Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Options”

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
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Multi-Unit Dwelling Plug-in EV Charging Innovation Pilots (Final Report)

Nearly one-third of residences in the U.S. are multi-unit dwellings (MUDs), e.g., apartments and condominiums, and MUDs with five or more units account for approximately 45% of rental households. While 80% of EV charging takes place at home, less than 5% of home charging takes place at MUDs. With public electric vehicle (EV) charging still underdeveloped, lack of access to reliable home charging is a major barrier to EV adoption for MUD residents. Challenges to siting electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) at MUDs include the high upfront cost of EVSE installation, physical and/or electrical infrastructure constraints, a lack of clear incentives for property managers to invest in installing EV charging for tenants, and a limited number of EV charging service providers that offer solutions adapted to the unique needs of MUDs. Through award DE-EE0008473 from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Center for Sustainable Energy (CSE), Energetics, and Forth, along with a diverse team of partners, led a three-year project to address barriers to EV charging at MUDs by developing an online toolkit geared toward residents, homeowner associations (HOAs), and property managers. The project, referred to as Vehicle Charging Innovations – Multi-Unit Dwellings (VCI-MUD project), engaged stakeholders across the country to identify real and perceived barriers to EV charging at MUDs and explored innovative technologies that attempt to alleviate the identified barriers. Over the course of three and a half years, the project conducted 60 interviews with industry stakeholders, compiled findings in an easy-to-use toolkit, and disseminated the toolkit across national, regional, state, and local channels. Key findings and outcomes of the VCI-MUD project include: Identifying six primary barriers to the installation of EV charging at MUDs; Developing five fact sheets and eight case studies highlighting innovative charging solutions to address barriers, including real-world operational and financial data; Developing a user-friendly, online empowerment toolkit with five important points for “making your pitch” to support EV charging to assist residents, property managers, building managers, and HOAs explore options for MUD charging. The VCI-MUD online toolkit was designed with replicability in mind. It includes general tools and guides to evaluate EV charging demand, gauge readiness for EV charging installation, and develop actionable plans. The fact sheets and case studies highlight the diversity of emerging MUD EV charging solutions, featuring different geographic and structural installation scenarios and providing interested parties with a menu of options, rather than prescribing a one-size-fits-all solution. The following resources are included in the toolkit to provide MUD stakeholders with all the information needed to navigate EV charging installation at their MUD location: Empowerment Toolkit – Easy-to-read FAQ overview, stakeholder roles and responsibilities, and additional resources for MUD EV charging installations; Charging Basics – Glossary of terms and descriptions of charging features, installation and operating expenses; EV Charging Survey Templates – Resident-to-Resident, Property Manager-to-Resident and HOA-to-Resident template letters with pre-populated template questions; Technology Selection Tool – Charging barrier fact sheets and case study examples; Installation Checklist – Submittal document requirements for EVSE installations; MUD Building Self-Evaluation Survey – Self-guided evaluation of potential barriers to EV charging installation at MUD locations; Curbside Resources – Case studies and fact sheets for curbside charging options; Find a Certified Electrician – Approved list of certified EV charging installers; “Right-to-Charge” State Legal References – Legal requirements for charging equipment at MUD locations. The online toolkit was promoted extensively in the final six months of the project and will continue to be disseminated by the Clean Cities Coalitions and other partners after the end of the VCI-MUD project to encourage, support, and demonstrate viable solutions for vehicle charging infrastructure in MUDs.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2023

