SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “operator decision support”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

496 records · Page 28

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2025

EVSE Characterization: V2G EVSE Comparison

As part of the U.S. Department of Energy EVs@Scale consortium Next-Generation Profiles project, results and analysis from the characterization of high-power conductive and wireless charging infrastructure are presented. This characterization is conducted over a wide range of direct current (DC) current and DC voltage operation for nominal test conditions and off-nominal test conditions. Test plans and procedures were developed to define the test configurations and requirements, measurement parameters, and test procedures used throughout testing. Results from a 2024 study conducted on electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) characterization by the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) include two bi-directional vehicle-to-grid (V2G) capable EVSEs. These EVSE are referred to as V2G-EVSE9 and V2G-EVSE10. Laboratory testing is conducted at nominal test conditions to characterize the power transfer capabilities, efficiency, power factor, and other power quality metrics of the two DC EVSEs capable of V2G bi-directional power transfer. Results from testing show the performance is consistent for V2G-EVSE9 and V2G-EVSE10 when comparing charging to discharging performance, except for V2G-EVSE10 for power transfer when operating above 70% of the rated DC current. V2G-EVSE10 efficiency is >98% while charging and <91% while discharging at the same operating conditions, near maximum-rated current, at 300VDC. In contrast, V2G-EVSE9 results are consistent for charging and discharging. This EVSE is nearly 96% efficient while charging or discharging when operating over 50% of rated AC power. V2G EVSE performance is also characterized during off-nominal AC grid conditions involving AC voltage deviation (426 VAC to 518 VAC), AC frequency deviation of +2% (58.8 Hz to 61.2 Hz), and AC voltage harmonics injection. Many test conditions have little-to-no impact on performance characteristics of the two EVSEs; however, there are a few notable findings with significant power transfer capability impacts. AC voltage harmonics injection resulted in negative impacts on power quality attributes for both EVSEs, but with no impact on power transfer capability. Off-nominal AC voltage and frequency conditions resulted in unstable or lack of power transfer capability for both EVSEs. V2G-EVSE9 is unable to transfer power when AC voltage is >300V L-N. V2G-EVSE10 is unable to transfer power when AC frequency deviation exceeds +0.8%. V2G energy management system transient response and latency are quantified during laboratory testing. V2G-EVSE9 and V2G-EVSE10 utilize cloud-based V2G energy management systems that command the power transfer level between the EVSE and EV. The latency and response characteristics of the entire systems (web-based user interface, V2G energy management system, cellular communications, and EVSE response) are quantified through laboratory testing for V2G-EVSE9 and V2G-EVSE10. V2G-EVSE9 latency ranges from 0.8 to 1.8 seconds, whereas V2G-EVSE10 latency ranges from 3.4 to 8.8 seconds. The ramp rate to a change in power transfer request also differs between the two EVSEs. V2G-EVSE10 ramp rate ranges from 50% to -250% of rated AC power per second, whereas V2G-EVSE9 rate ranges from 95% to -95% of rated AC power per second. At the highest rate of change in power transfer, V2G-EVSE10 can change from full charge power to full discharge power in less than one second. The V2G EVSE characterization presented in this report provides valuable insights and results for use by numerous entities. This includes modeling and simulation organizations, decision makers, fleet planning, industry stakeholders, and many others involved with the development and deployment of electrified transportation technologies. Additional high-power DC chargers, bidirectional chargers, and inductive power transfer EVSE characterization results are anticipated from additional EVSE brands and models, which will be detailed in future publications in support of the U.S. Department of Energy EVs@Scale consortium Next-Gen Profiles project.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗

DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations This dataset contains model projections of new data center facilities in the contiguous United States (CONUS) through 2035 using the CERF – Data Centers model. Data center locations are modeled across four data center electricity demand growth scenarios (low, moderate, high, higher) and five market gravity scenarios (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Projected locations are intended to be regional representations of feasible siting locations in the future to assess potential grid and water stress impacts. The data center load growth scenarios correspond with the rates outlined in EPRI (2024) and include 3.71%, 5%, 10%, and 15% annual growth of electricity demand for data centers from 2023 values in 37 states across the CONUS. Market gravity scenarios correspond to the relative importance of proximity to data center markets or high population areas compared to locational cost in the siting algorithm. 0% market gravity means that siting decisions were entirely determined by the locational cost in each feasible location. 100% market gravity means that only market proximity was considered when siting. Other scenarios have weight placed on both components where total weight always equals 100%. Locational cost is dependent on facility cooling type and corresponding electricity cost, taxes, and other factors. Facility cooling type is spatially determined where high water stress and/or areas with high summer wet bulb temperatures are assumed to operate with mechanical cooling for a higher fraction of the year rather than evaporative cooling. Feasible data center siting areas are based on geospatial suitability raster data developed with open-source information. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands Because we use open-source information, proprietary information that can influence siting decisions such as individual tax agreements with cities, detailed fiber line connectivity, electric grid power capacity agreements, and others, are not currently accounted for in the modeling process. Using specific building locations and footprints in the dataset for local planning purposes is not advised. Technical Information Geospatial data is provided in geojson format using the Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) coordinate reference system. The datasets contain the following parameters: id - unique identification number within given scenario file growth_scenario – data center demand growth scenario market_gravity_weight – market gravity weight scenario (%) region – name of region (i.e., US State) total_cost_million_usd – locational siting cost ($million) campus_size_square_ft – total land acquired for data center facility (square ft) data_center_it_power_mw – IT power of data center facility (MW) mechanical_cooling_frac – fraction of year when data center uses mechanical cooling system water_cooling_frac– fraction of year when data center uses evaporative cooling system cooling_energy_demand_mwh – total annual facility energy demand for cooling (MWh) cooling_water_demand_mgy – total annual facility water demand for cooling (MG) cooling_water_consumption_mgy – total annual facility water consumed (MG) normalized_locational_cost – normalized total locational cost score for location normalized_gravity_score – normalized market gravity score for location weighted_siting_score – total weighted siting score of locational cost and gravity score geometry – polygon geometry of facility Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗

DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations This dataset contains model projections of new data center facilities in the contiguous United States (CONUS) through 2035 using the CERF – Data Centers model. Data center locations are modeled across four data center electricity demand growth scenarios (low, moderate, high, higher) and five market gravity scenarios (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Projected locations are intended to be regional representations of feasible siting locations in the future to assess potential grid and water stress impacts. The data center load growth scenarios correspond with the rates outlined in EPRI (2024) and include 3.71%, 5%, 10%, and 15% annual growth of electricity demand for data centers from 2023 values in 37 states across the CONUS. Market gravity scenarios correspond to the relative importance of proximity to data center markets or high population areas compared to locational cost in the siting algorithm. 0% market gravity means that siting decisions were entirely determined by the locational cost in each feasible location. 100% market gravity means that only market proximity was considered when siting. Other scenarios have weight placed on both components where total weight always equals 100%. Locational cost is dependent on facility cooling type and corresponding electricity cost, taxes, and other factors. Facility cooling type is spatially determined where high water stress and/or areas with high summer wet bulb temperatures are assumed to operate with mechanical cooling for a higher fraction of the year rather than evaporative cooling. Feasible data center siting areas are based on geospatial suitability raster data developed with open-source information. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway or within an airport area boundary Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) GAP status 1, 2, or 3 areas US National Parks Wetlands USFWS critical habitats BIA land areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands Because we use open-source information, proprietary information that can influence siting decisions such as individual tax agreements with cities, detailed fiber line connectivity, electric grid power capacity agreements, and others, are not currently accounted for in the modeling process. Using specific building locations and footprints in the dataset for local planning purposes is not advised. Technical Information Geospatial data is provided in geojson format using the Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) coordinate reference system. The datasets contain the following parameters: id - unique identification number within given scenario file growth_scenario – data center demand growth scenario market_gravity_weight – market gravity weight scenario (%) region – name of region (i.e., US State) total_cost_million_usd – locational siting cost ($million) campus_size_square_ft – total land acquired for data center facility (square ft) data_center_it_power_mw – IT power of data center facility (MW) mechanical_cooling_frac – fraction of year when data center uses mechanical cooling system water_cooling_frac– fraction of year when data center uses evaporative cooling system cooling_energy_demand_mwh – total annual facility energy demand for cooling (MWh) cooling_water_demand_mgy – total annual facility water demand for cooling (MG) cooling_water_consumption_mgy – total annual facility water consumed (MG) normalized_locational_cost – normalized total locational cost score for location normalized_gravity_score – normalized market gravity score for location weighted_siting_score – total weighted siting score of locational cost and gravity score geometry – polygon geometry of facility Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗

DOE OSTI2022

Materials for Advanced Ultra-Supercritical (A-USC) Steam Turbines --- A-USC Component Demonstration

