SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “variable renewable energy”

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.

315 records · Page 18

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2012

Understanding Climate Policy Data Needs. NASA Carbon Monitoring System Briefing: Characterizing Flux Uncertainty, Washington D.C., 11 January 2012

Climate policy in the United States is currently guided by public-private partnerships and actions at the local and state levels. This mitigation strategy is made up of programs that focus on energy efficiency, renewable energy, agricultural practices and implementation of technologies to reduce greenhouse gases. How will policy makers know if these strategies are working, particularly at the scales at which they are being implemented? The NASA Carbon Monitoring System (CMS) will provide information on carbon dioxide fluxes derived from observations of earth's land, ocean and atmosphere used in state of the art models describing their interactions. This new modeling system could be used to assess the impact of specific policy interventions on CO2 reductions, enabling an iterative, results-oriented policy process. In January of 2012, the CMS team held a meeting with carbon policy and decision makers in Washington DC to describe the developing modeling system to policy makers. The NASA CMS will develop pilot studies to provide information across a range of spatial scales, consider carbon storage in biomass, and improve measures of the atmospheric distribution of carbon dioxide. The pilot involves multiple institutions (four NASA centers as well as several universities) and over 20 scientists in its work. This pilot study will generate CO2 flux maps for two years using observational constraints in NASA's state-of -the-art models. Bottom-up surface flux estimates will be computed using data-constrained land and ocean models; comparison of the different techniques will provide some knowledge of uncertainty in these estimates. Ensembles of atmospheric carbon distributions will be computed using an atmospheric general circulation model (GEOS-5), with perturbations to the surface fluxes and to transport. Top-down flux estimates will be computed from observed atmospheric CO2 distributions (ACOS/GOSAT retrievals) alongside the forward-model fields, in conjunction with an inverse approach based on the CO2 model of GEOS ]Chem. The forward model ensembles will be used to build understanding of relationships among surface flux perturbations, transport uncertainty and atmospheric carbon concentration. This will help construct uncertainty estimates and information on the true spatial resolution of the top-down flux calculations. The relationship between the top-down and bottom-up flux distributions will be documented. Because the goal of NASA CMS is to be policy relevant, the scientists involved in the flux modeling pilot need to understand and be focused on the needs of the climate policy and decision making community. If policy makers are to use CMS products, they must be aware of the modeling effort and begin to design policies that can be evaluated with information. Improving estimates of carbon sequestered in forests, for example, will require information on the spatial variability of forest biomass that is far more explicit than is presently possible using only ground observations. Carbon mitigation policies being implemented by cities around the United States could be designed with the CMS data in mind, enabling sequential evaluation and subsequent improvements in incentives, structures and programs. The success of climate mitigation programs being implemented in the United States today will hang on the depth of the relationship between scientists and their policy and decision making counterparts. Ensuring that there is two-way communication between data providers and users is important for the success both of the policies and the scientific products meant to support them..

Brown, Molly E.↗

DOE OSTI2025

Nature of innovations affecting photovoltaic system costs

Innovations improve technology costs through various kinds of engineering advancements, including changes to materials choices and device or process designs. Understanding how these innovations relate to cost change can reveal aspects of the process of technology evolution, yet developing such understanding is often not possible with a strictly quantitative approach due to data limitations. In this paper we develop a hybrid quantitative-qualitative framework for relating specific innovations to cost change by using the variables in a quantitative technology cost change model as an organizing principle. We demonstrate this framework by applying it to the cost decline in photovoltaic (PV) systems over the last five decades. This framework generates new understanding of a set of innovations that contributed to PV modules’ sustained cost decline and the more modest trends observed in balance-of-system (BOS) costs. The results show the great diversity of innovations that affected PV costs, drawing on wide-ranging fields of expertise within scientific research and practice. We find that there are differences in the characteristics of innovations that reduced the cost of PV modules compared to innovations influencing BOS costs. Numerous module innovations reduced costs by advancing manufacturing tools and processes that improved material quality. Many BOS innovations reduced costs through a combination of component design changes, integration, automation, digitalization, and standardization. Overall, most innovations in our sample affected PV hardware. However, some also target ‘soft technologies’ such as task durations through innovations like fast-track permitting, which require improved collaboration and process streamlining. This framework also provides insight into the nature of knowledge spillovers between technologies. Both module and BOS hardware innovations show the benefits of PV’s position within an ‘ecosystem’ of continuously advancing technologies in many industries, in particular semiconductors and electronics, and also point to the importance of public institutions for accelerating testing, permitting, and training.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2026

