Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “integrated demand management”

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.

382 records · Page 22

EMSL Community Science Campaign Meeting: Critical Minerals and Materials - Rhizo Critical Campaign Breakout Session Report Summary

The “Critical Minerals Biogeochemistry in the Rhizosphere – Ultramafic Soils (Rhizo Critical)” campaign breakout (BO) session was organized to identify major knowledge gaps and fundamental research needs in rhizosphere microbiology and geochemistry that, if addressed, could transform our ability to recover critical minerals from ultramafic soil systems. We sought to identify significant challenges that must be surmounted in the pursuit of deeper science knowledge. Our ultimate goal is to understand this landscape well enough to identify and prioritize opportunities for EMSL to make the greatest impact with Environmental Transformations and Interactions (ETI) science area research campaigns focused on the biogeochemical processes controlling the behavior of critical minerals and materials in the rhizosphere. The increasing demand for critical materials and minerals (CMM) in the U.S. has heightened interest in low-grade ores with much attention on ultramafic soils, which contain valuable metals such as nickel (Ni), chromium (Cr), manganese, cobalt (Co), and copper (Lee et al., 2025; DOE CMM Report, 2023) used in advanced battery, magnet, wiring and wind turbines, and stainless steel technologies. Metal hyperaccumulating plants grown in ultramafic soils can extract economically valuable concentrations of CMMs through the process of phytomining. This technology has evolved from phytoremediation, which involves using plants to cleanse contaminated environments by removing, detoxifying, or stabilizing pollutants like metals and organic compounds. Hyperaccumulator plants are capable of storing metals in their living tissues at concentrations hundreds to thousands of times higher than those found in 'normal' plants. For instance, while the average concentration of Ni in the dry matter of plants growing in typical soils is usually less than 5 µg g?¹, Ni hyperaccumulation is defined by concentrations exceeding 1,000 µg g?¹ (Corzo Remigio et al., 2020; Reeves et al., 2018). Phytomining research has primarily focused on Ni (Rylott and van der Ent, 2025), for which the U.S. has very limited conventional mines in operation. Most soils typically contain Ni concentrations ranging from 7 to 50 mg kg-1, whereas serpentine soils exhibit significantly higher levels, with Ni content often ranging between 700 and 8,000 mg kg-1 (Sobczyk et al., 2017). While more than 500 plant species in over 50 different families have been identified as Ni hyperaccumulators (Kidd et al., 2018), Ni phytomining (and phytominng in general) remains largely untested because most studies are short-term, small-scale, and conducted under simplified or artificially enriched conditions, so they fail to capture the low metal concentrations, environmental variability, and management constraints that would be needed for a field-scale demonstration. Few hyperaccumulator species have been validated as true “metal crops,” and their biomass production, stress tolerance, and rooting characteristics are usually too poor to yield economically meaningful metal outputs. Critically, the basic mechanisms of metal uptake, transport, and sequestration, especially as shaped by belowground processes such as root exudation, rhizosphere chemistry, and root–microbe interactions that control metal mobility and bioavailability (Montreemuk et al., 2023; Kidd et al., 2018; Durand et al., 2023; Alford et al., 2010), are still only partially understood, and downstream metal recovery from biomass is rarely optimized. Because these limitations stem from gaps in fundamental knowledge rather than from a failure of the concept itself (Rylott and van der Ent, 2025; van der Ent et al., 2015), there is a strong need for basic science that dissects plant metal homeostasis, rhizosphere and microbial processes, and their integration with soil chemistry and process engineering to design more robust, scalable phytomining systems.

Ahkami, Amirhossein↗

Economically Viable Intermediate to Long Duration Hydrogen Energy Storage Solutions for Fossil Fueled Assets