The U.S. Advanced Ultra-Supercritical (A-USC) Consortium was formed in 2001 as a government/industry program, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Ohio Coal Development Office (OCDO) and cost shared by industrial and not-for-profit partners. The purpose of the consortium was to advance the state of the art for power generation by evaluating and developing materials that allow the use of advanced steam cycles in coal-based power plants. These advanced cycles, with steam temperatures up to 1400°F (760°C), can increase the efficiency of coal-fired boilers from an average of 35% (current U.S. fleet) to more than 45% higher heating value (HHV) (>49% lower heating value [LHV]). The increase in a plant’s efficiency is limited unless new materials able to withstand these higher operating temperatures and pressures are identified and approved for use. The A-USC Consortium identified these needed materials during earlier phases of the program. It developed the welding and joining techniques along with manufacturing processes for casting and wrought products made from these new high-nickel alloys. It subjected these materials to extensive laboratory and steam loop testing. It then obtained ASME code approval for their use in U.S. boiler systems. The program’s successes leave this last remaining activity (ComTest Phase 2) that the U.S. utility industry has recommended to be accomplished prior to commercialization. The focus of the activity is the evaluation and demonstration of commercial readiness for “full scale” components to be made from these nickel-based alloy materials and provided by a U.S. domestic supply chain that is new to working with these alloys. According to studies completed by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the cost of an A-USC plant is approximately 20% higher than a non-A-USC plant because of its use of nickel-based alloys needed for the high temperature operating conditions. However, CO 2 reductions of approximately 30% from the current fleet average provide a strong incentive for its consideration. The actual costs and perceived value for CO 2 abatement will determine whether new or retrofitted plants are undertaken, although decisions to build A-USC plants in India would indicate its economic feasibility while also being part of a global carbon emissions strategy. The work by the A-USC Consortium, prior to the start of the ComTest project, has included lab scale and pilot scale materials testing, both in air and oxy-combustion. This testing has included air-cooled and steam-cooled “loops” that were installed into existing operating utility boilers to gain exposure of these materials to realistic conditions of high temperature and corrosion caused by the constituents in the coal ash. The A-USC Consortium also gained ASME Code approval of the Inconel 740 material, has cast and extruded the largest high nickel precipitation hardened alloys, and developed unique welding techniques to avoid problems identified by the competing European program. However, as valuable as these material test loops and accomplishments have been for obtaining information, their scale is below that required to minimize the risk associated for a U.S. utility to build a multibillion-dollar A-USC power plant. To reduce the final identified risk barrier to full-scale commercialization of these advanced materials and systems, the A-USC Consortium (guided by a utility industry advisory committee) has identified the key areas of the technology they desire to see as being capable of full-scale manufacturing and/or fabrication from an identified, capable U.S. domestic supplier base. A significant amount of work was accomplished during Phase 1 to identity the components, as well as the component size, that would be manufactured from advanced alloys such as Inconel 740H or Haynes 282 alloys. Pathways to supply these components for ComTest have been identified, as well as any further development that would be required. The Phase 2 effort used Phase 1 findings for designing these key full-scale components for A-USC boilers and turbines to include large castings; extrusions, forgings, fabrication of water walls and steam loops with headers from advanced materials, raw material (such as pipe extrusion billets) are at the commercial readiness level to permit advancement to a demonstration project. The Phase 2 work scope was addressed by a diverse team, including government, industry, and not-for-profit partners. The work scope under Phase 2 addressed fabrication of components identified as being outside of the proven capabilities of the existing supply chain, including the following: Steam turbine rotor forging and Haynes 282 nozzle carrier casting Superheater and reheater header and tube assemblies Large-diameter pipe extrusions and forgings Test valve articles to support ASME Code approval. In addition, key fabrication steps were completed, including boiler weld overlays and simulated field repairs. Throughout, extensive inspection and quality assurance testing of the components were performed. The team worked to advance ASME Code approval for key components and processes. Although much of the focus of ComTest Phase 2 was the high-temperature nickel-based alloy materials, a broader range of materials were incorporated, which would be representative of the materials used in full-scale A-USC power plant applications and have cross-cutting applicability on other high-temperature power generation options, such as advanced nuclear, supercritical CO 2 cycles, and central solar receivers. This report that has been submitted is organized in the following manner: Section 1 contains an Executive Summary. Section 2 discusses the ComTest project background and organization. Section 3 discusses project management and reporting. Section 4 discusses the procurement of nickel-based alloy and other A-USC materials and components. Section 5 discusses the fabrication of procurement of nickel-based alloy and other A-USC materials and components. Section 6 discusses the fabrication of cast nickel-based A-USC steam turbine components. Section 7 discusses the fabrication of forged nickel-based A-USC steam turbine piping and steam pipe components. Section 8 discusses the qualification of pressure relieve valves (PRVs) for A-USC power plants. Section 9 discusses proposed plans for future evaluation of A-USC components. Section 10 contains the summary and conclusion.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

DOE OSTI2024

NORTH DAKOTA CARBONSAFE PHASE III: SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND PERMITTING OF GEOLOGIC STORAGE OF CARBON DIOXIDE

