Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “BESS”

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 343 records · Page 19

Multiport Control with Partial Power Processing in Solid-State Transformer for PV, Storage, and Fast-Charging Electric Vehicle Integration

This article proposes a multiport control method to enable partial power processing (PPP) in a medium-voltage (MV) multiport solid-state transformer (SST). MV multiport SSTs are promising in integrating low-voltage DC sources or loads such as solar photovoltaic, energy storage, and electric vehicles into smart grids without bulky line-frequency transformers. Compared to voltage-source SST, current-source (CS) SST features single-stage isolated bidirectional AC/AC, AC/DC, or DC/DC conversion using an inductive DC link. For a multiport CS SST, it is revealed in this article that the PPP capability can be enabled through the proposed control without extra hardware, different from the case of voltage-source converters where special hardware architecture is required for the PPP. With the PPP, most power exchange between LV ports is processed by only a fraction of the entire conversion stage, leading to reduced DC-link current, volume, loss, and improved efficiency. The proposed multiport PPP control scheme is analyzed to verify the advantages across a wide voltage and power range against conventional full power processing (FPP) multiport control, using the soft-switching solid-state transformer (S4T) with reduced conduction loss as an example. Comparative experimental results based on a SiC three-port S4T prototype verify the effectiveness of the proposed PPP scheme against the FPP scheme under both steady state and dynamic conditions. Here, the DC-link current reduction is measured to be more than 36%. Significantly, the proposed multiport PPP control scheme is generic and applicable to any hard-switching or soft-switching CS SSTs without extra hardware.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

Nuclide inventory characterization of EBR-II MOX fuel test pins

Characterization of 3 mixed oxide (MOX) fuel pins from the Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR-II) SPA-2/-2B experiment program was performed in support of the Advanced Reactor Experiments for Sodium Fast Reactor Fuels (ARES) joint project between Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA). The characterization efforts were performed to enable transient testing in the Transient Reactor Test (TREAT) facility at INL and will include post irradiation examination (PIE) and other analyses. MOX fuel pins UW02009, 02011, and 06024 were historically irradiated from 1989 to 1994 for a total of 822.42 effective full power days (EFPDs) and peak burnup of approximately 14.3 at.% (atomic percent of heavy metal atoms, ∼134.4 GWd/t). They had since been placed in storage until a future use was identified. Characterization of the fission products and activation of each fuel pin was necessary to enable removal from storage and subsequent irradiation testing or PIE activities. The initial fuel pin geometry and composition were established using historical documentation. Irradiation history details were utilized to compute irradiated and decayed fuel pin masses, atomic densities, and activities. A pellet-wise axial neutron flux was also computed to assist in evaluation of the axial distribution of {sup 235}U and {sup 239}Pu, per pellet, within each of the test fuel pins. The results computed herein supported experiment design for advanced high-burnup MOX fuel designs under slow transient overpower (MOXTOP) conditions, which was Phase I of the ARES project. (authors)

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

Initial Efforts Organizing WPNCS SG-8: Preservation of Expert Knowledge and Judgement Applied to Criticality Benchmarks

