Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “locational marginal pricing”

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.

66 records · Page 4

Impact of Glen Canyon Generation Loss

Colorado River Basin hydropower generation has faced challenges due to droughts and ecological and social water requirements. Specifically, Glen Canyon hydropower generation fluctuates substantially with recent extreme weather trends. Further, the western grid evolves with higher wind and solar share, and Glen Canyon hydropower's contribution to grid flexibility services is essential. The Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) markets and schedules electricity production at GCD, and the loss of this power could have significant financial consequences for the WAPA Colorado River Storage Project's (CRSP) Office because it may need to purchase relatively large amounts of energy to serve its firm electrical obligations. In addition, GCD provides grid reliability services for the WAPA Colorado-Missouri (WACM) balancing authority (BA). Both WAPA and DOE's Water & Power Technology Office (WPTO) are interested in researching how these drier hydrological conditions will impact federal electrical energy production, the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) power grid, and the value of hydropower in the face of lower production. We study multiple hydrologic and power grid scenarios to understand the grid impacts of the loss of Glen Canyon generation. The study uses a production cost model, water resources planning models, water-centric grid models, and various data analytic techniques. The study progress presentation discusses the selection of probable CRSP' hydropower scenarios and power grid scenarios to understand the impacts of Glen Canyon generation, which includes technologies that compensate the Glen Canyon energy and ancillary services contributions, transmission availability, and energy local marginal prices at interested grid locations of WAPA operation.

droughts↗

Distribution Network Capacity Market Design: Marginal Distribution Capacity Pricing Mechanism for Efficient Investment and Cost Allocation

As electricity markets begin to shift from reliance on large, centralized power plants and towards distributed energy resources (DERs), there is a growing acknowledgement that more efficient planning, operations, and oversight is needed in the distribution system. This paper addresses one step in that direction by proposing an auction mechanism that uses a detailed distribution system planning model that allocates permits to end-used customers who request capacity to install new devices at their location and network upgrade contracts to utilities or 3rd-party companies who offer to upgrade system components. The resulting plan maximizes market surplus, that is, maximizes the total benefit to consumers minus the cost of network upgrades. We apply a marginal pricing scheme to the auction’s results such that the cost of each permits or contracts is differentiated by time and location, based on the Lagrangian multipliers of binding network constraints. These prices are shown to be no greater than the bid price of any awarded contract and no less than the offered cost of any awarded upgrade contract. Furthermore, the nonlinearity of power flows in the planning model result in an additional surplus that would be collected by the entity that hosts the auction, which could then be refunded to market participants or used to cover overhead costs of running the market. We provide four example auction results in a simple three-node distribution feeder to demonstrate the properties of the design. Results suggest that larger or more realistic case studies could be a promising next step.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

The Importance of Modeling Carbon Dioxide Transportation and Geologic Storage in Energy System Planning Tools

Energy system planning tools suggest that the cost and feasibility of climate-stabilizing energy transitions are sensitive to the cost of CO 2 capture and storage processes (CCS), but the representation of CO 2 transportation and geologic storage in these tools is often simple or non-existent. We develop the capability of producing dynamic-reservoir-simulation-based geologic CO 2 storage supply curves with the Sequestration of CO 2 Tool (SCO 2 T) and use it with the ReEDS electric sector planning model to investigate the effects of CO 2 transportation and geologic storage representation on energy system planning tool results. We use a locational case study of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) region. Our results suggest that the cost of geologic CO 2 storage may be as low as $3/tCO 2 and that site-level assumptions may affect this cost by several dollars per tonne. At the grid level, the cost of geologic CO 2 storage has generally smaller effects compared to other assumptions (e.g., natural gas price), but small variations in this cost can change results (e.g., capacity deployment decisions) when policy renders CCS marginally competitive. The cost of CO 2 transportation generally affects the location of geologic CO 2 storage investment more than the quantity of CO 2 captured or the location of electricity generation investment. We conclude with a few recommendations for future energy system researchers when modeling CCS. For example, assuming a cost for geologic CO 2 storage (e.g., $5/tCO 2 ) may be less consequential compared to assuming free storage by excluding it from the model.

