Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Capacity Factor”

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 109 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1980

Application of a reversible chemical reaction system to solar thermal power plants

Three distributed dish solar thermal power systems using various applications of SO2/SO3 chemical energy storage and transport technology were comparatively assessed. Each system features various roles for the chemical system: (1) energy storage only, (2) energy transport, or (3) energy transport and storage. These three systems were also compared with the dish-Stirling, using electrical transport and battery storage, and the central receiver Rankine system, with thermal storage, to determine the relative merit of plants employing a thermochemical system. As an assessment criterion, the busbar energy costs were compared. Separate but comparable solar energy cost computer codes were used for distributed receiver and central receiver systems. Calculations were performed for capacity factors ranging from 0.4 to 0.8. The results indicate that SO2/SO3 technology has the potential to be more cost effective in transporting the collected energy than in storing the energy for the storage capacity range studied (2-15 hours)

Hanseth, E. J.↗
DOE OSTI2024

Geothermal Power Systems Analysis: Outcome of Industry Stakeholders Workshop: Preprint

Geothermal cost and performance evaluation implemented via technoeconomic assessment (TEA) modeling is critical for the Department of Energy (DOE) and other geothermal industry stakeholders in assessing the current state of geothermal technologies and to identify existing hurdles to commercially viable geothermal development. The Geothermal Electricity Technology Evaluation Model (GETEM) is a major TEA tool used in estimating the economic feasibility and levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of conventional hydrothermal systems and enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). Since 2021, GETEM has been transitioning from an intricate spreadsheet model to a user-friendly tool within the System Advisor Model (SAM) developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Apart from enabling an expanded visibility of the geothermal model among other renewable resources, having GETEM in SAM has the advantage of simulation automation, better usability, updates tracking, active user inputs/feedback, and extended financial modeling. GETEM is used in developing supply curves for the Annual Technology Baseline (ATB). The ATB data are inputs to the Renewable Energy Potential (reV) and the Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) models. The geothermal module in NREL’s reV model assesses the geothermal energy potential in the conterminous United States by defining the geospatial intersection of geothermal resources with existing grid infrastructure within the constraint of land use characteristics. The ReEDS model is a capacity expansion model used for simulating the long-term build-out and operation of the US generation and transmission system based on current energy costs and policies. To ensure enhanced representation of current industry trends in our model transitions and development, we organized a two-day virtual workshop to elicit geothermal industry stakeholder input and recommendations on our current approaches and assumptions on technoeconomic, resource assessment, and deployment scenarios modeling of geothermal technologies. Participants included developers, operators, investors, regulatory agencies, system modelers, national laboratory researchers, consultants, and other stakeholders. In this workshop, we gained stakeholder insights on current geothermal plant performance (i.e., capacity factors), updated drilling costs and learning curves, and next generation technologies such as closed loop and superhot rock geothermal. Other outcomes from this workshop and its impact on future geothermal development feasibility, resource availability, and capacity expansion studies are compiled and discussed.

Annual Technology Baseline↗
DOE OSTI2025

Geothermal Power Systems Analysis: Outcome of Industry Stakeholders Workshop

Geothermal cost and performance evaluation implemented via techno-economic assessment (TEA) modeling is critical for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and other geothermal industry stakeholders in assessing the current state of geothermal technologies and to identify existing hurdles to commercially viable geothermal development. The Geothermal Electricity Technology Evaluation Model (GETEM) is a major TEA tool used in estimating the economic feasibility and levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of conventional hydrothermal systems and enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). Since 2021, GETEM has been transitioning from an intricate spreadsheet model to a user-friendly tool within the System Advisor Model (SAM) developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Apart from enabling an expanded visibility of the geothermal model among other renewable resources, having GETEM in SAM has the advantage of simulation automation, better usability, updates tracking, active user inputs/feedback, and extended financial modeling. GETEM is used in developing supply curves for NREL's Annual Technology Baseline (ATB), which provides inputs to the Renewable Energy Potential (reV) and the Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) models. The geothermal module in NREL's reV model assesses the geothermal energy potential in the conterminous United States by defining the geospatial intersection of geothermal resources with existing grid infrastructure within the constraint of land use characteristics. The ReEDS model is a capacity expansion model used for simulating the long-term build-out and operation of the U.S. generation and transmission system based on current energy costs and policies. To ensure enhanced representation of current industry trends in our model transitions and development, we organized a two-day virtual workshop to elicit geothermal industry stakeholder input and recommendations on our current approaches and assumptions on techno-economic, resource assessment, and deployment scenarios modeling of geothermal technologies. Participants included developers, operators, investors, regulatory agencies, system modelers, national laboratory researchers, consultants, and other stakeholders. In this workshop, we gained stakeholder insights on current geothermal plant performance (i.e., capacity factors), updated drilling costs and learning curves, and next-generation technologies such as closed-loop and superhot rock geothermal. Other outcomes from this workshop and its impact on future geothermal development feasibility, resource availability, and capacity expansion studies are compiled and discussed.

