Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Demand response datasets”

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.

67 records · Page 4

Low-Cost, User-Friendly, Rapid Analysis of Dynamic Data System Established

An issue of primary importance to the development of new jet and certain other airbreathing combined-cycle powered aircraft is the advancement of airframe-integrated propulsion technologies. Namely, engine inlets and their systems and subsystems are required to capture, convert, and deliver the atmospheric airflow demanded by such engines across their operating envelope in a form that can be used to provide efficient, stable thrust. This must be done while also minimizing aircraft drag and weight. Revolutionary inlet designs aided by new technologies are needed to enable new missions. An unwanted byproduct of pursuing these inlet technologies is increased time-variant airflow distortion. Such distortions reduce propulsion system stability, performance, operability, and life. To countermand these limitations and fully evaluate the resulting configurations, best practices dictate that this distortion be experimentally measured at large scale and analyzed. The required measurements consist of those made by an array of high-response pressure transducers located in the flow field at the aerodynamic interface plane (AIP) between the inlet and engine. Although the acquisition of the necessary pitot-pressure time histories is relatively straight-forward, until recent years, the analysis has proved to be very time-consuming, tedious, and expensive. To transform the analysis of these data into a tractable and timely proposition, researchers at the NASA Glenn Research Center created and established the Rapid Analysis of Dynamic Data (RADD) system. The system provides complete, near real-time analysis of time-varying inlet airflow distortion datasets with report quality output. This fully digital approach employs Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) binary data file format standardization to establish data-acquisition-system-independent processing on low cost personal computers. Features include invalid instrumentation code-out, logging, and multiple replacement schemes as needed for each channel of instrumentation. The AIP pressure distribution can be interpolated to simulate measurements by alternate AIP probe arrays, if desired. In addition, the RADD system provides for the application of filters that can be used to focus the analysis on the frequency range of interest.

Arend, David J.↗

Assessing High Resolution Thermal Monitoring of Complex Intertidal Environments From Space: the Case of ECOSTRESS at Rias Baixas, NW Iberia

Currently, thermal sensors on satellites and other orbital platforms with high spatial resolution designed to monitor the oceans are often insufficient to assess the surface temperature of small bodies of water or within the coastal boundary layer. As the accuracy and sensitivity of remote sensing satellites improve, the demand for more accurate and up-to-date basic data sets for calibration increases. The quality of the thermal data collected by ECOSTRESS on the International Space Station allows the characterization of thermal stress levels in coastal ecosystems with a high spatial resolution of 70 m and a return time from hours to 5 days. This study focused on the calibration of ECOSTRESS estimates with in situ surface temperature data from sensors installed at 3 cm depth in the sediment on the intertidal muddy sandflats of three of the Rías Baixas in Galicia, NW Iberian Peninsula, from 2019 to 2021. A final number of 45 ECOSTRESS temperature images were analyzed. From these, 20% contained substantial georeferencing errors which had to be corrected manually with GIS software tools. We applied the Fourier's law of Heat Conduction to derive surface estimates from loggers sub-surface measurements that could be directly compared with ECOSTRESS data. Overall, a good calibration which explained more than 80% of ECOSTRESS temperature estimates for the whole dataset was obtained, but with an intrinsic cold bias around 1.39 °C. When temperatures at a depth of 3 cm were used, the linear fit became worse and the negative bias increased to 1.49 °C. Closer inspection revealed that night measurements were responsible for this larger deviation, as ECOSTRESS estimates became much colder compared to within sediment measurements because of the combined effect of the instrument intrinsic bias and nocturnal surface cooling. The best calibration was obtained when surface estimates were calculated just for the nighttime, as the cold bias decreased to 0.93 °C. More importantly, during hot daytime conditions in emersion above 20 °C, ECOSTRESS data matched surface temperature estimates, probably because of a better performance of ECOSTRESS algorithm at dry surfaces with lower emissivity. Thus, during the most ecologically relevant periods when high temperatures could drive thermal stress in many commercially-important bivalve species, ECOSTRESS provides accurate surface estimates that can be used to derive sub surface temperatures at the depths at which the different burrowing organisms live. We thus conclude that this instrument constitutes an important global tool to examine thermal stress at an unprecedented spatial scale for complex sea-land boundary systems.

