Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “annual update”

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 37 records · Page 2

Salt International Collaborations (FY22 Update)

This report summarizes the international collaborations conducted by Sandia funded by the US Department of Energy Office (DOE) of Nuclear Energy Spent Fuel and Waste Science & Technology (SFWST) as part of the Sandia National Laboratories Salt R&D and Salt International work packages. This report satisfies the level-three milestone M3SF-22SN010303063. Several stand-alone sections make up this summary report, each completed by the participants. The sections discuss international collaborations on geomechanical benchmarking exercises (WEIMOS), granular salt reconsolidation (KOMPASS), engineered barriers (RANGERS), numerical model comparison (DECOVALEX) and an NEA Salt Club working group on the development of scenarios as part of the performance assessment development process. Finally, we summarize events related to the US/German Workshop on Repository Research, Design and Operations. The work summarized in this annual update has occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, and little international or domestic travel has occurred. Most of the collaborations have been conducted via email or as virtual meetings, but a slow return to travel and in-person meetings has begun.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

2022 GETEM Geothermal Drilling Cost Curve Update: Preprint

The Geothermal Electricity Technology Evaluation Model (GETEM) is an essential tool for the Department of Energy's (DOE) Geothermal Technology Office (GTO) to understand the performance and cost of technologies it is seeking to improve. This detailed model is used for supply curve analyses, assessing the current economic feasibility and Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) of hydrothermal geothermal systems and EGS, and evaluating the potential impact of advanced geothermal technologies. GETEM can be used to estimate the performance and costs of currently available U.S. geothermal power systems. It is also used to estimate the costs of technologies 5 to 20 years in the future, given the direction of potential research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) projects. The model is intended to help GTO determine which proposed RD&D programs and projects might offer the most efficient improvement when using taxpayer funding. The model requires annual updates as well as revisions to reflect the current state of the art. Drilling costs are a significant portion of total geothermal development costs. The current GETEM drilling cost inputs rely on drilling data from 2009 and require an updated analysis of more recent data to ensure they remain representative of current technologies. An updated, more accurate understanding of costs could help the geothermal industry secure project development financing and investment funding and better allow the oil and gas (O&G) industry (both operators and service companies) weigh potential geothermal market participation and customization. This report details recent drilling improvements from the Utah Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy (FORGE) and O&G, comparing drilling performance and costs with values in GETEM, particularly the baseline drilling cost curves. Though drilling performance at FORGE has improved significantly, we did not find associated cost decreases that would justify lowering the GETEM baseline cost curves as of now.

API↗

2022 GETEM Geothermal Drilling Cost Curve Update

The Geothermal Electricity Technology Evaluation Model (GETEM) is an essential tool for the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Geothermal Technologies Office (GTO) to understand the performance and cost of technologies it is seeking to improve. This detailed model is used for supply curve analyses, assessing the current economic feasibility and levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of hydrothermal geothermal systems and enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), and evaluating the potential impact of advanced geothermal technologies. GETEM can be used to estimate the performance and costs of currently available U.S. geothermal power systems. It is also used to estimate the costs of technologies 5 to 20 years in the future, given the direction of potential research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) projects. The model is intended to help GTO determine which proposed RD&D programs and projects might offer the most efficient improvement when using taxpayer funding. The model requires annual updates as well as revisions to reflect the current state of the art. Drilling costs are a significant portion of total geothermal development costs. The current GETEM drilling cost inputs rely on drilling data from 2009 and require an updated analysis of more recent data to ensure they remain representative of current technologies. An updated, more accurate understanding of costs could help the geothermal industry secure project development financing and investment funding and better allow the oil and gas (O&G) industry (both operators and service companies) to weigh potential geothermal market participation and customization. This report details recent drilling improvements from the Utah Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy (FORGE) and the O&G sector, comparing drilling performance and costs with values in GETEM, particularly the baseline drilling cost curves. Although drilling performance at FORGE has improved significantly, we did not find associated cost decreases that would justify lowering the GETEM baseline cost curves at this time.