Generating MCNP Input Files for Unstructured Mesh Geometries

The Los Alamos National Laboratory’s (LANL) Monte Carlo N-Particle (MCNP)1 transport code version 6.3 (also known as MCNP6.3) has the capability for tracking particles on unstructured mesh (UM) geometry models embedded into constructive solid geometry (CSG) cells. This feature has been developed for performing calculations of complex geometry models because manually creating CSG models is time-consuming and error-prone as the complexities of geometries increase. A UM geometry model is a collection of finite elements representing a solid geometry. The first step of the MCNP UM calculation is using other software packages to create a finite element mesh representation of a solid 3D geometry because the MCNP code cannot be used to generate a UM model. Computer-aided design (CAD) software is typically used to create a solid geometry model, which is later imported into mesh generation software to create a UM model. Some mesh generation software packages may also be used to create solid geometries and thus CAD files are not needed. The MCNP UM feature was originally designed for models generated by the Abaqus/CAE software suite. The MCNP code version 6.0 and later can process UM models formatted as Abaqus input files. Starting with a 6.3 version, the MCNP code can process HDF5 mesh input files. We only focus on the UM models formatted as Abaqus input files in this report since currently no external software can be used to generate HDF5 mesh input files for MCNP UM calculations. The MCNP code version 6.3 can be used to convert the Abaqus mesh input files into the HDF5 mesh input files, but this option is typically used by the MCNP code development team to test the HDF5 mesh input file feature. Several software packages (such as Abaqus, Attila4MC, or Cubit) can be used to create the Abaqus input files for MCNP UM calculations. An MCNP UM calculation using an Abaqus model requires two input file types: MCNP and Abaqus input files. The Abaqus input files needed for MCNP UM calcu lations must have the correct Abaqus syntax and meet the additional requirements by the MCNP code. The MCNP code can process only Abaqus input files that make use of part and assembly definitions, where elements in each part must be grouped into one or more element sets (i.e., elset) using *Elset keyword lines with specified naming formats. The MCNP and Abaqus input files required for MCNP UM simulations must be related; pseudo-cells in an MCNP input file must be constructed from mesh model data from an Abaqus input file. For large complex UM models, it is tedious to manually create MCNP UM input files. The um pre op (unstructured mesh pre operations) program with the -m option can be used to create a skeleton MCNP input file from an Abaqus input file [6]. Since the um pre op program was written in Fortran and was not written for optimized performance, this program is a deprecated feature in the MCNP code version 6.3 and may be removed in the next release of the code. To improve calculation flow of multiphysics calculations, a Python3 code called write mcnp um input has been developed to generate an MCNP input file instead of using the um_pre_op -m option. This Python code was initially released to the public in 2020. We have updated this Python code for MCNP6.3 and it was used to generate the MCNP input files used to verify the MCNP6.3 code. The write_mcnp_um_input code is included with the MCNP6.3 code package which will be released to the public through the Radiation Safety Information Computational Center (RSICC) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. This report is a revision of LA-UR-20-27139 report.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Technology Strategy Assessment: Findings from Storage Innovations 2030 Bidirectional Hydrogen Storage

Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, comprising nearly 75% of all normal matter, and it has been used by scientists for centuries, but it was not fully recognized as an element until 1766, when it was isolated by Henry Cavendish. Early work focused on the generation of hydrogen through the oxidation of metals in water, which released hydrogen gas. Hydrogen’s lighter-than-air and flammable properties were immediately used in engines, zeppelins, and as feedstock for a wide variety of chemical reactions. Several approaches were developed for the production of hydrogen with the most common being associated with the production and conversion of hydrocarbon-based fuels. Coal gasification, steam methane reforming, and other reformation processes provide the majority of current hydrogen production due to the relatively low cost of hydrogen produced through these processes. More than 95% of hydrogen production is used for industrial processes rather than energy storage. To facilitate affordable decarbonization of these industrial processes and to advance the use of hydrogen as a fuel in transportation, DOE launched the Hydrogen Shot as part of the Energy Earthshots Initiative. The goal of the Hydrogen Shot is to reduce the cost of clean hydrogen by 80% to $1/kg of clean hydrogen production within one decade (known as the “1 1 1” goal). This is distinct from the Long-Duration Storage Shot, which is the primary focus of this report; however, it is intrinsically linked to bidirectional hydrogen storage. Several important chemical synthesis processes are dependent upon hydrogen, and the production and use of hydrogen is generally driven by its connection to one of these markets. For example, ammonia is one of the most highly produced chemicals in the world and it depends chiefly on hydrogen. Ammonia is primarily used for agricultural fertilizer and is considered to be largely responsible for a doubling of agricultural production per unit of land over the last century. Another one of hydrogen’s primary uses is as a catalyst in petroleum refining during the desulfurization process. Beyond chemical production, hydrogen is used as a reductant in the production of steel and has been demonstrated as a substitute for metallurgical coal in the production of raw iron. It is even used in the hydrogenation reaction for food products to create more shelf-stable semi-solid fats. However, while hydrogen is produced on the order of 100 million metric tons/year globally to feed these industries, more than 95% of hydrogen is produced from hydrocarbons that emit CO2 during the process. Conversely, electrolysis is a process by which electricity is used to separate hydrogen and oxygen in water molecules, usually across a membrane. Hydrogen production via electrolysis lowers the carbon intensity of produced hydrogen when coupled with low-carbon electricity. Currently, global electrolysis capacity is on the order of 1 GW, which equates to about 500 metric tons/day of hydrogen production. To support large-scale industrial decarbonization, capacity will likely need to increase by two to three orders of magnitude. Electrolysis technology is broadly separated into groups that are defined by the electrolyte used, with further subdivision based on the operating characteristics. The majority of commercial electrolyzer systems are based around three main technology groups: liquid alkaline, proton exchange membrane, and solid oxide. Liquid Alkaline (LA) electrolysis is the oldest, most mature, least expensive, and most common commercial technology, with 400 plants in operation by 1902. Its hydrogen output is low relative to the size of the system due to a low current density. LA electrolysis utilizes a liquid potassium hydroxide solution as the electrolyte. Proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysis (also known as polymer electrolyte membrane electrolysis), described in 1960, relies on an acid-impregnated polymer membrane as the electrolyte and typically offers three to six times higher hydrogen production per unit cell area than LA electrolysis. Solid oxide electrolysis, or high-temperature electrolysis, utilizes a ceramic cell as the electrolyte and operates on steam rather than liquid water, enabling electrical efficiencies of more than 90%, which is up from 60% with PEM. Two pre-commercial electrolyzer technologies to note are alkaline exchange membrane (AEM) and proton-conducting solid oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC). AEM potentially has the advantages of both LA and PEM technologies in that it is able to use low-cost materials like LA but with the ability to operate at higher output pressures with a smaller footprint like PEM. Proton-conducting SOEC is similar to commercial SOEC, which uses an oxide-conducting ceramic; however, it uses a proton-conducting ceramic that has the potential to operate at lower temperatures and has lower capital costs. Each of these technologies is experiencing a rapid improvement in performance and a reduction in installed cost, and each appears to be well suited to specific applications. Besides differences in the type of electrolyzer used, the main difference in the architecture of bidirectional hydrogen systems is how the hydrogen is stored. Currently, the most cost-effective way to store large amounts of hydrogen gas is underground, such as in large salt caverns that have been hollowed out. These salt caverns are geographically concentrated in small portions of the United States and are not generally near large metropolitan areas; however, other subsurface architectures are being investigated to expand this reach. A more widely deployable option is aboveground pressurized tanks. These systems are about 10 times as expensive because of the materials and safety margins required to hold hydrogen at high pressures. A third option is using materials-based storage, such as liquid organic hydrogen carriers. By reversibly attaching the produced hydrogen to other molecules, it can be stored at near atmospheric pressure and room temperature. This has the potential to reduce the material cost of storage but may result in a reduction in the efficiency of the process because there are both hydrogen uptake and release processes. While materials-based storage has not been used extensively for large-scale hydrogen storage in the past, there is currently significant activity regarding developing materials and processes for use in large-scale hydrogen storage applications. Electrolysis-produced hydrogen offers an unusual opportunity for energy storage applications. Unlike more conventional energy storage approaches, such as batteries, which operate entirely within electrical markets, hydrogen is a valuable product beyond the electric market and can be directed to the most lucrative use. Hydrogen also can be directly converted back to electricity using either a fuel cell or turbine, or it can be sold to other markets, such as chemical synthesis, steel production, or even export. In this way, excess electricity can be upgraded to the most valuable product. Finally, its use can be actively managed between multiple off-takers; for example, local hydrogen storage can provide a specific amount of stored electricity and any excess can be exported to ammonia production. This flexibility is amplified by the fact that hydrogen storage has fully decoupled power and energy components, which allows for affordable scaling options. Together, this allows a substantial amount of creativity to enable the economic utilization of variable power resources while supporting decarbonization of the industry.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2023

Identification and Evaluation for Fueling of NRIC DOME Reactors Report

The National Reactor Innovation Center (NRIC) has designed a testbed for advanced microreactor experiments that enables and encourages technology developers to bring advanced designs closer to commercial availability. The test bed, Demonstration of Microreactor Experiments (DOME), will be used to facilitate much of the operation experimentation process of the each advanced microreactor including fueling and operational power experiments. This report identifies and evaluates the options for initial fueling the microreactors in DOME. This report also discusses the optional locations that were considered for the initial fueling of microreactor; namely the Transient Reactor Test (TREAT) reactor building, and an unspecified temporary location. But various logistical and construction issues essentially eliminated these other options from further consideration. A brief discussion in this report outlines potential equipment and protocol associated with fueling in DOME.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Validation of New MCNP6.3 Features for Critical and Subcritical Benchmark Simulations [Slides]