annual technology baseline↗
DOE OSTI2020

ION Engineering Commercial Carbon Capture Design & Costing (C3DC) (Final Report)

ION Engineering LLC (ION) has coupled its proven, solvent-based CO 2 capture technology with an exceptionally qualified design and engineering team to complete a pre FEED for a 300-megawatt equivalent commercial-scale CO 2 capture plant for Gerald Gentleman Station’s (GGS) Generation Unit 2 (GGS2). The remarkable team was comprised of ION, Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD), Sargent & Lundy (S&L) with continued support from Koch Modular Process Systems (KMPS), and Siemens. The overall objective of the project was to provide the engineering design and cost estimate at an American Association of Cost Engineers (AACE) Class 3 estimate, resulting in accuracy ranges of -20 to +30% for the capital cost estimate. The project team was successful in completing this objective and was able to overcome the challenges that were presented during the process. A conservative interest rate of 7.0% with a financing term of 20 years was used based on interest rates utilized by S&L for this level of study. The resulting annualization factor is multiplied by the total EPC cost to calculate an annualized capital expenditure. It is estimated that the carbon capture facility treating a 300 MWe slipstream will capture 1.9 million tonnes per year of CO 2 at a capacity factor of 85%. The resulting cost of capture for the CO 2 island was determined to be $\$$36.55/tonne. Utilizing an interest rate of 4.5%, supported by historical rates for previous large capital projects in the power industry, reduces the cost of capture to $32.52/tonne. These cost of capture numbers continue to further ION’s case for commercial deployment of ION’s solvent technology.

20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Opportunities for Hybrid Wind and Solar PV Plants in India

The share of variable renewable energy (VRE) on India's grid has surpassed 100 GW, and the government has ambitious plans reach 450 GW by 2030. One strategy to increase wind and solar PV deployment is through the co-location of wind and solar PV plants to form a single hybrid power plant. Hybrid plants have the potential to reduce transmission infrastructure costs and variability in the output power profile compared to a standalone plant with a single technology, and this resource analysis aims to take a first step towards quantifying the potential savings from hybridizing wind and solar PV plants in India and the size of this opportunity. We utilize a brute-force optimization to minimize the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for standalone wind, standalone solar PV, and hybrid wind/solar PV plants across all of India. By comparing these LCOEs, we determine that locations where hybrid plants exhibit potential cost savings and grid benefits exhibit both; a high interconnection cost and; a wind capacity factor between roughly 34% and 38%. However, because our work does not capture the value of the electricity generated by looking at energy prices, nor does it quantify the potential of hybrids to provide other value streams such as firm capacity and reserves. Further, because the work does not compare solar PV and wind hybrids to alternative generation technologies or storage systems, it cannot be considered a holistic cost-benefit analysis.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Advancing Concentrating Solar Thermal Modeling Using System Advisor Model (SAM)

