Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Subcritical Experiments”

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.

456 records · Page 26
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1985

Workshop on Advances in NASA-Relevant, Minimally Invasive Instrumentation

The purpose of this meeting is to highlight those advances in instrumentation and methodology that can be applied to the medical problems that will be encountered as the duration of manned space missions is extended. Information on work that is presently being done by NASA as well as other approaches in which NASA is not participating will be exchanged. The NASA-sponsored efforts that will be discussed are part of the overall Space Medicine Program that has been undertaken by NASA to address the medical problems of manned spaceflight. These problems include those that have been observed in the past as well as those which are anticipated as missions become longer, traverse different orbits, or are in any way different. This conference is arranged in order to address the types of instrumentation that might be used in several major medical problem areas. Instrumentation that will help in the cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, and psychological areas, among others will be presented. Interest lies in identifying instrumentation which will help in learning more about ourselves through experiments performed directly on humans. Great emphasis is placed on non-invasive approaches, although every substantial program basic to animal research will be needed in the foreseeable future. Space Medicine is a rather small affair in what is primarily an engineering organization. Space Medicine is conducted throughout NASA by a very small skeleton staff at the headquarters office in Washington and by our various field centers. These centers include the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, the Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, and the Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. Throughout these various centers, work is conducted in-house by NASA's own staff scientists, physicians, and engineers. In addition, various universities, industries, and other government laboratories perform research that cannot be effectively carried out in-house. At the moment, approximately 50% of the work is performed in-house and 50% is extramural. The area of bioinstrumentation pervades every one of our problem areas. In each, equipment or procedures are being developed that will allow more clinical work to be done in a ground-based or spacecraft setting. Although work of this kind goes on throughout the NASA organization and through its grants and contracts in the community at large, the major thrust of it is concentrated at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory which plays a lead role in this type of research and acts as the lead center in bioinstrumentation for NASA. It is recognized that there is much additional research being pursued in this area which would be potentially valuable to NASA and could, with some stimulation from, be made more applicable to NASA's needs. It is hoped, therefore, that the proceedings of this conference will be used as the basis for developing research strategies to be used as a road map to point the way in which NASA's own sponsored program should proceed over the course of the next three years. Additionally, it is hoped that the conference will highlight additional areas in which NASA should be involved either in-house or through the sponsorship of non-NASA scientists. NASA would also like to get an idea of which areas should be emphasized or perhaps de-emphasized among those that it is currently pursuing. In considering these questions, the discussion should concern itself not so much with whether a particular procedure or piece of equipment would work in a spacecraft, but rather, with whether the procedures that are advocated are at the state-of-the-art or beyond the state-of-the-art and whether they hold promise of giving additional insight into the problems to be confronted as humans venture into space for longer and longer periods of time.

Source record↗
DOE OSTI2026

Gear Test Assembly - Experimental Testing and Analysis of Gears and Bearings - FY2026

