Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “fuel cost”

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
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Hydropower Value Drivers

Conventional hydro resources generate the majority of their value by providing energy under most conditions, but the relative fraction of value generated by providing ancillary services and capacity increases with increasing penetration of resources with zero fuel costs. Pumped storage hydropower resources generate the majority of their value by providing capacity under most conditions, but the relative fraction of value generated by providing energy increases with increasing penetration of resources with zero fuel costs. The total value of conventional hydropower generally decreases in systems with increasing penetration of resources with zero fuel costs; this is largely due to the associated decrease in average energy prices. The total value of pumped storage generally increases in systems with increasing penetration of resources with zero fuel costs, largely due to opportunities to operate in pumping mode when energy prices are low or even negative. Energy storage representation must be enhanced to ensure that models accurately capture system value streams for these resources. Current power system models have a limited ability to capture the price dynamics of ancillary services, and it is still challenging to assess the role and magnitude of ancillary service value streams in future systems. Power systems are currently in a state of rapid and dramatic evolution due to a number of different factors, including the increasing penetration of variable renewable energy (VRE) sources, such as wind and solar, and battery energy storage systems (BESS). This evolution will change the way power systems are fundamentally planned and operated. Some of these changes may be incremental, while others may be more significant, but the result will likely be parallel evolution in the definition and requirement of different grid services and therefore a subsequent shift in their relative values. This report presents a framework developed to identify such system value drivers and quantify their relative impact on several different value streams, with a specific focus on implications for conventional hydropower and pumped storage hydropower (PSH) resources. This value drivers framework (VDF) encompasses five core analytical steps: 1. Identify potential drivers and develop scenarios, 2. Execute production cost models, 3. Calibrate prices, 4. Optimize hydropower operations, and 5. Quantify value drivers.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Potential Fuel Cycle Cost Reductions of Once Through HALEU Reactors

This report looks to identify potential cost reduction opportunities for SFR and HTGR reactors using HALEU fuel. This analysis focuses on how learning rates and experience from other industries could translate to future HALEU fueled reactor fuel cycles. Various fuel loading and residence scenarios are evaluated to estimate areas of potential cost savings. Cost savings from location optimization is explored for both fresh and spent nuclear fuel. Additional analysis was completed to estimate cost savings through improved labor productivity.

11 - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Model Year 2021 Fuel Economy Guide

The Fuel Economy Guide is published by the U.S. Department of Energy as an aid to consumers considering the purchase of a new vehicle. The Guide lists estimates of miles per gallon (mpg) for each vehicle available for the new model year. These estimates are provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in compliance with Federal Law. By using this Guide, consumers can estimate the average yearly fuel cost for any vehicle. The Guide is intended to help consumers compare the fuel economy of similarly sized cars, light duty trucks and special purpose vehicles.

2017 EPA fuel economy↗
DOE OSTI2021

Comprehensive Total Cost of Ownership Quantification for Vehicles with Different Size Classes and Powertrains