A separate MCNP6.3 V&V document reports on all the default calculations for all test suites was introduced. Here, we look at new optional features of the MCNP6.3 code. Then, Fission-matrix-based options with Convergence and population testing and Automated acceleration of the fission source and Doppler Broadening Resonance Correction and HDF5 Particle Track Output (PTRAC) and Validation benchmarks: criticality, Rossi-α, and subcritical multiplication. All the new MCNP6.3 options give statistically equivalent results and should be considered for default usage in criticality and subcritical multiplication calculation work. Discussed are two separate papers at the upcoming 2023 International Conference on Nuclear Criticality Safety (ICNC 2023) that give more details on the results presented here.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Electric Mobility Opportunities for Brooklyn Park, Minnesota

This report will support Brooklyn Park as it navigates changes in mobility technologies and approaches to best serve the transportation needs of its communities. The content details the advantages of electric mobility, reviews electric mobility options that meet diverse needs and constraints, and maps the benefits and limitations of these options in terms of available technologies, their uses, and incentives that aim to improve accessibility and affordability. Although personal EVs provide both individual and collective advantages to residents - from lowering the total cost of ownership over the lifetime of a vehicle to improving air quality in the surrounding environment by reducing tailpipe emissions - they may still be unaffordable and/or inaccessible to some households in Brooklyn Park. Therefore, this report provides an overview of other accessible and affordable electric mobility options, including electric carshares, e-micromobility (i.e., e-scooters, e-bikes), and on-demand services, as enabled by web-connected technologies and the proliferation of smartphones.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2024

The Role of Biofuels and Biomass Feedstocks for Decarbonizing the U.S. Economy by 2050 - (DECARB) Decarbonizing Energy Through Collaborative Analysis of Routes and Benefits

Utilizing biomass resources, such as cellulosic biomass and waste, can greatly contribute to decarbonization efforts in the U.S. economy. The U.S. bioenergy sector includes corn ethanol production, biodiesel, renewable diesel production, and the utilization of biomass wastes for electricity generation being the primary applications. Within the electricity sector, biopower can play a crucial role as a stable low-carbon resource. Enhancing the electricity mix's diversity could enhance grid reliability. If the issues regarding hot gas cleanup can be resolved, flexible biopower resources like biomass gasification facilities could complement the integration of variable renewable energy sources due to their quick ramp-up and ramp-down times. The criticality of bioenergy deployment lies in its ability to decarbonize hard-to-electrify sectors, such as aviation, where alternative decarbonization options may not be viable in the short term. Moreover, bioenergy has the potential to be converted into process heating, building materials, and plastics, which are not considered in this study. A set of pathways was carefully chosen to represent viable options for converting ample herbaceous and woody cellulosic feedstocks into fuels, chemicals, and electricity in this study. In conclusion, biomass pathways provide flexibility by generating various types of bioenergy and bioproducts, including electricity, hydrogen, liquid fuels, biochemicals, and bioplastics. When paired with carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS), specific bioenergy approaches can effectively extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, thus providing an effective decarbonization option for the transportation sector.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Considerations for Improving the Technoeconomic Viability of Heat Pipe Microreactors by Employing a Functional Containment Approach

The economic cost of a microreactor is being investigated by leveraging MARVEL cost information in conjunction with some simplified design and analysis activities to present a hypothetical, yet feasible, option for investigation. This bottom-up cost estimate for a hypothetical commercial microreactor will be used to provide guidance to the industry and research communities regarding where priorities should be set to improve the viability of broad microreactor deployment. To support the design and analysis activities required to present a feasible option, some understanding of maximum accidental radionuclide releases and consequences is needed to provide bounding estimates on containment or confinement systems for radionuclide retention. To estimate fission product barrier and retention performance, a gaussian plume dose and dispersion model is employed, with isotopic inventories being propagated between barriers assuming conservative fractional release rates. Demonstrably conservative meteorological assumptions are also assumed. Standard reference release rates are assumed where safety requirements could be easily and economically employed. Results are provided in units of total effective dose equivalent as a function of distance from the release (i.e., the reactor). Initial results indicate that the hypothetical microreactor will likely need to credit the fuel cladding and at least one other barrier, or combination of barriers, to ensure public health and safety as required during a postulated accident. This approach is referred to as “functional containment,” since no single barrier will be relied upon for satisfying regulatory requirements and fundamental safety functions for radionuclide retention. Finally, a set of barrier options are provided so that future economic analyses can select the most viable design path.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Software Verification of VARPOW