The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), in partnership with Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc. (Minnkota), SLB, and Computer Modelling Group Ltd. (CMG), supported wide-scale deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as part of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory Carbon Storage Assurance Facility Enterprise (CarbonSAFE) Initiative Phase III. This phase included the acquisition, analysis, and development of information to fully characterize two storage complexes to demonstrate viable storage resources for commercial volumes of CO2 (defined by DOE as a minimum of 50 million tonnes [MMt] of CO2 within a 30-year period) (National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2024). Phase III also involved the preparation, submission, and approval of North Dakota underground injection control (UIC) Class VI storage facility permits (SFPs)—required precursors to applications for Class VI injection well permits. The presumed viability of commercial-scale CCS, situated adjacent to Minnkota’s Milton R. Young Station (MRYS), is validated by Minnkota’s continued pursuit of Project Tundra—an initiative to build the world’s largest lignite-based CCS project in central North Dakota (www.projecttundrand.com). Project Tundra comprises two scopes of work, Tundra Capture (installation of postcombustion CO2 capture at MRYS) and Tundra SGS (secure geologic storage). The efforts of North Dakota CarbonSAFE Phase III, Site Characterization and Permitting, supported Tundra SGS. Extensive site-specific characterization activities included a successful multimeasurement geophysical approach and drilling a stratigraphic test well (J-ROC 1, subsequently renamed Liberty-1) adjacent to MRYS. Core collection and analyses, downhole testing and fluid sampling, and geophysical logging were performed on J-ROC 1 and on a nearby stratigraphic test well (known as J-LOC 1), which was drilled, cored, and tested under a complementary project funded by the North Dakota Lignite Research Program. The injection tests performed on J-LOC 1 positively impacted the CarbonSAFE project, resulting in fewer proposed injection wells and significant construction, operations, and monitoring cost savings. The characterization data collected and analyses performed were integrated into geologic models, and successive numerical simulations were run to determine CO2 plume extent and subsurface pressure buildup associated with the planned CO2 injection rate of nearly 4 MMt per year. The latter doubles the CarbonSAFE Initiative goal with an estimated 100 MMt of CO2 stored in 20 years. Application of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) method for estimating the Class VI Rule area of review (AOR) to the overpressurized Broom Creek Formation inspired an alternative method of calculation, called risk-based AOR delineation. This peer-reviewed method was applied for the first time during the storage facility-permitting process. The two SFP applications submitted in 2021 successfully resulted in North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC) orders in 2022 authorizing the creation of the storage facility areas and amalgamation of pore space as well as establishing financial responsibility requirements. After approval of the SFPs, Minnkota filed in 2022 applications for permits to reenter the J-ROC 1 well and to drill two new wells—all with the intended purpose to become Class VI injection wells. To establish eligibility under the Internal Revenue Code for Section 45Q tax incentives, a monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) plan was prepared and submitted by Minnkota to EPA in 2022, resulting in the first such plan approved in North Dakota. Also in 2022, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Minnkota prepared and submitted an environmental information volume (EIV) describing the proposed CCS project and associated potential environmental impacts. Based on the EIV, DOE determined that the proposed construction project required an environmental assessment, and Minnkota submitted the first draft in 2023 and a revised draft in 2024. Both submissions were followed by a public comment period. Subsequently, DOE issued a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) on September 13, 2024. A successful outreach program, strongly based in the production, presentation, and dissemination of informational material, fostered an environment to aid stakeholders in making informed decisions regarding the planned project. Opportunities for public input were provided at various steps along the way, including at county planning and zoning meetings, before and during the SFP administrative hearing, and during environmental assessment public comment periods. In addition, land/pore space owners and mineral owners had various points of contact, including granting access rights, securing pore space leasing, and mineral owner notifications. Based upon the successful storage facility permitting issued by NDIC, approval of the MRV plan by EPA, and receipt of a FONSI under the NEPA, Minnkota is continuing its pursuit of Project Tundra. In December 2023, the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations under its Carbon Capture Demonstrations Projects Program announced funding for the capture system (Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, 2023) and a proposal for CarbonSAFE Phase IV: Construction funding was submitted in March 2024 for the storage project. A go/no-go decision to proceed with construction and operations in the Broom Creek Formation is anticipated in 2024. References National Energy Technology Laboratory, CarbonSafe Initiative, https://netl.doe.gov/carbon-management/carbon-storage/carbonsafe (accessed August 2024). Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, 2023, OCED selects three projects in CA, ND, and TX to reduce harmful carbon pollution, create new economic opportunities, and advance carbon reducing technologies, December, www.energy.gov/oced/articles/oced-selects-three-projects-ca-nd-and-tx-reduce-harmful-carbon-pollution-create-new (accessed August 2024).

Peck, Wesley↗

DOE OSTI2024

Simulation of Particulate Transport for Delivery of Solid Amendments into the Subsurface: FY24 Status Report

For particulate-based amendments to be viable for field-scale remediation at the Hanford Site (e.g., 200 DV-1 Operable Unit), particles need to be delivered a sufficient radial distance from an injection well and retained at concentrations high enough for effective treatment. An accurate description of the particle radius of influence (ROI) is critical for developing an overall remediation strategy. However, field-scale particle simulations are currently limited due to insufficient simulation capabilities and a lack of experimental data to validate and parameterize particle transport models. To help build toward field-scale deployment, this fiscal year (FY) we have (1) developed a pre screening tool to estimate particle transport, (2) implemented particle transport models within PFLOTRAN, and (3) conducted preliminary estimations of particle ROI. While field-scale numerical simulations will ultimately be necessary before remedy design and field implementation, we have developed a pre-screening tool that offers valuable estimations of expected particle injectability and ROI in a 1-D system. The advantage of the tool is that it does not require extensive laboratory experiments and instead makes predictions based solely on routine laboratory measurements. This tool can assist in down-selection and decision-making by identifying which particle amendment systems are worth pursuing in future laboratory experiments, such as 1-D column tests and beyond. With any system, scaling up from the lab to the field presents challenges. Currently, there is no field data available for model calibration or validation. However, the theoretical particle models being developed herein are the best tools available to guide progress toward field deployment. To help bridge this gap and verify model predictions, larger-scale lab experiments are being proposed. To advance simulation capabilities, six particle transport models are being integrated into the reactive transport simulator PFLOTRAN. These include colloid filtration theory (CFT) and five additional particle transport models (M1-M5). Each model, from M1 to M5, progressively incorporates additional particle transport and retention processes. Ultimately, the simplest model capable of accurately describing 1-D column data will be selected and parameterized. During FY24, the CFT and M1 model have been fully implemented within PFLOTRAN. Using an existing 1 D column experiment, the two currently implemented particle transport models (CFT and M1), and associated parameters, were fit to this experiment. While simpler model formulations are helpful for estimations, these formulations could not fully describe particle transport and retention behavior in the previous 1-D column experiment. Thus, additional complexities will need to be considered, which will be accounted for in the M2-M5 model formulations. Additionally, because a viscous, shear thinning fluid was required to keep particles in suspension, considerations for flow will also need to also be accounted for. Therefore, a new immiscible two-phase flow mode is currently being implemented in PFLOTRAN. With some modifications, this new flow module could also support simulation of non-Newtonian liquid amendments, foams, and emulsions. We also estimated the expected ROI of solid amendments using 1-D simulations. The average predicted ROI was approximately 15 ft for micron-sized zero valent iron (mZVI) suspended in xanthan gum (XG). Using the pre screening tool and ROI estimates, additional amendment-delivery laboratory characterization and experiments are proposed. The results from additional experiments can be used to validate and parametrize particulate transport model formulations, which will ultimately provide predictive capabilities for field amendment-delivery systems.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2023