The Working Party on Nuclear Criticality Safety (WPNCS) under the guidance of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has over 20 years of experience addressing concerns related to static and transient configurations encountered within the nuclear fuel cycle: fuel fabrication, transportation, reprocessing, storage, and geological disposal. One of the cornerstone activities of the WPNCS is the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project (ICSBEP), which was established to identify a comprehensive set of criticality benchmark data, evaluate the data, including quantification of overall uncertainties; compile the data into a standardized format, perform sample calculations utilizing modern nuclear data sets and codes utilized in nuclear criticality safety, and formally document the work into a single source of verified benchmark data. Annually, members of the ICSBEP Technical Review Group (TRG) contribute evaluated benchmark data that undergoes comprehensive technical review prior to publication in the ICSBEP Handbook. In the years since the ICSBEP was established, there has been much work to prepare benchmark data to support validation activities in nuclear criticality safety. The 2020 edition of the ICSBEP Handbook contains acceptable benchmark specifications for 5,053 critical, subcritical, or near-critical configurations in 582 benchmark evaluations. Modern benchmark development benefits from decades of experienced international participants, a well-established handbook format, supplementary guides to deal with uncertainty quantification, and a comprehensive review process based upon independent reviews from international experts. The ICSBEP Handbook also contains 838 configurations deemed unacceptable to support criticality safety efforts. They are recorded, with the reasoning for their rejection, to preserve the experimental data, prevent reevaluation of data that are incomplete or contain known errors, and/or to potentially allow future reevaluation of the experiment pending the identification of sufficient data to resolve identified inconsistencies and errors. Users of the ICSBEP Handbook today might notice that the rigor and quality of modern criticality safety benchmarks is much greater than those prepared within the initial decade of the project. Benchmarks with 1s uncertainties in k eff greater than 1% were traditionally rejected unless they were identified as unique experiment types that encompassed materials, fuels, or designs not available from other benchmark experiments. However, benchmarks developed using modern experimental techniques and practices typically have uncertainties on the order of a few tenths of a percent. There have been ongoing efforts to improve the overall quality of previously published benchmark evaluations. Seventy-eight evaluations, containing approximately 600 configurations, have been revised just within the past decade. An additional eleven benchmarks are under revision for updated release in the 2020 edition of the ICSBEP Handbook. If some of the historic benchmarks were resubmitted in their current form to the TRG today, they would be rejected due to lack of data, missing components in the uncertainty analysis, or incomplete benchmark model development. The use of historic criticality safety benchmarks that underestimate the total uncertainty, lack properly quantified biases, or provide inadequate benchmark specifications do not sufficiently support modern criticality safety and nuclear data efforts. Although the ICSBEP Handbook is recognized by regulating bodies to support criticality safety, users are required to justify their reasons to ignore historic benchmark data and include additional safety margins within their designs. Discussions were held at the WPNCS 23rd Annual Meeting in September 2019 regarding the aforementioned issues. The resultant decision was to establish Subgroup 8 (SG-8): Preservation of Expert Knowledge and Judgement Applied to Criticality Benchmarks. The current activities of SG-8 are discussed herein.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

Computational Data Associated with the publication: Formation of a Decanuclear Organometallic Dysprosium Complex via a Radical–Radical Cross–Coupling Reaction

Over the years, polynuclear cyclic or torus complexes have attracted increasing interest due to their unique metal topologies and properties. However, the isolation of polynuclear cyclic organometallic complexes is extremely challenging due to their inherent reactivity, which stems from the labile and reactive metal‐carbon bonds. In this study, the pyrazine ligand undergoes a radical‐radical cross‐coupling reaction leading to the formation of a decanuclear [(Cp*)20Dy10(L1)10] ⋅ 12(C7H8) (1; where L1 = anion of 2‐prop‐2‐enyl‐2H‐pyrazine; Cp* = pentamethylcyclopentadienyl) complex, where all DyIII metal centres are bridged by the anionic L1 ligand. Amongst the family of polynuclear Ln organometallic complexes bearing CpR2Lnx units (CpR = substituted cyclopentadienyl), 1 features the highest nuclearity obtained to date. In‐depth computational studies were conducted to elucidate the proposed reaction mechanism and formation of L1, while probing of the magnetic properties of 1, revealed slow magnetic relaxation upon application of a static dc field.

