Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Storage”

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 217 records · Page 12
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Techno-Economic Optimization of Advanced Energy Plants with Integrated Thermal, Mechanical, and Electro-Chemical Storage (Final Report)

The increasing use of renewable energy sources is leading to increased cycling of fossil-fueled power plants (FFPP) that are designed to operate at base-loaded conditions. Integrating energy storage facilities with the FFPPs can be helpful in reducing load-following operation of FFPPs. Decentralized deployment of energy storage facilities at the FFPP level has considerable advantages due to possibilities of smaller storage capacities, immediate benefits realized by the host power plant due to the increase in the efficiency, cleaner emission and higher plant life to name a few. Most importantly, deployment at the FFPP level can exploit the existing equipment items and facilities at the host power plant, thus reducing the CAPEX and reducing the storage capacity. However, realization of these benefits will critically depend on novel configuration/integration strategies with the least impact on the power plant operation and its configuration. Furthermore, dynamics of the entire integrated system including both the FFPP and the storage technologies must be taken into account to obtain the cost-optimal solution. With these motivations, the objective of this project was to complete a focused evaluation of decentralized deployments of energy storage facilities at the FFPP level. Promising thermal, chemical, mechanical, and electro-chemical storage technologies were evaluated with due consideration of their transient response to obtain various optimal system concepts that can minimize the levelized cost of storage. For thermal storage, cryogenic energy storage along with high temperature heat storage in molten salt as well as phase change material were evaluated. For mechanical storage, cryogenic air storage and pumped hydro storages were evaluated. For chemical storage, hydrogen storage was evaluated. For electrochemical storage, the team evaluated sodium sulfur, vanadium redox flow battery as well as Li-ion batteries. Integration of these storage technologies with the natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) and supercritical pulverized coal (SCPC) plants was considered. Six technologies, namely molten salt, cryogenics, compressed air, pumped hydro, H2 storage and Li-ion battery storage, were downselected based on their levelized cost of storage. It was observed that the ranking of the optimal storage technology can differ based on the host power plant technology even when same demand/supply/price profile for electricity are considered. It was also observed that as the variability in power demand varies, the ranking of the optimal storage technologies vary. However, for the same demand and LMP profile, top six optimal storage technologies for NGCC vs SCPC plants did not differ much even though LCOS for the same technology and optimal size of a given storage technology did differ. Detailed techno-economic assessment of these six technologies was undertaken.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2024

Techno-Economic Analysis and Market Potential of Geological Thermal Energy Storage (GeoTES) Charged With Solar Thermal and Heat Pumps

In this project, we developed a techno-economic analysis (TEA) model that can be used to evaluate the viability of a proposed Geological Thermal Energy Storage (GeoTES) design. This MATLAB-based model integrates distinct subsystem models for the reservoir, wells, power cycle, and solar field to capture their distinct characteristics. It applies this approach in simulating GeoTES storage and dispatch operations for durations ranging from hourly to seasonal. Using cases studies based on GeoTES designs provided by industry partners - Premier Resource Management (PRM) and EarthBridge Energy - we validated the TEA model estimations of system performance and costs (such as thermal and electrical power/energy inflow and outflow, capital costs, and levelized costs of energy and storage) for both concentrating solar thermal (CST) and Carnot Battery (CB) pairings with GeoTES (CST-GeoTES and CB-GeoTES). For the CST-GeoTES case, the model was validated against the proposed system designed by PRM. It showed good agreement with PRM's estimations when well and pump costs derived from PRM's estimations were used. When GETEM-based costs were used, there was a slight overprediction due to GETEM's project/site agnostic assumption of these costs. From a sensitivity analysis perspective, the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) of the CST-GeoTES case was most sensitive to well flow rate and the charging temperature. An optimal design scenario resulted in an LCOE of 0.11 $\$$/kWhe. CST-GeoTES can also provide a source of heat to meet seasonal demands. With 12-hour and 24-hour levelized cost of heat (LCOH) of 0.018 $\$$/kWhth and 0.022 $\$$/kWhth, respectively, CST-GeoTES could be competitive in the California market with an average industrial price of natural gas in California between 0.041-0.047 $\$$/kWhth. The levelized cost of storage (LCOS) for CST-GeoTES depends on the energy storage duration. Although the LCOS is relatively higher for shorter durations (e.g., ~0.50 $\$$/kWhe for 1 hour of storage), it is an order of magnitude lower (0.06 $\$$/kWhe) for longer storage durations and competitive with lithium-ion batteries (beyond 12 hours of storage) and molten-salt thermal energy storage (beyond 32 hours). Energy. Three options were explored and applied to the EarthBridge case study: (1) A Carnot Battery design using R125 working fluid with both hot and cold storage; (2) A Carnot Battery design using R125 working fluid with only hot storage; (3) A Carnot Battery using a commercially available heat pump with carbon dioxide (CO2) working fluid and hot storage only. The CB-GeoTES with cold storage only had a slight (round-trip) efficiency advantage over the system without (43.4% vs. 42.8%). This is because the cold storage is limited by the freezing point of water, so the cold storage is not much colder than the environment. The system using commercially available technologies was the least efficient - partly because different cycles were used in the heat pump (CO2) and heat engine (binary cycle) which leads to some inefficiencies. Using the commercially available design, the levelized cost of energy (LCOS) from the model (0.10 $\$$/kWhe) was higher than that estimated by EarthBridge (0.068 $\$$/kWhe). This is because of the low round-trip (38.7%) efficiency of the commercially available design. Sensitivity analysis reveals that the model is most sensitive to electricity price. Including electricity price in the TEA for CB-GeoTES leads to an increase in LCOS from the base value to 0.25 $\$$/kWhe. To determine storage sites suitable for GeoTES, we gathered and analyzed geological, petrophysical, and geophysical data of oil and gas reservoir and aquifers in California and Texas. We down-selected possible sites based on cut-off values for site characteristics (e.g., reservoir temperature, formation thickness, permeability, porosity, depth, and brine salinity) and preliminary costs. Using this approach, the Carrizo-Wilcox, Yegua-Jackson, and Dockum brackish aquifers in Texas were identified as having the highest suitability. Similarly, in the central California region, the White Wolf, Belridge South Tulare, and Belridge South Reef Ridge were the most suitable. Going further, we assessed the storage potential in the selected sites. To do this we developed distributions of reservoir characteristic data and applied a Monte Carlo-based analysis to account for intrinsic uncertainty in the acquired data. The analysis revealed that the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer had the highest storage potential with a mean capacity of 554 TWhth (i.e., 63 TWhe). The estimated capacity serves as an upper limit of storage potential given that not all fields in the basin will be developed. We participated in multiple outreach activities including conference presentations, panel session discussions, and the facilitation of a GeoTES workshop at the NREL Golden campus.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