The VARPOW program is a post-processing utility program for DIF3D, specifically DIF3DVARIANT, and it was developed to provide interface files for the thermal analysis program DASSH. The basic methodology of VARPOW is to take the neutron and gamma flux (moments) calculated by DIF3D (or GAMSOR) and combine them with the heating (coefficient) cross sections to calculate the spatial power distributions using the DIF3DVARIANT spatial basis. VARPOW can use the output from GAMSOR (both steady state neutron and gamma flux calculations) or standard DIF3D/REBUS calculations (neutron flux only). The correct approach for defining the power distribution is to use GAMSOR as its purpose was to properly compute the gamma heating throughout the modeled domain. The power densities calculated by VARPOW are broken into fuel, cladding and coolant terms for which isotope-wise categorization is needed. VARPOW has built in options the user can select for the isotope categorization or VARPOW can import a file that details the isotope categorization. VARPOW can export the solution in the polynomial basis of DIF3D-VARIANT or the monomial basis of DIF3D-VARIANT. The purpose of this work is to verify the power distribution results calculated by VARPOW from both the GAMSOR and DIF3D input options and verify that the input and output options are consistent with the manual. Hand calculation and independent numerical calculation are used for this verification work.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Kansas City, Missouri, Streetlight Electric Vehicle Charging: Strategies and challenges for site selection of streetlight electric vehicle infrastructure in Kansas City, Missouri (Final Report)

Public streetlight charging, whether on streets in central business districts or residential areas, provides easy charging access for apartment residents and homeowners alike. While most electric vehicle (EV) drivers charge at home, they do so in garages or on driveways they own. For renters and residents of multifamily housing (MFH), however, this may not be an option. EVs have a lower cost of ownership compared to conventional vehicles, and a used EV may be an affordable option for a lower-income household. But without easy access to charging, even a low-cost used EV may not be an option for a prospective buyer. An affordable curbside charging network has the potential to expand EV adoption into neighborhoods that have to date seen minimal interest and uptake of the technology and associated charging infrastructure. Streetlight charging networks can provide an economical, scalable, and effective approach to providing equitable and convenient charging. Metropolitan Energy Center (MEC) is dedicated to the mission of creating resource efficiency, environmental health, and economic vitality in the Kansas City region and beyond. Since 1983, MEC has provided resources, outreach, and training to make alternative fuels and energy efficiency commonplace. MEC led a streetlight charging pilot project that installed limited EV charging infrastructure on the streetlight system in Kansas City, Missouri, to demonstrate and test the benefits of curbside charging for EVs at existing on-street parking locations. The project aimed to cost-effectively expand the charging network in Kansas City to support residential charging and provide infrastructure in one or more charging deserts throughout the city. This pilot evaluates the impact and overall success of streetlight charging based on community feedback, utilization of charging infrastructure, technical feasibility, and cost. The project has pursued a data- and community-driven site selection process designed to identify sites with high demand and high opportunity for EV charging. This project was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and awarded to MEC through a competitive proposal process. The novelty and complexity of this project required an organization that could facilitate collaboration across levels of government, community members, and industry partners. For the past 25 years, through Kansas City Regional Clean Cities, MEC has worked with numerous public and private fleets on a variety of projects to improve the environmental performance and efficiency of the regional vehicle fleet. To advance affordable, efficient, and clean transportation efforts, DOE Clean Cities and Communities coalitions create local networks of public and private sector stakeholders and engage communities. Rooted within their local communities, the coalitions serve as experts and ambassadors, bringing to bear the collective knowledge, experience, and practical know-how of the entire network from within DOE, its national laboratories, and diverse stakeholders in the field. MEC and its project partners made in-kind contributions to leverage federal dollars for the benefit of the Kansas City community. Findings from this project will help determine the best applications for streetlight charging technologies to maximize funding impact and serve community needs. The team evaluated locations based on expected charging demand, technical feasibility, safety considerations, and enhanced charging network siting needs. Throughout the project, the team gathered feedback and evaluated ways to make public charging for EVs available to all community members. The insights will help Kansas City and other communities streamline future efforts to support EV drivers through public charging in the city right-of-way. Furthermore, this project will inform citywide guidance for future installations. MEC is committed to a transparent and publicly accessible approach that encourages the collaborative evaluation of streetlight charging. The project has engaged the community to proactively identify and evaluate the benefits and impacts of streetlight charging. It was a priority for the project to ensure the benefits of this pilot are distributed equitably to all members of the Kansas City community and that new charging opportunities and associated resources are available in diverse neighborhoods across the city. The charging infrastructure supports an affordable curbside charging network that will enable more drivers to choose EVs and provide easy charging access for all community members interested in driving an EV. The community feedback received through this project informed future resources and opportunities to make EVs more accessible to all members of the Kansas City community. MEC worked with several community partners on this project, including Missouri University of Science and Technology (MST), Pennsylvania State University (Penn State), the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL); the city of Kansas City, Missouri; Evergy; Black and McDonald (B&M); LilyPad EV; EVNoire; and Westside Housing Organization (WHO). Project partners contributed to the cost match required for DOE grants through capital expenditures, personnel, and other in-kind contributions. Detailed descriptions of project team organizations can be found in Appendix A. Project Partners. Analysts at NREL and MST/PennState developed site maps based on demand and equity considerations. MEC conducted outreach to community members to garner input on project design and site selection, and received approval from the Missouri Public Service Commission (PSC) for Evergy’s EV charging station ownership. MEC worked with all partners to gather additional siting criteria and developed a site selection evaluation checklist, and partners conducted site visits to proposed installation sites. Next, B&M, Evergy, and the city executed all site agreements, conducted site-specific engineering design, acquired associated permits, and issued notices to proceed site by site or in small batches. Finally, from January to April 2023, the project team installed 23 EV charging stations built on Kansas City’s streetlight system in six council districts. Evergy will own, operate, and monitor the stations for 10 years, sharing charging data with MEC for at least 1 year.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2024