20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS↗

Revenue Analysis for Energy Storage Systems in the United States

In this work we evaluate the potential revenue from energy storage using historical electricity prices, forward-looking projections of hourly electricity prices, and actual reported revenue. This analysis examines the impact of storage characteristics, specifically duration and round-trip efficiency, as well as locational elements of storage revenue within the current and projected U.S. power system. Figure ES-1 illustrates the revenue for a 1 MW storage system in seven market regions with durations range from 1 hour to 12 hours using both historical and forward-looking price data. The historical analysis covers more than 500 price nodes for each market region, while the forward-looking analysis includes balancing areas under different 10 scenarios of the electricity generation mix. The results indicate that the revenues consistently increase with duration, though the marginal value declines as duration grows. Moreover, the range of revenue depends on the system's operational location, and the electricity generation mix changes for future years. This range also widens with increased durations. In addition, the sensitivity analysis of round-trip efficiency reveals that as efficiency improves, system revenue increases, though the value of better round-trip efficiency declines as at higher efficiency levels.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗

How profitable is switchgrass in Illinois, USA? An economic definition of marginal land

Decisions regarding the conversion of land from an existing crop to bioenergy crops are critical for the sustainable production of both food and fuels. This study seeks to establish criteria for delineating land as “economically marginal”, and thus suited for growing switchgrass. In this case study of an Illinois agricultural field, the profitability of switchgrass, with farmgate prices of $\$44$ Mg –1 , $\$66$ Mg –1 , or $\$88$ Mg –1 , was compared to corn and soybean crop prices. Further, the study also evaluates the profitability of switchgrass when replacing corn-based yield estimates from the Soil Productivity Index (SPI) of Illinois. Based on a dry-matter yield of 10.45 Mg ha –1 , switchgrass can compete with soybeans only at the high price of $\$88$ Mg –1 , but depending on location, can compete with corn at $\$66$ Mg –1 . Across Illinois, at $\$88$ ha –1 , all Illinois land with SPI < 100% and 95% of land under SPI class C (SPI 100–116) is profitable under switchgrass. Switchgrass may not be profitable relative to corn grown in the SPI class A (SPI > 133) and only 7% of class B (SPI 117–132). Our results show that land with drainage and erosion limitations is economically marginal when corn and soybean yields are low, and the farmgate price for switchgrass is greater than $\$66$ Mg –1 . However, this may not be possible on land where switchgrass is replacing frequent soybean rotations (corn–soybean ratio ≤ 1). Land used to produce only soybeans may only be marginal at the farmgate price of $\$88$ Mg –1 . Further studies need to be conducted to identify how much land can be converted to switchgrass without harming corn production.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗

Tax Credits for Clean Electricity: The Distributional Impacts of Supply-Push Policies in the Power Sector

We evaluate distributional and efficiency consequences of the bulk power clean electricity tax credits authorized by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. To do so, we link detailed electricity capacity expansion, computable general equilibrium, data-rich microsimulation, and air pollution models to estimate the policy incidence in terms of economic welfare and health impacts across a wide range of demographic groups. We evaluate the tradeoff between policy efficiency and income progressivity by comparing the tax credits to cap-and-trade policies that vary revenue recycling approaches. Under the scenarios analyzed the bulk power tax credits lead to increased clean electricity technology deployment resulting in a reallocation of capital from elsewhere in the economy, higher prices for capital and other goods, lower power prices, and lower emissions. The tax credits yield progressive outcomes for both economic welfare and health impacts. The health benefits exceed total policy costs and provide greater benefits for low-income and historically-marginalized households given the coincidence of household and emission source locations.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Electricity Costs and Carbon Implications for CO 2 -to-Fuels in Selected Locations in 2030