Concentrating solar thermal (CST) technologies play a critical role in enabling dispatchable power and high-temperature industrial heat applications. Accurate and flexible modeling tools are essential for evaluating system performance, guiding technology research and development, and informing investment decisions. The National Laboratory of the Rockies's System Advisor Model (SAM) is a widely used techno-economic simulation platform for CST systems, providing detailed performance and financial modeling capabilities for multiple CST system configurations. SAM integrates physics-based performance models with financial analysis to simulate the behavior of complex energy systems under realistic operating conditions. For CST technologies (including tower, parabolic trough, and linear Fresnel), SAM enables hourly simulations using site-specific weather data that ensure feasible operating conditions and convergence of mass and energy between core system components (i.e., solar field, receiver, thermal energy storage, and power cycle). These capabilities allow researchers and developers to evaluate annual energy production, capacity factors, levelized cost of energy (LCOE), and system dispatch strategies. A key advantage of SAM lies in its flexibility for parametric analysis and large-scale computational studies. Users can vary system design parameters such as heliostat field layout, receiver dimensions, thermal energy storage capacity, power block sizing, and installation cost assumptions to investigate their impact on system performance and financial metrics. When combined with automated scripting through LK, SDKTool, or Python interfaces, SAM enables high-throughput simulation workflows that support sensitivity analysis, technology benchmarking, and optimization studies. These approaches are particularly valuable for next-generation CST concepts, where design spaces are large and system interactions are complex. Another important capability of SAM is its support for dispatch optimization and thermal energy storage modeling, which are central to the value proposition of CST technologies. The ability to simulate integrated storage and flexible power generation allows researchers to explore strategies that maximize grid value, improve capacity utilization, and enhance integration with variable resources such as photovoltaic and wind generation. This poster will present an overview of SAM's thermal system modeling capabilities including concentrating solar. Additionally, we will highlight new feature developments including: 1) implementing Google's OR-Tools optimization platform for faster and more robust dispatch optimization, 2) developing a new power load following controller for modeling behind-the-meter applications, 3) enabling direct modeling of CSP-PV hybrid systems with the inclusion of battery storage, and 4) developing a multi-receiver falling particle Gen3 system model.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Hydrogen Energy Storage Integrated with a Combined Cycle Plant

A project is being developed that will build upon the existing infrastructure and resources at the Intermountain Power Project (IPP) site to provide reliable, dispatchable energy and to support the transmission of renewable energy resources while transitioning to an economical green energy future. The concept study depicted in this report outlines a techno-economic optimization to fulfill the demand for 30% vol hydrogen co-firing in the IPP 840 MW advanced class combined cycle power plant. In an initial step, a site assessment concluded the site has sufficient land available to co-locate a hydrogen production and storage facility. The team evaluated and defined a scalable concept that considered technology characteristics, including input and output models to be used for optimization purposes. The concept for the hydrogen production and storage system integrates multiple technologies, to determine system size and scalable approach, for each of the technologies evaluated, the team defined component and subcomponent sizes, minimum and maximum capacity, modularity, component utility consumption (electric, water), component flexibility and servicing, layout, and technology status, as well as technology alternatives. For hydrogen generation, the project considers Siemens Energy’s Silyzer-300 (S300) technology, a 17.5 MW modular Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) electrolyzer. For the S300 configuration, the team determined that three S300 arrays, or approximately 1,000 kg/hr, per block would yield a compact block design. This configuration results in a fairly wide and flexible arrangement that fits well into the spaces available at the site. Therefore, the overall design approach is based on multiple identical blocks of 3 arrays to minimize engineering cost and optimize constructability. In parallel, a transmission screening study was conducted to determine any potential transmission constraints from the energy sources that could feed the hydrogen production equipment. The study results show that minimum transmission constraints would be encountered to deliver 400 MW renewable generation from southern California, or south-central Wyoming. At last, the techno-economic analysis concluded that a scenario that uses solar and wind power yields the lowest levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH 2 ) production and the lowest cost per tonne of CO 2 reduced. In this optimized scenario, the hydrogen production plant was determined as 6,201 kg/hr and the hydrogen storage (underground cavern) was determined as 4,600 tonnes. The resulting capacity factor for the hydrogen production plant was 66.33% with 8,745 operating hours in one year. This techno-economic analysis provided various options for integrating hydrogen storage at the Intermountain Power Plant site to co-fire the CCPP units. The results provide insightful data about the magnitude of capacity needed and the economics of producing hydrogen and reducing CO 2 emissions.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2021

Utility-Scale Solar, 2021 Edition: Empirical Trends in Deployment, Technology, Cost, Performance, PPA Pricing, and Value in the United States [Slides]