The Gear Test Assembly (GTA) is an experimental test apparatus built and installed in the Mechanisms and Engineering Test Loop (METL) at Argonne National Laboratory (ANL). While designed to accommodate a variety of components intended for use in advanced compact in-vessel transfer machine, the focus of GTA been the testing of large radial spur gears. The performance of the components used in GTA motivates the choices made in the design, components, and material choices for the forthcoming METL test articles; the Gripper Test Assembly (GrTA), and the Bearing Test Assembly (BTA). To date, GTA has completed nine experimental testing campaigns and achieved over 21 million revolutions under prototypic sodium fast reactor loads and operating conditions. This report provides an overview and results for the two most recent experiments Campaign #8 and Campaign #9. `Campaign #8 was the first campaign to make use of a set of nickel alloy radial spur gears, made from Hastelloy C-22HS, and combined with heat-treated tapered roller bearings. The bearings and torque profile used allowed Campaign #8 to be directly compared with Campaign #1 where Inconel 718 gears were used instead. Campaign #8 attained 1,058,880 shaft revolutions within 23% of the 1,314,855 revolutions achieved in Campaign #1. These results demonstrate that the heat-treated tapered roller bearings show consistent increased lifetimes, approximately three times longer than for non heat-treated taper rollers, and that the particular material of the gear does not play a substantial role in performance. Similar to Campaign #7 where bearing failure resulted in fragmentation and transport of bearing material into the gear teeth led to tooth damage in the Inconel gears, a similar process led to the damage of the Hastelloy gears. Subsequent NDE analysis showed that the damage was only limited to the tooth surface and does not extend into the gear interiors. Based on the NDE reports, the Hastelloy gears can be reconditioned and put back into service for future campaigns as was done for the Inconel gears. Reconditioned Inconel 718 gears damaged in Campaign #7 were returned to service in Campaign #9 and paired with non heat-treated tapered roller bearings. In Campaign #9 a novel set of operating conditions were implemented whereby the gears and bearings were cycled between hot, submerged refueling conditions where fuel handling operations occurred and cold, dry, and inert conditions where the sodium was drained and the vessel was allowed to cool simulating long, ex-vessel storage of the fuel handling machine. A total of eight of these operating cycles were achieved before a bearing failure occurred after the accumulation of 475,692 shaft revolutions were achieved. During Campaign #9, one of the drive motors was damaged and over the course of a 240 day standby period, the entire GTA drive system was upgraded from a 480VAC system to a 240VAC system that provided the opportunity to consolidate wall-space in the METL facility and provide more space for additional test articles being installed in the coming year. The over 475,000 shaft revolutions achieved in Campaign #9 eclipses the previous record for lifetime of non heat-treated tapered roller bearings held by Campaign #3 of 392,000 shaft revolutions. Further analysis and future campaigns hope to shed light on the cause of this approximately 17% increase in lifetime.

42 ENGINEERING↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

High-Order Methods in NASA’s Next Generation of Computational Fluid Dynamics Tools

The missions of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) routinely produce unique requirements and challenges for development and application of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) methods. NASA presently embodies four distinct Mission Directorates: Aeronautics Research, Exploration Systems, Science, and Space Operations. These missions generate requirements for systems that operate in a wide variety of environments. They range from the high-speed flight of aerodynamically optimized vehicles operating in the earth’s atmosphere to spacecraft designed for missions that don’t favor aerodynamic optimization, some operating in the atmosphere of planets and planetary moons such as Mars and Venus or Saturn’s moon Titan. Systems supporting these vehicles, such as rocket and jet propulsion, reaction control systems, fluid and thermal transfer systems, etc. can also generate their own unique set of flow phenomena that challenge today’s CFD methodology. Through the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC), NASA annually conducts state-of-the-discipline assessments in fifteen distinct engineering disciplines. These assessments are performed by the NASA Technical Fellows that lead Technical Discipline Teams (TDT) of recognized experts in these fifteen areas. In the Aerosciences discipline, three topics have been identified as the top challenges for the discipline: aero-plume interaction prediction, unsteady separated flows, and aerothermodynamic prediction. These challenge areas are defined by the Agency’s high-risk projects and problems on which the NESC is requested to perform independent testing, analysis, and assessments. When viewed as a whole, these tests, analyses, and assessments provide a clear view of the recurring technical challenges facing Agency engineers and researchers and can be used to guide future research and technology development. The present state-of-the-art in the application of CFD at NASA is the use of Reynolds-Averaged Navier- Stokes (RANS) solvers, primarily executed in a steady-state mode of operation. In isolated cases, Unsteady RANS (URANS) solvers have been employed when steady RANS solutions produce poorly converging or oscillating results or in cases, such as aeroelastic analysis, which require unsteady aerodynamic simulation. For most traditional external and internal aerodynamic flows, structured overset grids or unstructured grids are employed to minimize geometric modeling and grid generation times. Grid adaptation, primarily as a series of coarse-grain intermediate processing steps is also seeing use on particularly complex flow problems and configurations. In the case of aerothermodynamic flows, engineers have been forced to continue to employ structured grid techniques as the present unstructured grid methodology has proven inadequate in the prediction of surface heating. In the area of aero-plume interaction modeling, two-gas, frozen chemistry simulation is generally the state-of-the- art, with some production solvers capable of predicting flows with only a single gas component. Prediction of flows falling into the afore-mentioned top Aerosciences technical challenges have severely stressed the present state-of-the-art in CFD prediction and for some problems, such as unsteady separated flows and aero-plume interaction cases, engineers have begun employing Large Eddy Simulation (LES) and Hybrid RANS/LES techniques. In some isolated aero-propulsion interaction cases, chemically reacting flow simulations have been applied. These methods are highly evolutionary and engineers have little experience in their application, so they cannot be heavily relied upon in today’s application environment. Therefore, this leads one to muse over which numerical technologies will be included in the CFD tools that will be employed 30 years in the future. This presentation will describe specific technical problems that have stressed NASA’s traditional CFD methods to their breaking point and will link these issues to the Agency’s top Aerosciences technical challenges. The discussion will then shift to the characteristics of future CFD solvers that will be required to attack these challenges and how these characteristics differ from the present state-of-the- art. High-order methods certainly appear to have a place in the development of future CFD tools and some of the physical characteristics of our most challenging problems suggest that high-order methods are the only way to effectively solve them. But there are some relatively severe implementation issues that face these methods, particularly in the area of general applicability and robust operation as an engineering tool. Desired characteristics of next-generation CFD solvers will be discussed and the author’s view of which emerging numerical technologies might be employed to address these attributes will also be presented