Bajaj, Neha↗

Status Report for NEET In-Pile Sensor Irradiation Capabilities at TREAT

The recently-established in-pile sensor development project under the Nuclear Energy Enabling Technology (NEET) program is focused on the development of measurement technologies to enable acquisition of data focused on the performance, properties, and boundary conditions of nuclear fuels/materials under irradiation in nuclear reactors. These sensors can be used in steady state irradiation tests to measure parameters of interest under conditions representing normal nuclear plant operation, or in transient irradiation tests to determine specimen performance under postulated unplanned conditions. In either case, development of suitable sensor technologies must include instrument irradiations to help guide sensor material/design selection, verify instrument performance, and demonstrate deployment viability. The Transient Reactor Test facility (TREAT) while just a part of the overall capabilities portfolio needed to enable this sensor development mission, has unique capabilities and characteristics that make it well poised for a number of instrument irradiation data objectives including sensor survivability screening, response characterization, qualification tests, and in-situ properties measurements. TREAT’s brilliantly-basic design, when married with appropriate irradiation hardware and analytic capabilities, fills a crucial capability gap between out-of-pile testing and irradiation in steady state high power research reactors. Leveraging a recently developed approach to irradiation testing in TREAT, the present work demonstrates that cost-effective and scientifically-impactful instrument irradiation capabilities for TREAT are a well-placed capability in the NEET in-pile sensor development project.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Enhancing TREAT's pulsing abilities using TREAT upgrade fuel. SULI Intern Report

The Transient Reactor Test Facility (TREAT) at Idaho National Laboratory is an air-cooled, thermal, heterogeneous facility used to test reactor materials in simulated accident conditions by inducing fission heating with intense neutron pulses. TREAT operated from 1959 until 1994 with the primary goal of testing fast reactor fuels and was brought back online in 2017 to re-establish DOE’s nuclear fuels transient testing capabilities. Beginning in the late 1970s, Idaho National Laboratory worked in conjunction with other organizations to increase TREAT’s capability for in-pile testing. While these upgrades had not been implemented by the time the reactor was put into standby mode, new assemblies and graphite-urania fuel blocks with increased uranium concentrations had already been designed and fabricated. This project, as part of Idaho National Laboratory’s Department of Reactor Physics, modeled the TREAT Upgrade (TU) fuel assemblies in MCNP and implemented them in an existing TREAT model. Calculations were performed using INL’s high performance computer to find a critical combination of TU and standard fuel and this geometry’s excess reactivity. Future work will include calculating a power coupling factor in the experiment, determining power peaking factors throughout the core, and assessing how much reactivity would be added by replacing the Inconel-625 cladding with silicon carbide.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

Grid-Scale Battery Storage: Frequently Asked Questions

As costs continue to decline, jurisdictions are seeking to deploy increasing levels of utility-scale battery energy storage. This Greening the Grid document provides system planners and regulators with fundamental information about battery energy storage including which services these devices are capable of, how these devices interact with renewable energy and what barriers exist to their broader deployment.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Will Solar Panels Help When the Power Goes Out? Planning for PV Resilience

PV systems, like all energy systems, must chart a difficult course in order to improve resilience. They need to simultaneously withstand extreme conditions that cause grid power disruptions, be configured in a way that allows electricity to be delivered to meet the PV user's needs, and overcome disruptions arising from solar resource intermittency. Certain considerations reveal themselves as key to a PV system's resilience benefits. Choice of hardware is critical, as is site selection for the PV array. Voluminous evidence in a hurricane context demonstrates that durable hardware, properly maintained and sited, leads to PV systems surviving extreme weather with their functionality intact. Structurally weak or poorly maintained PV equipment, on the other hand, has demonstrated failures during extreme weather events. PV system stakeholders should ensure that best practices are followed for hardware procurement and siting. It is also important to understand that PV systems are not one-size-fits-all. While incorporating islanding capabilities and energy storage into the system's electrical topology will typically enhance resilience, the user's needs will determine the optimally resilient conformation of any given system. These factors - appropriate hardware, siting, maintenance, and system design - are the primary drivers of PV resilience. PV systems possess high potential for resilient energy generation due to their distributed, abundant, and free fuel supply, but the technology itself does not inherently lead to resilient outcomes. Realizing PV's potential for resilience requires consideration of these determinative factors.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