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management of U.S. Department of Energy under Funding Opportunity Announcement Number DE-FOA-0002332 “Energy Storage for Fossil Power Generation”. The work aimed to explore and advance an innovative hydrogen energy storage system – the synergistically integrated hydrogen energy storage system (SIHES) – that has the following characteristics: • Compatible with existing or new coal and gas fuel electricity generation units, • best suited for intermediate to long duration energy storage, from 12 hours to weeks even months, and • capable of storing energy at the utility scale – hundreds of MWh to GWh energy storage with power output level in tens to hundreds of MW. Preliminary front-end engineering design (Pre-FEED) studies was carried out to develop and refine a site-specific SIHES as peaking power generation units (so named as HyPeaker) as the first market entry point, to demonstrate both the technical feasibility and the economic viability to integrate the HyPeaker “within the fence” of a fossil power plant. This specific site was TVA’s Johnsonville Combustion Turbine Plant. The HyPeaker was designed and engineered to integrate with a 60MW aeroderivative gas turbine unit already available at TVA’s Johnsonville site. This site-specific HyPeaker consists of an alkaline electrolyzer to produce hydrogen from CO 2 free electricity sources, an innovative low-cost high-pressure hydrogen storage system (Big-Ton) and the aero gas turbine to generate electricity using blend of hydrogen and natural gas. A holistic system level technoeconomic analysis tool specific to HyPeaker was developed to optimize the engineering design of the Johnsonville site-specific HyPeaker for cost and performance. The optimal design and specification of the Johnsonville site-specific HyPeaker are the following: • Alkaline electrolyzer: 3MW • Big-Ton storage vessel: 11,000kg H 2 at 3000psi. • 4-stage diaphragm hydrogen compressor: 55kg-H 2 /hr from 150psi to 3000psi. The HyPeaker is designed to provide sufficient hydrogen for 90% continuous operation of the HyPeaker. All major components have design life of 30 years. The capex of HyPeaker is estimated at $\$$7.1M. This included $\$$1.5M for the electrolyzer, $\$$5.6M for the storage vessel and compressor. The cost of aero gas turbine was included as it is already available at the site. Key findings are: • HyPeaker can be designed, manufactured, installed and integrated with the fossil power plants, with sub-systems and components commercially available on the market today, even when it is scaled up to an order of magnitude larger than the one at the Johnsonville site. HyPeaker is a technologically viable solution to cover a wide range of energy storage duration needs, from daily peaking operation to seasonal shifting for fossil fueled assets. • The cost advantage of SCCV based Big-Ton H 2 storage vessel made it possible to “oversize” the H 2 storage subsystem to achieve overall system level cost optimization. The benefits are two-fold. First, it allows to significantly reduce the capacity and cost of electrolyzer by spreading H 2 production over a much longer period of time when the fuel cost for electricity production is low. Second, it allows to balance the hydrogen production and usage shift over weeks to months to meet the peak demands. As such, the capital cost of HyPeaker system using the Big-Ton was less than half of the cost of a system with today’s steel tube based H 2 storage system. The HyPeaker has even better cost advantage Li-ion battery based energy storage system. The estimated capital cost of Li-Ion battery system would be at $\$$38M, under the same projected 20-year electricity generation profile of the Johnsonville site. This is over 5 times more expensive than the HyPeaker system. • Since industry scale energy storage systems do not have 100% energy conversion and storage efficiency, energy storage systems using fossil fuel generated electricity would increase the CO 2 emission. This is particularly the case for HyPeaker due to its low round trip efficiency. Therefore, a more sensible solution would be to the excessive or curtailed electricity from CO 2 emission free sources such as solar farms, wind farms or nuclear power plants, to produce hydrogen, and integrate them with the HyPeaker. Electricity from TVA’s nuclear power plants was used for the Johnsonville HyPeaker. • The economic viability of HyPeaker is expected to be further improved when global supply chains are taken into consideration. For the same Johnsonville site specific HyPeaker, the capex would be reduced to ~$\$$3.6M from ~$\$$7.1M, and the added LCOE is reduced to ~$\$$85/MWh. With the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the cost of domestically produced HyPeaker sub-systems would be at the level of today’s global suppliers. Since the peaking units generally operate at peak usage period, thereby demanding higher price, the projected $\$$85/MWh LCOE would be within the realm of financial viability for utility operators.

08 HYDROGEN↗

WIPP Safety Significant Confinement Ventilation System (SSCVS) HEPA Filtration System - 20165

Construction and major equipment fabrication are underway for a new ventilation exhaust system at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The new system will provide continuous High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filtration of the exhaust from the WIPP underground while meeting the ventilation demands for expanded waste emplacement and mining operations over the next 40 years. The integrated system design provides for reducing the salt, clay and diesel particulates from the exhaust airflow from the mine, prior to full filtration using Nuclear Safety Significant HEPA filters. The SSCVS design and equipment provides for continuous HEPA filtration over a wide range of operating and environmental conditions. The new exhaust system connects to the existing underground exhaust shaft, and the exhaust air flows from the underground through Salt Reduction Units (SRUs) to protect the final filter banks from excessive moisture and rapid salt/dust buildup. Each of the six (6) SRUs consists of a demister to remove entrained moisture, a dry salt remover unit to filter approximately 90% of the entrained salt/dust, and an automated water treatment system to periodically clean the demisters and to remove salt from the SRU filters. At the maximum expected exhaust flowrate of 540,000 Cubic Feet per Minute (CFM) / 255 Cubic Meters per Second (m{sup 3}/s), five (5) salt removal units will be in operation with one unit in standby or maintenance. An in-line variable frequency drive booster fan will offset pressure losses through each SRU and reduce the relative humidity of the air exiting the SRUs. In the event of a high radiation alarm from the underground Continuous Air Monitors (CAMs), the SRUs will be automatically bypassed, which places the SRS and building outside of the Safety Significant confinement boundary. From the SRUs, the exhaust is directed to the HEPA filter banks located in the New Filter Building. The exhaust system is designed to provide continuous HEPA filtration prior to release to the exhaust stack. There are 22 HEPA filter banks rated at 27,000 CFM / 12.75 m{sup 3}/s each. Each filter bank has two stages of pre-filters and two stages of HEPA filters. The filtered air from each of the 22 filter banks discharges into a common concrete plenum, which is maintained under a negative pressure by the main exhaust fans. Six 1,000 HP variable frequency drive exhaust fans are provided on the south side of the plenum. At the maximum expected exhaust flow of 540,000 CFM, four exhaust fans and twenty filter banks will be in operation. The fans discharge vertically to a separate concrete exhaust plenum. The filtered exhaust is routed from the exhaust plenum to a 125-foot-tall exhaust stack via a 13-foot diameter duct. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Potential State Regulatory Pathways to Facilitate Low-Carbon Fuels