Berkeley Lab’s “Utility-Scale Solar, 2021 Edition” provides an overview of key trends in the U.S. market, with a focus on 2020. Highlights of this year’s update include: A record of nearly 9.6 GWAC of new utility-scale PV capacity came online in 2020, bringing cumulative installed capacity to more than 38.7 GWAC across 43 states. 89% of all new utility-scale PV capacity added in 2020 uses single-axis tracking. Median installed project costs declined to $\$$1.4/WAC (or $\$$1.1/WDC) in 2020. Project-level capacity factors vary widely, from 9% to 36% (on an AC basis), with a sample median of 24%. The report explores drivers of this variation. Utility-scale PV’s LCOE fell to $\$$34/MWh in 2020 ($\$$28/MWh if factoring in the federal investment tax credit, or ITC). PPA prices have largely followed the decline in solar’s LCOE over time, but have stagnated more recently. Prices from a sample of recent contracts average just above $\$$20/MWh (levelized). In 2020, solar’s average market value (defined in the report to include only energy and capacity value) exceeded average wholesale prices in 12 of the 17 balancing authorities analyzed (including 4 of the 7 independent system operators across the United States). Adding battery storage is one way to increase the value of solar. Our public data file tracks metadata for more than 150 PV+battery hybrid projects that are already online or that have secured offtake arrangements. At the end of 2020, there were at least 460 GW of utility-scale solar power capacity within the interconnection queues across the nation, 160 GW of which include batteries. For more information, and to explore related interactive data visualizations, go to utilityscalesolar.lbl.gov.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Insights from FEED studies for retrofitting existing fossil power plants with carbon capture technology

Recent United States Department of Energy (DOE) sponsored front-end engineering design (FEED) studies for retrofitting existing fossil-fueled power plants with state-of-the-art carbon capture technology contain previously overlooked real-world design considerations for near-term deployment of carbon capture. Insights from examining seven recently published FEED study reports are summarized in this paper. This includes a discussion of the design, performance, and cost implications associated with (1) location-specific considerations such as water availability, land availability, and accessibility; (2) host-plant-specific factors such as flue gas specifications, allowable degree of integration between the capture system and host plant, and operational mode; and (3) miscellaneous factors such as market conditions, permitting requirements, and business case incentives. In conclusion, this manuscript highlights (1) water availability as a key design and cost driver, with host plant steam extraction increasing capture system cooling water availability, (2) modularization and constructability impacts on the number of capture trains, (3) the impacts of host plant operational mode and capacity factor on the business case for installing capture, and (4) the merit of continued research, development, and demonstration efforts addressing steam extraction, host plant tie-in at the stack, solvent reclamation and air emissions control.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2023

Potential Availability of and Supply Curves for Low-Cost, Dispatch-Constrained Electricity

Among other changes, variable renewable energy (VRE) - primarily wind and solar photovoltaics - is achieving a growing share of total generation. High VRE penetrations may result in an increased level of curtailment and thus suppress the value of additional VRE. This VRE, that either would not be built due to price suppression or would be curtailed, can be considered a resource that we define as low-cost, dispatch-constrained electricity (LDE). LDE could be used for various applications which value low-cost electricity and can operate at reduced capacity factors. Examples include electrolytic hydrogen production and carbon capture. This report provides initial estimates of the quantity and availability of the potential LDE resource in the U.S. under scenarios with high VRE penetrations. It also provides supply curves that can be used in subsequent analysis of the opportunity to use the LDE. We modeled several scenarios using capacity expansion and production cost models for LDE prices ranging from $\$ $0/MWh to $\$ $30/MWh. These LDE prices, coupled with low renewable energy cost assumptions, resulted in VRE penetrations ranging from 48-66% in 2050. The resulting LDE supplies range from 100 - 300 TWh/yr at a price of $\$ $0/MWh to 3,500 - 4,200 TWh/yr at $\$ $30/MWh. Increasing LDE prices increases wind and photovoltaics deployment; however, other generation technology capacities do not decrease equivalently in our models. Thus, additional generation is available but the capacity of traditional dispatchable generation is only reduced slightly. The available LDE is concentrated in the central and southwest U.S. regions because of their high wind and solar resources.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2020

Resource and Load Compatibility Assessment of Wind Energy Offshore of Humboldt County, California

Floating offshore wind is being considered in northern California as indicated by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s issuance of a lease consideration in the Humboldt Call Area. Humboldt County offers access to this enormous resource, but local electric load and transmission are limited. The potential impacts of offshore wind generators at three different scales were studied using a regional grid model of Humboldt County. Offshore wind generation was calculated using modeled wind speed data and 12-MW turbine specifications and integrated with projected load and historical generation. Offshore wind farms deployed in the Humboldt Call Area achieve annual capacity factors between 45% and 54% after losses and maintenance. Power output is variable between and within seasons, with full power output 30% of the time and no output approximately 20% of the time. Electricity from a 48-MW wind farm provides 22% of regional load with limited exports. A 144-MW wind farm serves 38% of local load, exporting 40% of its electricity with the extant 70-MW transmission capacity. A full build-out of 1836 MW would result in 88% curtailment with existing transmission. Across scenarios, offshore wind variability necessitates reliance on existing power plants to meet local demand in periods of low wind.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Utility-Scale Solar, 2022 Edition: Empirical Trends in Deployment, Technology, Cost, Performance, PPA Pricing, and Value in the United States [Slides]