API↗

Methane Emissions from Gathering Compressor Stations in the U.S.

Using results from a nationally representative measurement campaign at 180 gathering compressor stations conducted with nine industry partners, this study estimated emissions for the U.S. gathering sector, where sector-specific emission factors have not been previously available. The study drew from a partner station population of 1705 stations—a significantly larger pool than was available for prior studies. Data indicated that whole gas emission rates from components on gathering stations were comparable to or higher than emission factors utilized by the EPA’s greenhouse gas reporting program (GHGRP) but less than emission factors used for similar components on transmission compressor stations. Field data also indicated that the national population of stations likely has a higher fraction of smaller stations, operating at lower throughput per station, than the data used to develop the per-station emission factor used in EPA’s greenhouse gas inventory (GHGI). This was the first national study to incorporate extensive activity data reported to the GHGRP, including 319 basin-level reports, covering 15,895 reported compressors. Further, combining study emission data with 2017 GHGRP activity data, the study indicated statistically lower national emissions of 1290 [1246–1342] Gg methane per year or 66% [64–69%] of current GHGI estimates, despite estimating 17% [12–22%] more stations than the 2017 GHGI (95% confidence interval). Finally, we propose a replicable method that uses GHGRP activity data to annually update GHGI gathering and boost sector emissions.

03 NATURAL GAS↗

Version 4 of the CRU TS monthly high-resolution gridded multivariate climate dataset

CRU TS (Climatic Research Unit gridded Time Series) is a widely used climate dataset on a 0.5° latitude by 0.5° longitude grid over all land domains of the world except Antarctica. It is derived by the interpolation of monthly climate anomalies from extensive networks of weather station observations. Here we describe the construction of a major new version, CRU TS v4. It is updated to span 1901–2018 by the inclusion of additional station observations, and it will be updated annually. The interpolation process has been changed to use angular-distance weighting (ADW), and the production of secondary variables has been revised to better suit this approach. This implementation of ADW provides improved traceability between each gridded value and the input observations, and allows more informative diagnostics that dataset users can utilise to assess how dataset quality might vary geographically.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Tetranucleotide frequencies differentiate genomic boundaries and metabolic strategies across environmental microbiomes

Microbiomes are constrained by physicochemical conditions, nutrient regimes, and community interactions across diverse environments, yet genomic signatures of this adaptation remain unclear. Metagenome sequencing is a powerful technique to analyze genomic content in the context of natural environments, establishing concepts of microbial ecological trends. Here, we developed a data discovery tool-a tetranucleotide-informed metagenome stability diagram-that is publicly available in the integrated microbial genomes and microbiomes (IMG/M) platform for metagenome ecosystem analyses. We analyzed the tetranucleotide frequencies from quality-filtered and unassembled sequence data of over 12,000 metagenomes to assess ecosystem-specific microbial community composition and function. We found that tetranucleotide frequencies can differentiate communities across various natural environments and that specific functional and metabolic trends can be observed in this structuring. Our tool places metagenomes sampled from diverse environments into clusters and along gradients of tetranucleotide frequency similarity, suggesting microbiome community compositions specific to gradient conditions. Within the resulting metagenome clusters, we identify protein-coding gene identifiers that are most differentiated between ecosystem classifications. We plan for annual updates to the metagenome stability diagram in IMG/M with new data, allowing for refinement of the ecosystem classifications delineated here. This framework has the potential to inform future studies on microbiome engineering, bioremediation, and the prediction of microbial community responses to environmental change. IMPORTANCE: Microbes adapt to diverse environments influenced by factors like temperature, acidity, and nutrient availability. We developed a new tool to analyze and visualize the genetic makeup of over 12,000 microbial communities, revealing patterns linked to specific functions and metabolic processes. This tool groups similar microbial communities and identifies characteristic genes within environments. By continually updating this tool, we aim to advance our understanding of microbial ecology, enabling applications like microbial engineering, bioremediation, and predicting responses to environmental change.