With the growing interest in converting carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) to fuels and products to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions and extend carbon from biogenic and other sources, the development of carbon capture and utilization (CO2U) technologies and industry is crucial. The Markets, Resources, and Environmental and Energy Justice of CO 2 -to-Fuels Technologies (short title: MarkeRs & EEJ) project supports this goal by assessing the resource and market potential and infrastructure requirements for mid-term (-2030) and long-term (-2050) deployment of CO2U technologies. The overall project analyzes CO2U economic and resource requirements as well as sustainability and environmental and energy justice (EEJ) metrics. This report focuses on short-term (-2030) aspects of the project. It identifies three CO2U locations in the Midwestern United States and quantifies the costs for potential electricity resources and marginal emissions for each site in the near term (e.g., 2030). We focus on four electricity purchase options, including retail rate, physical power purchase agreement (PPA), financial PPA, and real-time pricing (RTP), for each of the three sites and consider potential policies such as production tax credits (PTCs). We also assess time-dependent hourly marginal electricity costs and the marginal emission rates using modeled scenarios from Cambium (Gagnon et al. 2021).The results of the analysis are expected to inform other projects within the U.S. Department of Energy's CO 2 -to-Fuels Consortium, especially the Economics and Sustainability of CO 2 Utilization Technologies with Techno-Economic Analysis and Life Cycle Analysis (TEA/LCA) project, led by Michael Wang of Argonne National Laboratory and Ling Tao of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The project results are also expected to inform the investment and technology communities and policymakers at the U.S. Department of Energy, state, and regional levels and guide investment by government and industry in research and development portfolios.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗

Tax Credits for Clean Electricity: The Distributional Impacts of Supply-Push Policies in the Power Sector

We evaluate distributional and efficiency consequences of the bulk power clean electricity tax credits authorized by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. To do so, we link detailed electricity capacity expansion, computable general equilibrium, microsimulation, and air pollution models to estimate economic welfare and health incidence across demographic groups. We evaluate trade-offs between policy efficiency and income progressivity by comparing the tax credits to cap-and-trade policies. The tax credits encourage increased clean electricity investment, resulting in a reallocation of capital from elsewhere in the economy, higher prices for capital and other goods, lower power prices, and lower emissions. The tax credits yield progressive outcomes for economic welfare at the expense of efficiency while all modeled policies demonstrate progressivity in health impacts. The health benefits, absent climate benefits, exceed total policy costs and provide greater benefits for low-income and historically marginalized households given coincidence of household locations and emissions exposure intensity.

