Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “critical”

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 OSTI2022

Transfer learning for smart buildings: A critical review of algorithms, applications, and future perspectives

Smart buildings play a crucial role toward decarbonizing society, as globally buildings emit about one-third of greenhouse gases. In the last few years, machine learning has achieved a notable momentum that, if properly harnessed, may unleash its potential for advanced analytics and control of smart buildings, enabling the technique to scale up for supporting the decarbonization of the building sector. In this perspective, transfer learning aims to improve the performance of a target learner exploiting knowledge in related environments. The present work provides a comprehensive overview of transfer learning applications in smart buildings, classifying and analyzing 77 papers according to their applications, algorithms, and adopted metrics. The study identified four main application areas of transfer learning: (1) building load prediction, (2) occupancy detection and activity recognition, (3) building dynamics modeling, and (4) energy systems control. Furthermore, the review highlighted the role of deep learning in transfer learning applications that has been used in more than half of the analyzed studies. The paper also discusses how to integrate transfer learning in a smart building's ecosystem, identifying, for each application area, the research gaps and guidelines for future research directions.

Pinto, G↗
DOE OSTI2021

Grey-box modeling and application for building energy simulations - A critical review

Grey-box modeling, as one of the three fundamental modeling techniques for building energy models, has many advantages compared with black-box modeling and white-box modeling. Additionally, it has been widely applied to solve problems of building technologies, such as building load estimation, control and optimization, and building-grid integration. However, a thorough review of grey-box modeling is not available. This review study systematically investigated various aspects of grey-box modeling for buildings. First, the fundamental aspects of grey-box modeling are presented, including the theoretical background, modeling of building elements, modeling order, modeling diagram, and order reduction. Second, the detailed modeling approaches are discussed. Third, multiple applications of grey-box modeling are investigated for building energy domain, which are categorized into the following groups: heat dynamics analysis, thermal load estimation, building control and optimization, district/urban scale energy modeling, and building-grid integration. Finally, the available software packages for grey-box modeling are compared. Overall, the challenges of using grey-box modeling can be summarized as follows: (1) the theoretical limitations and assumptions of grey-box modeling are unclear; (2) grey-box model naming convention and structure are confusing; (3) grey-box model creation is vague; (4) suitable applications of grey-box models are unknown; and (5) grey-box models lack unified software solutions for wider adoption.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2023

