Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “levelized cost of driving”

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.

219 records · Page 13
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Cost Efficient and Highly Weather-Resistant Solar Panel Backsheet Produced through Continuous Co-Extrusion Processing

The efficient generation and delivery of ‘clean energy” through photovoltaic (PV) technology relies heavily on the cost, performance and reliability of solar panels, along with the individual components used in assembly of those panels. In order to continue towards the Department of Energy’s (DOE) goals of driving costs down, the lifetime of high-output power generation equipment (i.e. solar modules) must be extended to reduce costs associated with power output degradation and replacement of failed or degraded panels. One of the major sources of module failures in the past 30 years has been the failure of the solar panel backsheet. Failure of this component causes severe output losses due to oxidation and yellowing of the module while creating safety concerns as the major electrical insulation of the module is compromised. Tomark-Worthen LLC was formed in 2012 with the goal of designing and manufacturing novel PV backsheets and encapsulants that would be produced in the United States of America and exceed expectations of domestic and international module producers. These backsheets would improve upon known backsheet design failures (i.e. Isovoltaic’s AAA backsheet) and create domestic manufacturing jobs in the PV sector. This goal became a reality with a first-generation product in 2018 and now, with the support of the DOE, Tomark-Worthen has launched a second-generation product known as PhotoMark® Reflections™ 205-3 and 360-3. This 2+ year effort began in late 2017 with a screening of potential polymeric materials and backsheet structural designs. Performance evaluations of each material provided the necessary data needed to select the proper material combinations and move forward into the design of the manufacturing process. These decisions were made by teaming with a local university, well-respected government laboratories, and private research organizations who provided the tools necessary to predict long-term performance of these materials in much shorter periods of time. Once the go/no-go criteria were met at the mid-point of the project, the effort transitioned to predicting 30+ year performance, achieving certifications, and improving manufacturing efficiencies designed to lower costs in order to be competitive in a cost-driven market. Major project accomplishments include recognition of the new backsheet by Underwriters Laboratories (UL) and international certification for 1000V and 1500V modules by TUV Sud. Both 1000V and 1500V products have been proven on several module manufacturing lines and initial customer orders have been received by both domestic and international module producers. Accelerated exposure testing has shown that the performance of this backsheet exceeds the prior polyamide-based backsheet known to fail in the field. Cost-models and initial customer orders have shown the ability to produce this backsheet at a cost acceptable to many domestic manufacturers, while International costs for standard backsheet remains extremely low. Tomark-Worthen remains one of the only U.S. companies manufacturing backsheet domestically and this has drawn interest from many domestic module manufacturers looking to improve their material supply logistics by avoiding long lead times and custom’s headaches while avoiding current tariffs on Chinese-made components. Along with the launch of a new PV backsheet, this project has provided a critical deliverable to the PV R&D community. This deliverable is the knowledge that not all polyamide-containing backsheets are doomed to failure as the earlier versions did. There has been a fear amongst the PV community to consider these materials due to the failure of one design. This effort has brought a new level of interest to the scientific community as it has been shown that polyamides can be used successfully in a well-designed backsheet. As we move forward from this project, we are excited to see how backsheet technology and manufacturing in the U.S. will continue to progress and grow.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Subtask 2.6 – Optimization of Aerosol Mitigation Technology for Postcombustion CO 2 Capture