Differences in cluster and internal wake effects from mesoscale and large-eddy simulations off the US East Coast

Mesoscale simulations are increasingly used to estimate wake effects within and between large wind farms, despite limited validation for large-scale wake effects. This study evaluates the capabilities and limitations of mesoscale simulations in capturing wake-induced impacts on wind turbine power production through a direct comparison with large-domain large-eddy simulations (LESs) for three planned offshore wind farms under realistic atmospheric conditions and a range of atmospheric stabilities. We assess mesoscale performance in replicating wake characteristics behind single and multiple turbine clusters and quantify the resulting variability in mean turbine power. Results show that mesoscale Weather Research and Forecasting simulations with the Fitch wind farm parameterization capture key features of the velocity deficit downstream of both single and multiple wind farms, with mean root-mean-square errors near 5 % and good agreement with stability-driven wake behavior. However, in these simulations, the mesoscale Fitch parameterization underestimates power losses from internal wake effects, particularly when turbines align with the prevailing wind direction or under stable stratification. In these conditions, individual wakes persist and dominate downstream power deficits. The coarse resolution of the mesoscale simulations limits their ability to resolve individual wind turbine wakes that drive power fluctuations within wind farms. Nonetheless, mesoscale simulations can yield accurate estimates of combined wake losses from internal and cluster effects across some wind direction sectors, where errors in wake representation may cancel each other out. These findings underscore the strengths of mesoscale simulations for capturing broader wake patterns while highlighting their limitations for modeling turbine-level power losses. Future work should explore hybrid modeling approaches to capture both long-range cluster wake propagation and localized internal wake dynamics.

17 WIND ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2025

Investigating the relationship between simulation parameters and flow variables in simulating atmospheric gravity waves for wind energy applications

Wind farms, particularly offshore clusters, are becoming larger than ever before. Besides influencing the surface wind flow and the inflow for downstream wind farms, large wind farms can trigger atmospheric gravity waves in the inversion layer and the free atmosphere aloft. Wind-farm-induced gravity waves can cause adverse pressure gradients upstream of the wind farm, which contribute to the global blockage effect, and can induce favorable pressure gradients above and downstream of the wind farm that enhance wake recovery. Numerical modeling is a powerful means of studying these wind-farm-induced atmospheric gravity waves, but it comes with the challenge of handling spurious reflections of these waves from domain boundaries. Typically, approaches which employ radiation boundary conditions and forcing zones are used to avoid these reflections. However, the simulation setup of these approaches relies heavily on ad hoc processes. For instance, the widely used Rayleigh damping method requires ad hoc tuning to produce a setup that may only produce satisfactory results for a particular case. To provide more systematic guidance on setting up realistic simulations of atmospheric gravity waves, we conduct a large-eddy simulation (LES) study of flow over a 2D hill and through a wind farm canopy that explores the optimum domain size and damping layer setup depending on the fundamental parameters which determine the flow characteristics. In this work, we only consider linearly stratified conditions (i.e., no inversion layer), thereby focusing on internal gravity waves in the free atmosphere and their reflections from the domain boundaries. This type of flow is governed by a single Froude number, which dictates most of the internal wave properties, such as wavelength, amplitude, and direction. This, in turn, will dictate the optimum domain size and Rayleigh damping layer setup. We find the effective horizontal and vertical wavelengths (the representative wavelengths of the entire wave spectrum) to be the appropriate length scales to size the domain and damping layer thickness, and the optimal Rayleigh damping coefficient scales with the Brunt–Väisälä frequency. Considering Froude numbers seen in wind farm applications, we propose recommendations to limit the reflections to less than 10 % of the total upward-propagating wave energy. Typically, damping is done at the top boundary, but given the non-periodic lateral boundary conditions of practical wind farm simulation domains, we find that damping the inflow–outflow boundaries is of equal importance to damping the top boundary. The Brunt–Väisälä frequency-normalized damping coefficient should be between 1 and 10. The damping layer thickness should be at least one effective vertical wavelength; damping layers exceeding 1.5 times the vertical wavelength are found to be unnecessary. The domain length and height should accommodate at least one effective horizontal and vertical wavelength, respectively. Moreover, Rayleigh damping does not damp the waves completely, and the non-damped energy might accumulate over the simulation time.

