SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “fuel source density”

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.

236 records · Page 14

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2025

CERF: IM3 Projected Western US Power Plant Locations

Overview The Capacity Expansion Regional Feasibility (CERF) model is an open-source geospatial python package that provides new power plant locations at a 1km resolution. The model ingests U.S. state or regional-scale electricity system capacity expansion plans, such as those produced by the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM-USA), and identifies feasible, site-specific locations for individual new power plants (renewable and non-renewable). CERF combines high-resolution geospatial suitability analyses with an economic algorithm that selects individual plant siting locations based on grid interconnection costs and the locational marginal value of new generation. The model incorporates a wide range of dynamic constraints and opportunities, such as protected lands, population density, existing infrastructure, and water availability. This dataset provides CERF power plant siting results for IM3 Phase 2 simulations across eight different scenarios for the Western US through 2055. The scenarios include combinations of two Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP3 and SSP5) with four high-resolution climate projections specific to the United States (see, https://tgw-data.msdlive.org/). These climate projections include "hotter" and "cooler" variants for two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The resulting eight simulations are: rcp45cooler_ssp3 rcp45cooler_ssp5 rcp45hotter_ssp3 rcp45hotter_ssp5 rcp85cooler_ssp3 rcp85cooler_ssp5 rcp85hotter_ssp3 rcp85hotter_ssp5 CERF siting results in this dataset correspond to capacity expansion plans in the GCAM-USA IM3 Phase 2 simulation data and are available for each of the above scenarios. Data Details Temporal Range: 2015-2055 in 5-year timesteps. Note that 2015 is the experiment base year and 2020 and beyond represent model simulation years. Spatial Range: Plant locations are provided for the eleven states in the Western US including Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Spatial Resolution: 1 km-squared, provided in x and y coordinates Geospatial Projection: Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) File Type: csv The dataset contains subdirectories for each of the eight scenarios described in the overview. Each scenario folder contains two subfolders with the following information: 1. Power Plant Data This directory contains a single .csv file of power plant locations for both pre-existing (non-CERF sited plants in operation in 2015) and new (CERF-sited) power plants across the temporal range along with additional CERF model output parameters for CERF-sited plants. Plant with a siting year earlier than 2020 correspond to facilities that are operational leading into the first timestep CERF simulation. For a more detailed description of CERF model output parameters, see the CERF model documentation. Note that the cerf_plant_id parameter is unique within each scenario file but not across scenario files. Parameter Descriptions scenario - Name of scenario cerf_plant_id - Unique siting identifier cerf_sited - If True, indicates that plant was sited by CERF model. If False, indicates pre-existing facility region_name - Name of region (state) tech_id - Technology ID tech_name - Full generation technology name inclusive of cooling type (if applicable) and additional characteristics tech_simple - Simplified generation technology type unit_size_mw - Power plant unit size (MW) xcoord - X coordinate in the default CRS (meters) ycoord - Y coordinate in the default CRS (meters) index - Index position in the flattend 2D array buffer_in_km - Exclusion buffer around site (km) sited_year - Year of siting retirement_year - Year of retirement lmp_zone - Locational marginal price (LMP) zone ID locational_marginal_price_usd_per_mwh - Locational marginal price ($/MWh) generation_mwh_per_year - Generation output (MWh/yr) operating_cost_usd_per_year - Cost of plant operations ($/yr) net_operational_value - Net operational value based on LMP and and operating costs ($/yr) interconnection_cost - Cost of interconnection for transmission & gas pipeline (if applicable) net_locational_cost -- Difference of interconnection cost and operating value ($/yr) capacity_factor_fraction - Capacity factor (fraction) carbon_capture_rate_fraction - Carbon capture rate (fraction) fuel_co2_content_tons_per_btu - Fuel CO2 content (tons/Btu) fuel_price_usd_per_mmbtu - Fuel price ($/MMBtu) fuel_price_esc_rate_fraction - Fuel price escalation rate (fraction) heat_rate_btu_per_kWh - Heat rate (Btu/kWh) lifetime_yrs - Technology lifetime for annuity (years) operational_life_yrs - Operational lifetime for retirement (years) variable_om_usd_per_mwh - Variable operation and maintenance costs of yearly capacity use ($/MWh) variable_om_esc_rate_fraction - Variable operation and maintenance costs escalation rate (fraction) carbon_tax_usd_per_ton - Carbon tax ($/ton) carbon_tax_esc_rate_fraction - Carbon tax escalation rate (fraction) 2. Storage Data This directory contains information on new and pre-existing energy storage facilities operational in each timestep along with various storage operational parameters. The 2015 timestep provides pre-existing energy storage data and corresponds with facilities that are operational leading into the first model simulation timestep. Note that coordinates in the storage files correspond to the interconnection point on the grid (substation location), not individual energy storage locations. Energy storage is added in a cumulative process at each given interconnection point. That is, each individual file provides the total operational storage capacity interconnected to the specified substation for the given timestep, inclusive of previously installed storage at that location and new storage installed in that timestep at that location. Parameters scenario - Name of scenario timestep - Simulation timestep name - Unique storage identifier s_typ - Type of energy storage technology (battery or pumped storage hydro) s_node - Node ID of interconnecting substation xcoord - X coordinate in the default CRS (meters) ycoord - Y coordinate in the default CRS (meters) charge_rate - Maximum charge rate (power capacity) of storage system (MW) discharge_rate - Maximum discharge rate (power capacity) of storage system (MW) duration - Duration of storage system (hours) max_SoC - Allowed maximum state of charge (energy capacity) of storage system (MWh) min_SoC -Allowed minimum state of charge (energy capacity) of storage system (MWh) charge_eff - Efficiency of charge (fraction between 0 and 1) discharge_eff - Efficiency of discharge (fraction between 0 and 1) Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program.