ECOSTRESS↗

Thermal property characterization of phase change materials in building applications: A systematic review of fundamentals, recent progress, and future directions

Phase change materials (PCMs) can reduce building peak loads and enable demand-responsive thermal energy storage (TES), but their deployment depends on reliable measurement and interpretation of thermal properties across laboratory, intermediate, and application scales. Here, this review systematically examines characterization methods, testing protocols, and recent advances for neat PCMs and PCM composites, emphasizing thermal conductivity, enthalpy-related properties (phase change temperature, latent heat, specific heat), and cycling stability. For thermal conductivity, we compare steady-state and transient techniques and note limitations when phase transition and contact resistance affect measurements. For enthalpy–temperature characterization, we discuss differential scanning calorimetry together with intermediate- and bulk-scale methods, including T-history, heat flow meter testing, and three-layer calorimetry (3LC), to generate application-relevant enthalpy–temperature profiles. Cycling stability is organized into four experimental families: thermoelectric–air, fully thermoelectric, water-bath, and in situ chamber approaches, with attention to separating reversible supercooling from true degradation such as phase segregation. We highlight emerging noncontact diagnostics, including infrared thermography and embedded sensing, for spatially resolved validation and multiscale interpretation. Finally, we review the growing use of AI and machine learning for property prediction, inverse characterization from experimental signals, and real-time state estimation in building-integrated TES. Key needs include harmonized protocols, interlaboratory benchmarking, uncertainty reporting, and metadata-rich datasets to accelerate reproducible PCM qualification for grid-flexible buildings.

AI↗

MLCommons Science Benchmarks

Benchmarks are a cornerstone of modern machine learning practice, providing standardized eval- uations that enable reproducibility, comparison, and scientific progress. Yet, as AI systems particularly deep learning models become increasingly dynamic, traditional static benchmarking approaches are losing their relevance. Models rapidly evolve in architecture, scale, and capability; datasets shift; and deployment contexts continuously change, creating a moving target for evaluation. Without adaptive benchmarking frame- works, both scientific assessment and real-world de- ployment risk becoming misaligned with actual system behavior. Drawing on our experience from MLCommons, educa- tional initiatives, and government programs such as the DOE s Million Parameter Consortium, we identify key barriers that hinder the broader adoption and utility of benchmarking in AI. These include substantial resource demands, limited access to specialized hardware, lack of expertise in benchmark design, and uncertainty among practitioners about how to relate benchmark results to their own application domains. Moreover, current benchmarks often emphasize peak performance on leadership-class hardware, offering limited guidance for more diverse, real-world deployment scenarios. We argue that benchmarking itself must become dy- namic in order to incorporate evolving models, updated data, and heterogeneous computational platforms while maintaining transparency, reproducibility, and inter- pretability. Democratizing this process requires not only technical innovation, but also systematic educational efforts spanning undergraduate to professional levels to develop sustained expertise in benchmark design and use. Finally, benchmarks should be framed and com- municated to support application-relevant comparisons, enabling both developers and users to make informed, context-sensitive decisions. Advancing dynamic and inclusive benchmarking practices will be essential to ensure that evaluation keeps pace with the evolving AI landscape and supports responsible, reproducible, and accessible AI deployment.

Hawks, Benjamin G. [Fermilab]↗

Temperature and Snow-Mediated Moisture Controls of Summer Photosynthetic Activity in Northern Terrestrial Ecosystems Between 1982 and 2011

Recent warming has stimulated the productivity of boreal and Arctic vegetation by reducing temperature limitations. However, several studies have hypothesized that warming may have also increased moisture limitations because of intensified summer drought severity. Establishing the connections between warming and drought stress has been difficult because soil moisture observations are scarce. Here we use recently developed gridded datasets of moisture variability to investigate the links between warming and changes in available soil moisture and summer vegetation photosynthetic activity at northern latitudes (greater than 45N) based on the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) since 1982. Moisture and temperature exert a significant influence on the inter-annual variability of summer NDVI over about 29% (mean r(sup 2) = 0.29 +/ 0.16) and 43% (mean r(sup 2 = 0.25 +/- 0.12) of the northern vegetated land, respectively. Rapid summer warming since the late 1980s (approximately 0.7deg C) has increased evapotranspiration demand and consequently summer drought severity, but contrary to earlier suggestions it has not changed the dominant climate controls of NDVI over time. Furthermore, changes in snow dynamics (accumulation and melting) appear to be more important than increased evaporative demand in controlling changes in summer soil moisture availability and NDVI in moisture-sensitive regions of the boreal forest. In boreal North America, forest NDVI declines are more consistent with reduced snowpack rather than with temperature-induced increases in evaporative demand as suggested in earlier studies. Moreover, summer NDVI variability over about 28% of the northern vegetated land is not significantly associated with moisture or temperature variability, yet most of this land shows increasing NDVI trends. These results suggest that changes in snow accumulation and melt, together with other possibly non-climatic factors are likely to play a significant role in modulating regional ecosystem responses to the projected warming and increase in evapotranspiration demand during the coming decades.