In order to accurately compare the costs of two vehicles, the total cost of ownership (TCO) should consist of all costs related to both purchasing and operating the vehicle. This TCO analysis builds on previous work to provide a comprehensive perspective of all relevant vehicle costs of ownership. In this report, we present what we believe to be the most comprehensive explicit financial analysis of the costs that will be incurred by a vehicle owner. This study considers vehicle cost and depreciation, financing, fuel costs, insurance costs, maintenance and repair costs, taxes and fees, and other operational costs to formulate a holistic total cost of ownership and operation of multiple different vehicles. For each of these cost parameters that together constitute a comprehensive TCO, extensive literature review and data analysis were performed to find representative values in order to build a holistic TCO for vehicles of all size classes. The light- and heavy-duty vehicles selected for analysis in this report are representative of those that are on the road today and expected to be available in the future. Important additive analyses in this study include systematic analysis of vehicle depreciation, in-depth examination of insurance premium costs, comprehensive maintenance and repair estimates, analysis of all relevant taxes and fees, and considerations of specific costs applicable to commercial vehicles. We find that cars depreciate faster than light trucks and that older plug-in electric vehicles have a greater depreciation rate than newer electric vehicles. Light-duty vehicle (LDV) insurance costs show comparable costs for different powertrains, and lower costs for larger size classes. Medium- and heavy-duty vehicle (MHDV) insurance costs vary significantly by vocation. Electric and electrified powertrains have lower maintenance and repair costs than internal combustion engine (ICE) powertrains for all vehicle sizes, relative to vehicle price. MHDV maintenance and repair costs depend heavily on vocation and duty cycle. LDV taxes and fees are comparable across powertrain types and size classes, though marginally higher registration fees exist for alternative fuel vehicles. MHDV fees depend on the vocation, weight rating, and state. Many electric tractor trailers would be affected by additional battery weight, reducing the available payload capacity, and this cost can be substantial. Electric vehicle charging for commercial vehicles can be time-consuming; labor rates can cause this cost to dominate TCO. With improved knowledge of each of the cost components, we calculate a lifetime TCO for comparison across vehicles of different types and attributes. For a simulated small sport utility vehicle in 2025, modeled using Autonomie, the hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) has the lowest cost, followed by the conventional ICE vehicle. For MHDV, TCO can be drastically different depending on the vocation. Long-haul vehicles typically have the lowest per-mile costs. Excluding labor costs, the class 4 delivery has a comparable TCO to the day cab. Vocational trucks, refuse trucks, and transit buses have a high per-mile cost of ownership due to maintenance and insurance. For all of these vehicles, the cost of operating the vehicle is heavily weighted by the labor of the driver, followed by the fuel costs. While the HEV begins as the lowest cost powertrain for passenger vehicles, fuel cells are forecast to reach cost parity by 2030 when hydrogen prices reach $\$ 5$/kg while battery electric vehicles (BEV) reach cost parity by 2035 at a battery cost of $\$ 98$ per usable kWh of capacity, with these two technologies being the lowest cost in 2050. For the class 8 day cab tractor, the HEV and ICE vehicle begin as the lowest cost powertrains, and the 250-mile BEV reduces in cost from the most expensive to the least expensive by 2030.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Performance and cost of fuel cells for off-road heavy-duty vehicles

Hydrogen fuel cell-powered off-road vehicles can replace hydrocarbon-powered off-road vehicles to reduce carbon dioxide and criteria pollutant emissions in the agriculture, construction, and mining industries. Vehicle manufacturers and customers recognize health and environmental benefits of emissions reductions but are ultimately compelled by the total cost of ownership of their vehicles. In this study, we conduct a technoeconomic evaluation for three hallmark off-road vehicles, tractors, wheel loaders, and excavators, comparing vehicles with hydrogen fuel cell + battery hybrid powertrains to traditional diesel powertrains. Stakeholder-valued performance metrics include fuel cell engine power, engine durability, hydrogen consumption rate, hydrogen storage system volume, and energy-regenerative drivetrain efficiency. The total cost of ownership includes capital, operating and maintenance, fuel, and fuel storage costs. State-of-the-art fuel cell powered wheel loaders and excavators are currently cost competitive with diesel platforms. If targeted improvements to cost, performance, and durability improvements of fuel cell stacks and storage systems are achieved, fuel cell systems would be cost competitive for tractors and significantly lower total cost of ownership options for wheel loaders and excavators.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis Report: Supporting Documents 2 Production Based Costing

The purpose of this section is to outline a method of cost analysis whereby a significantly better representation of “should achieve” costs may be attained for NOAK systems. Based on economists’ notions of producer theory, and grounded in the cost analysts’ and project managers’ tool called the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), this section describes best practices in cost estimation. It then illustrates how the Code of Accounts (COA) structure, developed by the Economic Modeling Working Group (EMWG) of the Generation IV International Forum in “Cost Estimating Guidelines for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems [EMWG 2007] (hereafter “Gen IV Guidelines Document”), can be used to differentiate “should achieve” versus “did experience” costs.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Model Year 2019 Fuel Economy Guide: EPA Fuel Economy Estimates

