Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Residential charging”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

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

At least 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Charging Hub Scenario Sheet Screenshot

The Excel-based CHECT tool estimates the LCOC ($/kWh) by charger type (Level 1, Level 2, and DC fast charging) for a given charging hub scenario. CHECT requires users to input certain charging hub scenario parameters, including the number of chargers, daily utilization, and charger replacement frequency by charger type. Additional inputs such as the charging schedule, local utility rates, capital/operational costs, and financial inputs can be customized by the user, or the tool can generate results using appropriate default values from literature for the charging hub scenario and service location(s). Using the above inputs, CHECT performs a robust techno-economic analysis to generate the LCOC by charger type, broken down by cost category (e.g., capital, operational, utility, taxes) for various combinations of charging hub types (multiunit dwelling or public) and ownership models (residential, utility, or private company). It also outputs the annual discounted cash flows and determines the most sensitive input variables. In addition, the tool allows users to easily compare the LCOC across various ownership models or across different states.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2024

Residential HVAC Fault Data Collection Plan – Refrigerant Undercharge and Overcharge Faults

Heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems can develop faults due to poor installation practices or gradual wear and tear, leading to decreased HVAC system’s efficiency, compromised thermal comfort, and shortened equipment lifespan (EERE, 2018). Automated fault detection and diagnosis (AFDD) technologies offer a solution by identifying energy-wasting HVAC faults, such as inadequate indoor airflow and incorrect refrigerant charge, and guiding technicians to enhance system efficiency. In the realm of residential HVAC, AFDD can be implemented through various fault detection and diagnosis capabilities, sensor configurations, and target applications. These technologies typically fall into three categories: smart diagnostic tools, original equipment manufacturer (OEM)-embedded tools, and add-on tools. Smart diagnostic tools employ temporarily installed sensors to directly measure HVAC system characteristics, while OEM-embedded tools utilize factory-installed sensors to identify faults or assess system performance. However, both these types of AFDD technologies are often only accessible for high-end HVAC equipment or require additional sensor installation by qualified technicians, resulting in high investment costs and limited applicability for low-income residential buildings. On the other hand, add-on tools rely solely on data from smart thermostats and meters to detect faults by continuously analyzing equipment runtime or energy usage. As smart thermostat and meter costs decrease and their prevalence increases, these tools can be readily deployed in low-income residential buildings. However, they possess limited capabilities as they rely solely on basic trend analysis. Enhancing such tools with advanced machine learning algorithms can significantly improve their effectiveness.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2024

An Empirical Validation of a Constrained Bin Packing Algorithm for a Home Energy Management System

The increasing number of intelligent electrical appliances and home energy management systems provide a big opportunity for demand response services from residential and small commercial buildings to the grid. Simultaneously, direct control of individual devices by utilities can cause communication bottlenecks, as well as coordination and privacy concerns. These challenges can be addressed by combining the constituent devices into a single house battery equivalent for the purposes of demand response, using Minkowski sum and a 2d bin packing problem. However, the well-studied traditional problems have not been tested in a real house, as implementation carries significant challenges of its own. We deploy the packing problem on residential devices in a controllable house. We report the barriers we found, such as charge forecast and scalability of the algorithm, and discuss our solutions. The study serves as an intermediate step between existing theoretical research and possible future steps, such as prototype deployments of systems that provide residential demand response.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2021

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: Second Quarter 2020

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private non-residential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the second calendar quarter of 2020. Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with the amount projected to meet charging demand by 2030. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging. This is the second report in a new series. The first report for the first calendar quarter of 2020 can be found in the publication databases of the Alternative Fuels Data Center and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2021

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: Third Quarter 2020

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private non-residential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the third calendar quarter of 2020. Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with the amount projected to meet charging demand by 2030. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging. This is the third report in a new series. Reports for the first two calendar quarters of 2020 can be found in the publication databases of the Alternative Fuels Data Center and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator (Q1 2020)

The US. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private non-residential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the first calendar quarter of 2020 (Q1). Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with the amount projected to meet charging demand by 2030. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator (Q4 2020)

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private non-residential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the fourth calendar quarter of 2020 (Q4). Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with the projected amount needed to meet charging demand by 2030. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging. This is the fourth report in a series. Previous reports for the first (Q1), second (Q2), and third (Q3) calendar quarters of 2020 can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) publication databases.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: First Quarter 2021

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private non-residential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the first calendar quarter of 2021 (Q1). Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with the target infrastructure volume for 2030. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging. This is the fifth report in a series. Previous reports from 2020 can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: Second Quarter 2021

The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private non-residential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the second calendar quarter of 2021 (Q2). Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with the target infrastructure volume for 2030. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging. This is the sixth report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Learning electric vehicle driver range anxiety with an initial state of charge-oriented gradient boosting approach

