainty associated with this parameter renders it challenging for first movers to invest in the first few expensive units. To resolve this impasse, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Nuclear Liftoff study advocated for the formation of large, committed order books of plants of the same technology to spread the costs across several units and kickstart the nuclear supply chain. The study also advocated best practices for avoiding overruns and keeping reactors on budget. This report builds on these key recommendations by attempting to quantify specific pathways toward cost reduction for nuclear energy. A capital cost estimation framework was built to untangle the effect of learning into a subset of key cost drivers, referred to as “levers”. Collectively, the choice of these levers is intended to reflect the decision-making of high-level stakeholders like plant owners and the government. In addition to the size of the firm orderbook, these levers included (a) cost drivers that are most often attributed to cost overruns such as architect/engineering (A/E) proficiency, construction proficiency, procurement service proficiency, design completion prior to the start of construction, and design maturity, and (b) cost reduction strategies such as modular construction, cross-site standardization, safety classification of the reactor building, and of the balance of plant. Two advanced reactor designs were leveraged as use cases and bottom-up cost estimates made with assumptions consistent with a well-executed first-of-a-kind project (WE-FOAK, i.e., almost no overruns) were used as baselines for the models. Cost correlations were surveyed from the literature to determine the impact of important variables on projected timelines and costs.
The rapid integration of intermittent renewable sources into the electricity grid is driving the need for more flexible, low-carbon fossil-fuel plants with lower capital costs. This then drives the need to improve the cryogenic air separation unit (ASU). To address this changing landscape, we explore a Praxair single-column ASU (PSC-ASU) design with the goal of reducing costs and improving flexibility, compared to a conventional double-column ASU. The PSC-ASU incorporates partial air condensation and air pre-separation in the bottom reboiler with a phase separator as well as N 2 -enriched vapor condensation in the upper reboiler to decrease energy consumption, as compared to Linde’s single-column ASU. All three of the above-mentioned ASU designs are simulated in Aspen Plus and analyzed. An economic analysis is applied to evaluate the relative cost savings of the PSC-ASU compared to the double-column ASU. Results suggest that the specific energy consumption of the PSC-ASU is significantly lower than that of Linde’s single-column ASU due to a drastically improved oxygen recovery rate. Although this improved oxygen recovery rate is still lower than that of the double-column ASU, the required pressure ratio of the main air compressor is 21% lower than that of the double-column ASU. As a result, the specific energy consumption of the PSC-ASU is only 1.9% greater than that of the double-column ASU for producing 95.1 mol% O 2 . However, the PSC-ASU reduces the hourly capital cost by 19% due to the elimination of a high-pressure column. This would effectively decrease the total hourly cost of the ASU, and thus the total hourly cost of low-carbon, fossil-fuel power plants that require oxygen.
The rapid integration of intermittent renewable sources into the electricity grid is driving the need for more flexible, low-carbon fossil-fuel plants with lower capital costs. This then drives the need to improve the cryogenic air separation unit (ASU). To address this changing landscape, we explore a Praxair single-column ASU (PSC-ASU) design with the goal of reducing costs and improving flexibility, compared to a conventional double-column ASU. The PSC-ASU incorporates partial air condensation and air pre-separation in the bottom reboiler with a phase separator as well as N2-enriched vapor condensation in the upper reboiler to decrease energy consumption, as compared to Linde's single-column ASU. All three of the above-mentioned ASU designs are simulated in Aspen Plus and analyzed. An economic analysis is applied to evaluate the relative cost savings of the PSC-ASU compared to the double-column ASU. Results suggest that the specific energy consumption of the PSC-ASU is significantly lower than that of Linde's single-column ASU due to a drastically improved oxygen recovery rate. Although this improved oxygen recovery rate is still lower than that of the double-column ASU, the required pressure ratio of the main air compressor is 21% lower than that of the double-column ASU. As a result, the specific energy consumption of the PSC-ASU is only 1.9% greater than that of the double-column ASU for producing 95.1 mol% O2. However, the PSC-ASU reduces the hourly capital cost by 19% due to the elimination of a high-pressure column. This would effectively decrease the total hourly cost of the ASU, and thus the total hourly cost of low-carbon, fossil-fuel power plants that require oxygen.