Software Verification of VARPOW

The VARPOW program is a post-processing utility program for DIF3D, specifically DIF3DVARIANT, and it was developed to provide interface files for the thermal analysis program DASSH. The basic methodology of VARPOW is to take the neutron and gamma flux (moments) calculated by DIF3D (or GAMSOR) and combine them with the heating (coefficient) cross sections to calculate the spatial power distributions using the DIF3DVARIANT spatial basis. VARPOW can use the output from GAMSOR (both steady state neutron and gamma flux calculations) or standard DIF3D/REBUS calculations (neutron flux only). The correct approach for defining the power distribution is to use GAMSOR as its purpose was to properly compute the gamma heating throughout the modeled domain. The power desnities calculated by VARPOW are broken into fuel, cladding and coolant terms for which isotope-wise categorization is needed. VARPOW has built in options the user can select for the isotope categorization or VARPOW can import a file that details the isotope categorization. VARPOW can export the solution in the polynomial basis of DIF3D-VARIANT or the monomial basis of DIF3D-VARIANT. The purpose of this work is to verify the power distribution results calculated by VARPOW from both the GAMSOR and DIF3D input options and verify that the input and output options are consistent with the manual. Hand calculation and independent numerical calculation are used for this verification work.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Accumulator Ring Design Energy and RCS-based Proton Driver

Traditional Fermilab proton upgrade scenarios include a "linac option" and an "RCS option". In the former case all the acceleration takes place in the linac into an accumulator ring, and in the latter case as much acceleration as possible takes place in the RCS. Whereas muon collider proton driver scenarios typically assume all linac acceleration, the possibility of an RCS option should be considered more closely. We walk through the technical risks and possible benefits injecting at a lower energy including space-charge, H- stripping, circumference, and linac design.

Eldred, Jeff [Fermilab]↗
DOE OSTI2025

DOE Zero Energy Ready Manufactured Housing: Subject Matter Expert Technical Assistance Summary

Manufactured homes offer American consumers an affordable option for decent single-family detached housing. For working-class American families in many U.S. markets, manufactured homes are the first step toward home ownership. They now make up 10% of all new homes constructed in the United States, with higher percentages in the south and in rural communities. To help encourage the production of homes that are more durable, healthy, efficient, and disaster resistant, the U.S. Department of Energy is bringing its building science research to the manufactured housing industry through DOE’s Zero Energy Ready Manufactured Home (ZER-MH) program, which provides technical assistance and voluntary guidelines to manufactured home builders. Homes built to these guidelines are better able to handle power outages and less likely to experience moisture issues, offering a better product option for American families. This higher quality is evidenced by energy modeling which shows homes manufactured to these voluntary guidelines will typically use half the energy of manufactured homes built to the current minimum requirements of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)’s Manufactured Housing and Construction Safety Standard (MHCSS). These homes can also reduce critical energy demand during the busiest hours of the day, typically late afternoon and early evening in the summer when air conditioning demand is highest and mornings in the winter when furnaces and heaters are heating up. Reducing electricity demand during these peak periods when electricity rates are at their highest reduces costs for American families while freeing up capacity on overburdened energy distribution networks. Builders participating in the DOE ZER-MH program are eligible for a tax incentive via the 45L tax credit, which helps to offset the costs of ZER-MH upgrades, enabling builders to offer these certified homes at no additional cost. Together these factors enable manufactured homes to offer home buyers a housing option that is both affordable to finance and affordable to operate, with lower monthly mortgage payments and lower monthly energy bills.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2025