distributional impacts↗

Liquid Salt Combined-Cycle Pilot Plant Design

The work described in this report is responsive to the Office of Fossil Energy program ‘Energy Storage for Fossil Power Generation.’ This Phase I report has been prepared by Pintail Power LLC, with support from Nexant ECA, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and Southern Company Services as a deliverable for the U.S. Department of Energy for NETL Award DE-FE-00320016. The Liquid Salt Combined Cycle™ (LSCC™) technology provides large-scale energy storage integrated with Fossil Electric Generating Units (FEGUs) to meet critical needs in the energy transition by providing: • the lowest cost large-scale storage for time-shifting of renewable energy, • superior fuel efficiency to reduce GHGs from dispatchable resources, • flexible capacity and ramping to balance variability of wind and solar resources, • essential grid stability services to assure reliability of a low-carbon grid. The LSCC approach: • employs equipment that has already been proven in utility service, • uses safe, non-toxic, non-degrading, perpetual-life storage medium, • leverages and repurposes existing FEGU assets, • expands the value stack of energy storage to reduce market, financing, and commodity risks. Pintail Power has developed the LSCC technology to meet the need for reliable, efficient, and cost-effective integration of Variable Renewable Energy (VRE) into a low-carbon electric grid by coupling proven thermal energy storage with proven gas turbines, steam turbines, and heat transfer equipment. This novel approach is intended to address the key issues facing the grid and operators of renewable and fossil generating units including: • Overgeneration and curtailment of renewables, • Need for fast ramping dispatchable resources, • Improved efficiency and flexibility of fossil units, • Additional peaking capacity to support electrification of transportation and heating, • Provision of reliability services to support high penetration of VRE, especially synchronous inertia and fast frequency response. A Technology Readiness assessment by EPRI confirmed that LSCC technology consists of commercially proven hardware used in industrial and utility applications. Although the novel LSCC approach has not yet been demonstrated as a complete system, interfaces between major components have been conservatively specified. A Phase III pilot is planned to demonstrate equipment integration and operation. The patented innovation is removal of the evaporator section from the exhaust heat recovery system, with the evaporation performed by stored energy in a separate steam generator. This arrangement couples renewable and fossil power generation via long-duration energy storage to deliver cost, performance, and operational synergies, including superior charging and discharging flexibility, reduced fuel consumption and lower CO 2 emissions compared to conventional Combined Cycle Power Plants, and low-cost, large-scale energy storage. The LSCC technology is composed of proven equipment integrated with gas turbine exhaust heat in a novel system. During charging, electric heaters raise the salt temperature as it flows from the Cold Salt Tank to the Hot Salt Tank. During discharging, hot salt produces steam from feedwater that is heated with gas turbine exhaust, which also superheats steam to drive a steam turbine. LSCC technology can be added to any combustion-turbine to integrate renewable energy, provide needed grid services, and increase the value of fossil electric generating units based on the technology’s following attributes: • Long-duration storage enables time-shifting of VRE to avoid curtailment and impairment of renewable assets. • Long storage duration combined with fast-charging capability increases arbitrage opportunities by storing more energy when the price is low and discharging more hours when the price is high. • Long storage duration allows resource adequacy to be supplied across multiple days to increase reliability and reduce risk. • The stored energy reduces fuel heat rate and GHG emissions, and increases merit, so the LSCC dispatches earlier and longer to increase the plant’s capacity factor and asset value. • The stored energy enables pre-heating and startup of the steam cycle, without operating the gas turbine, to enable fast startup and ramping when dispatched for discharge. • The steam turbine can operate without the gas turbine so it can provide valuable synchronous inertia during charging without consuming fuel. • Fast frequency response and regulation services can be provided during charging using solid-state heater and pump controls to vary the charge power input in response to grid signals. • The LSCC system can be configured for resilience including black start, islanded/micro-grid operation, and even self-recharging of storage using either gas turbine power or gas turbine exhaust heat. The commercialization plan is to add LSCC technology to existing simple cycle gas turbine power plants with the 50MW GE LM6000 aero-derivative gas turbine as the reference design basis. A Techno-economic assessment of the reference design evaluated the benefits (Levelized Avoided Cost of Energy) and costs (Levelized Cost of Energy). The plant definition included all major systems and budgetary vendor quotes. Pintail Power and NexantECA developed the overall cost estimate for the LSCC plant up to the total plant cost level, following the DOE-NETL cost estimate guidelines at AACE Class 3 (-20%/+30%). This includes the equipment cost, bulk material, direct and indirect labor costs to arrive at the bare erected cost. Engineering costs are factored from the BEC and added to it to arrive at the EPC cost. Process and project contingencies were then factored from the EPC cost and rolled-up to yield the total plant cost of $\$$184 million for 1746 MWh of discharge electricity. • At $\$$105/kWh, the reference plant costs less than any of the Energy Storage Systems evaluated by PNNL in 2020 for the Energy Storage Grand Challenge. Operations and Maintenance cost estimates were scaled from combined cycle practice, assuming that the LSCC unit was co-located with and sharing some labor expense with other units, to arrive at $\$$2.2 million per year. Plant economics were evaluated using prices from the ERCOT Day-Ahead Market for calendar year 2019 (excluding the market disruptions from the COVID pandemic and the February 2020 deep freeze event). Assuming economic dispatch in the ERCOT Day-Ahead market, the reference plant capacity factor would have discharged for 2777 hours at 91.9 MW, a 31.66% capacity factor, with a marginal cost of $\$$25.59/MWh, and a LACE of $\$$82.41/MWh. Fixed charges were calculated according to EIA guidelines to arrive at an LCOE of $\$$83.48. The benefit-to-cost ratio of 0.99 suggests that the reference plant would have been cost-effective and competitive in the market. EPRI interviewed selected utilities to gauge the need for, applicability of and interest in the LSCC system. Several utilities are currently managing increased load growth along with the inclusion of increasing levels of renewable generation, putting pressure on conventional generation by requiring increased turndown requirements and ultimately lower capacity factors. All of the utilities interviewed have CO 2 reduction targets in the 2030-2050 timeframe that will severely limit the participation of fossil generation and require better utilization of carbon free generation. While there is limited opportunity for storage in the current markets, the utilities interviewed stated that there will be a substantial need for long duration energy storage in the future given the expected trends. Utilizing an energy storage system will generally be preferred over new gas capacity in some cases, with the capabilities of the LSCC system being a potential option for retrofit to existing simple cycle gas turbine units, allowing them to deliver greater participation in the market with lower carbon intensity. A technology gap assessment and technology maturation plan identified a pilot-scale demonstration as the final step before commercialization. Key gaps to be addressed during the Phase II FEED (Front-End Engineering Design) are component selection and design, commissioning procedures, and operational procedures and the control system for LSCC charging and discharging. The project team has been expanded to include Wood Group PLC as EPC. The proposed Phase II work leads to a pilot-scale engineering demonstration (TRL 6) to be conducted at Southern Company’s Plant Rowan, where the prototype system will perform “all the functions that will be required of the operational system.” The proposed pilot will facilitate commercialization (TRL-9) by scale-up to utility-scale systems integrated with peaking GTs or directly to facility scale systems using industrial GTs. The conceptual design for the pilot plant focuses on the novel integration aspects of LSCC technology. A slipstream of gas turbine exhaust will feed a waste heat recovery unit coupled to a molten salt steam generator heated by stored energy. The pilot is intended to demonstrate all key operating modes of the LSCC technology during charging, discharging and standby. The pilot equipment will be approximately one-seventh scale of the LM6000 commercial target and is expected to have commercial off-ramp potential for facility-scale applications.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