Kellom, Matthew↗

Model America - data and models of every U.S. building

The 5-year goal of the 'Model America' concept was to generate a model of every building in the United States. This data repository delivers on that goal. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has developed the Automatic Building Energy Modeling (AutoBEM) software suite to process multiple types of data, extract building-specific descriptors, generate building energy models, and simulate them on High Performance Computing (HPC) resources. For more information, see AutoBEM-related publications (bit.ly/AutoBEM). There were 125,714,640 buildings detected in the United States and this dataset contains 122,930,327 (97.8%) buildings which resulted in a successful simulation. Future, annual updates have been proposed that may include additional buildings, data improvements, or other algorithmic enhancements. This dataset of 122.9 million buildings includes: Models (state_county.zip) - OpenStudio (v3.1.0) and EnergyPlus (v9.4) building energy models. Please note that the download requires the free Globus Connect Personal (https://www.globus.org/globus-connect-personal); Each model has approximately 3,000 building input descriptors that can be extracted. Please see the EnergyPlus(v9.4) 2,784-page Input/Output Reference Guide (https://energyplus.net/sites/all/modules/custom/nrel_custom/pdfs/pdfs_v9.4.0/InputOutputReference.pdf) for everything that can be retrieved or simulated from these models. These models were derived from the following metadata, which is not included in this dataset: 1. ID - unique building ID 2. County - county name 3. State - state name 4. CZ - ASHRAE Climate Zone designation 5. Clim_Zone - text label of climate zone 6. est_year - estimated year of construction 7. est_commercial - estimated building type (0=residential, 1=commercial) 8. Centroid - building center location in latitude/longitude (from Footprint2D) 9. Footprint2D - building polygon of 2D footprint (lat1/lon1_lat2/lon2_...) 10. Height - building height (meters) 11. Area2D - footprint area (ft2) 12. BuildingType - DOE prototype building designation (IECC=residential) as implemented by OpenStudio-standards 13. WWR_surfaces - percent of each facade (pair of points from Footprint2D) covered by fenestration/windows (average 14.5% for residential, 40% for commercial buildings) 14. NumFloors - number of floors (above-grade) 15. Area - estimate of total conditioned floor area (ft2) 16. Standard - building vintage. These models are made free and openly available in hopes of stimulating any simulation-informed use case. Data is provided as-is with no warranties, express or implied, regarding fitness for a particular purpose. We wish to thank our sponsors which include Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD), U.S. Dept. of Energy's (DOE) Building Technologies Office (BTO), Office of Electricity (OE), Biological and Environmental Research (BER), and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). This research used resources of the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility, which is a DOE Office of Science User Facility supported under Contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. Please cite as: New, Joshua R., Adams, Mark, Bass, Brett, Berres, Anne, and Clinton, Nicholas (2021). 'Model America - data and models of every U.S. building. [Data set].' Constellation, doi.ccs.ornl.gov/ui/doi/339, April 14, 2021

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

mosartwmpy: A Python implementation of the MOSART-WM coupled hydrologic routing and water management model

mosartwmpy is a Python implementation of the Model for Scale Adaptive River Transport with Water Management (MOSART-WM). This new version retains the functionality of the legacy model (written in FORTRAN) while providing new features to enhance user experience and extensibility. MOSART is a large-scale river-routing model used to study riverine dynamics of water, energy, and biogeochemistry cycles across local, regional, and global scales (Li et al., 2013). The WM component introduced by Voisin et al. (2013) represents river regulation through reservoir storage and release operations, diversions from reservoir releases, and allocation to sectoral water demands. Each reservoir release is independently calibrated using long-term mean monthly inflow into the reservoir, long-term mean monthly demand associated with this reservoir, and reservoir goals (flood control, irrigation, recreation, etc.). Generic monthly pre-release rules and storage targets are set up for individual reservoirs; however, those releases are updated annually for inter-annual variability (dry or wet year) and daily for environmental constraints such as flow minimum release and minimum/maximum storage levels. The WM model allows an evaluation of the impact of water management over multiple river basins at once (global, continental scales) and with consistent representation of human operations over the full domain.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