David M Schuster↗
DOE OSTI2026

The MuFusE large-volume diamond anvil cell for exploring muon-catalyzed fusion at higher pressures and temperatures

A new large-volume diamond anvil cell (DAC) has been developed for the Muon-catalyzed Fusion (μCF) Experiment (MuFusE), enabling the compression and heating of deuterium–tritium (d–t) mixtures to pressures and temperatures needed to advance μCF research. The MuFusE DAC achieves the large sample volumes necessary for high-precision fusion measurements while integrating cryogenic loading, all-metal sealing, and flexible bellows to maintain a secure environment during cell compression. Combined with remote pneumatic actuation and secondary containment, the DAC safely managed a 25 Ci tritium inventory while providing a clear optical path for in situ measurements of sample pressure and composition via laser spectroscopy. Utilizing 5 mm diameter diamond anvils oriented in the path of a high-intensity muon beam, the apparatus achieved a stable sample volume of 19.2 mm 3 at liquid density, pressures up to 933 MPa and temperatures up to 400 K—benchmarks that significantly exceed previously reported limits for static d–t targets.

Kalow, J. D. [Acceleron Fusion, Inc., Cambridge, M↗
DOE OSTI2026

HydraGNN_Predictive_GFM_2026 - Ensemble of predictive graph foundation models for atomistic materials modeling