17 WIND ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2025

Dataset: "Widespread Drought-driven Declines in Streamflows and Water quality in the Upper Colorado River Basin (1998-2022)"

This data package contains the associated data and scripts for Nagamoto, E., Ombadi, M., Ciulla, F. et al. Widespread drought-driven declines in streamflows and water quality in the Upper Colorado River Basin during 1998-2022. Commun Earth Environ 7, 734 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-026-03890-5. This purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of the 21st century drought on water quantity and quality at catchments throughout the Upper Colorado River Basin (UCRB). We used stream flow, water temperature, specific conductance, air temperature, precipitation, and catchment attribute data for over 200 sites in the UCRB, collected from the National Water Information System using Basin3D (Varadharajan, 2023), GAGESII (Falcone, 2010), and the Google Earth Engine. We identified years of severe drought between 1998 and 2022 using the Standardized Precipitation Evaporation Index (SPEI), then calculated the relative change percentage of the stream flow, water temperature, and specific conductance from drought versus non-drought years. We used the attribute information from GAGESII to investigate what physical traits of catchments are associated streamflow vulnerability (greater relative change) or resilience to drought. We used land cover data from the National Land Cover Database (USGS, 2024) to assess any changes to physical attributes that may not be represented in the static attributes information in GAGESII. To increase data availability, we modeled stream temperature using methods from Willard, 2023. While the study period is water years 1998 to 2022, the raw water quantity and quality data extends to 1950 and the meteorological data extends to 1980. The data and code can be downloaded via the UCRB_drought.zip. Within the zip, the files are organized as follows: - INPUTS: Contains all input data used in UCRB_Drought_Workflow.ipynb - OUTPUTS: Contains all intermediate data created from UCRB_Drought_Workflow.ipynb as well as final products including the calculated Standardized Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI) - climatic_variables: The code used to collect meteorologic data from Google Earth Engine - feature_importance: The code used for the catchment attributes analysis - preprocessing: Code used in UCRB_Drought_Workflow_Preprocessing.ipynb - pyeto: Code used in UCRB_Drought_Workflow_Preprocessing.ipynb - calculations: Code used in UCRB_Drought_Workflow_Impacts.ipynb - plotting: Code used in UCRB_Drought_Workflow_Impacts.ipynb - README.md - UCRB_Drought_Workflow_Preprocessing.ipynb: The code used to prep raw data for the analysis - UCRB_Drought_Workflow_Impact.ipynb: The code which uses the prepped raw data for analysis, and plots all figures - requirements_ucrb-drought_v2.yml: The requirements file to create a virtual environment and Jupyter Lab kernel to run the code The INPUTS folder is organized into the following major directories and sub-directories. The "RDC_WT_SC_RAW" folder contains raw data for streamflow, water temperature, and specific conductance in a ".h5" file. The "NLCD_RAW" folder contains ".csv" files with annual land cover percentages for counties within the UCRB. The "MET_RAW" folder contains a ".csv" file with monthly meteorological data (air temperature and precipitation) for the sites in the UCRB which was obtained from code in the climatic_variables folder. The "GAGESII" folder contains ".csv" files with physical catchment attribute variables for catchments across the country. The "WT_LSTM_data" folder contains ".csv" files with calculated WT (Willard, 2023) and the associated RMSEs. The "Upper_Colorado_River_Basin_Boundary" folder contains geographic data including a shapefile for plotting in the UCRB_Drought_Workflow.ipynb. The "RESERVOIRS_RAW" folder contains ".csv" files for each reservoir in the UCRB with daily reservoir storage. There are also two files in the INPUTS folder that have combined reservoir storage data and reservoir metadata. The OUTPUTS folder is organized into the following major directories and sub-directories. The "RDC_WT_SC_data" folder contains a folder "Water_year" with the associated cleaned data, metadata, and data availability information in ".csv" files, a folder "Median_Relchange" with the relative change comparing drought to non-drought years in ".csv" files, and a folder "Peak95_Min5_Relchange" that has ".csv" files for the relative change in peak (95th %) and minimum (5th %) variables. The "NLCD_data" folder contains the difference in land cover from the beginning to end of the study period and the percentage of the county that is within UCRB bounds can be found in Nagamoto et al (2025)). The "MET_data" folder contains separated monthly air temperature and precipitation data and the calculated PET in ".csv" files. The "SPEI_data" folder contains ".csv" files with calculated SPEI values (one restricted to the study period and the other with information from the entire MET data period). The "Paper_Tables" folder contains two ".csv" files containing site information and data availability and information about the GAGESII trait aggregated categories. The base directory includes the file “flmd.csv” for a list and description of all files and the file “dd.csv” for data dictionaries. Scripts for preprocessing, analysis, and figure generation are located in the associated GitHub repository found at [https://github.com/iNAIADS/drought-impacts/tree/develop/UCRB-drought]. UPDATE 1: Title and code file updated to match submitted manuscript 10-15-2025. UPDATE 2: Code and data files updated to match revised manuscript 3-4-2026. UPDATE 3: Code and data files updated to match revised manuscript 6-7-2026. ** NOTE: DD and FLMD have not been updated yet. UPDATE 4: Added associated Manuscript information and DD and FLMD have been updated. To cite this code, please use the following BibTeX: @misc{nagamoto2025drought, author = {Emily Nagamoto and Fabio Ciulla and Mohammad Ombadi and Jared Willard and Rosemary Carroll and Charuleka Varadharajan}, title = {Dataset: "Widespread Drought-driven Declines in Streamflows and Water quality in the Upper Colorado River Basin (1998-2022)"}, year = {2025}, doi = {10.15485/2551894}, publisher = {ESS-DIVE Repository}, url = {https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/2551894} }