2023 Critical Materials Strategy

The global effort to curb carbon emissions is accelerating demand for clean energy technologies and the materials they rely on. Demand for these materials will only continue to grow, especially as some nations aim to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. While some major materials like steel, copper, and aluminum are already powering the fossil fuel economy, others are more minor materials with potential supply risks. These risks could jeopardize the ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the desirable timeframe to avoid significant climate change. In some cases, it may be necessary to take action to improve the resilience of material supply chains and mitigate supply risks. Understanding the importance of individual materials to clean energy and the supply risks associated with them is necessary to identify which materials may serve as potential roadblocks to a clean energy future. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a series of 13 supply chain deep dive assessment reports on various energy technologies in 2022 in response to President Biden’s Executive Order on America’s Supply Chains (E.O. 14017). These reports emphasized that supply chain bottlenecks can occur at any stage of the value chain from mining and refining to component and even sub-system manufacturing. The bottlenecks are a combination of factors such as material availability, equipment availability, work force availability and quality, logistics, regulatory framework, and market conditions. These bottlenecks were worsened during the global Covid-19 pandemic. Its lingering impacts have hindered capacity expansion for material supply chains and prevented product lead-time recovery. One approach to reduce supply chain risks for the United States is to have a strong domestic manufacturing sector with a diverse set of producers. Boosting responsible domestic production would require leveraging the latest science not only in material extraction but also in developing substitutes, recycling, reuse, and remanufacturing. This report is an updated analysis of previous Critical Materials Strategy (CMS) reports published by the DOE in 2010, 2011, and 2019 based on national and global priorities, technology advancement, and technology adoption trends. Like the CMS reports, this analysis presents the results of a formal material criticality assessment to identify which materials are critical to the continued deployment of clean energy technologies globally. The analysis in this report leveraged the DOE supply chain deep dive assessments to develop the initial list of materials to evaluate. This DOE Critical Materials Assessment (CMA) is conducted independently of criticality assessments performed by other U.S. government agencies, such as that conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This analysis complements the USGS critical minerals determination in three aspects. First, the DOE assessment is performed from a global perspective, while the USGS analysis focusses on the importance of minerals to the U.S. economy. Second, this report focuses on the importance of materials to clean energy technologies, rather than to the economy in general. Lastly, this study is forward looking to 2035 based on clean energy deployment scenarios, whereas the USGS assessment is retrospective. Materials evaluated in this report that do not appear in the USGS Critical Minerals List include copper, uranium, electrical steel, and SiC. A draft version of this report received ~80 public comments related to supporting data and methodological improvement. Those comments have been incorporated as much as possible where appropriate. Highlights of findings from this 2023 CMA include: Rare earth materials (neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium, and terbium) used in magnets in electric vehicle (EV) motors and wind turbine generators continue to be critical. While dysprosium (Dy) and terbium (Tb) are both heavy rare earth elements that serve the same function in magnets, the criticality of Tb is slightly lower than that for Dy in the short term due to the widespread use of Dy in high-grade magnets and Tb’s present role as a substitute. Similarly, praseodymium (Pr) is critical in the medium term but only near critical in the short term because it is more substitutable in magnets than neodymium (Nd); Materials used in batteries for EVs and stationary storage are now considered to be critical. While cobalt (Co) was found to be critical in this and previous reports, lithium (Li) becomes critical in the medium term due to its broader use in various battery chemistries and the rampant growth of the EV industry. Natural graphite is a new addition in this assessment and is also found to be critical; Platinum group metals used in hydrogen electrolyzers, such as platinum (Pr) and iridium (Ir), are critical due to an increased focus on hydrogen technologies to achieve net zero carbon emissions, while those used in catalytic converters, such as rhodium (Rh) and palladium (Pd), were screened out due to the decreased importance of catalytic converters in the medium term; Gallium (Ga) continues to be critical due to its use in light-emitting diodes (LEDs). In addition, the use of Ga has increased in magnet manufacturing and in semiconductor in forms such as gallium arsenide (GaAs) or gallium nitride (GaN); Major materials like Aluminum (Al), copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), and silicon (Si) move from noncritical in the short term to near critical in the medium term due to their importance in electrification; Electrical steel is near critical due to its use in transformers for the grid and electric motors in EVs.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Comprehensive Study of the Potential of Extracting and Processing Critical Minerals from Coal-Based Resources - Phase I

The Phase I report prepared for the Department of Energy addresses U.S. Executive Order 13817 titled A Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals, issued on December 20, 2017, that lists 35 critical minerals that are vulnerable to supply disruption. A comprehensive review of each of the minerals was conducted to determine the criticality based primarily on extractability from coal-based resources. Several other factors were also considered such as gaps in supply and demand, use in current technology, and the existence of viable substitutes. It was determined that the critical minerals that show highest potential for extraction from coal-based resources are lithium, rare earth elements (REEs), cobalt, and manganese. All four of the critical minerals listed serve an important role in the technology industry, have few substitutes, and have a heavy import reliance. Most notably are lithium, which is widely used in the electric vehicle industry, and the REEs which can be found in virtually all electronic devices. The research of critical mineral extraction from coal-based resources was completed using a combination of literature review from public sources as well as cooperation from coal mines and power plants across the United States. Samples collected from six different geographical locations across the U.S. were subjected to sample preparation (i.e., pH measurement, moisture content, particle size analysis) and characterization studies using Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectroscopy (ICP-MS) and Scanning Electron Microscopy, Energy Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy (SEM-EDX) instruments. 27 samples of coal waste materials such as refuse, sludge, and fly ash were tested to characterize the rare earth element concentration by total rare earth elements (TREEs), heavy rare earth elements (HREEs), and light rare earth elements (LREEs). Of the 27 samples tested, 22 contained a TREE concentration higher than the threshold of 300 ppm, which is considered a viable feedstock material. 3 samples contained less than 300 ppm of TREEs; however, they were within 20 ppm of the threshold, and could potentially be considered viable sources in the future pending the advancement of more efficient extraction technologies. 2 of the 27 samples had significantly low TREE concentrations, which does not imply any potential for being a source for REEs. For the minerals identified as most critical in the literature review, a conceptual process flow diagram (PFD) was developed for their extraction from different coal-based feedstocks. The process targets selective recovery of one commodity (i.e., rare earths, lithium, cobalt, and manganese) via several hydrometallurgical separation methods. By identifying potentially extractable coal-based critical mineral resources, a study of the current and future market environments for each critical mineral, and a review of current processing methodologies for critical mineral extraction from coal-based resources, the foundation has been laid to further characterize and explore new resources and extraction techniques. As reliance on technologies in industries such as the production of electronic devices, batteries, and alloys containing critical minerals utilizing critical minerals continues to increase, a sound understanding of our nation’s dependence on and even the global criticality of certain critical minerals, will serve as a catalyst for innovation in virtually all fields of science.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2021