USAID Energy Storage Decision Guide for Policymakers

The purpose of this report is to arm relevant decision makers with the initial layer of information they need to understand energy storage and to make informed policy, regulatory, and investment decisions around grid-connected energy storage. While many of the case studies presented in this report are based on experiences from the U.S. and Europe, the lessons learned can be applied to power sectors in emerging economies. Importantly, this report covers topics related grid-connected energy storage for power sector applications. The term “grid-connected” implies that the storage system is interconnected to a centralized power system. Topics related to off-grid, micro-grid and mini-grid energy storage applications are not covered in this report, nor are procurement practices for energy storage.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗

U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System and Energy Storage Cost Benchmarks: Q1 2021

Based on our bottom-up modeling, the Q1 2021 PV and energy storage cost benchmarks are: $\$2.65$ per watt DC (WDC) (or $\$3.05$/WAC) for residential PV systems, 1.56/WDC (or $\$1.79$/WAC) for commercial rooftop PV systems, $\$1.64$/WDC (or $\$1.88$/WAC) for commercial ground-mount PV systems, $\$0.83$/WDC (or $\$1.13$/WAC) for fixed-tilt utility-scale PV systems, $\$0.89$/WDC (or $\$1.20$/WAC) for one-axis-tracking utility-scale PV systems, $\$30,326$-$\$33,618$ for a 7.15-kWDC residential PV system with 5 kW/12.5 kWh nameplate of storage, $\$2.04$ - $\$2.10$ million for a 1-MWDC commercial ground-mount PV system colocated with 600 kW/2.4 MWhusable of storage, $\$166$ - $\$167$ million for a 100-MWDC one-axis tracker PV system colocated with 60 MW/240 MWhusable of storage. Between 2020 and 2021, there were 3.3% ($\$0.0$9/W), 10.7% ($\$0.19$/W), and 12.3% ($\$0.13$/W) reductions (in 2020 USD) in the residential, commercial rooftop, and utility-scale (one-axis) PV system cost benchmarks respectively. Balance of system (BOS) costs have either increased or remained flat across sectors, year-on-year, unlike in previous benchmark reports, which generally have reported declining BOS costs. The increase in BOS cost has been offset by a 17% reduction in module cost. Overall, modeled PV installed costs across the three sectors have declined compared to our Q1 2020 system costs.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

Solar +: Clean Energy Strategies for the Sunshine State (Final Technical Report (FTR) of the Florida Alliance for Accelerating Solar and Storage Technology Readiness (FAASSTeR))

This reports on a four-year effort to provide foundational research, analysis, strategies and assistance to help Florida, and other states that might learn from this work, to grow solar energy in conjunction with other distributed energy resources by addressing and overcoming existing barriers, and in way that delivers increased value. The start of this effort coincided with an inflection point of sorts into a new dawn for solar energy in Florida, where the Sunshine state’s national ranking in total installed solar, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), has rose from 13th to 4th. Florida has now become the national leader in annual utility-scale solar growth as dozens of large plants have come online. Also, during this time, Florida utilities have expressed a strong and growing interest in understanding the role of energy storage and how to best plan for and deploy this unique resource as part of strategies to grow solar. The utility-scale solar growth experienced has been fueled by the economics of solar cost-parity with natural gas combined cycle plants and Florida Public Service Commission’s (PSC) approval of cost-recovery for the Investor-Owned Utilities (IOU’s), primarily through the Solar Base Rate Adjustment (SoBRA) mechanism. This has led to gigawatts (GW’s) of rate-based solar capacity additions over several years, along with fairly significant amounts of energy storage. Meanwhile, municipal electric utilities, which, collectively, are the third largest source of power in the state, have been increasing solar considerably through power purchase agreements (PPA’s) and are on track to have close to 1 GW of grid-connected solar by 2024. Florida’s municipal utilities and the Florida Municipal Electric Association (FMEA) have been key partners in the Florida Alliance for Accelerating Solar and Storage Technology Readiness (FAASSTeR), formed to carry out this effort. The six largest of these have been Core Team utilities, engaging throughout the project in weekly calls, discussions, and project direction, participating in and hosting workshops and benefiting from technical assistance in several areas.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