Growing concerns over the impact of CO 2 emissions from combustion sources on global climate change have prompted numerous research and development projects aimed at developing cost-effective technologies for CO 2 capture. One family of technologies being demonstrated at pilot and full scale globally is postcombustion CO 2 capture (PCCC) systems that employ amine-based solvents. The captured CO 2 can be compressed and permanently stored underground or used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR). The proximity of North Dakota’s lignite-fired fleet of power plants to potential CO 2 storage options creates a unique atmosphere for PCCC within the state. However, the aerosols present in lignite flue gas present a challenge for large-scale PCCC at North Dakota power plants. Aerosols can negatively impact the long-term performance of amine-based solvents for CO 2 capture. Amine-based solvents are volatile, and aerosols provide nucleation sites where amine vapors can condense. Because aerosols cannot be easily captured at the column outlet using conventional technologies, the amine-laden aerosols escape the system and lead to accelerated solvent losses. Moreover, aerosol components can chemically react with amines to form degradation products that can permanently deactivate the amine, cause fouling, and lead to hazardous emissions. Many of the elements that have been shown to catalyze solvent degradation are present in lignite coals and can exacerbate solvent replacement economics. Understanding this issue is critical to the implementation of solvent-based CO 2 capture systems as applied to lignite-fired generation systems. The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) designed and carried out this project to optimize aerosol mitigation technology for PCCC at a lignite-fired power plant. To meet the goal of this project, the following objectives were identified: Determine the effectiveness of a wet electrostatic precipitator (WESP) on collection of aerosols at a low-rank coal-fired power station. Determine the impact of aerosols on the efficiency and degradation products of amine-based carbon capture systems fired with low-rank fuels. Work was conducted at Minnkota Power Cooperative’s (MPC’s) Milton R. Young (MRY) Station Unit 2 using a slipstream of flue gas from the outlet of the plant’s flue gas desulfurization (FGD) unit. To gather initial data for sizing and specifying a WESP for this system, a temporary pilot-scale WESP was rented and installed on-site. Several different conditions were tested to examine the impact of flow rate, voltage, and current on WESP performance. The WESP was effective at removing large particulate (>200 nm) but caused an increase in fine particulate (<75 nm). Fine particulate material at the inlet and outlet of the WESP was collected, analyzed, and showed that crystalline sulfates carried over from the plant’s FGD unit were being converted to fine aerosols and SO 2 was being converted to SO 3 through the WESP. Additionally, the high moisture content of the flue gas stream at this sample location also contributed to an overall increase in aerosol mass under some of the test conditions. Using the results from the rented WESP, the project team installed a smaller-scale WESP upstream of the EERC’s slipstream CO 2 capture system. Flue gas was routed through a pilot-scale FGD unit to remove SO 2 to very low levels (~1 ppm) and then through a direct contact cooler (DCC) to further cool the gas and to remove moisture. The gas exiting the DCC was then routed through the new WESP before passing to the CO 2 absorber columns. Fluor’s amine-based solvent was used to scrub CO 2 from the slipstream through a set of two absorber columns. The rich solvent was regenerated in a stripper column by heating to drive off captured CO 2 . The system operated using a catch-and-release method where the CO 2 was separated to provide data on the process, but the captured CO 2 was released back into the host site stack. Aerosols and sulfur species were measured at multiple locations throughout the pilot-scale system. The inlet FGD and DCC removed much of the particulate matter and gaseous sulfur upstream of the WESP. With this configuration, the WESP achieved >95% particulate capture. The new WESP did not show any of the increases in SO 3 or other aerosol species that had been consistently observed with the larger-scale WESP installed immediately downstream of the plant’s full-scale FGD unit. Particulate samples captured and analyzed from the WESP inlet did not show any presence of crystalline sulfate materials, indicating that the pilot-scale FGD and DCC were efficient at reducing carryover from the plant’s full-scale FGD unit. A set of parametric tests were conducted on the new WESP to assess the impacts of flow rate, voltage, number of online WESP fields, and gas-phase sulfur content on aerosol and sulfur transformations. The results showed that the WESP performed similarly well at all sets of conditions. Sulfur and particulate matter exiting the WESP were further reduced through the absorber column as the amine-based solvent captured some of the residual contaminants. Solvent analysis showed that these species were slowly concentrating in the solvent over the duration of the test. When the WESP was taken offline and the sulfur slip through the FGD allowed to rise, the sulfate content in the solvent rose sharply, showing that the extra FGD and WESP were effective at reducing sulfate and cation uptake. This would be expected to extend amine-based solvent life by slowing the formation of heat-stable salts and other degradation products. This subtask was cofunded through the EERC–U.S. Department of Energy Joint Program on Research and Development for Fossil Energy-Related Resources Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FE0024233. Nonfederal funding was provided by the North Dakota Industrial Commission and MPC.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2023