2019 Lighting R&D Opportunities

BTO’s Lighting R&D Opportunities is updated annually and covers foundational R&D needs for lighting technology and lighting application understanding that will result in maximum energy savings while also optimizing for building occupant well-being and productivity.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Hybrid Power Plants: Status of Operating and Proposed Plants, 2022 Edition [Slides]

Falling battery prices and the growth of variable renewable generation are driving a surge of interest in “hybrid” power plants that combine, for example, wind or solar generating capacity with co-located batteries. While most of the current interest involves pairing photovoltaic (PV) plants with batteries, other types of hybrid or co-located plants with wide-ranging configurations have been part of the U.S. electricity mix for decades. This annually updated briefing tracks and maps existing hybrid or co-located plants across the United States while also synthesizing data mined from power purchase agreements (PPAs) and generation interconnection queues to shed light on near- and long-term development pipelines. The scope includes co-located hybrid plants that pair two or more generators and/or that pair generation with storage at a single point of interconnection, and full hybrids that feature co-location and co-control. The focus is on plants with one megawatt (MW) or more of capacity; smaller (often behind-the-meter) projects are also increasingly common, but are not included in this data synthesis. Key findings from the latest briefing include: -At the end of 2021, there were nearly 300 hybrid plants (>1 MW) operating across the United States, totaling nearly 36 gigawatts (GW) of generating capacity and 3.2 GW/8.1 GWh of energy storage. PV+storage plants are by far the most common, dominating in terms of plant number (140), storage capacity (2.2 GW/7.0 GWh), storage:generator ratio (53%), and storage duration (3.2 hours). But there are nearly twenty other hybrid plant configurations as well, including several different fossil hybrid categories (each dominated by the fossil component) as well as wind+storage, wind+PV, wind+PV+storage, geothermal+PV, and others. -Last year was a breakout year for PV+storage hybrids in particular: 67 of the 74 hybrids added in 2021 were PV+storage. By the end of 2021, there were more GW of battery capacity installed in PV+storage hybrids (2.2 GW) than as standalone storage plants (1.8 GW). The difference is even starker in energy terms, with PV+storage plants hosting twice as much battery capacity as standalone storage plants (7 GWh vs. 3.5 GWh, respectively). Much of the battery capacity added in hybrid form in 2021 was a battery retrofit to a pre-existing PV plant. -Data on plants under development from the interconnection queues of all seven ISOs/RTOs plus 35 individual utilities suggest that these hybridization trends are likely to continue. At the close of 2021, there were more than 670 GW of solar plants in the nation’s queues; 285 GW (~42%) of this capacity was proposed as a hybrid, most typically pairing PV with battery storage (PV+storage represented nearly 90% of all hybrid capacity in the queues). For wind, 247 GW of capacity sat in the queues, with 19 GW (~8%) proposed as a hybrid, again most-often pairing wind with storage (wind+storage represented ~4% of all hybrid capacity in the queues). Meanwhile, nearly half of all storage in the queues is estimated to be part of a hybrid plant. While many of these proposed plants will not ultimately reach commercial operations, the depth of interest in hybrid plants—especially PV+storage—is notable.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

Reducing Uncertainty of Fielded Photovoltaic Performance (Final Technical Report)