Consideration of the effects of earthquake shaking on the design and construction of nuclear power plants adds substantially to the overnight capital cost, with anecdotal estimates as high as 35+%, attributed to additional construction materials, need for one-off and sub-optimal designs of equipment due to conflicting design choices, the high cost of seismic qualification of equipment, and regulatory review. Safety-critical equipment in large light water reactors is designed and qualified for seismic demands imposed by the supporting reactor building, optimal mechanical designs are not possible, and designs of a given piece of equipment may vary with height above grade. Similar negative impacts are expected for advanced reactors unless the seismic design paradigm is changed. The overarching goal of this transformational MEITNER project, which involved a multidisciplinary engineering team and designers of three fundamentally different advanced reactors, was to adapt proven seismic isolation and damping technologies to operationalize modular protective systems for safety-class equipment inside advanced reactor buildings. Such seismic protective systems would be tightly integrated into design development for reactor support systems and balance-of-plant construction. The adoption of the technology, which is widely used in non-nuclear sectors, would simplify plant design, enable the use of standardized equipment and buildings, optimized for operational performance, and reduce plant size and weight. The need for site-specific equipment would be eliminated, enabling identical equipment to be used across multiple plants sited across the US and economies of scale, and catalyzing new interest and investment. The equipment-based protective systems would allow siting of advanced reactors in regions of high seismic hazard.
The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) regularly updates legacy analysis with new studies and cases as the Department of Energy objectives change, technology performance improves, costs are reduced, regulations change, market drivers are established, fuel prices fluctuate, and any number of other relevant factors vary in the market. As legacy studies are updated by NETL, the underlying performance and cost of the cases presented changes, and as such, the methods for interpreting and scaling the cost estimates change. Therefore, it is important that NETL maintain public guidance documents associated with different sets of cost estimates that delineate how a specific set, based on report vintage and/or year published, should be scaled. This Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies report, providing guidance on capital cost scaling, should generally be applied to NETL case costs included in the report “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity Revision 4b,” (NETL, 2025) or any cases derived from the cases presented in the referenced report.
Natural gas pipeline cost data collected by the Oil and Gas Journal (O&GJ) for interstate pipelines constructed from 1980 through 2017 were used to develop capital cost estimating equations that are a function of pipeline diameter, length, and U.S. region. Equations were developed for material, labor, miscellaneous, and right-of-way costs, the four cost components in the O&GJ data, for six different regions of the United States (U.S.). Each equation is a function of pipeline diameter and length. Adjustment mechanisms were then developed for converting the natural gas pipeline equations into equations for estimating the costs of hydrogen pipelines. These adjustments were based in part on an analysis completed by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). Here the results of this work were used to update cost models in the Hydrogen Delivery Scenario Analysis Model (HDSAM), developed by Argonne National Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Hydrogen Program. Our analysis shows a wide range of pipeline cost across different U.S. regions, especially with respect to labor and right-of-way costs. The developed cost formulas for hydrogen pipelines are both important and timely as hydrogen is being considered as a zero-carbon energy carrier with the potential to decarbonize all energy sectors, and the cost of hydrogen transportation is essential for techno-economic analysis of its potential use in these sectors.
The capacity and generation of wind, solar, storage, nuclear, and gas are estimated for large, idealized copper-plate electric grids. Wind and solar penetrations of 30% to 80% are considered together with different storage systems such as vanadium and lithium-ion batteries, pumped hydroelectric, compressed air, and hydrogen. In addition to a baseline dispatchable fleet without wind/solar, two bounding cases with wind/solar are analyzed: one without storage and one where the whole wind/solar fleet is connected to the storage system, hence providing a buffer between the wind/solar fleet and the grid. The reality will likely be somewhere between these bounding cases. The viability of a power grid with a large wind/solar penetration and no storage is not guaranteed but was nonetheless considered to provide a lower-bound capital cost estimate. Overall, the options that rely strongly on wind, solar, and storage could be significantly more capital-intensive than those that rely strongly on nuclear, depending on the amount of storage necessary to ensure grid stability. This is especially true in the long run because wind, solar, and storage assets have shorter lifetimes than nuclear plants and, consequently, need to be replaced more frequently. More analyses (e.g., grid stability and public acceptance) are necessary to determine which option is most likely to provide the path of least resistance to powering a clean, affordable, and reliable grid in a timely manner. Depending on the priorities, the path of least resistance may not necessarily be the one that is less capital intensive.