This release contains data and parameters of HydraGNN-based graph foundation models trained as a result of the work published in the pre-print "Exascale Multi-Task Graph Foundation Models for Imbalanced, Multi-Fidelity Atomistic Data" by M. Lupo Pasini et al. (https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.15380). We jointly train on 16 open first-principles datasets (544+ million structures covering 85+ elements) using a multi-task architecture with per-dataset heads and a scalable ADIOS2/DDStore data pipeline. On Frontier, we execute six large-scale DeepHyper hyperparameter optimization campaigns in FP64 and promote the top-performing message-passing models to sustained 2,048-node training, yielding a PaiNN-based lead model. The version of HydraGNN used to generate the outputs provided in this release is HydraGNN v5.0 (https://github.com/ORNL/HydraGNN/releases/tag/v5.0) The list of datasets used for the training of the graph foundation model is the following: 1) Alexandria [1] 2) ANI1x [2] 3) MPTrj [3] 4) Open Catalyst 2020 (OC20) [4] 5) Open Catalyst 2022 (OC22) [5] 6) Open Catalyst 2025 (OC25) [6] 7) Open Direct ir Capture 2023 (ODAC23) [7] 8) Open Materials 2024 (OMat24) [8] 9) Open Molecules 2025 (OMol25) [9] 10) OMol25-neutral (subset of OMol25 that contains only molecules with zero total charge) 11) OMol25-non-neutral (subset of OMol25 that contains only molecules with non-zero total charge) 12) Open Polymers 2026 (OPoly2026) [10] 13) Nabla2DFT [11] 14) QCML [12] 15) QM7X [reference 13] 16) transition1x [14] Dataset references: [1] J. Schmidt et al., “A dataset of 175k stable and metastable materials calculated with the PBEsol and SCAN functionals,” Scientific Data, vol. 9, p. 64, 2022. [2] J. S. Smith et al., “The ANI-1ccx and ANI-1x data sets, coupled-cluster and density functional theory properties for molecules,” Scientific Data, vol. 7, p. 134, 2020. [Online]. Available: https: //www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0473-z [3] A. Jain et al., “Commentary: The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation,” APL Materials, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 011002, 07 2013. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4812323 [4] L. Chanussot et al., “Open catalyst 2020 (oc20) dataset and community challenges,” ACS Catalysis, vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 6059–6072, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.0c04525 [5] K. Tran et al., “Open catalyst 2022 (oc22) dataset and challenges for oxidation electrocatalysts,” ACS Catalysis, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 3066–3084, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.2c05426 [6] S. J. Sahoo et al., “The open catalyst 2025 (oc25) dataset and models for solid-liquid interfaces,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.17862, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.17862 [7] A. Sriram et al., “The open DAC 2023 dataset and challenges for sorbent discovery in direct air capture,” ACS Central Science, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 923–941, 2024. [8] L. Barroso-Luque et al., “Open materials 2024 (omat24) inorganic materials dataset and models,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12771 [9] D. S. Levine et al., “The open molecules 2025 (OMol25) dataset, evaluations, and models,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.08762 [10] D. S. Levine et al., The open polymers 2026 (OPoly26) dataset and evaluations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.23117, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.23117 [11] K. Khrabrov et al., “Nabla2dft: A universal quantum chemistry dataset of drug-like molecules and a benchmark for neural network potentials,” in NeurIPS 2024 Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=ElUrNM9U8c [12] S. Ganscha et al., “The QCML dataset, quantum chemistry reference data from 33.5M DFT and 14.7B semi-empirical calculations,” Scientific Data, vol. 12, p. 406, 2025. [13] J. Hoja et al., “QM7-X, a comprehensive dataset of quantum-mechanical properties spanning the chemical space of small organic molecules,” Scientific Data, vol. 8, p. 43, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-021-00812-2 [14] M. Schreiner