Multi-Sourced Collaboration for the Production and Refining of Rare Elements and Critical Metals (Final Technical Report)

The project objective was to develop a feasible and cost-effective method for recovering rare earth elements (REEs) and critical materials (CMs) from coal and coal byproducts, resulting in high-purity individually separated REEs and CMs. The targeted REEs included Y, Pr, Nd, Gd, Dy, and Sm, with a purity of over 99.5%, while the CMs included Co, Mn, Ga, Sr, Li, Ni, Zn, and Ge, with a purity of over 90%. The project aimed to design a prototype facility capable of producing 1-3 tonnes/day of high-purity REO mixes. The work was divided into four designated circuits: 1) REE extraction and concentration, 2) REE separation and purification, 3) RE metal production, and 4) CM production. To achieve these goals, the project involved 11 tasks, including technology reviews, research, process flow diagram development, mass balance estimation, and preliminary technical-economic analysis. The project team included researchers from the University of Kentucky, University of Alabama and Virginia Tech as well as process specialists from Argonne National Laboratory. MP Materials provided technical support regarding rare earth markets and processing while Alliance Coal performed resource assessment. The project included a market analysis for Nd/Pr, Tb, Dy, Gd, Y, Co, Mn, Li, Sr, Ga, Ni, Zn, and Ge. These analyses provided insights into the supply and demand trends as well as historic and future projections of market price relative to purity requirements for these elements. Two coal resources were selected for the project: the West Kentucky No. 13 (Baker) Seam and an undisclosed lignite resource in the Illinois coal basin. The estimated quantities of REEs in these resources were calculated based on production samples and drilling data. It was estimated that there is adequate supply for an operation producing one metric ton daily of higher purity mixed rare earth oxides (MREO) for approximately 20 years at a site located in western Kentucky. In Circuit 1, project data was obtained from a pilot heap leach and REE concentration facility. It was concluded that the existing circuit, which generated a MREO concentrate, two types of CM mixed products, and Li- and Sr-containing waters, would be suitable feed for circuits 2-4. Data from the first-of-its-kind coal coarse refuse heap leach pilot pad played a crucial role in estimating reliable elemental concentrations of the pregnant leaching solution (PLS). The average total REE concentration in the PLS was found to be 28.6 ppm. In Circuit 2, several concepts were explored including a novel process referred to as solvent-assisted chromatography (SAC). This concept involved a novel columnar reactor that incorporated multiple mixer/settlers, thereby enabling the operation of counter-flowing aqueous and organic phases. Unfortunately, due to project time constraints, a complete fundamental modeling analysis could not be completed to fully evaluate the technology. Molten salt electrowinning was considered as an alternative for circuit 3 following circuit 2 purification circuit utilizing the novel SAC process. A mass and energy balance of Nd reduction to metal in a fluoride containing molten salt electrolyte was conducted. Comparisons were made with the current state of Asian molten salt electrorefining, and potential improvements in siphoning rare earth metals (REM) from the reactor were presented. A cost estimate was performed for the production of 1 tonne per day, which yielded a total of $2.29 million for the nine electrowinning (EW) cells required. The selected option for circuits 2 and 3 was a plasma distillation process, which initially separates rare earth elements (REEs) from other elements. This is followed by selective electrowinning in various ionic liquids. The selection was made on the basis of thermodynamic modeling and experimental data previously published by a project partner. The combination offers an innovative approach to integrated refining and RE metal production. For Circuit 4, an extensive literature review was conducted for the processing of the CMs. The ultimate decision was to utilize a combined plasma and ionic liquid process as well to produce individual high-purity concentrates of Zn, Ni, Co, Mn, and Mg. A separate flowsheet for Li and Sr was recommended, which would yield carbonates of these elements. Due to the lack of suitable experimental data at this time, a process recommendation could not be provided but several methods have been proposed for consideration. Lastly, a techno-economic analysis (TEA) was conducted to assess the effectiveness of the proposed process for further investigation. The TEA results revealed a capital expense (CapEx) of $737 million and an annual operational expense (OpEx) of $220 million. Due to the selected elements, the hypothetical heap leach pad can produce 1 metric tonne per day of REO equivalent, but a conscious decision was made to only treat targeted REEs, resulting in the production of 0.4 metric tonne of REM. An estimated annual revenue of $90.87 million was projected based on standard market pricing information provided by the funding agency. During the TEA, ten different modules were evaluated for costing purposes. The precipitation circuit was identified as the largest single operational expense, followed by the Mg/Mn process due to the amount of treated metal. In terms of capital expenditures, the heap leach process incurred the highest cost, followed by the Mg/Mn process. The scalability of the plasma process is a crucial consideration since the reactors cannot be scaled beyond the largest demonstrated size due to their reliance on surface area of the slag and vapor phase. The purity estimate for the REEs are generally 98%±2% to produce a metal. The purity level being lower than the project objective was due to the lack of specific experimental data needed to tighten the tolerance of the estimates. Based on literature and previous experience, the CMs are estimated as follows; Ga (95%+, metal), Sr (95%+, carbonate), Li (95%+, carbonate), Ni (98%±2%, metal), Zn (95%+, metal sponge), Ge (95%+, metal), Co (98%±2%, metal), and Mn (98%±2%, metal).