Berkeley Lab’s “Utility-Scale Solar, 2022 Edition” provides an overview of key trends in the U.S. market, with a focus on 2021. Highlights of this year’s update include: -A record of nearly 12.5 GWAC of new utility-scale PV capacity came online in 2021, bringing cumulative installed capacity to more than 51.3 GWAC across 44 states. -90% of all new utility-scale PV capacity added in 2021 uses single-axis tracking. -Median installed project costs declined to $\$1.35$/WAC (or $\$1.02$/WDC) in 2021. -Project-level capacity factors vary widely, from 9% to 35% (on an AC basis), with a sample median of 24%. The report explores drivers of this variation. -Utility-scale PV’s LCOE fell to $\$33$/MWh in 2021 ($\$27$/MWh if factoring in the federal investment tax credit, or ITC). -PPA prices have largely followed the decline in solar’s LCOE over time, but have recently stagnated and even moved slightly higher. Prices from a sample of recent contracts average around $\$20$/MWh (levelized) in the West and $\$30-40$/MWh elsewhere in the continental US. In 2021, solar’s average market value (defined in the report to include only energy and capacity value) rose by 55% to $\$47$/MWh and exceeded average wholesale prices in 13 of the 17 balancing authorities analyzed. -Adding battery storage is one way to increase the value of solar. Our public data file tracks metadata and PPA prices from 67 PV+battery hybrid projects that are already online or that have secured offtake arrangements. -At the end of 2021, there were at least 674 GW of utility-scale solar power capacity within the interconnection queues across the nation, 284 GW of which include batteries. For more information, and to explore related interactive data visualizations, go to utilityscalesolar.lbl.gov.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Utility-Scale Solar, 2023 Edition: Empirical Trends in Deployment, Technology, Cost, Performance, PPA Pricing, and Value in the United States [Slides]

Berkeley Lab’s “Utility-Scale Solar, 2023 Edition” presents analysis of empirical plant-level data from the U.S. fleet of ground-mounted photovoltaic (PV), PV+battery, and concentrating solar-thermal power (CSP) plants with capacities exceeding 5 MWAC (PV plants of 5 MWAC or less, including residential rooftop systems, are covered separately in Berkeley Lab’s companion annual report, Tracking the Sun). Highlights of this year’s update include: -10.4 GWAC of new utility-scale PV capacity came online in 2022, bringing cumulative installed capacity to more than 61.7 GWAC across 46 states. -94% of all new utility-scale PV capacity added in 2022 uses single-axis tracking. -Median installed project costs declined to $\$1.32$/WAC (or $\$1.07$/WDC) in 2022. -Plant-level capacity factors vary widely, from 9% to 35% (on an AC basis), with a sample median of 24%. The report explores drivers of this variation. -Utility-scale PV’s LCOE fell to $\$39$/MWh in 2022 ($\$29$/MWh if factoring in the federal investment tax credit, or ITC). -PPA prices have largely followed the decline in solar’s LCOE over time, but have recently stagnated and even moved slightly higher. Prices from a sample of recent contracts average around $\$20-30$/MWh (levelized) in the West and $\$30-40$/MWh elsewhere in the continental US. -In 2022, solar’s average market value (defined in the report to include only energy and capacity value) rose by 40% to $\$71$/MWh and exceeded average wholesale prices in 4 of the 7 ISOs/RTOs and 11 of 18 other balancing authorities analyzed. -Adding battery storage is one way to increase the value of solar. Our public data file tracks metadata and PPA prices from ~100 PV+battery hybrid projects that are already online or that have secured offtake arrangements. -the end of 2022, there were at least 947 GW of utility-scale solar power capacity within the interconnection queues across the nation, 456 GW of which include batteries. For more information, and to explore related interactive data visualizations, go to utilityscalesolar.lbl.gov.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2019

The Potential Role of Concentrating Solar Power within the Context of DOE's 2030 Solar Cost Targets