Hydropower is a reliable source of renewable energy, and its future expansion is likely to be in the form of either smaller new stream development (NSD) projects or powering existing non-powered dams. Thresholds for entrainment risk to fish and the requirements for fish exclusion at hydropower facilities often differ depending on the species involved, the characteristics of the facility, and the goals of stakeholders, but little quantitative information is present within the literature regarding the specific costs of fish exclusion measures. Cost data associated with protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PM&E) measures related to positive barrier screening were identified using keyword searches of an existing environmental mitigation cost data set and manual extraction from regulatory licensing documents available in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) eLibrary. This approach yielded a total of 50 p.m.&E mitigation measures with estimated capital construction costs pertaining to positive barrier screens and represented <10% of the 171 total FERC project dockets available in the data set. These data were highly skewed toward conventional relicensing projects, as <7% were associated with NSD projects. Results indicate highly variable costs are associated with fish screening, with flow-normalized costs one to two orders of magnitude higher for screening with the highest exclusion capability (≤0.09 in. spacing) compared with coarser screening (1–2 in.). These data provide an initial baseline for estimating exclusion costs for hydropower development and may help developers consider options for more fish-friendly generation technologies, though gaps remain relating to a lack of data, particularly for NSD projects.
Costs are frequently required as part of systems analysis work at NETL. Many of the cost results provided as part of systems analysis work were created with the use of scaling, since obtaining new vendor-supplied cost quotes for each category developed by NETL would be prohibitively time consuming and costly. Additionally, many of the technologies being investigated by NETL have not progressed far enough to have quotable costs. The costs are scaled from a quote for a similar plant configuration by use of various equations that typically employ at least one process parameter (e.g., coal-feed rate, oxidant-feed rate) and often an exponent. The primary purpose of the exponent is to account for economies of scale (i.e., as equipment size gets larger, it gets progressively cheaper to add additional capacity). The purpose of this section of the QGESS report is to provide a standard basis for scaling costs, with specific emphasis on scaling exponents. The intention of having a standardized document is to provide guidelines for proper procedures to reduce the potential of errors and increase credibility through consistency.
Through this DOE funded 3.5-year research project, feasibility of fabricating supercritical carbon dioxide (sCO2) turbine components by powder metallurgy (PM) based near-net-shape (NNS) hot isostatic pressing (HIP) was demonstrated in a turbine nozzle ring, a turbine casing with Haynes 282 powder, and a bimetallic pipe with Haynes 282 and SS415 powder. As-HIP microstructure of various powders and HIP processing conditions was studied to downselect a condition for the prototype components. Tensile strength and low cycle fatigue (LCF) capability of PM HIP 282 was found to be superior to cast 282, despite a debit in creep stress capability that could be mitigated by component design modification. Near-Net-shape with minimal post machining was achieved by modeling the non-uniform shrinkage during HIP cycle and designing the HIP tooling to meet dimensional targets. The prototypes of turbine nozzle ring and bimetallic pipe were successful in achieving overall dimension, microstructure, and properties, despite dimensional tolerance affected by chemical milling rate. The prototype of a 1700lbs turbine casing was partially successful in achieving dimension, microstructure in as-HIP state, and providing consistent mechanical properties, however, cracking issue during post heat treatment required further investigation. The estimated manufacturing cost using NNS HIP was a ~50% reduction compared to forging with extensive machining, which translated into ~$100/kWe CAPEX cost reduction for concentrated solar power (CSP) power block.
Air transport is a continually expanding industry, a fact that has become even more evident with the recovery of the aviation industry post-COVID-19. This expansion amplified energy consumption at airports, which was already significantly high. Airport decision-makers are increasingly focusing on improving sustainability and addressing social, economic, and environmental criteria across airports worldwide. In this article, we propose a decision-making model for identifying a sustainable airport technology solution that minimizes the energy consumption of airport lighting while considering economic, emission, and life-cycle criteria. The proposed model combines data envelopment analysis and multi-criteria decision making techniques. We applied the model to the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) as a case study, considering eight lighting technology solutions, each with five luminous flux alternatives. Our model identified the best lighting technology solution for DFW outdoor and indoor environments based on the following criteria: luminous flux, capital costs, life-cycle costs, energy consumption, and emissions (CO2e, NOx, SO2, and PM2.5). The designed model is customizable to any airport and is applicable to a wide range of airport lighting technologies. In our analysis, Light-Emitting Diode lighting emerged as the most sustainable technology option. It ranked first in most cases due to its balance of high efficacy, long lifespan, low life-cycle cost, low capital cost, and lower emissions across all pollutants.