et al., “Transition1x - a dataset for building generalizable reactive machine learning potentials,” Scientific Data, vol. 9, p. 779, 2022. The folder "datasets_ADIOS2_format" contains the set of pre-processed datasets in Adaptable I/O System (ADIOS) format (https://www.exascaleproject.org/research-project/adios/) that have been used for the development and training of GFMs in this work. The "datasets_ADIOS2_format" directory contains 2 sub-directories, one for the version "v1" of the datasets and one for the version "v2" of the datasets. The version "v1" of the datasets provides values of the total energy as they are extracted from the original data as it was released by the respective institutions. The version "v2" of the datasets provides values of the energy that have been realigned. The realignment was performed by training a linear regression model that predicts the total energy as a function of the chemical composition of the atomistic structure, and then subtract such prediction from the original value of the total energy. Both folders "v1" and "v2" contain 16 sub-directories, each corresponding to an ADIOS2-formatted dataset The folder "DeepHyper-results" contains the configurational files and model's parameters for all the 186 HPO trials that were successfully completed by the scalable hyperparameter optimization (HPO) runs on Frontier. The content of the folder "DeepHyper-results" I structured as follows: 1) task-list.txt: list of mpnn name, jobid, and deephyper task id 2) gfm_${MPNN}_${JOBID}_0.${TASKID}: run directory with checkpoint files 3) gfm_${MPNN}: deephyper summary directory (*.csv) for each specific MPNN type 4) deephyper-experiment-${JOBID}: output and error logs for each job The file "deephyper-sorted.csv" contains the details of each HydraGNN model built and tested by HPO, obtained by merging the (*.csv) filed from each HPO run executed. Out of all the HPO trials, we selected 10 to continue the training of the respective HydraGNN models. Due to limited computational budget available in the LRN070 allocation we could not complete the training till convergence for all these 10 selected models. The folder "models" contains multiple sub-folders, one per each HydraGNN model trained. Each model sub-folder contains the parameters of each HydraGNN model, with multiple checkpoint-restarts. The list of sub-folders are as follows: 1) multidataset_hpo-BEST1-fp64 2) multidataset_hpo-BEST2-fp64 3) multidataset_hpo-BEST3-fp64 4) multidataset_hpo-BEST4-fp64 5) multidataset_hpo-BEST5-fp64 6) multidataset_hpo-BEST6-fp64 7) multidataset_hpo-BEST7-fp64 8) multidataset_hpo-BEST8-fp64 9) multidataset_hpo-BEST9-fp64 10) multidataset_hpo-BEST10-fp64 Within each one of these folders, additional auxiliary log files are provided with descriptions about how the training proceeded. The lead PaiNN-model is contained inside "multidataset_hpo-BEST6-fp64". The file "mlp_branch_weights" contains the parameters of the multi-layer perceptron (MLP) used to reconcile the predictions of the 16 output decoding heads of the HydragNN architectures. The MLP takes in input the chemical composition of the atomistic structure and predicts averaging weights to linearly mix the predictions of each output decoding head toward consolidating them into a single one. The folder "1.1billion-structure-inference" contains 1.1 billion atomistic structures randomly generated. Each structures is associated with energy and forces predicted with the lead-PaiNN model combined with the MLP model for reconciliation of the multi-branch predictions generated by the 16 output decoding heads. The folder "1.1billion-structure-inference" contains 9,300 (*.tar.gz) subdirectories, one per Frontier compute node used to execute the inference at exascale. Once uncompressed, each (*.tar.gz) subdirectory contains an ADIOS2 (*.bp) file container, where each atomistic structure is stored as a PyTorch-Geometric Data object. The file "export_dataset_environment_variables.sh" contains the environment variables that need to be set before running the HydraGNN code to reproduce the results provided in this dataset release. The code that can be used to load the ADIOS2 files, load HydraGNN models, and run inference is available at: https://github.com/ORNL/HydraGNN/releases/tag/v5.0