To continue the momentum for cost reduction in solar technologies, DOE recently established 2030 cost targets for that would make solar one of the lowest-cost sources of new electricity in the United States. The potential impacts of achieving the 2030 cost targets for solar photovoltaics (PV) were recently explored in a related publication, which found significant potential for solar PV deployment and generation, particularly when coupled with low-cost storage. Building on this previous report, the present analysis evaluates the potential impacts of simultaneously achieving the 2030 cost targets for both PV and concentrating solar power with thermal energy storage (CSP-TES) systems in the contiguous United States, with a detailed evaluation of the role that CSP-TES plays in realizing those impacts. The evolution of the contiguous U.S. electricity system is evaluated with NREL's Renewable Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) model, which has been specifically designed to represent the time and locational value of renewable generation technologies in the U.S. power system. This analysis suggests achievement of the SunShot cost targets for CSP-TES might lead to dramatic growth in CSP-TES capacity, with accelerated deployment after the 2030 target is achieved. Based on our representation of the 2030 cost targets in ReEDS, economically-competitive CSP-TES could primarily be deployed in a dispatch able, high-capacity factor configuration, which allows it to provide valuable services to the power sector and results in a generation profile for CSP-TES that is complementary to that of variable PV. Aggressive cost reductions for CSP-TES could also make such a configuration economically competitive across the contiguous United States, which is a a result that warrants additional analysis in terms of potential siting, permitting, regulatory, and construction challenges in these new regions and markets. The modeled capacity expansion of both CSP-TES and PV in our scenarios that achieve the 2030 cost targets requires most growth in transmission capacity at a pace that is consistent with historical buildout rates, and could result in reduced electricity prices and power system costs, water usage, and air emissions. Finally, sensitivity analysis suggests that the cumulative capacity and geographic extent of CSP-TES deployment in our low-cost solar scenarios is highly sensitive to the post-2030 cost reductions for CSP-TES and future price of natural gas, and that significant competition exists among renewable energy and energy storage technologies, assuming aggressive cost reductions for each. For example, significant competition between CSP-TES and PV with battery storage indicates the similar role that these systems play in capacity planning and grid operations, as well as the fact that low-cost battery storage would help improve the capacity value of low-cost PV into the future.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2019

Making Coal Relevant for Small Scale Applications: Modular Gasification for Syngas/Engine CHP Applications in Challenging Environments

This Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) study is funded by the US Department of Energy (DOE), and managed by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) through a Cooperative Agreement awarded to the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) to perform a technical and cost study for the design and installation of a Hamilton-Maurer International (HMI) gasifier for generating a clean syngas for firing in reciprocating engines. An existing diesel engine generator (DEG) and a commercially available spark ignition engine are used to generate electricity with the low-Btu syngas. Other than the HMI gasifier, only commercially available technologies were assumed for this study. An important objective of this design study was to estimate capital and operating costs of small modular coal and coal/biomass fired generating units to provide wind regulation services. Although this study is based on retrofitting an existing coal fired power plant with the HMI gasifier, sufficient data was developed to characterize greenfield units. The original concept was to provide clean syngas and tars/oils from the gasification process to the existing Colt-Pielstick PC2.6B diesel engine generator (9.6 MWe) installed at the UAF Atkinson Power Plant. The intent was to convert the diesel engine to operate in a dual fuel mode, firing both syngas and tars/oils. As the project progressed, Fairbanks Morse Engine (FME), current licensee for the Colt-Pielstick engine line, was not able to develop a modification package for the engine to allow for syngas firing. Although this type of modification is available for firing natural gas, the capability does not extend to syngas. Western Energy Systems, distributor for Innio Jenbacher, was able to offer the Jenbacher Model JMS620 engine. After review of available options, the project team selected a design configuration using two Jenbacher engines rated at 1965 kWe each to fire the syngas, with the oils/tars directed to the Colt Pielstick diesel to be blended with ultra-low sulfur diesel oil (ULSD). The Jenbacher engines are expected to operate at continuous base load, with some load-following ability, while the existing diesel engine will operate in grid support service, with loads varying from a nominal 25% to 100%. An annual capacity factor for the diesel engine is projected to be between 50% and 60%. The overall gasifier and gas clean-up system is sized to produce enough syngas to adequately fuel three Jenbacher Engines for a nominal power output of 5.9 MWe, but this study assumes that only two Jenbacher engines will be installed due to space constraints in the Atkinson Power Plant, and because of expected air emission permit limitations. There is still potential that the excess syngas capacity equivalent to about 2 MWe could be used as supplemental fuel for the DEG. The exhaust from the Jenbacher engines is passed through heat recovery units to generate low pressure steam, thereby providing a significant portion of the steam required for operating the gasifier. The overall performance of the HMI gasifier/engine configuration is summarized as follows: 1) Overall electric efficiency, Jenbacher and diesel engines, based on gasifier fuel production (syngas and pyrolysis liquids) is 35.2% LHV, 2) Overall cogenerating efficiency (electricity plus steam), based on gasifier fuel production (syngas and pyrolysis liquids) is 54.8% LHV, 3) Overall electric efficiency, Jenbacher and diesel engines, based on coal input, is 29.6% LHV, and 4) Overall cogenerating efficiency, electricity plus steam, based on coal input is 46.0%. This project is estimated to have a Bare Erected Cost (BEC) of $\$$ 33.4 million and a Total Plant Cost (TPC) of $\$$ 45.7 million. Based on the original scope, sending both the clean syngas and the oils and tars to the existing diesel engine, the BEC and TPC values would have been $\$$ 23.3 million and $\$$ 32.1 million, respectively. A variable Cost of Electricity (COE) is calculated to reflect only those costs that will be incurred by incremental operation of the system for the HMI gasifier/Jenbacher engine combination. Operation of the diesel engine is determined separately. The variable COE values are: Case 1: 100% Usibelli Coal: (a) HMI gasifier/Jenbacher Engines -- 8.3 cents/kWh; (b) Diesel Engine -- 20.2 cents/kWh, and Case 2: 80% Usibelli Coal + 20% wood chips (proportion based on Btu input, LHV basis): (a) HMI Gasifier/Jenbacher -- 13.7 cents/kWh; (b) Diesel Engine -- 20.2 cents/kWh. The incremental cost of operating the gasifier/Jenbacher system increases with co-firing of wood chips due to the high cost of this material, over five times as costly as Usibelli coal delivered to the Atkinson Power building. The diesel cost is constant as the oils and tars are priced at the same value as the ULSD for the purposes of fueling the diesel engine. Section 8 of this report provides details of the O&M costs. The overall power system is configured to be modular and scalable to provide a wide range of generating capacity using the same components. This allows for reduction in cost, risk, schedule time to engineer and construct, and provides some degree of repeatability for air permitting.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2023