The potential economic benefit of small solar thermal electric power systems to small municipal and rural electric utilities is assessed. Five different solar thermal small power system configurations were considered in three different solar thermal technologies. The configurations included: (1) 1 MW, 2 MW, and 10 MW parabolic dish concentrators with a 15 kW heat engine mounted at the focal point of each dish, these systems utilized advanced battery energy storage; (2) a 10 MW system with variable slat concentrators and central steam Rankine energy conversion, this system utilized sensible thermal energy storage; and (3) a 50 MW central receiver system consisting of a field of heliostats concentrating energy on a tower-mounted receiver and a central steam Rankine conversion system, this system also utilized sensible thermal storage. The results are summarized in terms of break-even capital costs. The break-even capital cost was defined as the solar thermal plant capital cost which would have to be achieved in order for the solar thermal plants to penetrate 10 percent of the reference small utility generation mix by the year 2000. The calculated break-even capital costs are presented.
Examines the performance and cost of pairing variable renewable energy (VRE) sources with compressed air energy storage and hydrogen production through PEM electrolysis. Sensitivities were performed on H2 cost, PEM electrolyzer capital cost, and hydrogen cavern capital cost. The analysis shows that the cost of VRE has the most impact on the overall cost results.
Concentrating solar power (CSP), when coupled with a supercritical carbon dioxide (sCO 2 ) power cycle and sensible heat storage, presents a renewable and clean alternative for utility-scale power generation. However, in order to be competitive in the current and future markets, CSP facilities must limit their levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) by minimizing capital costs and reducing operating costs over the lifetime of the plant. Targeting this goal, this study investigates the LCOE impact of the power cycle pre-cooler. This study considers a compact dry cooler with micro-channel technology on the CO 2 side and formed fin geometry on the air side, using directly-coupled centrifugal fans and a transition duct to improve air distribution across the fins as well as protect the fins from contaminants which may cause blockage, soiling, fouling, and damage. In an effort to better understand the dry cooler impact on LCOE, a sensitivity study was conducted using various combinations of end-to-end approach temperatures, air-side pressure drop values, CO 2 -side pressure drop values, fan types, cooler turndown control schemes, cooler module sizes, and design-point ambient temperatures. Furthemore, off-design cycle performance data was calculated for each dry cooler design using NPSS simulation software; cycle performance data were then input to System Advisor Model (SAM) along with the associated capital costs for LCOE prediction of a 100 MW system over a 30 year plant lifetime. Results of this study show the LCOE is most sensitive to air-side performance, followed by heat transfer effectiveness and capital cost. It was found that a power cycle with a mid- to high-performance dry cooler will produce the most competitive power-production costs. Designing at the extreme ends for approach temperature (or effectiveness), design-point ambient temperature, and compactness (footprint) produce higher LCOE values; mid-range values for these parameters balance performance, operating costs, and associated capital cost to optimize LCOE.
Energy auditing has been cited as a key tool in closing the gap between the actual energy consumption in industrial facilities and what should be at an environmentally sustainable level. Several factors affect the likelihood that energy audits will be effective in closing that gap, and more analysis is needed to understand these factors, especially for developing nations. This study compares three energy efficiency measures (EEMs) frequently recommended in both the United States and Guatemala, namely, installing solar panels to generate electricity, installing higher-efficiency lighting, and upgrading to premium efficiency motors. The implementation of each of these EEMs contributes to more sustainable energy consumption, and each of these EEM’s payback periods is affected by capital costs, energy costs, and other local factors analyzed in this study. Projected payback periods for each EEM based on Guatemalan and U.S. capital cost and energy cost ranges are assessed via EEM-specific payback period calculations and compared to the energy audit data from each country. While lower capital costs incentivize EEM implementation and reduce payback periods, there is an interplay between energy cost and capital cost that impacts the trends in the U.S. and Guatemala. As in the case of the solar panel installation EEM, though Guatemalan companies pay ~110% more for electricity than U.S. companies, when Guatemalan capital costs are lower, payback periods are lower than in the U.S. Conversely, in cases where Guatemalan capital costs are higher—as for higher-efficiency lighting and motor installation—Guatemalan payback periods are roughly the same as those in the U.S. because of the higher Guatemalan energy costs.
Various silicon hybrid systems are modeled and compared with a gallium arsenide hybrid system. The hybrid systems modeled produce electric power and also thermal power which can be used for heating or air conditioning. Various performance indices are defined and used to compare the system performance: capital cost per electric power out; capital cost per total power out; capital cost per electric power plus mechanical power; annual cost per annual electric energy; and annual cost per annual electric energy plus annual mechanical work. These performance indices indicate that concentrator hybrid systems can be cost effective when compared with present day energy costs.