Power System Resilience Metrics Augmentation for Critical Load Prioritization

One of the major goals of new grid operation regimes, such as transactive energy systems (TESs), is to make the power grid more resilient to withstand natural or man-made disasters and potential reliability events, and to continue to serve the maximum number of its customers. But it is a well-known fact to system operators that not all customers are the same. This implies that any discussion of TESs’ impacts on the resilience of the power system should consider the needs of its critical customers (such as the power system operation centers, fire and police stations, and hospitals) over those of other customers. When evaluating the resilience of the system, bonus points must be awarded to any system that could maintain its power supply to critical customers during a disturbance that may cause an outage. This report discusses critical infrastructure (CI) as found in the literature and then categorizes it based on the field to which the operations belong (such as human life/safety-related, operations management, necessary city operation, industrial customers, etc.). Each of these CI categories is further divided into types of critical customers (e.g., the human life/safety-related category has different types of customers like hospitals, fire and police stations, etc.). The entire demand of each of the critical customer types is not categorized as critical load (CL); instead, only a portion of the total load of these critical customers is characterized as critical load. This is done based on the categories of equipment, the function of which is crucial in the operation of the overall facility. CL categorization is performed to provide the ratio of the critical load portion to the overall load , so that it can serve as a parameter in the resilience evaluation of the grid through a metrics-based approach. Such categorization is important as it helps to augment the existing quantifiable resilience metrics with CL categorization. The metrics for a power system need to not only consider how well a system performed during a disturbance event, but also how it reduced strain and supplied power to its CLs. The first step in this process is characterize CLs in the system. After CL characterization, the next step is the inclusion of these loads in the resilience metrics. To that end, in this report weight-based augmentation of resilience metrics is proposed, where certain customers (the ones that are categorized as critical) are assigned higher weights than others. Though an overview of assigning weights to customers is discussed, there is no one-size-fits-all approach for every power system. The decisions made about assigning such weights to customers vary greatly from one operator to another, based on their unique systems and the current and predicted states of critical customers. This decision-making can include the type of disturbance event, which might only affect certain parts of the system. In general, analyzing critical customers before an event helps understand system vulnerabilities. It also helps in planning and conducting operations during the event, evaluating system performance after the event, and supporting better planning for future events. An alternative to the current practices of managing the grid for outages is an innovative TES, which has the potential to provide a platform for including distributed energy resources for managing CLs. This report also describes how TES qualities can help (1) to maintain power supply to critical customers for uninterrupted operations and (2) to restore lost power supply to the critical customers rapidly.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
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 OSTI2023

Nuclear Criticality Safety Pipeline Course with Hands-On Experimental Training at Lawrence Livermore's Inherently Safe Subcritical Assembly Training Center

The Nuclear Criticality Safety Divisions at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) have partnered with Prof. Massimiliano Fratoni of the University of California Berkeley to offer a semester long course on nuclear criticality safety. This course is part of a larger pipeline project among many of the Department of Energy (DOE) laboratories designed to stimulate student interest in the field of criticality safety. The course focuses on teaching the fundamentals of criticality safety, familiarity with national and consensus standards, and preparing criticality safety evaluations. Students also receive hands-on experience with special nuclear material by performing experiments with the Inherently Safe Subcritical Assembly (ISSA) at LLNL. Guest lectures are taught remotely and in-person by criticality safety engineers at LLNL and LANL, giving students an opportunity to interact with professionals in the field. The students complete a semester long project involving developing and writing a criticality safety evaluation. As universities tend to focus heavily on nuclear power and advanced nuclear reactor design, this course gives students a better understanding and perspective of what criticality safety entails. The goal of this pipeline course is to introduce students to criticality safety as another available field for nuclear engineers. It is also a way for criticality safety programs to identify talented students who have the interest and aptitude to work in criticality safety for hire upon graduation. LLNL and LANL have both hosted past students as summer students, participated in student's graduate projects, and hired students as criticality safety engineers. This has provided a unique opportunity for criticality safety programs to spot young talent with better retention outcomes.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