The Fuel Economy Guide is published by the U.S. Department of Energy as an aid to consumers considering the purchase of a new vehicle. The Guide lists estimates of miles per gallon (mpg) for each vehicle available for the new model year. These estimates are provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in compliance with Federal Law. By using this Guide, consumers can estimate the average yearly fuel cost for any vehicle. The Guide is intended to help consumers compare the fuel economy of similarly sized cars, light duty trucks and special purpose vehicles.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Model Year 2020 Fuel Economy Guide: EPA Fuel Economy Estimates

The Fuel Economy Guide is published by the U.S. Department of Energy as an aid to consumers considering the purchase of a new vehicle. The Guide lists estimates of miles per gallon (mpg) for each vehicle available for the new model year. These estimates are provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in compliance with Federal Law. By using this Guide, consumers can estimate the average yearly fuel cost for any vehicle. The Guide is intended to help consumers compare the fuel economy of similarly sized cars, light duty trucks and special purpose vehicles.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Maritime Fuel Cell Generator Project [FY2018]

Fuel costs and emissions in maritime ports are an opportunity for transportation energy efficiency improvement and emissions reduction efforts. Ocean-going vessels, harbor craft, and cargo handling equipment are still major contributors to air pollution in and around ports. Diesel engine costs continually increase as tighter criteria pollutant regulations come into effect and will continue to do so with expected introduction of carbon emission regulations. Diesel fuel costs will also continue to rise as requirements for cleaner fuels are imposed. Both aspects will increase the cost of diesel-based power generation on the vessel and on shore. Although fuel cells have been used in many successful applications, they have not been technically or commercially validated in the port environment. One opportunity to do so was identified in Honolulu Harbor at the Young Brothers Ltd. wharf. At this facility, barges sail regularly to and from neighboring islands and containerized diesel generators provide power for the reefers while on the dock and on the barge during transport, nearly always at part load. Due to inherent efficiency characteristics of fuel cells and diesel generators, switching to a hydrogen fuel cell power generator was found to have potential emissions and cost savings. Deployment in Hawaii showed the unit needed greater reliability in the start-up sequence, as well as an improved interface to the end-user, thereby presenting opportunities for repairing/upgrading the unit for deployment in another locale. In FY2018, the unit was repaired and upgraded based on the Hawaii experience, and another deployment site was identified for another 6-month deployment of the 100 kW MarFC.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2024

Pressurized-Water Reactor Core Design using Multi-Objective Plant Fuel Reload Optimization Platform

The United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE) Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) Program Risk-Informed Systems Analysis (RISA) Pathway Plant Reload Optimization Project aims to develop an integrated, comprehensive framework offering an all-in-one solution for reload evaluations with a special focus on optimization of core design. The optimization of the fuel loading pattern is one of the most important considerations in reducing the amount of new fuel used in the core. Due to thousands of possible options of core configuration, finding optimal solutions is an unachievable task for a human. The Plant ReLoad Optimization (PRLO) platform which supports artificial-intelligence-based reactor core designing is now fully capable of handling realistic problems. The PRLO Platform development project aims to build a reactor core design tool that includes reactor safety and fuel performance analyses and uses artificial intelligence to support the optimization of core design solutions. The NSGA-II (Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm-II) optimizer was developed and tested within RAVEN (Risk Analysis and Virtual Environment) to handle many constraints by using an augmented objectives methodology. The demonstration was performed with constrained multi-objective optimization of a 17 × 17 pressurized-water reactor core loading patterns to minimize fuel cost and maximize fuel cycle length.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2023

Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis Report: Supporting Documents 3 Cost Correlations

This chapter provides an overview of the drivers for developing correlation coefficients, status on efforts to develop partial correlation coefficients, and recommended next steps. Mathematical methods for developing and using correlation coefficients were previously documented by the FCO EWG in Chapters 6 and 7 of [Ganda 2014].