Snowpack↗

BENEFIT with Northeastern University: HVAC Hardware-in-the-Loop Experimental Testing of a Heat Pump and Air Conditioner

This dataset includes HVAC Hardware-in-the-Loop (HIL) experimental results for a single stage, SEER 16, HSPF 9.5, 3-ton single-speed air source heat pump with 15 kW of backup auxiliary heating tested in both cooling and heating mode, and a two stage, SEER 21, 2-ton central air conditioner tested in cooling mode for a set of outdoor temperatures and indoor setpoint temperatures. In addition to these tests, experimental tests focused on the operation of auxiliary heating for the heat pump for winter condition were also conducted. The laboratory experiments for transient testing of the heat pump and air conditioner were conducted using the two HIL systems in the Systems Performance Laboratory (SPL) at NREL’s Energy Systems Integration Facility (ESIF). Further information on laboratory design and capabilities of the SPL along with the architecture of HVAC HIL system can be found in: Sparn, B. F. 2018. Laboratory Resources and Techniques to Evaluate Smart Home Technology (No. NREL/CP-5500-71696). National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO (United States). https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/71696.pdf and the experimental setup and validation of HVAC HIL platform can be found in: Ramaraj, S. and Sparn, B. 2022. Validation of HVAC Hardware-In-the-Loop Simulation for Advanced Control Strategies in Smart Homes (No. NREL/CP-5500-82562). National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL), Golden, CO (United States). https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82562.pdf. These experimental results can be used to validate how we currently model the cycling behavior of heat pumps and air conditioners. Additionally, many demand response programs implement heat pump and air conditioner control by changing the thermostat set point – these data may also be used to verify our models for heat pump and air conditioner demand response control are implemented correctly. The Test_Matrix file describes all the indoor and outdoor test conditions for heat pump and air conditioner and the file names of data sets include information about the test conditions. A wide range of outdoor air temperatures were chosen to accommodate summer and winter conditions. In addition to operating the HVAC equipment with different outdoor temperatures, we also operate the system with different indoor temperature set points to represent different grid signals or different operating conditions. For cooling conditions, the baseline set point is 72°F. To represent Load Up signals, the setpoint is changed to 68°F. The Load Shed set point is 76°F. For heating conditions, the baseline set point was assumed to be 68°F. The Load add set point is 72°F and the Load shed set point is 64°F. The starting indoor temperature for cooling conditions was set ~2°F above the indoor setpoint temperature so that the equipment turned on quickly. Similarly, the initial indoor temperature was set ~2°F lower than setpoint for heating mode tests to ensure that heating began quickly. The return air temperature was assumed to be equal to the indoor setpoint temperature in all cases. The experimental data are sampled at 1-second intervals. The data from ecobee thermostat at 5-minute interval are resampled and added to the corresponding file. The content of each data set is as follows: • T_Return (C): Measured return air temperature [C] • T_Return_SP (C): Return air temperature setpoint from E+ model, sent to HIL [C] • T_Supply (C): Measured supply air temperature at evaporator outlet [C] • T_Outdoor (C): Measured outdoor air temperature [C] • T_Outdoor_SP (C): Outdoor air temperature setpoint from weather file, sent to HIL [C] • T_Indoor (C): Measured indoor air temperature [C] • T_Indoor_SP (C): Indoor air temperature setpoint from E+ model, sent to HIL [C] • Outdoor Unit Power (W): Measured power of the outdoor unit [W] • Indoor Unit Power (W): Measured power of the indoor unit [W] • Evaporator Airflow Rate (CFM): Measured evaporator or indoor unit airflow rate sent to E+ model [CFM] • Cooling/Heating Capacity (kW): Calculated cooling/heating capacity sent to E+ model [kW] • T_SP_Thermostat (C): Thermostat cooling/heating setpoint temperature [C] • T_Indoor_Thermostat (C): Thermostat indoor air temperature [C]

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

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)↗

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)↗

Analyzing the Impact of Future Weather Data on Energy Consumption in Weatherization Assistant