Improved analysis and reporting of photovoltaic (PV) field performance increases the certainty of owners and financiers that systems will perform as expected. Advanced module technologies (e.g., PERC, HJT, and bifacial) introduce new degradation mechanisms and performance characteristics. The FY19-21 Reducing Uncertainty project leveraged data from the ever-increasing PV fleet to develop models and understanding of the field performance of existing and new technologies. Specifically, we accomplished: report on field performance and degradation rates for high-efficiency silicon (HJT, PERC, IBC) and more conventional technologies; developed automated analysis techniques to quantify system performance (performance ratio, energy yield) and production shortfalls (soiling, degradation, availability); refined the RdTools software toolkit to bring standard, validated analysis techniques to bear on third-party data; analyzed and reported on large datasets including Treasury data and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's Utility-Scale dataset to expand the high-quality degradation-rate histogram published previously; worked with industry partners and the DuraMAT data hub to enable private parties to share and aggregate PV production data anonymously, leveraging cloud-based data analysis infrastructure and publishing on US fleet-scale performance comprising over 7GW of operating systems. (https://www.nrel.gov/pv/fleet-performance-data-initiative.html). Through our industry collaborations we have engaged in NDA-covered data transfer with twelve PV fleet owners as of January 2022, with more agreements in negotiation. Our scalable cloud-based time series database contains over 30 billion rows (20TB) of PV time series data, representing over 1700 commercial and utility-scale systems, and over 7.2 GW of DC capacity (Fig 1). Initial field performance results have been distributed in several public reports. Because our fleet composition and data quality methods are continually improving, annual updates to these results are published to our PV Fleet webpage [ https://www.nrel.gov/pv/fleet-performance-data-initiative.html ] and DuraMAT data hub [DOI: 10.21948/1842958]. Another existing dissemination channel used for observed soiling losses is a map we maintain for soiling losses. Additional products developed include a report detailing fleet-wide performance index, availability, startup loss and snow loss factors, a detailed report on the 1603 grant dataset comprising over 100,000 PV systems with failure and performance details and a utility-scale report coauthored with LBNL on 31 GW of system performance.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

Nondestructive Assay Technical Infrastructure Program Mission and Vision

The Nondestructive Assay Program (NDAP) mission and vision is achieved by identifying and accomplishing a set of programmatic goals that correspond with eight broad technical program elements. The NDAP was created as a result of Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board Recommendation 2007-1, entitled “Safety-Related In Situ Nondestructive Assay of Radioactive Materials,” which emphasized the need to improve in situ measurements of radioactive material at US Department of Energy (DOE) defense nuclear facilities. An NDAP five-year plan will define tasks to accomplish specific goals identified in the NDAP mission and vision. This mission and vision is applicable for eight technical program elements: Hardware/Software Development, Algorithm Development and Nuclear Data, Uncertainty Quantification, Nuclear Materials, Staffing, Personnel, And Training, Data Management, Requirement and Standards, and Information Preservation and Dissemination. An additional program element is technical support, which provides daily execution management support for the NDAP, site scope, and deliverable tracking via site task managers, along with technical advisement and support from the technical support group. The NDAP mission and vision provides attributes with specific goals for each program element, and some goals benefit multiple program elements. The goals and attributes defined herein are implemented via an NDAP five-year execution plan that defines site work scope, budget, and deliverables, all of which are updated annually. The NDAP is designed to benefit nondestructive assay (NDA) needs to support DOE nuclear criticality safety programs, ensuring that NDA technology is sufficiently capable of guaranteeing the safety of those who handle, store, process, or transport fissionable materials in the complex. Especially important for the NDAP is to maximize capabilities to identify, characterize, and manage in situ fissile material deposits in process equipment to ensure nuclear criticality safety at processing facilities.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

Second Report of the Nuclear Data Subcommittee of the Nuclear Science Advisory Committee