THESEUS: A techno-economic design, integration and downselection framework for energy storage

Optimal selection of energy storage technologies is critical to ensure reliable integration of intermittent and often uncertain renewable energy in electricity grids. The consideration of a diverse set of energy storage technologies is required for a more sustainable deployment of energy storage. We present THESEUS (TecHno-Economic framework for Systematic Energy storage Utilization and downSelection), which is a comprehensive framework for the optimal selection, design and operation of energy storage systems. THESEUS includes rigorous models of major energy storage technologies at different maturity levels, such as thermal storage using phase-change materials or molten salt, cryogenic storage, mechanical storage in the form of compressed air and pumped hydro storage, chemical storage using hydrogen, and electrochemical storage in the form of lithium-ion, sodium sulfur and vanadium flow batteries. An illustrative case study on state-wide prospective energy storage shows that storage integration with fossil power plants could reduce the cost of meeting the grid energy demand by 20%, with mechanical storage as the best suited technology. Although high-temperature thermal storage has low storage efficiency, it is optimal for integration with renewable energy plants. In addition, Li-ion batteries are optimal for high ramping but low storage duration requirements. Furthermore, such insights can enable the deployment of both existing and emerging energy storage technologies to facilitate a smooth transition to a clean energy future.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2025

Energy storage in combined gas-electric energy transitions models: The case of California

California’s vision for a net-zero future by 2045 relies heavily on variable renewable energy systems. Thus, energy storage - particularly long-duration storage - could play a fundamental role in reliably supplying low-carbon electricity. We study energy storage using the BRIDGES model, a combined gas-electric capacity expansion model for California across multiple investment periods (2025-2045), modeled with progressively decreasing carbon emission targets to a zero emissions by 2045. This least-cost optimization model includes renewable gas production via power-to-gas, long-term storage of energy in gaseous form, electric energy storage such as through batteries and hydrogen storage, and renewable energy generation, all with capacity tracking and investment. Multiple scenarios are evaluated to examine the sensitivity of the optimal storage portfolio to system-level and sector-level parameters. The scenario results show that all electric energy storage systems - which vary in storage duration - are deployed and required in a net-zero California in 2045, amounting to around 75 GW of storage capacity. Lithium ion systems make up approximately 80% of this power capacity and supply most short-run storage needs. Hydrogen storage - in the form of a power-to-gas-to-power system - emerges as a replacement to conventional natural gas storage, comprising most of the total energy storage capacity (~ 4 TWh). This capacity is less than 5% of the current natural gas storage capacity (94 TWh), indicating sufficient room for repurposing part of the gas infrastructure. A demand-side sensitivity analysis proves that higher electricity demand correlates with more builds of Li-ion batteries, while higher industrial heat demand leads to more builds of long-duration storage systems in a net-zero economy. Furthermore, power-to-gas systems satisfy part of the industrial heat demand by locally supplying renewable gas, which overtakes the traditional centralized gas storage and transfers through pipelines, casting significant doubts on the future of the large-scale gas infrastructure.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Williston Basin Resource Study for Commercial-Scale Subsurface Hydrogen Storage