Techno-economic Analysis of the Cryogenic Flux Capacitor Compared to Other forms of Hydrogen Production and Storage

The Cryogenic Flux Capacitor (CFC) is a cold, dense energy storage core that is being studied in the cryo-compressed, about 300 bar and 80K, region of gaseous hydrogen (GH2) storage and liquid hydrogen (LH2) region near the normal boiling point. The hydrogens storage is improved by physically bonding the molecules within the nanoscale pores of the aerogel composite blanket material. The process of bonding or debonding is governed by principles of physical adsorption (physisorption) and thermodynamics. The large surface area afforded by the nanoporous aerogel (~1,000 m2/g) allows its storage performance to easily exceed capacities of high-pressure GH2 storage for an equivalent volume. With the integrated aerogel, subscale tests have shown that storage is increased by about 49% over a simple tank filled with GH2 at the same operating temperature and pressure. For LH2 conditions, the CFC is shown to operate at equivalent densities. For the techno-economic analysis (TEA), the source of hydrogen is compared between onsite steam methane reforming (SMR) and onsite solar photovoltaic (PV) panels providing power to electrolyzers to produce GH2. The TEA compares pure hydrogen burning in a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) to hydrogen fuel cells with an overall net power output of 650 MW. The SMR system uses natural gas as an input and includes a carbon capture and storage (CCS) system. The levelized cost of electricity is developed based on the capital cost and operating cost of the systems. Sensitivities are discussed around the cost of natural gas, ranging from 1.93 USD per MMBTU to 6.75 USD per MMBTU, and carbon dioxide disposal, ranging from 7 USD per tonne to 10 USD per tonne. For comparison to the conventional CCGT baseline, a baseload scenario is adopted with 85% capacity factor. The results of the study show that onsite hydrogen generation from SMR is about 1 to 3 USD per kg over the life of the plant and the PV hydrogen production produces at 4 to 5 USD per kg. The cost of storage for CFC is compared to other systems, including high-pressure GH2 and atmospheric LH2. The system is shown to provide the lowest costs for all these options at the grid scale, due to its higher capacity than high-pressure GH2 and ability to operate at 80K, receiving refrigeration from liquid nitrogen systems reducing capital and operating costs when compared LH2 storage systems. SMR is competitive with CCGT at the gas prices, both of which have lower LCOE than the PV system. When accounting for variability in gas prices, the PV and electrolyzer system is less sensitive to these changes and provides the lowest LCOE across the whole range.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2020