CERF↗

DOE OSTI2023

Hawai‘i Play Fairway (Final Report)

Most of Hawai'i's geothermal resources are blind—their manifestations, such as hot springs and steam vents, do not appear on the ground surface because the heated water flows far below. With the exception of $K\bar{i}lauea East Rift Zone$, in most areas of Hawai'i, high lateral permeability in the first kilometer below ground surface prevents surface thermal features from developing. As a methodology for discovering these blind resources, Play Fairway Analysis (PFA) involves finding potential locations of blind hydrothermal systems and describing potential geothermal sources in rift-zone settings. Using the PFA to find Hawai'i's geothermal resources, the University of Hawai'i (UH) conducted the Hawai‘i Play Fairway Project, Hawai'i's first statewide geothermal resource assessment since 1985. Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, the Hawai'i Play Fairway Project provided an updated resource assessment, a roadmap for additional exploration activities, and the identification of areas for further exploration. Benefitting from UH's core competency in earth sciences and experienced geothermal researchers, the project comprised three phases. During the first phase, the team identified, compiled, and ranked existing geologic, groundwater, and geophysical datasets relevant to subsurface heat, fluid and permeability. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, the team developed a statistical methodology to integrate these data into a resource probability map. The team evaluated the confidence in the probability value and considered development viability of areas with geothermal resources. With these analyses, the team identified 10 locations in the Hawaiian Islands for exploration activities. For the second phase, the team collected new groundwater data in 10 locations across the state and new geophysical data on $L\bar{a}na‘i, Maui$, and central Hawai'i Island and modeled topographically induced stress to better characterize subsurface permeability. Analyzing the subsurface stresses, the team evaluated the potential for fracture-induced permeability. The team inverted the MT and gravity data to produce 3D models of resistivity and density, respectively, on $L\bar{a}na‘i$, across $Haleakal\bar{a}'s$ SW rift (Maui), and surrounding Mauna Kea (Hawai‘i Island). The team developed and applied a new method for incorporating depth information about resistivity, density, and potential for fracture-induced permeability into the statistical method for computing resource probability in these three focus areas. The team incorporated the new groundwater results with the new geophysical results and the calculations of potential for fracture-induced permeability to produce updated maps of resource probability and confidence. Through combining data from the first and second phases, the team determined locations for further exploration during the third phase. For MT and gravity surveys, the team recommended $Kaua'i's$ $L\bar{i}hu'e$ $Basin$, the east rift of $Maui's$ $Haleakal\bar{a}$ volcano, and the southwest rift of Hawai'i Island's Mauna Loa volcano. The MT and gravity surveys aimed to enable improved confidence in the resource potential in these locations. For drilling deep groundwater well(s), the team recommended Southeast Mauna Kea and $L\bar{a}na's$ $P\bar{a}l\bar{a}wai$ $Basin$. During the third phase, further exploration involved drilling a groundwater well in $L\bar{a}na's$ $P\bar{a}l\bar{a}wai$ $Basin$ and performing more geophysical surveys. We deepened an existing water well proximal to our target area on $L\bar{a}na'i$ due to funding constraints that precluded us from spudding a new well that would exceed 1km depth. Drilling was preceded by a number of substantial elements including: writing an Environmental Assessment and the subsequent legal process, performance of deviation logging, lowering a camera down the well, coordinating site preparation with $P\bar{u}lama$ $L\bar{a}na'i$, shipping the UH-owned rig interisland, procuring supplies, and leading 3 community meetings on $L\bar{a}na'i$. Drilling occurred 24/7 the entire month of June 2019 over which time $L\bar{a}na'i$ $Well$ 10 was deepened from 427 m to 1057 m, with continuous core collected. We measured a roughly linear temperature gradient averaging 42°C/km and a maximum bottom hole temperature of 66°C. This gradient is more than twice the background for Hawai'i and within a range of gradients measured in this depth range for some exploration wells within KERZ. We consider these results encouraging for $L\bar{a}na'i's$ resource potential and recommend following with a slim hole within $L\bar{a}na'i's$ caldera (our target zone) to ~ 2 km. Further, the positive implications such results have for the island of O‘ahu are substantial - the shield stage of O'ahu's volcanoes ended 1-2 My earlier. However, O'ahu uses more electricity than the rest of the islands combined, and the utility recently called for 500-700MW of firm, dispatchable renewable electricity on O'ahu by 2033. In Phase 3, we also collected limited new encouraging groundwater data, and updated our thoughts on the probabilities of fluid and permeability at resource depths (Pr F = 1; Pr P = mostly unconstrained). Ultimately, we advocate for using our final probability of heat, and confidence in this probability, to drive the next phase of exploration. We contend further development of geothermal in Hawai‘i will enable the state to achieve its 100% renewable policy objective and Hawai'i to transition off of fossil fuels through geothermal discovery and development. The project not only produced a large amount of data and expanded the existing knowledge of Hawai'i's geothermal resources, but also produced publications, theses, presentations, core photos, datasets, media reports, television interviews, community events, and a blog. Students and new professionals benefitted from the project's hands-on research experiences and educational opportunities and earned awards and recognition.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