Hybrid Power Plants: Status of Operating and Proposed Plants, 2023 Edition [Slides]

Improving battery technology and the growth of variable renewable generation are driving a surge of interest in “hybrid” power plants that combine, for example, wind or solar generating capacity with co-located batteries. While most of the current interest involves pairing photovoltaic (PV) plants with batteries, other types of hybrid or co-located plants with wide-ranging configurations have been part of the U.S. electricity mix for decades. This annually updated briefing tracks and maps existing hybrid or co-located plants across the United States while also synthesizing data from power purchase agreements (PPAs) and generation interconnection queues to shed light on near- and long-term development pipelines. The scope includes “co-located hybrids” that pair two or more resources (e.g., multiple types of generation and/or generation with storage) that are operated largely independently behind a single point of interconnection, and “full hybrids” that also feature coordinated operations of the co-located resources. The focus is on plants with one megawatt (MW) or more of capacity; smaller (often behind-the-meter) projects are also increasingly common, but are not included in this data synthesis. Key findings from the latest briefing include: -At the end of 2022, there were 374 hybrid plants (>1 MW) operating across the United States (+25% compared to the end of 2021), totaling nearly 41 GW of generating capacity (+15%) and 5.4 GW/15.2 GWh of energy storage (+69%/+88%). PV+storage plants are by far the most common, dominating in terms of plant number (213), storage capacity (4.0 GW/12.5 GWh), storage:generator capacity ratio (49%), and storage duration (3.1 hours). But there are nearly twenty other hybrid plant configurations as well, including several different fossil hybrid categories (each dominated by the fossil component) as well as wind+storage, wind+PV, wind+PV+storage, geothermal+PV, and others. -Last year was another strong year for PV+storage hybrids in particular: 59 of the 62 hybrids added in 2022 were PV+storage. As of the end of 2022, there was roughly as much storage capacity operating within PV+storage hybrid plants as in standalone storage plants (~4 GW each). In storage energy terms, however, PV+storage edged out standalone storage by ~2 GWh (12.5 GWh vs. 10.4 GWh, respectively). -Interconnection queue data show continued strong developer interest in hybridization. At the close of 2022, there were 51% more hybrid plants—representing 59% more generating capacity—in interconnection queues across the United States than there were at the end of 2021. Solar dominates these proposed plants as well: at the close of 2022, there were 457 GW of solar capacity proposed as a hybrid (representing ~48% of all solar capacity in the queues), most typically pairing PV with battery storage. At the same time, there were 24 GW of wind capacity proposed as a hybrid (representing ~8% of all wind capacity in the queues), again most-often pairing wind with storage. Meanwhile, more than half of all storage in the queues is estimated to be part of a hybrid plant. While many of the plants proposed in the queues will not ultimately reach commercial operations, the depth of interest in hybrid plants—especially PV+storage—is notable, particularly in certain regions. For example, in CAISO, 97% of all solar capacity and 45% of all wind capacity in the queues is proposed as a hybrid. -The report also surveys power purchase agreement (PPA) price data from a sample of operating and proposed PV+storage plants. Though PV+storage PPA prices have fallen over time, “levelized storage adders” have recently increased somewhat to ~$\$ $7000/MW-month, ~$\$ $60/MWh-stored (assuming one full cycle per day), or ~$\$ $15/MWh-PV. Some of the recent price increase could simply reflect a trend towards higher battery:PV capacity ratios over time, which increases costs, all else being equal. The well-publicized impact of inflationary and supply chain pressures on battery prices is no doubt a contributor as well.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