This study supports the mission of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), which aims to increase the energy efficiency of dwellings and reduce their total residential expenditures. Specifically, we examine how projected future climate conditions may affect residential building energy performance by integrating future weather data into the National Energy Audit Tool (NEAT). Since WAP evaluates the cost-effectiveness of retrofit measures over lifespans of up to 30 years, accounting for evolving climate conditions is increasingly important. To reflect future household energy demands, this study replaces historically based Typical Meteorological Year (TMY3) weather inputs with Future Typical Meteorological Year (fTMY) datasets derived from global climate model (GCM) projections. A simulation-based framework was established to enable NEAT analysis under future weather conditions. This workflow involves converting EPW-format weather files into JSON inputs compatible with NEAT and generating degree-hour metrics needed for load calculations. The fTMY dataset used in this study was developed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory through downscaling of six GCMs under different emission scenarios and covers the period from 2020 to 2100. In contrast, the TMY3 dataset is based on historical weather data from 1961 to 1990. Simulations were conducted for benchmark single-family prototype buildings across ASHRAE climate zones 1–7, which cover all regions of the U.S. except the subarctic Zone 8 in northern Alaska, evaluating both heating and cooling loads under TMY3 and fTMY conditions. Four foundation types were tested, while heating systems were standardized, as NEAT does not differentiate thermal energy load by HVAC system type in its load calculations. Results show that fTMY weather input consistently yield lower heating loads and higher cooling loads across most locations, aligning with expected climate warming trends. Notably, colder regions such as zones 6A, 6B, and 7 experience marked reductions in heating load, while warmer and transitional zones, such as 2A (Lufkin, TX) and 3C (San Francisco, CA), have substantial increases in cooling loads. Although this study does not directly assess the performance of retrofit measures under future climate conditions, it provides a critical foundation for doing so. By quantifying shifts in baseline (i.e., pre-retrofit case) energy loads between historical and future weather files, the study highlights the importance of integrating climate-responsive data into audit tools. These findings will inform future efforts to evaluate the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of weatherization measures under changing climate conditions.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Complete Evaluation on Advanced Reactor Machine Learning Subversion Attacks (Final)

Navigating through the world of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in nuclear reactors and their Instrumentation and Control (I&C) systems demands a careful, deliberate journey. AI’s capability to manage massive datasets and streamline control systems has indeed carved out a significant role in various sectors, including nuclear energy. However, while AI, and particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), bring a lot to the table in terms of operational efficiency and anomaly detection, they also expose the sector to a new breed of cybersecurity threats, like Inference Attacks, Adversarial Attacks, and Trojan Attacks. This guide is designed to be a straightforward manual, diving deep into the intertwining worlds of AI and cybersecurity within nuclear reactors, and tailoring insights for three crucial audiences: I&C Vendors/Developers, Nuclear Regulators, and Nuclear Reactor Operators and Cyber Defense Teams. (1) Section 2, directed at I&C Vendors/Developers, will provide a clear and focused look at several cybersecurity attacks, offering practical recommendations and detailed scenarios related to AI cybersecurity. This section isn’t just about identifying problems but also about giving solid, usable solutions. (2) Section 3, meant for Nuclear Regulators, gets straight to the point about regulations, policy suggestions, and guidelines that are needed to lay down a robust, secure, and ethical foundation for the application of AI in nuclear operations. The focus is on making sure that everything adheres to international standards and laws while being practicable and clear-cut. (3) Section 4, aimed at Nuclear Reactor Operators and Cyber Defense Teams, offers an exhaustive exploration and technical reports, with clear recommendations and scenario analyses vital to protect operational environments and guarantee the secure application of AI in nuclear reactor operations. The goal is simple: as we step into an era where AI becomes a fundamental element of our technological and energy infrastructures, this guide is here to act as a clear, direct handbook, ensuring that AI is implemented within the nuclear sector in a manner that is secure, responsible, and practical. It’s about striking a balance – optimizing the undeniable benefits offered by AI while securing and shielding against potential cyber threats as we move through this new and complex landscape.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