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2025

Field Validation of Thermoelectric Generation System at Holcim Cement Plant in Alpena, Michigan

Executive Summary Project Background The Industrial Technology Validation (ITV) program aims to identify and demonstrate the performance of new, emerging, and underutilized energy-saving technologies in the industrial sector to help inform decisions to help accelerate their commercialization and deployment, as well as to help make industries more competitive. This ITV demonstration evaluated a thermoelectric generation (TEG) technology at a cement plant, aiming to reduce energy demand in the cement industry. A median cement plant consumes 5.73 million British thermal units per ton of clinker production (resulting in 0.838 metric tons of carbon dioxide [CO₂] emissions per ton of clinker) (Boyd and Zhang 2011, EPA 2021), equivalent to approximately 6.9 trillion British thermal units (TBtu) per year in energy consumption at a cement plant producing 3,300 tons of clinker per day.¹ Collaborating with Holcim, Advanced Thermovoltaic Systems (ATS) developed and deployed a pilot-scale thermoelectric power system to efficiently capture and convert waste heat to electricity. The system leverages the Seebeck effect to convert temperature differences on two sides of semiconductor cartridges into electrical power (ScienceDirect, n.d.). This generation is realized with minimal moving parts compared to existing waste-heat-to-generation solutions and allows capture from heat sources with temperatures as low as 150°C. This project aimed to validate a scalable solution applicable for capturing medium-temperature waste heat, including ambient losses from other high-temperature processes, and high-temperature sources less suitable for other waste-heat-to-power solutions. By recovering this otherwise wasted heat, this project intends to validate improvements to overall process efficiency through reduction in purchased electricity, thereby reducing operational costs while enhancing resiliency and competitiveness. Description and Scope This study evaluated the performance of a TEG system from ATS as a solution to convert waste heat into useful power at a Holcim cement plant in Alpena, Michigan. This plant is a fully integrated cement plant that has been operating since 1907. The facility operates continuously (24/7/365) with approximately 250 employees and five long dry kilns, yielding a total production capacity of 7,852 tons of cement per day (EPA 2023). Currently, the Alpena plant uses waste heat boilers to convert waste heat from the exhaust of each kiln into steam, which drives steam turbine generators. The ATS TEG is being evaluated for its potential to supplement the steam turbines by capturing the remaining lower grade heat. This technology is also being considered for other Holcim plants where steam turbines are not a viable option. ATS installed a pilot-scale TEG unit with an array of 582 individual thermoelectric semiconductor cartridges, of which 573 were operational. The cartridges are sandwiched between 48 hot plates and 49 cold plates. Each cartridge is designed to generate 20 watts (W) of gross power at a hot-side temperature of 240°C and cold-side temperature of 20°C. As such, the total gross generation capacity of the installed system is 11.5 kilowatts (kW) at design conditions. The system configuration for the evaluation was designed to prioritize convenience of installation and minimize disruption to production at the site, while ensuring that the heat required can be obtained for evaluating the TEG system at various operational conditions. To accomplish this, a portion of the steam supplied to Alpena’s steam turbine generation system was diverted to be used as the heat source for the TEG system, while water was supplied to the cold side of the system from nearby Lake Huron. This configuration was designed for the evaluation of the pilot-scale system to assess the performance at different conditions. A commercial-scale system will likely vary from the pilot system depending on typical configurations, including both scale and application. Future commercial applications of the ATS system would involve integrating the system into the exhaust from kiln preheaters, clinker coolers, or radiant heat capture from kiln shells for the heat source. For the cold source, a range of cooling solutions can be considered, including a mechanical cooling system, depending on the location and the application. To increase the generation capacity for commercial applications, the technology provider is working toward developing a commercial-scale TEG system, which would combine multiple TEG units (each similar in design to the pilot system) together. The scope of this evaluation includes the pilot-scale TEG system and all impacted equipment including pumps, controllers, and power handling equipment. Study Objectives The evaluation's goal was to assess the potential of the ATS TEG system to generate useful electrical power by capturing waste heat from cement production kilns. The objectives of this study are to evaluate and verify the following claims made by ATS regarding the pilot-scale system installed at the Holcim Alpena plant. The following design parameters and claims are also outlined