States and the federal government are increasingly engaged in the challenges around decarbonizing the electric grid. In particular, regulators, consumers, stakeholders, and utilities recognize the need to carefully consider the role natural gas will play in a decarbonized future. A variety of technology and policy options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with natural gas use are available, including energy efficiency programs, demand reduction tools, strategic electrification, and strategies to reduce emissions from natural gas production, transportation, and consumption. Low-carbon fuels – mainly renewable natural gas (RNG) and clean hydrogen – are being considered an important component of decarbonization goals. RNG and hydrogen may be able to meaningfully reduce emissions from processes independent of geologic natural gas, displacing emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. Although RNG and hydrogen are not cost-competitive today with geologic natural gas and are smaller in scale and potential than other decarbonization options, they can be explored as potential critical tools to decarbonize sectors that are difficult to electrify or shift off of natural gas entirely, such as air travel, industrial processes, maritime transport, long-distance trucking, space heating on cold days, and railroads (Nadel, 2022). The role of this report is to provide informational context for state utility regulators to understand the impacts of and challenges associated with broader integration of low-carbon fuels, followed by examples of state regulatory actions taken to date to facilitate the development of low-carbon fuels. Setting clear guidance to calculate the environmental benefits of low-carbon fuels and continuing federal and state investments in research and development to reduce costs relative to fossil fuels will be important steps to take to signal the desire to grow the market for these fuels. State public utility commissions may play a key role in setting regulatory frameworks for low-carbon fuels and ensuring that ratepayer funds, if utilized, are done so to further the public interest. This report is intended to summarize decisions that states have made to date on low-carbon fuels. In the spirit of understanding the current market and sharing information, this report provides success stories, and lessons learned across states as regulators implement varying strategies to achieve decarbonization objectives while maintaining their focus on affordability, safety, and reliability of the energy system. The report begins with an introduction of the role of natural gas in the U.S. economy (Section I) and background information on natural gas use, decarbonization, and low-carbon fuels (Section II). Next, the report describes the current market by discussing the scale of current production, emissions intensity, resource potential, and costs of low-carbon fuels compared to geologic natural gas (Section III). Following these sections, the report describes four strategies states have employed to facilitate low-carbon fuels: opening exploratory dockets, approving voluntary tariffs for customers, approving interconnection tariffs for producers, and considering portfolio-wide procurement targets (Section IV). This section lists states that have taken actions in each category, citing utility filings, commission decisions, stakeholder comments, and other relevant sources. Finally, the report concludes with suggested questions regulators may wish to consider regarding low-carbon fuels, in the interest of preparing to make decisions in the future (Section V). These questions include: Are there existing regulatory or technical barriers to voluntary purchases of low-carbon fuels? Can customers work with utilities to procure low-carbon fuels; are producers able to interconnect projects without significant barriers to entry? Should the infrastructure and/or commodity costs of low-carbon fuels be socialized among all ratepayers, or borne solely by the large commercial and industrial (C&I) customers currently driving the market? Should regulated natural gas and/or electric utilities own and operate low-carbon fuel production? How should regulators consider the unique decarbonization potential of low-carbon fuels, particularly for hard-to-abate sectors, in decision-making? Is additional direction or clarity from state policymakers needed? What no-regrets approaches can help facilitate both near-term RNG development and long-term development of hydrogen and other zero-carbon fuels? We collectively wish to express our gratitude to the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, for supporting this report and other technical assistance resources for state regulators on natural gas topics. State regulators operate under a variety of policy environments, and states have vastly different types of energy resources, infrastructure, and customers. While there is no optimal regulatory, policy, or technological solution that will be successful in every state, state regulators can benefit by exchanging lessons learned with their peers across the country. We look forward to continued engagement with our fellow commissioners, commission staff, NARUC, the U.S. Department of Energy, and other stakeholders to develop sound regulation in the public interest.

03 NATURAL GAS↗