This manuscript focuses on the modeling of electric vehicle (EV) driver’s range anxiety, a fear that a vehicle does not have sufficient range, or state of charge (SOC) of the battery pack, to reach its destination and would strand its occupants. Despite numerous research studies on the modeling of charging behaviors, modeling efforts to understand at what battery percentages do EV drivers charge their vehicles, and what are the associated contributing factors, are rather limited. To this end, an ensemble learning model based on gradient boosting is developed. The model sequentially fits new predictors to new residuals of the previous prediction and, then, minimizes the loss when adding the latest prediction. A total of 18 features are defined and extracted from the multisource data, which cover information on driver, vehicles, stations, traffic conditions, as well as spatial-temporal context information of the charging events. The analyzed dataset includes 4.5-year’s charging event log data from 3,096 users and 468 public charging stations in Kansas City Missouri, and the macroscopic travel demand model maintained by the metropolitan planning organization. Here, the result shows the proposed model achieved a satisfactory result with a R square value of 0.54 and root mean square error of 0.14, both better than multiple linear regression model and random forest model. To reduce range anxiety, it is suggested that the priorities of deploying new charging facilities should be given to the areas with higher daily traffic prediction, with more conservative EV users or that are further from residential areas.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2026

The Evolving Role of Demand Charges in Retail Electricity Rates

Retail electricity demand charges refer to a type of retail rate that is based on a metric of kilowatt (kW) demand rather than kilowatt-hour (kWh) energy usage. Demand charges are widely used in the commercial and industrial (C&I) electricity sectors to recover significant portions of utility revenue and are also used in residential rates in a modest but growing number of locations. This paper explores the historical context of and motivations for demand charges, describes their implementation and impacts in today's context, and uses a variety of opinions collected from relevant parties through semi-structured interviews to inform how demand charges align with four widely accepted rate design principles. This project is funded by the Department of Energy's Office of Electricity, which is interested in conducting research to understand the current state of affairs related to demand charges and how the future U.S. electricity grid will help to define retail rates.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2023

A Propane Hydronic Heat Pump with Energy Storage

Propane is an environment-friendly refrigerant, having a 20-year GWP (global warming potential) of 0.072 and a 100-year GWP of 0.02, as compared to R-410A having a GWP > 2000. It has superior thermodynamic cycle performance and heat transfer characteristics. However, propane is classified as a A3 refrigerant, which is highly flammable, and not allowed to be used indoor if the system charge is higher than 150 grams. It is a challenge to use propane in residential applications requiring a rated capacity larger than 10 k Watts. A hydronic heat pump, i.e., containing propane in an outdoor unit and distributing the cooling and heating capacity through a hydronic coil to the indoor space addresses the flammability issue, while maintaining a high efficiency. We developed a hydronic heat pump with propane, it uses a two-stage compressor, a brazed plate indoor heat exchanger, and a microchannel outdoor heat exchanger. It achieves a rated cooling capacity larger than 10 k Watts, and a cooling SEER (cooling seasonal energy efficiency rating) > 16.0 (cooling seasonal COP > 4.7) and a heating HSPF (heating seasonal performance factor) > 9.5 (heating seasonal COP > 2.78), while requiring a system charge < 1200 grams. Additionally, the hydronic heat pump was evaluated in a laboratory water heating loop to heat a 50-gallon water tank in a full condensing mode. Experiments of heating the tank water from 58F(14.4°C) to 150F(65.6°C) were conducted under ambient temperatures from 17F(-8.3°C) to 75F(23.9°C), at the compressor high and low stages.

Shen, Bo↗
DOE OSTI2021

Impacts of common faults on an air conditioner with a microtube condenser and analysis of fault characteristic features

Split system air conditioners are widely used to cool residential buildings, because of their low cost and simplicity. However, their efficiency is impacted by installation faults, which include: improper refrigerant charge (undercharge or overcharge), improper evaporator airflow, liquid line restrictions (LL), and the presence of non-condensable gas (NC) in the refrigerant. No known previously published research has studied the effect of these four faults on a system equipped with a microtube condenser, which has smaller tube size than a traditional condenser and therefore holds less refrigerant charge, but has a different configuration than a microchannel. Furthermore, very few have studied the impacts of LL and NC. Herein this paper describes laboratory fault tests of a microtube-equipped system, compares the fault impacts with those of a traditional system, and considers the characteristic fault features. The tested system uses R-410A refrigerant and has a scroll compressor, a fixed orifice expansion device, and two fin-tube heat exchangers. The tests were carried out under steady operation with a range of fault intensities and operating conditions. The microtube system’s performance degradation from faults is similar to systems with traditional heat exchangers, despite the reduced capacity to hold refrigerant charge.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2026

Virtual refrigerant charge sensor for variable-speed heat pumps based on feature selection

The refrigerant charge level in heat pump systems significantly impacts their energy efficiency. Virtual refrigerant charge (VRC) sensing technology has been comprehensively investigated and well-established due to its lower cost compared to physical sensors. However, the previous VRC research often relied on expert judgment and physical reasoning for their variable selection, which can potentially select redundant (or highly correlated) or insignificant features, and it is also primarily focused on single-speed systems. To address these challenges, this study proposes a VRC algorithm for variable-speed heat pumps that selects features through a rigorous feature selection method in combination with physical insights. We also propose a piecewise linear model structure segmented by subcooling temperature to accurately predict charge levels, particularly when subcooling temperatures are substantially low. The proposed algorithm was evaluated using experimental data of a residential R410A heat pump, and the performance was compared with two baseline VRC algorithms. The results are: (1) The proposed algorithm outperforms for the case with subcooling temperature less than 1 °C. (2) The proposed algorithm achieves a tested mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 4.23%, and improves the overall accuracy for cooling conditions by approximately 60%, compared with the two baseline algorithms. (3) The proposed algorithm uses two fewer features and improves the accuracy for undercharge cooling conditions by 68.0%, compared with baseline algorithm 2. These improvements enhance prediction accuracy and prevent overfitting, providing a more reliable refrigerant charge level prediction and helping improve the heat pump energy efficiency.