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis Report: Supporting Document 5 Considerations on Learning

Learning refers here to the increased experience associated to each new build of a given type of fuel cycle facility, which results generally in design improvements, increased construction and operational efficiencies and reduced mistakes, and therefore in reduced costs. These are important considerations, for example, when modeling transitions from first-of-a-kind (FOAK) to nth-of-a-kind (NOAK) nuclear facilities and deciding the magnitude of the cost reduction (if any) to be applied to each successive build. Different assumptions on learning can significantly affect the results of the economic analyses during transitions. Other competing electricity-generation technologies, such as wind and solar power for example, have demonstrated substantial cost reductions through learning during the last few decades.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Levelized Cost of Charging Electric Vehicles

This data set includes the levelized cost of charging (LCOC) and lifetime fuel cost savings (LFCS) values as reported in "Levelized Cost of Charging of Electric Vehicles in the United States." Values are reported at the state and national levels for battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). The data set also includes the four annual direct current fast charging (DCFC) station load profiles used to approximate the levelized cost of DCFC charging. Each profile provides 15-min resolved power requirements for one full year. Borlaug, B., Salisbury, S., Gerdes, M., and Muratori, M., Levelized Cost of Charging Electric Vehicles in the United States, Joule (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.05.013.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2021

LCOC (Levelized Cost of Light-Duty EV Charging Calculator)

This code was developed to calculate the levelized cost of light-duty electric vehicle (EV) charging (LCOC) for the paper "Levelized Cost of Charging Electric Vehicles in the United States" by Borlaug et al.(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.05.013). The calculation takes inputs from a variety of publicly available data sources (e.g., utility tariffs from the Utility Rate Database; EV charging station locations from the Alternative Fuels Data Center; energy price forecasts from the Energy Information Administration) and produces the current LCOC, considering when, where, and how light-duty EVs are recharged. In addition, the lifetime fuel cost savings (LFCS) calculation estimates the discounted fuel cost savings for a new battery EV (BEV) or plug-in hybrid EV (PHEV) over a 15-year time horizon using state-level gasoline price and LCOC projections.

Borlaug, Brennan↗
DOE OSTI2020

Levelized Cost of Charging Electric Vehicles

This data set includes the levelized cost of charging (LCOC) and lifetime fuel cost savings (LFCS) values as reported in "Levelized Cost of Charging of Electric Vehicles in the United States." Values are reported at the state and national levels for battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). The data set also includes the four annual direct current fast charging (DCFC) station load profiles used to approximate the levelized cost of DCFC charging. Each profile provides 15-min resolved power requirements for one full year. Borlaug, B., Salisbury, S., Gerdes, M., and Muratori, M., Levelized Cost of Charging Electric Vehicles in the United States, Joule (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.05.013.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2023

Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis Report: Supporting Document 6 A Proposed Methodology for Transformation of Reactor Cost Data to the ‘What-It-Takes’ Table

Note: This document represents work undertaken to refine the CBR approach for arriving at recommended cost values for the reactor sub-modules. This information is provided to indicate the possible direction of evolution in future CBR updates and encourage comments from CBR users. Since this document was developed concurrent with many of the following R-modules, the methodology was applied only in the analysis of the fast reactor (Module R2) data. In future revisions an attempt will be made to use this methodology uniformly.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis Report: Supporting Document 7 Presentation: Du and RU Disposal Costs [Slides]

Worldwide DU and RU in various chemical forms are some of the largest legacy products of the nuclear industry (defense & power) in both mass and volume. Chemical forms include U metal or alloy, UF6, UO2, UO3, U3O8, and UF4. Most of this material is now in above ground storage. Due to chemical stability and low water solubility oxides are the preferred form for safe storage and ultimate disposal. Long term U disposal in large amounts presents more of a potential radioactivity problem than its conversion and temporary storage. Now a near term problem with freshly-mined uranium ore, radon emanation will eventually be a long-term problem for both DU and RU dispositioned in large quantities at a specific location.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