Plentiful electricity turns wholesale prices negative

In 2020, average wholesale electricity prices in the United States fell to $21/MWh, their lowest level since the beginning of the 21st century. Low natural gas prices and the proliferation of low marginal cost resources like wind and solar had already established a trend toward lower wholesale prices, and this trend was exacerbated by declining electricity demand due to the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. Negative real-time hourly wholesale prices occurred in about 4% of all hours and wholesale market nodes across the United States, but these were not distributed evenly. Regional clusters emerged, for example, in the Permian Basin in western Texas, and in Kansas and western Oklahoma in the Southwest Power Pool (SPP), negative prices accounted for more than 25% of all hours. Negative electricity prices result either from local congestion of the transmission system leading supply to exceed demand locally or due to system-wide oversupply. Looking at the latter condition in SPP, we find that all major generator types contribute to this excess supply, because of limited ramping flexibility or self-scheduled out-of-market unit commitments. Additional monetary production incentives such as renewable energy credits or tax credits also enable negative bids; indeed, negative prices predominantly occur when demand levels are low and wind production levels are high. Frequent negative prices can inform the value of additional renewable energy investments at specific locations, the need for transmission and storage development, and opportunities load growth or adaptation.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Techno-economic and environmental assessment of solar-based electrical vehicles charging stations integrated with hydrogen production

With the growing interest in adopting both commercial and residential electric vehicles (EVs) utilizing green renewable energy, the techno-economic assessment of EV charging stations with solar energy is a critical aspect of the transition to sustainable transportation. However, battery storage capacity for variable solar energy production is becoming increasingly less cost-effective due to the higher Lithium price. Complementing solar energy production and battery storage, the potential of combining green hydrogen fuel energy integration with solar energy for EV charging stations can provide a sustainable alternative to reach carbon-free transportation. This research aims to assess the technical and economic viability of grid-connected Photovoltaic (PV)-based EV charging stations across Kentucky based on existing EV load profiles. The study considers different PV system sizes, locations, orientations, and the impact of net metering policies and electricity tariffs on the profitability of the PV systems. Further, using excess PV energy, Lithium-Ion batteries will be charged, which will be assessed considering the techno-economic and environmental impacts of green EV charging stations. To further enhance green renewable energy production, we also investigated the feasibility of on-grid PV-based EV charging stations with Lithium-Ion batteries charged during low tariff periods. In comparison with these scenarios, we studied the potential benefits of integrating green hydrogen energy production using excess solar energy with and without governmental incentives. Furthermore, we assess the environmental impact of these green EV charging stations across Kentucky. Our study indicates that EV stations across Kentucky have similar techno-economic feasibility with insignificant deviation in the levelized cost of electricity, payback period, and PV energy fraction with/without Li-Ion batteries. However, with green hydrogen production, the marginal H 2 production cost indicates the first scenario (on-grid PV energy charging) is the most significant, roughly 10 USD/Kg, which is similar to 1.5 times higher than the second (charging during low-tariff periods) and the third scenarios (power grid to satisfy the demand deficit - approximately 6.5 USD/Kg). From the environmental perspective, the second scenario would be a good option for either hybrid EV/H 2 or EV charging stations in Kentucky, factoring in the hydrogen production cost and the carbon footprint.

08 HYDROGEN↗