Security-by-Design: Light Water Small Modular Reactor

The growing demand for nuclear power is increasing pressure to find solutions to cost prohibitive requirements of both construction and security. Offsite response has been proposed as an option to reduce costs associated with training and maintaining an onsite response force. A previous report explored this option and revealed that security could be provided at the required level, but cost savings was not a result of this methodology. An offsite response strategy required costly active and passive delay barriers to provide sufficient time for responders to muster and deploy to a site in time to interrupt a determined and well-equipped adversary. Also, contrary to the hypothesis, the number of responders required for this strategy exceeded that needed for an onsite response force, as the adversaries could avail themselves of advantageous positions within the facility to repel arriving responders. This report builds upon the previous evaluation by using the same hypothetical light water small modular reactor (LWSMR) facility model, but this time an onsite response strategy was assessed. The goal of this analysis was to show that an onsite response strategy could be implemented effectively at a cost point that removes barriers within the industry at this critical time of growth and development. The assessment of the facility design and response strategy was completed through modeling using Scribe3D© and subsequent scenario analysis over the course of a two-day tabletop exercise. Subject matter experts in nuclear security, nuclear facility design, and response strategy and tactics contributed to the effort to ensure accurate representation of hypothetical scenarios. Several adaptations were made to the layout of the LWSMR based on lessons learned during the first day of scenario analysis. The subsequent design evaluated on the second day proved to provide a robust response posture against a large and well-trained adversary force. This report details the process of the analysis and compares the cost of the final facility design with that of the LWSMR model used for evaluation of offsite response. Ultimately, the results of this effort indicate that, when implemented correctly, an onsite response strategy is the best option from a security and cost perspective.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Preliminary Analysis of Nuclear-Powered Data Center Scenarios

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the potential for nuclear energy to meet the growing energy demands of data centers (DCs). It evaluates the technical, economic, and socio-environmental implications of coupling Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) with DCs, providing initial responses to several key research questions: What is the potential increased energy demand from DCs in the U.S., in the short, medium and long term? The U.S. is experiencing a rapid increase in energy demand from DCs, with projections indicating a total increase of 24-74 GWy(e) by 2028. Meeting this demand with nuclear energy would require 27–85 GWe of installed capacity. While this surge is expected to slow in the long term, the DC industry needs reliable, scalable, and clean energy sources. How much nuclear capacity can be deployed to meet DC demand and in which timeframe? Several pathways for increasing nuclear capacity were identified, including uprates, restarts of recently retired reactors, power purchase agreements with existing fleet, and new construction. Approximately 20‒28 GWe of nuclear capacity could be dedicated to DCs by the early 2030s. How much High Assay Low Enriched Uranium (HALEU) would be needed to support some nuclear deployment scenarios for DCs? Meeting the deployment targets announced by Google and Amazon for the Kairos Power Fluoride-Salt-Cooled High-Temperature Reactor or KP-FHR (~500 MWe by 2035) and the Xe-100 (~1 GWe by 2040), respectively, requires ramping up 19.75% enriched HALEU production to ~6 t/yr by 2040. What types of nuclear energy/DC coupling options exist, and what are the different benefits/challenges? Five coupling options were analyzed, ranging from grid-connected configurations to colocated, behind-the-meter setups. Key design considerations include the proximity to high- and/or medium-voltage transmission lines, the desired internal fault tolerance, and the sources of alternative/backup power during outages. Each coupling option offers unique benefits and challenges in terms of reliability, system costs, regulation, timeline, etc. A list of NPP/DC deployment scenarios was developed, considering existing or newly built NPP or DC projects. Colocated DCs with new small modular reactors or large reactors on greenfield and brownfield sites are the focus of this report. What types of reactors, especially what size, may be incentivized by DCs? Reactor sizing optimization revealed that the ideal reactor size and number of units depend on DC demand, coupling configurations defined in this report, and other economic factors. Larger reactors are preferred for high-demand DCs and grid-connected systems, while larger number of smaller reactors are better suited for DC configurations without grid backup. Which sites may be compatible with co-located nuclear-powered DCs? Siting those projects is a complicated evaluation factoring local water resources, grid connection availability and reliability, IT infrastructure, local work force, proximity to population zones, etc. For this effort greenfield and brownfield sites such as retired coal-fired plants were used to evaluate this question. This evaluation is not meant to recommend any particular site but it highlights key siting criteria and demonstrates large-scale site availability. What are the socio-economic impacts of co-located nuclear-powered DCs? Those projects generate substantial economic benefits to the local economy, particularly in urban settings. Hyperscale DCs colocated with nuclear power plants (sized around 1 GW of power) can create nearly 1,700 jobs for annual operations and more than 7,300 jobs among the supply chain and local businesses as a result of increased household spending. Rural projects also provide significant benefits, but at lower magnitudes compared to urban deployments.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Data Centers Gap Analysis [Slides]