The central importance of the nuclear data curated by the US Nuclear Data Program (USNDP) for clean energy generation, national security, nonproliferation, medical applications, and space exploration as well as basic science was described in a prior report issued by the DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee subcommittee on Nuclear Data (NSAC-ND) in September 2022. In this report, we present a set of fourteen (14) recommendations that will enhance and advance DOE-NP's stewardship of nuclear data. The first three recommendations focus on the existing core USNDP capabilities, namely: 1) Support the nuclear structure evaluation workforce to improve the currency, consistency, and accessibility of the Evaluated Nuclear Structure Data File (ENSDF); 2) Enhance nuclear reaction evaluation within the USNDP in support of the Evaluated Nuclear Data File (ENDF) through expansion of the workforce and integration of high-performance computing, automation, and machine learning and; 3) Continue atomic mass evaluation in support AME and NUBASE databases. This is followed by eight (8) recommendations representing new cross-cutting initiatives involving both measurement and evaluation to address outstanding nuclear data needs. These new initiatives require a highly trained, diverse workforce that includes personnel with expertise from both inside and outside the nuclear physics community from which evaluators have traditionally been recruited. As such, many of these initiatives are accomplished via a Topical Nuclear Data Collaborations (TNDC). A TNDC is made up of domestic and international stakeholders, subject matter and nuclear data experts, and nuclear data evaluators and features a workforce development plan to ensure that nuclear data evaluators maintain currency in the relevant applications and are seen as equity partners in the endeavor. These include: 1) Establish a coordinated effort to improve evaluation and modeling in nuclear astrophysics for stellar dynamics, multi-messenger astronomy and nucleosynthesis; 2) Initiate a TNDC to develop and maintain nuclear structure evaluation beyond discrete states, including nuclear level densities, photon strength functions and photonuclear data for improved reaction modeling, and exploring nuclear structure at finite temperature; 3) Create a TNDC to perform correlated fission data evaluation, including cross sections, fragment yields, v(A), v(E n ) for nuclear energy, national security, nonproliferation and basic science; 4) From a panel of subject matter experts to establish and annually update a roster of key decay data to nurture its accelerated dissemination including both measurement and evaluation for targeted high-value nuclides for national security, nonproliferation and medical applications; 5) Comprehensive, consistent neutron-induced structure and reaction data for nuclear energy, national security, nonproliferation and planetary nuclear spectroscopy; 6) Charged-particle stopping powers for detector design, space effects and ion beam therapy; 7) High-energy reactions for space exploration and medical nuclide production, and; 8) The creation of an infrastructure for open data and data preservation for use by the entire nuclear physics community. All told, these initiatives require approximately $6.5M increase in NP support of the USNDP in fiscal year 2023 dollars and would require at least 3-5 years to carry out due to the length of time needed to recruit and train new nuclear data researchers. This relatively modest investment would help ensure that the fruits of the nuclear data research carried out by DOE-NP and its collaborators would be brought to bear to address some of the most important needs of our nation and the world. To ensure effective execution of this plan, we present an overview of recruitment, training, and retention goals for the USNDP, the centerpiece of which is a mutually agreed upon code of conduct. Finally, we identify the facility and instrumentation needed to perform the recommended experimental activities. This includes a short review of target fabrication capabilities, reactors, neutron beam, light- and heavy-stable ion, gamma-ray, high-energy and radioactive ion beam facilities. Lastly, a more complete appendix of experimental facilities previously compiled is included with new input provided for 6 facilities.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

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

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

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗

MARVEL Utilization Plan

This report provides a high-level overview of the utilization plan for the MARVEL microreactor. The main focus is on discussing testing and application-demonstration opportunities that leverage the reactor. With the reactor rapidly progressing towards demonstration, along with the short (2- year) operational window, it was deemed critical to establish a basis for how stakeholders can engage with the program and leverage the reactor as a testbed. This report discusses potential opportunities to use MARVEL, leveraging from data and design access to testing novel controls, and novel nuclear-electric and nuclear-heat applications. It provides guidance for interested stakeholders on potential funding opportunities that can be pursued to support tests during the operational lifetime of the reactor. The report discusses the recommended strategy for outreach and the organizational structure to review and select projects for participation. Interested stakeholders are encouraged to fill out a questionnaire on how they could leverage MAVEL at this link: https://qfreeaccountssjc1.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_72InKjSEz54Q2j4 It is important to emphasize that this is intended to be a living document (updated annually or as needed) with revisions issued as the MARVEL demonstration timeline evolves. Similarly, the framework for engagement is subject to change as the project progresses.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

Hybrid Power Plants: Status of Operating and Proposed Plants, 2024 Edition [Slides]