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

DOE OSTI2020

Initial Efforts Organizing WPNCS SG-8: Preservation of Expert Knowledge and Judgement Applied to Criticality Benchmarks

The Working Party on Nuclear Criticality Safety (WPNCS) under the guidance of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has over 20 years of experience addressing concerns related to static and transient configurations encountered within the nuclear fuel cycle: fuel fabrication, transportation, reprocessing, storage, and geological disposal. One of the cornerstone activities of the WPNCS is the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project (ICSBEP), which was established to identify a comprehensive set of criticality benchmark data, evaluate the data, including quantification of overall uncertainties; compile the data into a standardized format, perform sample calculations utilizing modern nuclear data sets and codes utilized in nuclear criticality safety, and formally document the work into a single source of verified benchmark data. Annually, members of the ICSBEP Technical Review Group (TRG) contribute evaluated benchmark data that undergoes comprehensive technical review prior to publication in the ICSBEP Handbook. In the years since the ICSBEP was established, there has been much work to prepare benchmark data to support validation activities in nuclear criticality safety. The 2020 edition of the ICSBEP Handbook contains acceptable benchmark specifications for 5,053 critical, subcritical, or near-critical configurations in 582 benchmark evaluations. Modern benchmark development benefits from decades of experienced international participants, a well-established handbook format, supplementary guides to deal with uncertainty quantification, and a comprehensive review process based upon independent reviews from international experts. The ICSBEP Handbook also contains 838 configurations deemed unacceptable to support criticality safety efforts. They are recorded, with the reasoning for their rejection, to preserve the experimental data, prevent reevaluation of data that are incomplete or contain known errors, and/or to potentially allow future reevaluation of the experiment pending the identification of sufficient data to resolve identified inconsistencies and errors. Users of the ICSBEP Handbook today might notice that the rigor and quality of modern criticality safety benchmarks is much greater than those prepared within the initial decade of the project. Benchmarks with 1s uncertainties in k eff greater than 1% were traditionally rejected unless they were identified as unique experiment types that encompassed materials, fuels, or designs not available from other benchmark experiments. However, benchmarks developed using modern experimental techniques and practices typically have uncertainties on the order of a few tenths of a percent. There have been ongoing efforts to improve the overall quality of previously published benchmark evaluations. Seventy-eight evaluations, containing approximately 600 configurations, have been revised just within the past decade. An additional eleven benchmarks are under revision for updated release in the 2020 edition of the ICSBEP Handbook. If some of the historic benchmarks were resubmitted in their current form to the TRG today, they would be rejected due to lack of data, missing components in the uncertainty analysis, or incomplete benchmark model development. The use of historic criticality safety benchmarks that underestimate the total uncertainty, lack properly quantified biases, or provide inadequate benchmark specifications do not sufficiently support modern criticality safety and nuclear data efforts. Although the ICSBEP Handbook is recognized by regulating bodies to support criticality safety, users are required to justify their reasons to ignore historic benchmark data and include additional safety margins within their designs. Discussions were held at the WPNCS 23rd Annual Meeting in September 2019 regarding the aforementioned issues. The resultant decision was to establish Subgroup 8 (SG-8): Preservation of Expert Knowledge and Judgement Applied to Criticality Benchmarks. The current activities of SG-8 are discussed herein.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2022