Williston Basin Resource Study for Commercial-Scale Subsurface Hydrogen Storage

The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), the EERC’s State Energy Research Center (SERC), MPLX Operations LLC, and TC Energy Development Holdings Inc. (a subsidiary of TC Energy Corporation), studied the potential for subsurface hydrogen storage and recovery in the Williston Basin of western North Dakota. The project’s goal was to evaluate the feasibility of large-scale, secure geologic H 2 storage to support future hydrogen generation, storage, and use. This work included laboratory testing, H 2 –rock–fluid exposure experiments, literature reviews on H 2 embrittlement, and reservoir modeling and simulations. The study included an assessment of storage potential across three types of storage reservoirs using both reservoir simulation and DOE’s web-based tool SHASTA-HELP (Subsurface Hydrogen Assessment, Storage, and Technology Acceleration – Hydrogen Estimator for Logistical Planning), as well as investigation of potential H 2 production and markets for commercial-scale deployment. Building on prior EERC gas storage research, three storage options were selected for detailed evaluation: the Broom Creek Formation (a clastic saline reservoir), the Dickinson Lodgepole Mounds (DLM) complex (carbonate mud mound structures) of the Lodgepole Formation (an active oil and gas producing reservoir), and the Dunham Salt Interval of the Piper Formation (to be used for engineered salt cavern development). These targets were prioritized based on prior EERC research using datasets related to seal capacity, reservoir quality, mechanical integrity, and injectivity. Exposure tests on Broom Creek and DLM samples showed mineral dissolution and precipitation that increased brine salinity and altered reservoir rock surfaces. Although these results provide useful insight, they are limited by small sample sizes and short-term (30-day) exposure, requiring further study to assess long-term storage integrity. Salt formations were not tested because of their known nonreactivity and established mechanical stability. Results of reservoir simulations performed for a single site demonstrated that the Broom Creek Formation may be capable of receiving up to 42,000 tonnes of injected H 2 over 7 months via one well. H 2 recovery took place over 5 months, resulting in approximately 26,000 tonnes (~62% without cushion gas [CG]). This work suggests water production may be important and subsequent cycles of injection and production may perform more efficiently; however, significant site-specific work in the future is needed to assess actual reservoir performance of injection and withdrawal of H 2 storage. For oil reservoir potential, a multiple-well model was used to simulate injection of approximately 32,000 tonnes of H 2 into a single wellbore while simultaneously producing in place reservoir fluids from four offset wells to maintain reservoir pressure. The simulation results suggested a high recovery (~98%); in addition, cost advantages through existing infrastructure could be realized. Challenges in this reservoir include vi managing gas purity and leakage risks. In both scenarios, production of H 2 takes place in a single-well scenario with 10 cycles (7 months of injection and 5 months of production) over 10 years. Finally, the use of engineered caverns in the Dunhan Salt was evaluated, and the results suggest that while they have a smaller capacity (<1000 tonnes per cavern), they exhibit nearly complete gas recovery (>99%), fast response times, and low purity risk. While caverns in North Dakota may be smaller in capacity, fields can be developed in galleries to accommodate the volumetric needs and rapid turnaround times necessary to meet market demands. Geographic limitations and thin salt intervals in North Dakota may represent less total storage potential than salt domes elsewhere, but significant opportunities exist to expand this market for gas storage in North Dakota. A basinwide assessment was performed to estimate a first-of-its-kind value for H 2 storage on a large scale. DOE’s SHASTA-HELP, combined with EERC simulation work, was used to perform the assessment. Estimated H 2 storage potential varied widely for each formation type. The Broom Creek saline formation was estimated to have a storage potential of approximately 1.7–90.5 million tonnes (MMt). The DLM oil reservoirs were estimated to have 0.07–0.19 MMt of capacity. Notably, each of these estimates relies on significant assumptions regarding reservoir thickness, porosity, permeability, and CG needed for operation. Much research is needed to understand the true site-specific storage resource potential of each formation. Using the Dunham Salt Interval for cavern development may result in as much as 4.79 MMt (up to 2.87 MMt working gas) of H 2 storage potential. An important note for consideration is that the values presented here need significantly more geological characterization and engineering assessments prior to gaining confidence in performance. This will be a focal point for future research and development needs. The basinwide evaluation also indicated that North Dakota has significant H 2 generation potential, with estimates up to a possible 13 MMt annually, suggesting a substantial opportunity for H 2 market development and thus the need for commercial-scale H 2 storage to facilitate growth and resilience. Key Recommendations 1. Conduct detailed site characterization (3D seismic, well logs, core sampling) to reduce geologic uncertainty. 2. Perform techno-economic analyses incorporating market, regulatory, and incentive frameworks. 3. Investigate long-term interactions among H 2 , CGs, well materials, and formations to assess risks. 4. Develop pilot- and field-scale demonstrations to validate models and establish best practices.