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2025

Packages of Distributed Energy Technologies Demonstrating Demand Flexibility at Community Scale

The combination of increased electric load growth across all sectors, deferred electrical infrastructure investment, and other factors resulting in variable electric power supply, has created technical challenges to maintaining a resilient and reliable grid. Many federal, regional, and local efforts are in play to modernize the electric grid, including advancing building technologies and distributed energy resources (DERs) that are utilizing smarter controls to become responsive to both occupant and grid needs. This report reviews ten pilot projects demonstrating how groups of buildings combined with behind-the-meter (BTM) DERs such as electric vehicle (EV) charging, battery storage, flexible HVAC and domestic hot water systems, and photovoltaic systems can reliably and cost effectively provide grid services. Each of the ten pilot projects aim to deliver both energy efficiency and demand flexibility (DF) while supporting load growth. The ten demonstration teams are piloting flexible DER packages across diverse communities of residential and commercial buildings to address a variety of regional grid needs. The outcomes of these pilot projects will be used to inform future scaling through utility program development. This paper characterizes the ten teams, showcasing the decision-making process used by each group to develop their packages (Section 2), the grid services they plan to deliver (Section 3), the types of DER packages selected for deployment within building sectors (Section 4) and trends between building sector, DER types, and grid services In order to achieve community scale benefits, the pilot projects must utilize aggregated control mechanisms for coordinating buildings and DERs together. Several types of coordinated control architectures have evolved amongst the teams, influenced by use type, existing market conditions, and integration type. Three coordinated controls architectures have been characterized, highlighting their use cases, benefits, challenges, and tradeoffs in their design. These insights can aid utilities, control vendors, and developers in scaling community-level energy systems (Paul, 2024). Ultimately, the technology packages selected by the ten teams will be coordinated to provide power system services, also known as grid services. Insights from these demonstrations will be useful for grid operators, regulators, aggregators and other stakeholders as they look to deploy demand flexible resources as grid services in the future. The grid services that each team is targeting for demonstration are described in Section 3 and Section 4. Methods for evaluating the grid services have been described in the paper Metrics for Evaluating Grid Service Provision from Communities of Grid-interactive and Efficient Buildings and other DER (MacDonald, 2023). To identify technology packages for demonstration, Section 2 shows that project teams used a range of analysis approaches, including building energy modeling, AMI data analysis, cost-benefit frameworks, and utility pilot data. Some teams emphasized technical modeling to quantify grid impacts and demand reduction potential, while others prioritized economic evaluations, stakeholder input, or exploratory pilots to inform deployment decisions. This diversity reflects the need to tailor selection methods to project goals, available data, and organizational context. Section 5 discusses trends between the DER technologies deployed and the grid service provisions from each team. Residential buildings (multifamily and single family) lean towards technologies that enhance energy efficiency (e.g. weatherization upgrades, smart thermostats) and onsite power generation integration (e.g. solar PV). Commercial building demonstrations prioritize technologies that ensure operational reliability (e.g. battery storage) and centralized energy management systems and optimization solutions. Teams that are deploying controllable storage-based technologies are more likely to provide grid services that require a near real-time response. Teams incorporating load shifting technologies like smart thermostats with HEMs are likely to include energy markets participation and customer bill management offerings. Campus demonstrations are adopting diverse sets of DERs to emphasize renewable generation, paired with centralized control. This section also describes technologies that were considered during project planning but ultimately excluded from final deployment. These demonstrations reveal that effective DER package design should be tailored to building type, customer segment, and construction vintage. Multifamily buildings benefit from centralized HVAC upgrades and supervisory controls, while single-family homes are well-suited for individualized technologies like solar, storage, and smart home energy monitors. Commercial and campus settings prioritize EMIS integration and load optimization. New construction enables cost-effective integration of DER-ready infrastructure, whereas retrofits require deployments aligned with owner and tenant value streams. For utility program planners, early coordination with developers and building owners, paired with segmented and modular program offerings, can improve adoption, scalability, and grid impact.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