Liang, Chenjiyu↗
DOE OSTI2022

A Universal Refrigerant Charge Fault Detection and Diagnostics Method Based on Pump Down Operation

The performance of the heat pump system varies greatly depending on the refrigerant charge amount. Improving the refrigerant charge fault detection and diagnostics (FDD) method of vapor compression systems have the potential for increasing energy efficiency and reducing service cost. Previous studies to predict refrigerant charge amount are mostly empirical methods which require significant amount of experimental data for high accuracy. The primary goal of this research is to develop a universal charge fault detection method which requires only a few experimental data with high prediction accuracy.Currently, pump down operations are typical practices by HVAC technicians when they need to open the refrigerant circuit to make a repairment. In addition, compressors have a built-in low-pressure cut-off protection function, and the compressor performance maps are commonly available from manufacturers. The proposed method innovatively utilizes the typical pump down operation, the compressor low-pressure cut-off protection, and the compressor performance map. It does not require any geometry information of heat exchangers, refrigerant lines, or charge buffers.The new charge prediction method is firstly formulated through theoretical analysis, then verified and calibrated by a quasi-steady-state simulation of the pump down process for a residential heat pump system. The quasi steady-state simulation uses an HVAC system simulation framework driven by DOE/ORNL Heat Pump Design Model (HPDM). Preliminary experiment validations with heat pump refrigerant leakage tests demonstrate the deviation of the proposed charge prediction method compared with measurement is within 8%. This technology makes refrigerant charge amount available at the technician’s fingertips and leads to shorter maintenance time and fewer site visits.

Li, Zhenning↗
DOE OSTI2025

An analysis of Potential Benefits of Adding Diurnal Thermal Storage in Geothermal Heat Pump Systems

Geothermal heat pumps (GHP) are highly efficient for space heating and cooling, utilizing the subsurface of the ground as seasonal energy storage through borehole heat exchangers (i.e., heat stored in summer is used to provide heating in winter, and cold stored in winter is used to provide cooling in summer). On the other hand, diurnal thermal energy storage can actively be charged and discharged for load shifting. Conventional thermal energy storage uses tanks filled with thermal storage media (such as phase change materials) and heat exchangers. It occupies building floor space or land areas outside the building, which may not be available especially in residential buildings. This paper will introduce a novel configuration that can utilize existing GHP system for both diurnal and seasonal thermal storage. This system can actively charge the ground on daily basis by injecting heat or cold in borehole heat exchangers. A simulation model was created for the novel configuration. Computer simulations were conducted using the model for the new GHP system serving a typical single-family house in three U.S. cities representing hot, warm, and cold climates. Based on simulation results, the potential benefits of load shifting and downsize of the expensive ground heat exchangers used by the GHP system were assessed.

Anees, Fady [ORNL]↗
DOE OSTI2025

Siting and sizing of public–private charging stations impacts on household and electric vehicle fleets

To facilitate the provision of electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS) in urban areas, this study investigates the benefits of co-locating fleet-owned chargers with public charging stations to enable construction incentives and cord-sharing cost savings. Shared EVCS can serve charging demand from both user types: private (household) EV owners and those managing fleet vehicles – like shared and fully automated EV (SAEV) fleets. Using POLARIS to simulate all person-travel across the 6-county Austin, Texas region, new EVCS were sited and sized with DC fast-charging (DCFC) plugs to lower operating and construction costs while providing public + private (PP) service across an 81-square-mile core geofence (where 200 SAEVs were active) over 24-hour days. When co-location is permitted, 115 DCFC cords were added to the 23 existing (publicly available) stations to enable SAEVs and household EVs (HHEVs) charging access, within the geofence. Each 250-mile-range SAEV was simulated to travel an average of 330 miles per day, serve over 92 person-trips, and recharge 2.7 times a day (for 2.4 h per session). The new DCFC plugs were primarily added to public EVCS at shopping centers and schools, and in residential settings along freeways. The average plug served 4.8 EVs per day. Most co-located PP EVCS permitted immediate (no-wait) charging, except for 2 stations along freeways that averaged 8 min of wait time to begin charging. In conclusion, the co-location strategy lowered fleet owners’ initial EVCS construction costs by 12 % (thanks to cord-sharing to avoid cord duplication), while reducing SAEV wait times to just 3.1 min (versus 10.7 min if SAEV managers had to build and operate their own EVCS).

EV charging modeling↗