Improving battery technology and the growth of variable renewable generation are driving a surge of interest in “hybrid” power plants that combine, for example, wind or solar generating capacity with co-located batteries. While most of the current interest involves pairing photovoltaic (PV) plants with batteries, other types of hybrid or co-located plants with wide-ranging configurations have been part of the U.S. electricity mix for decades. This annually updated briefing tracks and maps existing hybrid or co-located plants across the United States while also synthesizing data from power purchase agreements (PPAs) and generation interconnection queues to shed light on near- and long-term development pipelines. The scope includes “co-located hybrids” that pair two or more resources (e.g., multiple types of generation and/or generation with storage) that are operated largely independently behind a single point of interconnection, and “full hybrids” that also feature coordinated operations of the co-located resources. The focus is on plants with one megawatt (MW) or more of capacity; smaller (often behind-the-meter) projects are also increasingly common, but are not included in this data synthesis.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

Prototype Hanford Barrier Performance Monitoring Report: Fiscal Year 2024

This report provides an annual update on performance monitoring of the Prototype Hanford Barrier (PHB) at the Hanford Site. The PHB is part of a long-term study that serves as the scientific basis for many of the evapotranspiration-capillary barrier designs currently used globally and for future engineered barrier designs planned for remedial actions over waste and demolition sites at the Hanford Site. The PHB allows us to identify potential future issues and develop better monitoring techniques before these engineered barriers are constructed. Surface barriers like the PHB are essential for preventing water infiltration and curbing the spread of contaminants to groundwater. Effective monitoring of soil moisture levels above and below these barriers is crucial given that performance metrics could span up to 1,000 years. From July 2023 to June 2024, the water flux (as measured by tipping buckets) through the 2-m-thick silt loam layer of the PHB – a fine silty material that stores water under high capillary tension – remained well below the 0.5-mm-per-year performance threshold, demonstrating its effectiveness in preventing water penetration. In 2024, degraded tipping bucket gauges were replaced to ensure the accuracy of future data. Additionally, neutron probes revealed that the wetting front from the rainy season only penetrated to a maximum depth of 1.2 m into the silt loam. This further demonstrated the barrier's efficiency, as the wetting front did not fully penetrate the 2-m-thick capillary barrier. The western gravel slope of the PHB, composed of Hanford Site pit gravel of varying sizes, demonstrated low flux rates. In contrast, the eastern riprap slope exhibited higher flux rates. Zhang (2017) found that the riprap side slope of the PHB had the highest drainage rates in January and the lowest in late summer or early fall, indicating significant summer evaporation. Drainage rates increased significantly under enhanced precipitation conditions, far exceeding the design criterion, which could lead to water infiltration into the waste zone. The study introduced the “edge effect,” where elevated drainage rates from the riprap may migrate laterally beneath the barrier, compromising its ability to isolate waste, and recommended expanding the barrier and conducting further research to mitigate this issue. This report provides a review on surface barrier edge effects and their potential impact to subsurface contaminant migration.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Technology and Innovation Roadmap

This Technology and Innovation Roadmap outlines the Hanford Tank Waste Operations & Closure, LLC (H2C) strategic approach for advancing the Hanford Tank Waste Treatment Mission (HTWTM) through technology development. Our focus is on addressing technology needs that address risks, enhance efficiency, ensure worker safety, and uphold environmental standards. This Roadmap identifies key technology initiatives essential for the successful completion of the Hanford Site tank waste cleanup. Updated annually, it incorporates insights from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the Integrated Tank Disposition Contractor (ITDC) H2C, recognized national lab experts, and fieldwork specialists. The Roadmap includes approximately 100 technology elements, each detailed in Technology Element Description Summaries (TEDS) and summarized in catalog sheets. These elements are crucial for aligning technology development activities with mission objectives across the HTWTM. With the initiation of the Direct-Feed Low-Activity Waste (DFLAW) program and the operation of the Tank Side Cesium Removal (TSCR) system, our focus now shifts to the support of scaled up production in East Area; applying similar and exploring new treatment alternatives to West Area Tank Waste; and advancing retrieval, delivery and treatment technologies for waste managed as high-level waste (HLW) across the Hanford tank farms. This transition is reflected in the technology and maturation (TM&E) charts, which highlight the evolving technology priorities. This document serves as a guide for navigating the challenges and opportunities in technology development at the Hanford Site.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