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 OSTI2026

Data for Greenhouse Gas Accounting Procedures in Low Carbon Fuel Policies Overlook the Spatial Variability of Miscanthus-Derived Sustainable Aviation Fuel

Low carbon fuel policies such as the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), Canada Clean Fuel Regulations (CFR), and California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) as well as the 45Z tax credit are intended to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transportation. Cellulosic feedstocks, optimized biorefineries, and favorable farming locations can significantly reduce biofuel carbon intensity (CI). Despite advances in field-to-fuel GHG monitoring and flexibility in resource allocation within biorefineries (e.g., governing net electricity production), rigid CI accounting procedures in current policies may limit CI responsiveness across candidate sites and processing facilities. This work examines a hypothetical biomass-to-sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) pathway using miscanthus and alcohol-to-jet (i) to demonstrate how GHG accounting requirements drive estimates of biofuel CIs and (ii) to explore potential CI and financial implications of scenario-specific life cycle assessment (LCA). Results demonstrate that GHG accounting using the CFR/LCFS can reasonably account for distinct levels of net electricity production by a biorefinery, but only the CFR yields similar CI sensitivity to spatially explicit factors (feedstock CI, grid electricity CI) as scenario-specific LCA: most GHG accounting frameworks do not capture CI variation across candidate sites in the United States. Ultimately, this work demonstrates the importance of LCA methodological specifications in low carbon fuel policies and tax credits.

Miscanthus↗

DOE OSTI2026

Integrated geological, economic, and risk assessment of underground hydrogen storage

Underground hydrogen storage (UHS) is a promising option to buffer variable renewable power and support the hydrogen economy. Yet this technology is early-stage, and key uncertainties remain about how coupled processes such as geochemical and geomechanical impacts affect long-term storage security. In this paper, we seek to integrate the results from a large, multi-scale research program to quantify core feasibility metrics and situate these studies within ongoing efforts. Through this work, we evaluate hydrogen recoverability during storage by assessing diffusive losses, losses to geochemical interactions and their subsequent impact on geomechanical properties, and losses to residual saturation during injection and withdrawal. Molecular and laboratory studies show that lithologic heterogeneity, pore geometry, and mineral surface chemistry govern hydrogen–rock interactions, controlling loss pathways. High-pressure coreflooding is used to estimate relative permeabilities and measure parameters needed for reservoir-scale sensitivity analyses. These core-scale experiments found early hydrogen breakthrough at low saturations driven by capillary and viscous fingering, which limits pore-space utilization at early times, while repeated injection and withdrawal cycles improve deliverability over time. Technoeconomic factors and purity requirements for end uses are also considered as part of our comprehensive feasibility analysis. Finally, we underscore the importance of geophysical monitoring and tailored injection strategies to maintain integrity and efficiency. Together, these results provide a quantitative foundation for safe, scalable deployment of UHS and highlight priorities for future integrated studies.

08 HYDROGEN↗