NRAP-Open-IAM: NRAP Open Source Integrated Assessment Model

Note: This is the last version (a2.6.1) of NRAP-Open-IAM released during NRAP Phase II in 2022. The latest version of NRAP-Open-IAM is available here: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/phase-iii-nrap-open-iam NRAP-Open-IAM is an open-source software product that enables quantification of containment effectiveness and leakage risk at storage sites in the context of system uncertainties and variability. NRAP-Open-IAM represents the next-generation in a line of systems-based computational models developed for quantitative geological carbon storage (GCS) risk assessment. The model comprises a set of reduced-order and analytical models of various components of the GCS system, potential leakage pathways, receptors of concern including impact to groundwater resources and the atmosphere, a framework to support stochastic simulation, time stepping, uncertainty quantification, other analytical functionality for scenario and risk-performance evaluation, and a basic graphical user interface to support scenario development, data input simulation definition, and basic post-processing and results display. As the NRAP Open-IAM functionality continues to evolve, we continue to add to its capability to develop quantitative, probabilistic, and time-dependent profiles of the evolution of risk at a GCS site and evaluate the influence of uncertain parameters on uncertainty in predicted risk. It can be used to quantify the dynamics of reservoir saturation plume and pressure-affected area, for evaluation of the area of potential groundwater impact (i.e., Area of Review) and monitoring requirements to support cost and regulatory analysis, and for consideration of different post-injection site care and closure scenarios. This submission contains the current version of NRAP-Open-IAM available for evaluation and testing. To use the NRAP-Open-IAM, download the source code (https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/4c24a3da-3b40-4ffe-9892-c807ae9f8760) then open the NRAP-Open-IAM user's guide (https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/8b27335a-343c-4836-b8a3-3ad0bdc9e669) to read more about the tool. Installation instructions for Windows, Mac, and Linux can be found in the "installers" folder of the extracted NRAP-Open-IAM folder and describe setup of environment (e.g., Python libraries) needed for proper work of the tool. Test of installation can be done by running "python openiam_setup_tests.py" in the "setup" folder. The installation test also runs a test suite to see if the NRAP-Open-IAM has been installed correctly. To run the test suite separately, run "python iam_test.py" in the "test" folder. User's guide: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/8b27335a-343c-4836-b8a3-3ad0bdc9e669 Developer's guide: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/3bc6ee7d-609d-4eb6-80ba-fa6130ee0313 Reservoir simulation data used in some examples distributed with NRAP-Open-IAM: - Kimberlina: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/eb62cece-61b2-4037-9b6d-32407dde2ab8 - Kimberlina (compartmentalized): https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/366f9530-3b32-4b84-affe-ab2df1d9a8b5 - FutureGen 2.0: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/futuregen-2-0-1008-simulation-reservoir-lookup-table NRAP-Open-IAM GitLab repository: https://gitlab.com/NRAP/OpenIAM Related publications: - Bacon, D., Yonkofski, C., Brown, C., Demirkanli, D. and Whiting, J., 2019. Risk-based post injection site care and monitoring for commercial-scale carbon storage: Reevaluation of the FutureGen 2.0 site using NRAP-Open-IAM and DREAM. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 90: 102784. - Bacon, D. Demirkanli, D., and White, S., 2020. Probabilistic risk-based Area of Review (AoR) determination for a deep-saline carbon storage site. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 102: 103153. - Harp, D., Oldenburg, C., and Pawar, R., 2019. A metric for evaluating conformance robustness during geologic CO2 sequestration operations. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 85: 100-108. - Lackey, G., Vasylkivska, V., Huerta, N., King, S., and Dilmore, R., 2019. Managing well leakage risks at a geologic carbon storage site with many wells, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 88 :182-194. - Vasylkivska, V., Dilmore, R., Lackey, G., Zhang, Y., King, S., Bacon, D., Chen, B., Mansoor, K., and Harp, D., 2021. NRAP-Open-IAM: A flexible open-source integrated assessment model for geologic carbon storage risk assessment and management, Environmental Modelling & Software, 143: 105114. Presentations: - Chen, B., Harp, D., and Pawar, R., A data assimilation approach (ES-MDA) coupling with NRAP-Open-IAM for quantifying uncertainty reduction in geological CO2 sequestration. AGUFM 2019: T44A-02. - Chen, B., and Harp, D., Improving risk analysis precision for geologic CO2 sequestration by quantifying the uncertainty reduction before and after acquiring monitoring data. 14th Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 2018, pp. 21-26. - Harp, D., National Risk Assessment Partnership Task 2: Containment Assurance. No. LA-UR-19-28654, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States), 2019. - Vasylkivska, V., King, S., Bacon, D., Harp, D., Chen, B., Mansoor, K., Onishi, T., Yang, Y., Zhang, Y., and Keating, E., NRAP-Open-IAM: An open-source integrated assessment model, poster, Mastering the Subsurface Through Technology Innovation, Partnerships and Collaboration: Carbon Storage and Oil and Natural Gas Technologies Review Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, August 13-16, 2018. - Vasylkivska, V., Lackey, G., King, S., Wentworth, A., Huerta, N., Creason, C., DiGiulio, J., Yang, Y., and Dilmore, R., Long-term risk analysis of a geologic CO2 storage project during the post-injection period, SIAM Conference on Computational Science and Engineering, Spokane, WA, February 25-March 1, 2019. - Vasylkivska, V., Overview of the NRAP-Open-IAM tool for carbon storage (beta release), 2019 Annual NRAP Tool Users Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, August 27, 2019. - Vasylkivska, V., Bacon, D., Chen, B., Dilmore, R., Harp, D., King, S., Lackey, G., Lindner, E., Liu, G., Mansoor, K. and Zhang, Y., NRAP-Open-IAM: A new, open-source code for integrated assessment of geologic carbon storage containment effectiveness and leakage risk, poster, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting 2020 (virtual meeting), December 2020. - Vasylkivska, V., NRAP open-source integrated assessment model and relevant application, oral presentation, NRAP workshop "NRAP Tools for Geologic Carbon Storage Risk-Based Decision Making" held in conjunction with Groundwater Protection Council (GWPC) 2021 Annual Forum (virtual meeting), Salt Lake City, UT, September 2021. - Vasylkivska, V., NRAP-Open-IAM: open-source integrated assessment model, digital poster/demonstration, software demonstration session, 2022 Carbon Management Project Review Meeting, August 16, 2022