in Table ES- 1 and Table ES- 2: • Gross Power: The thermoelectric system converts heat into power to create gross power, the total measured power generated by the system. The 573 active cartridge pilot-scale system is expected to generate 11.5 kW of gross power at the designed hot-side temperature of 240°C and cold-side temperature of 20°C. Power production is dependent on the temperature difference between the heat source (ultimately from the waste heat) and cold temperature supply source. • Net Power: The net power is the total usable power provided to the site by the TEG system after deducting parasitic power loads from the gross generated power. Supplementary equipment is required to operate the TEG system including pumps, controllers, and, in certain anticipated applications, mechanical cooling, which introduce parasitic loads to system operation. After deducting the parasitic loads from the gross power generation, ATS anticipates achieving a net power generation of 7.5 kW from the pilot-scale system. • Thermal Efficiency: The thermal efficiency is the percent of the total heat transferred to the TEG system that is converted to gross power. Historically, TEGs have a thermal efficiency of 2%–5% (DOE 2008). Prior industrial-scale TEG systems, such as the E1 TEG offered by Alphabet Energy, operated at an efficiency of 2.5% (Lamonica, 2014). ATS anticipates achieving an average efficiency of 4.8% or higher in converting heat energy to usable electricity. • Cartridge Performance: The TEG system comprises 573 active individual semiconductor cartridges, each of which generates a portion of the total power. Cartridge optimization and selection is an important design consideration for potential future TEG system design performance. Therefore, understanding the distribution of gross power and efficiency within the pilot system is vital to understanding what is achievable. At a design hot-side temperature of 240°C and cold-side temperature of 20°C, ATS anticipates a cartridge performance of 20 W of gross power per cartridge at an efficiency of 4.8% per cartridge. In addition to evaluating the claimed performance of the TEG pilot-scale unit, the study estimated the potential annual impacts of a scaled-up commercial system used to capture kiln waste heat over annual operations. The evaluation estimated the gross and net annual electric generation achievable by capturing heat from the two proposed tap-in points: the kiln exhaust and the clinker cooler exhaust; see Section 2.1 for details. Two use cases were examined: • Holcim Alpena: The Holcim Alpena site consists of long dry kilns with superheater boilers, which differs from the rest of Holcim’s cement plant portfolio and results in lower waste heat temperatures. The study estimates gross and net annual generation using the superheater boiler exhaust and clinker cooler exhaust, based on 2023 operational data. • Typical Installation: Common cement plants have preheater kilns with higher exhaust temperatures than Holcim Alpena across a range of production rates. The study estimates gross and net annual generation using the preheater exhaust and clinker cooler exhaust, with a sensitivity analysis to account for the typical range of preheater exhaust temperatures, clinker cooler exhaust temperatures, and clinker production rates. Methodology The evaluation methodology followed a measurement and verification (M&V) strategy based on the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol Option B through comprehensive measurements and analyses of the affected systems. Evaluation data was collected from March 9 to March 11, 2024, the test period of the pilot TEG system. During the test period, in coordination with the ITV team, the ATS team adjusted system operations to capture the range of variability expected for each of the variables pertinent to performance of the system. The methodology consisted of two parts: evaluating the performance of the pilot unit's TEG system and estimating the annual TEG impact in terms of gross and net power based on a given waste heat profile. First, the evaluation of the thermoelectric generation performance of the pilot unit relative to the claims was performed by analyzing the collected test data. Gross power of the pilot TEG system was directly measured. Net power was determined by deducting the measured parasitic power from the gross power. The gross power generation was compared to heat transferred to the system by the working fluid (which was heated by steam generated from the kiln waste heat) to calculate the thermal efficiency achieved by the system. Performance of individual semiconductor cartridges within the pilot array was also assessed in terms of measured gross cartridge power and calculated cartridge thermal efficiency. The second part of the evaluation estimated the annual TEG impacts in terms of gross power and net power (calculated from the difference between gross power and parasitic power). This analysis comprised development of mathematical regression models for gross power and parasitic power, with assessment of each model’s goodness-of-fit characteristics to ensure satisfaction of statistical requirements. The models predicted the gross power generation, the parasitic load based on the temperature difference between the