Data centers and other large loads are a significant driver of unprecedented, near-term demand growth in the United States. Power system planners, utilities, regulators, and other stakeholders are grappling with how to integrate data centers on the system without comprising reliability, resiliency, and energy affordability. NLR is pursuing work to develop a siting and decision-making tool that would draw on power systems modeling expertise to achieve granular representation of trade-offs involved in data center sitting and development. This slide deck supports the same workstream by reviewing the literature to identify mitigation options to facilitate near-term integration of large loads and by presenting options for pursuing data development and/or modeling projects to improve representation of siting options.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2026

The ABCs of On-Demand Transit (ODT)

On-demand mobility - also referred to as on-demand transit (ODT) - is a form of public mobility that is flexible with respect to where and when service is provided, and ODT deployments have increased significantly in recent years. Transit agencies are becoming increasingly interested in ODT, and due to differing definitions and various service design and business model options, it can be difficult to learn about the emerging industry. This work provides an overview of the definitions of ODT, recent trends internationally and in the U.S., ODT's benefits and challenges (particularly compared to fixed-route transit), three primary service design options, system costs and funding considerations, and a metrics framework for evaluating ODT systems to ensure continued successful performance. Identified benefits include increased service areas, short ride and wait times, increased user flexibility, potential to reduce energy consumption and emissions through shared trips and smaller, right-sized vehicles, increased safety and comfort through door-to-door service, and rich data streams including granular spatio-temporal data that can be analyzed to continuously improve the service. Challenges include scaling ODT service up as small increases in ridership require additional supply to keep service quality high, serving peak times including keeping low wait times, the lack of fixed schedule being challenging for commuters, integrating ODT services with nearby transit systems, and equity for riders without smartphones who cannot track the vehicle in a mobile app. Finally, an overview of seven ODT case studies (in Texas, Missouri, New York, and Ontario, Canada) performed by NREL and related analysis of travel time, energy and emissions, costs, and equity are presented. Initial key findings include: ODT can be cost- and energy-effective compared to fixed-route transit, ODT serves more people than other transit options, and ODT system deployments can be followed by rapid growth.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2026

Solar Photovoltaics Resilient Fasteners Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) Tool

Solar photovoltaics (PV) module fasteners are one of the most common structural failure points on PV systems, particularly in high winds and coastal areas with ocean spray. Some fastener types have been shown to survive these conditions at higher rates than others. The fastener type, material, quantity, and placement all impact performance. Fasteners that fail less often typically have a higher upfront cost, but this investment can pay off in savings from less frequent torque audits (which reduces O&M costs), reduced system damage, and decreased system downtime. We developed an Excel-based tool to evaluate different module fasteners for a PV system - either a new or retrofit project - and compare differences in upfront and outyear costs to determine the expected life cycle costs and simple payback periods of different fastener options. The tool is site-specific, with inputs including system attributes (such as system size, location, price of power) and fastener attributes (such as design, washer type, nut type, use of locking hardware, materials, installation time, and torque audit requirements). A baseline fastener scenario can be compared to up to four proposed fastener scenarios. In addition to presenting expected life cycle cost implications of the different fastener options, the tool produces results showing the reductions in outyear costs needed to offset any initial cost premiums for more reliable fasteners across four categories: preventative O&M, avoided damage, reduced downtime, and reduced insurance premiums. These numbers can serve as decision aids for users when considering fastener options on new or existing projects. This poster will present the tool, methodology, and scenarios using example sites to highlight the tool capabilities and how it can inform different fastener decisions on different projects. Future work includes incorporating lifetime expected damage costs by embedding damage function curves that the authors are developing from field data.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