AoR↗

DOE OSTI2022

NPP Simulators for Coupled Thermal and Electric Power Dispatch

The Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) program within the United States Department of Energy supports extending the operation of the U.S. commercial nuclear power plant (NPP) fleet. Within the LWRS program, the Flexible Plant Operation and Generation (FPOG) Pathway works to diversify the revenue streams of light water reactors (LWRs) by opening opportunities for the co-generation of non-electric products in addition to supplying electrical power to the grid. Recent events have added greater motivation to these efforts. For example, the recent Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) passed by the U.S. federal government offers substantial tax incentives for producing clean hydrogen, the technology readiness level of dispatchable and high-efficiency hydrogen production has dramatically increased in a short time, and societal response to world climate change is driving a transition away from fossil fuels. Producing hydrogen with maximum efficiency using nuclear power requires dispatching both electrical and thermal power from the nuclear plant to the hydrogen plant, so testing concepts of operations for combined electrical and thermal power dispatch (TPD) from an NNP to a hydrogen plant is of interest. This report documents achievement of the Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) program milestone “Install and demonstrate a vendor-developed simulator on the Human Systems Simulation Laboratory (HSS) for dispatch of LWR electrical power to a close-coupled electrolysis plant” with a due date of Dec. 22, 2022. Several factors provide motivation for this effort. Coupling the power generation deck of a nuclear power plant to a hydrogen production facility introduces new possibilities for operational transients that must be addressed. In particular, the performance of the integrated system during startup and shutdown of the hydrogen production facility, as well as offnormal conditions, need to be evaluated to ensure there are no adverse effects on the operation of the existing NPP. The concept of operations involving the NPP, the hydrogen plant, and the electric power grid must be tested using NPP simulators and operating procedures that have been modified for TPD operations. These tests must also include dynamic simulations of the coupled tertiary thermal and electric loads as well as coordinated activities with NPP operators, tertiary load operators and grid power coordinators. The report summarizes progress in developing and testing full-scope NPP simulators at the HSSL, including a generic BWR simulator from GSE Systems, Inc. and generic PWR simulator from Westinghouse. In the case of the TPD-GBWR Simulator from GSE Systems, Inc., a BWR is thermally coupled to a high temperature electrolysis (HTE) plant that produces hydrogen and oxygen from de-ionized water. The hydrogen plant is not explicitly simulated but only included as a transient heat sink. A thermal power dispatch (TPD) system transfers heat between the steam systems at the BWR and the hydrogen plant. Operational results from two versions of the modified simulator are presented. The first version uses synthetic oil as a heat transfer fluid in a closed delivery heat loop (DHL) that generates steam at the hydrogen plant. The second version uses steam as the heat transfer fluid in a delivery steam line (DSL) to provide steam to the hydrogen plant. For both versions, the estimated thermal power delivery distance is approximately one kilometer. The amount of thermal power dispatched in the simulators is 15% of the total reactor thermal power such that the simulators provide a tool to study the feasibility of coupling a BWR to industrial processes that benefit from a combination electrical and thermal power dispatch. Ongoing work within a CRADA is also developing a full-scope PWR simulator provided by Westinghouse for both thermal and electric power coupling. This simulator is based on a PWR plant with two three-loop Westinghouse reactors. Westinghouse PWRs are sufficiently similar that a simulator of a three-loop reactor is an appropriate representation for two-loop and four-loop PWR reactors. The three-loop simulator will initially be modified for close-coupling to a 100 MW HTE hydrogen production plant that will require approximately 25 MW of thermal power while operating at its maximum rated capacity. The simulator testing will include full coupling to dynamic simulations of a hydrogen production plant and a representative bulk electric grid. The simulator provided by Westinghouse is similar to the GPWR simulator that INL has already obtained from GSE Systems but has a few important added benefits. First, the Westinghouse simulator is based on digital controls and has additional screens that can be called up to show parameter trends to assist operators in decision-making. The Westinghouse simulator also has upgrades to the controls and hardware representations, such as valve actuators, that make it more realistic and flexible in terms of accurately sim

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