hot working fluid and the cold-side fluid (cold water from Lake Huron) entering the system, the volumetric flow rate of the cold-side fluid at the inlet, and the volumetric flow rate of the hot working fluid at the inlet. The annual impact analysis considered a theoretical commercial-scale system sized to capture the available waste heat at a cement plant, consisting of linked pilot-scale units that receive heat from a theoretical gas-to-working-fluid heat exchanger. To estimate annual impacts at the Alpena plant, the gross power and parasitic power regression models were applied to the arrays in the theoretical commercial-scale system. The heat supplied to the unit was calculated based on the kiln run time, annual production, kiln exhaust waste heat, and clinker cooler waste heat derived from 2023 Holcim Alpena kiln operational data. Net power impacts were calculated by deducting the resulting parasitic power from the estimated gross power. Inputs for the model were generated from a combination of hourly data, assumed design considerations for TEG system scale-up from the pilot-scale unit, and assumptions regarding TEG system operations. This analysis was then used as the basis for estimating annual impacts of typical TEG installation at cement plants, by applying sensitivity analyses to key kiln operational characteristics including kiln preheater exhaust temperatures, cooler clinker exhaust temperatures, and plant daily production rates across a range of expected values. Project Results/Findings Table ES- 2 and Table ES- 2 provide a summary of the operating conditions and evaluation results compared to the stated claims from the technology provider. Key takeaways include: • Gross Power: The peak gross power achieved during the testing period was 10.0 kW, compared to the 11.5 kW expected for 573 active cartridges. The claimed gross power was associated with a target hot side of 240°C; however, the system only received a maximum hot-side mean plate temperature of 212°C during the testing period. • Net Power: The pilot-scale unit exceeded the claims for net power, achieving a peak of 7.7 kW net compared to a claim of 7.5 kW. One factor contributing to the higher achieved net power is the relatively high water pressure available through Lake Huron. The pilot TEG system did not require cold-side pumps during the test, whereas most installations would. This reduced the parasitic loads on the system, ultimately contributing to higher net power relative to the gross power. • Thermal Efficiency: The pilot-scale unit outperformed the claimed efficiency, achieving a peak system efficiency of 5.0% thermal efficiency compared to the stated 4.8%. • Cartridge Performance: To compare cartridge performance against claims, the study focused on the third day of testing, which aimed for conditions closest to the design specifications, with a hot side of 240°C and cold-side exit temperature of 6.4°–30°C. On this day, the mean gross power observed in the cartridges within the TEG array was 18.1 W/cartridge, and the peak performance was 34.7 W/cartridge. The estimated mean cartridge efficiency was 5.2%, and the estimated efficiency at peak gross cartridge power was 10%. The regression models developed for gross power generation and parasitic loads were used to estimate the generation impact for given heat input to the TEG from the working fluid (captured from the waste heat) and from the cold loop (Lake Huron) on an hourly basis for a year of operation. Based on this analysis, installation of a commercial-scale TEG system at the Holcim cement plant in Alpena, Michigan, with a waste heat exchanger of 0.85 effectiveness, would generate up to 391 kW of net power, translating to between 920,000 and 1,800,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) in net electricity per year. Based on typical grid emissions for Alpena, this would avoid estimated net emissions by 752 metric tons of CO₂ annually.² The sensitivity analysis estimated that typical TEG system installations at cement plants could generate an average of 56–1,040 kW of net power, or between 488,000 and 9,110,000 kWh of net energy. This generation potential is most significantly affected by plant production rates and also influenced by preheater and clinker cooler exhaust temperatures. Applying the national average emission rate, typical commercial-scale installations at Holcim plants are projected to avoid between 182 and 3,401 metric tons of CO₂ annually per site. Table ES- 3 shows a summary of the estimated annual impacts.³ While parasitic loads are significant and vary by application, this analysis assumed the use of heating loop pumps and access to Lake Huron as a cold sink. This setup assumed no need for cooling loop pumps due to the available water pressure at the test site. Applications that require cooling towers or additional equipment are likely to experience higher parasitic loads. Therefore, the study’s estimates are most applicable to scenarios with similar parasitic load configurations—namely, access to a high-pressure cold sink. Applicability to other locations may be limited, as differing conditions could necessitate additional pumps and cooling systems, potentially impacting performance significantly.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