The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), the EERC’s State Energy Research Center (SERC), MPLX Operations LLC, and TC Energy Development Holdings Inc. (a subsidiary of TC Energy Corporation), studied the potential for subsurface hydrogen storage and recovery in the Williston Basin of western North Dakota. The project’s goal was to evaluate the feasibility of large-scale, secure geologic H 2 storage to support future hydrogen generation, storage, and use. This work included laboratory testing, H 2 –rock–fluid exposure experiments, literature reviews on H 2 embrittlement, and reservoir modeling and simulations. The study included an assessment of storage potential across three types of storage reservoirs using both reservoir simulation and DOE’s web-based tool SHASTA-HELP (Subsurface Hydrogen Assessment, Storage, and Technology Acceleration – Hydrogen Estimator for Logistical Planning), as well as investigation of potential H 2 production and markets for commercial-scale deployment. Building on prior EERC gas storage research, three storage options were selected for detailed evaluation: the Broom Creek Formation (a clastic saline reservoir), the Dickinson Lodgepole Mounds (DLM) complex (carbonate mud mound structures) of the Lodgepole Formation (an active oil and gas producing reservoir), and the Dunham Salt Interval of the Piper Formation (to be used for engineered salt cavern development). These targets were prioritized based on prior EERC research using datasets related to seal capacity, reservoir quality, mechanical integrity, and injectivity. Exposure tests on Broom Creek and DLM samples showed mineral dissolution and precipitation that increased brine salinity and altered reservoir rock surfaces. Although these results provide useful insight, they are limited by small sample sizes and short-term (30-day) exposure, requiring further study to assess long-term storage integrity. Salt formations were not tested because of their known nonreactivity and established mechanical stability. Results of reservoir simulations performed for a single site demonstrated that the Broom Creek Formation may be capable of receiving up to 42,000 tonnes of injected H 2 over 7 months via one well. H 2 recovery took place over 5 months, resulting in approximately 26,000 tonnes (~62% without cushion gas [CG]). This work suggests water production may be important and subsequent cycles of injection and production may perform more efficiently; however, significant site-specific work in the future is needed to assess actual reservoir performance of injection and withdrawal of H 2 storage. For oil reservoir potential, a multiple-well model was used to simulate injection of approximately 32,000 tonnes of H 2 into a single wellbore while simultaneously producing in place reservoir fluids from four offset wells to maintain reservoir pressure. The simulation results suggested a high recovery (~98%); in addition, cost advantages through existing infrastructure could be realized. Challenges in this reservoir include vi managing gas purity and leakage risks. In both scenarios, production of H 2 takes place in a single-well scenario with 10 cycles (7 months of injection and 5 months of production) over 10 years. Finally, the use of engineered caverns in the Dunhan Salt was evaluated, and the results suggest that while they have a smaller capacity (<1000 tonnes per cavern), they exhibit nearly complete gas recovery (>99%), fast response times, and low purity risk. While caverns in North Dakota may be smaller in capacity, fields can be developed in galleries to accommodate the volumetric needs and rapid turnaround times necessary to meet market demands. Geographic limitations and thin salt intervals in North Dakota may represent less total storage potential than salt domes elsewhere, but significant opportunities exist to expand this market for gas storage in North Dakota. A basinwide assessment was performed to estimate a first-of-its-kind value for H 2 storage on a large scale. DOE’s SHASTA-HELP, combined with EERC simulation work, was used to perform the assessment. Estimated H 2 storage potential varied widely for each formation type. The Broom Creek saline formation was estimated to have a storage potential of approximately 1.7–90.5 million tonnes (MMt). The DLM oil reservoirs were estimated to have 0.07–0.19 MMt of capacity. Notably, each of these estimates relies on significant assumptions regarding reservoir thickness, porosity, permeability, and CG needed for operation. Much research is needed to understand the true site-specific storage resource potential of each formation. Using the Dunham Salt Interval for cavern development may result in as much as 4.79 MMt (up to 2.87 MMt working gas) of H 2 storage potential. An important note for consideration is that the values presented here need significantly more geological characterization and engineering assessments prior to gaining confidence in performance. This will be a focal point for future research and development needs. The basinwide evaluation also indicated that North Dakota has significant H 2 generation potential, with estimates up to a possible 13 MMt annually, suggesting a substantial opportunity for H 2 market development and thus the need for commercial-scale H 2 storage to facilitate growth and resilience. Key Recommendations 1. Conduct detailed site characterization (3D seismic, well logs, core sampling) to reduce geologic uncertainty. 2. Perform techno-economic analyses incorporating market, regulatory, and incentive frameworks. 3. Investigate long-term interactions among H 2 , CGs, well materials, and formations to assess risks. 4. Develop pilot- and field-scale demonstrations to validate models and establish best practices.

03 NATURAL GAS↗