03 NATURAL GAS↗

Advanced Hydropower and PSH Capacity Expansion Modeling (Final Report on HydroWIRES D1 Improvements to Capacity Expansion Modeling)

Hydropower and pumped-storage hydropower (PSH) have played a key role in providing flexible, low-carbon electricity to the U.S. electricity system for over a century. As variable generation (VG) deployment increases the demand for flexible, dispatchable generation, it is important to use all available methods for understanding how hydropower and PSH interfaces with VG in a future low-carbon grid. Capacity expansion models (CEMs) of electricity systems are often used to study future electricity scenarios, but these tools often have difficulty representing site- and technology-details of hydropower and PSH due to limited spatial, temporal, or process resolution. This report demonstrates a set of model advancements to improve hydropower and PSH representations in CEMs and other models that consider hydropower and PSH's role in electricity systems. Model advancements include new data integration to define closed-loop PSH resource availability and cost, along with site-level parameterizations of existing PSH capacity and energy storage specifications. Shifting energy across seasons for both hydropower and PSH is explored to demonstrate the potential value of long-duration storage. New representations of hydropower upgrades offer opportunities to increase dispatchability, add pumps, or independently add capacity or energy depending on what is most valuable. New model structures and data are demonstrated individually and in combination to observe their impact on model results and provide initial insights into what is most important for analysts, electricity system planners, and hydropower decision-makers to consider when assessing future roles of hydropower. Improving flexibility of existing hydropower assets has the potential to reduce CO 2 emissions through complementing VG technologies and/or improve electricity system economics by reducing the need to deploy higher-cost systems. Large-scale energy storage is also shown to provide opportunities for balancing seasonal differences in VG, particularly solar photovoltaics (PV). Initial analysis with a new closed-loop PSH resource and cost dataset also demonstrate the potential for new PSH deployment to offer new grid flexibility opportunities. Future analysis and modeling of hydropower's role in the U.S. and other electricity systems could include methodological improvements based on those discussed here along with sensitivity analysis to better represent current and future potential hydropower and PSH flexibility. Improvements to geospatial and site-level data can further improve the understanding of how hydropower and PSH can be upgraded and operated in response to future electricity system needs. This work lays the groundwork to use advanced planning models to explore the range of roles hydropower and PSH can play in the grid of the future.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

Grid Service Values of Generic Marginal Building Flexibility in Modeled 2030 U.S. Power Systems

The datasets include the capacity, energy, and ancillary service values of a marginal kilowatt-hour (kWh) of generic, daily, shiftable building flexibility as a presumed market entrant in the 2030 U.S. power systems. The results should be interpreted along with the caveats listed in "Valuation of Building Flexibility: Grid Service Value for Initial Market Entrants in Projected 2030 United States Power Systems", which also documents the methods used for the study. The factors examined in the study include: grid scenario, region, original usage hour in the day (local time), and building flexibility parameters - efficiency, dissipation, and shifting window include max pre-shift and max post-shift. Filenames in the datasets: The filenames contain information on the grid scenario, and the building flexibility efficiency and dissipation. For example: MidCase_2030_efficiency1.25_dissipation0.05_value.csv contains all results under Mid RE 2020, efficiency = 1.25, and dissipation = 0.05. * MidCase = Mid RE Each .csv file contains: region: The location of the building flexibility, aligned with U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) Electricity Market Module regions. max_pre_shift: Part of building flexibility shifting window parameter, indicates the max number of hours the building flexibility can shift earlier. max_post_shift: Part of building flexibility shifting window parameter, indicates the max number of hours the building flexibility can shift later. local_datetime: Original datetime of 1kWh of building energy consumption. local_orig_h: Original usage hour (1-24) of building energy consumption, ignores daylight saving. local_shift_to: The datetime to when building energy consumption shifts, if shifting happens. If no shifting occurs, this cell is left blank. energy: Net energy value of energy shifting. capacity: Net capacity value of energy shifting. shifting_value: Net energy plus capacity value of energy shifting. spin: Spin reserve value at the original datetime of consumption. flex: Flexible reserve value at the original datetime of consumption. reg: Regulation reserve value at the original datetime of consumption. total_profit: Assuming the building flexibility is capable of providing energy, capacity, and ancillary services, total profit is the maximum value of energy shifting value, spin reserve value, flexible reserve value, and regulation reserve value - one of the four choices at any given hour - because we do not allow its value to be double-counted.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