Microgrid-Integrated Solar-Storage Technology (MISST)

Microgrid-Integrated Solar-Storage Technology (MISST) project addresses availability and variability issues inherent in the solar photovoltaic (PV) technology by utilizing smart inverters for solar PV/battery storage and working synergistically with other components within a microgrid community. A key contribution of this project to the state-of-the-art is the practical implementation of seamless and coordinated control between the previously developed and DOE-funded Microgrid Master Controller (MMC) and the MISST controller, the latter is a dedicated solar-storage controller to manage high penetration of solar PV and energy storage systems.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System and Energy Storage Cost Benchmarks, With Minimum Sustainable Price Analysis: Q1 2022

NREL's bottom-up cost models can be used to assess the minimum sustainable price (MSP) and modeled market price (MMP) of PV and storage systems having various configurations. MSP can be used to estimate future potential cost-reduction opportunities for PV and PV-plus-storage systems, thus helping guide research and development aimed at advancing cost-effective system configurations. MMP can be used to understand the cost of systems under recent market conditions. The MSP data in this annual benchmarking report will be used to inform the formulation of, and track progress toward, the Solar Energy Technologies Office's Government Performance and Reporting Act cost targets.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

Study of Codes & Standards for Energy Storage Systems: A Report to Congress

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (H.R. 3684, 2021) directed the Secretary of Energy to prepare a report identifying the existing codes and standards for energy storage technologies. The stated goals for the report are to enhance the safe development of energy storage systems by identifying codes that require updating and facilitation of greater conformity in codes across different types and usages of energy storage technologies. This paper will focus on the specific codes and standards for stationary energy storage systems (ESS).

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗

Integration of a new Cryogenic Liquefier into the IB-1 Cryogenic Test Facility

aThe increase over the last years of the testing activities related to superconducting quantum materials, SRF cavities for the PIP-II and the LCLS-II projects, as well as superconducting magnets for the HL-LHC project and Fusion research activities, has required the addition of a new Helium cryogenic plant into the existing IB-1 Industrial Cryogenic Test Facility. The new cryogenic plant is composed of a cryogenic liquefier (Cold Box) able to provide up to 340 L/h, a 4kL Dewar and two Mycom compressors providing up to 120 g/s. AL-AT (Air Liquide Advanced Technologies) has taken part of this project by designing and manufacturing the cryogenic liquefier. This new cryogenic plant is connected through a cryogenic distribution system to a 10 kL Dewar, which is part of the existing cryogenic test facility, itself composed of another Cold Box and a Sullair compressor. The new cryogenic plant has two main operating modes: one allows to transfer liquid helium at 1.7 bar between the two Dewars, the other allows to transfer supercritical Helium at 2 bar or more between the new Cold Box and the 10 kL Dewar. The entire industrial cryogenic facility is handled by a common Inventory Control System, composed of three regulatory valves, and 9 tanks giving a total buffer volume of more than 1000 m3. This paper presents the technical features of the new Helium cryogenic plant, as well as the main results of the liquefier commissioning phase and details of the helium transfer between the two dewars, making the connection between the cryogenic plants at the IB-1 Industrial Cryogenic Test Facility.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗

Energy Transitions Initiative Partnership Project: Wainwright, Alaska. Cohort 1 Technical Assistance: Assessment of Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy, and Energy Storage Options

This project identified pathways to reduce energy consumption and enhance indoor environmental quality and resilience of a 1,500-square-foot former federal armory building owned by the tribe as it is renovated as a community multipurpose facility. The scope included thermal evaluation of multiple building efficiency measures, and a techno-economic exploration of an on-site renewable energy and integrated energy storage systems.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