Factors Impacting Nuclear Energy Share in U.S. Energy Markets

The purpose of this report is to collate information and findings from recent studies conducted by national and international bodies/institutes to identify approaches for maintaining/enhancing the role of nuclear energy in the current and future energy mix of the United States. This report shows how nuclear generation grew quickly to provide 20% of U.S. electricity, sustaining that level for three decades without the benefit of new construction, but is now projected to decline going forward. Nuclear construction costs in the U.S. spiraled out of control, ending construction for two decades and the recent resumption of construction has continued the pattern of schedule delays and cost overruns. However, nuclear operations exhibited strong learning, achieving and sustaining the highest capacity factor of any electricity generation technology and license extensions and uprates have sustained nuclear market share. The share of nuclear energy in the U.S. electricity market is projected to decline by ~1/3rd over the next 30 years The report provides an overview of how the markets work in theory and in practice. It indicates how market deregulation and clean energy policies have created conditions where nuclear plants are being retired for economic rather than technical reasons. The report also shows how many of the markets do not in practice have free competition but instead have outcomes that are being determined more and more by policy instead of market forces. While electricity costs from existing nuclear plants are low, electricity from new builds is projected to be too expensive to be competitive head-to-head with natural gas, even for nth-of-a-kind costs. Wind and solar energy have enjoyed an extended period of sustained subsidy. This protected environment has resulted in a sustained reduction in plant level costs to the point that some of these Variable Renewable Energy (VRE) technologies are becoming competitive even if their direct subsidies are removed. But plant level costs underestimate total VRE costs which include a number of system-level externalities. The incremental system value of additional VRE capacity was shown to decline as market share increases, with solar value declining more quickly than wind. The report closes with examination of a possible future for nuclear generation as part of deep decarbonization of the electricity sector. This approach avoids direct competition with natural gas. The two options for achieving 100% decarbonization are to use only renewables or to use all zero emissions technologies, and the report shows the second approach is much less expensive than the first.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Utility-Scale Solar, 2024 Edition: Empirical Trends in Deployment, Technology, Cost, Performance, PPA Pricing, and Value in the United States [Slides]

Berkeley Lab’s “Utility-Scale Solar, 2024 Edition” presents analysis of empirical plant-level data from the U.S. fleet of ground-mounted photovoltaic (PV), PV+battery, and concentrating solar-thermal power (CSP) plants with capacities exceeding 5 MWAC (PV plants of 5 MWAC or less, including residential rooftop systems, are covered separately in Berkeley Lab’s companion annual report, Tracking the Sun). Key findings from this year’s report include: -18.5 GWAC of new utility-scale PV capacity came online in 2023, bringing cumulative installed capacity to more than 80.2 GWAC across 47 states. Installed costs continued to fall in 2023. Relative to 2022, capacity-weighted averages decreased by 8% to -$\$1.43$/WAC (or $\$1.08$/WDC). Costs, based on a 7.1 GWAC sample of 76 plants completed in 2023, have fallen by 75% (averaging 10% annually) since 2010. Plant-level capacity factors vary widely, from 6% to 36% (on an AC basis), with a sample median of 24%. -Levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of new 2023 projects increased slightly to $\$46$/MWh prior to the application of tax credits but continued to fall to $\$31$/MWh when accounting for federal incentives. PPA prices have largely followed the decline in solar’s LCOE over time, but newly signed longer-term PPA prices have increased since 2021, to an average of $\$35$/MWh (levelized, in 2023 dollars). -Solar’s average energy and capacity value (i.e., ability to offset costs of other power generation sources) across the U.S. was $\$45$/MWh in 2023. Solar’s average market value was lowest in CAISO ($\$27$/MWh), the market with the greatest solar generation share, and highest in ERCOT ($\$67$/MWh). -Newer solar projects had greater market value in 2023 than their generation costs, yielding $\$1.1$ billion in benefits. Projects built in 2022 delivered on average $\$15$/MWh more market value than their costs in 2023. -Solar’s combined value from wholesale electricity markets, public health and climate damage reduction were greater than generation costs and incentives, yielding $\$13.7$ billion in net benefits in 2023. We estimate U.S. health benefits of $\$24$/MWh and reduced global climate damages of $\$101$/MWh. -Adding battery storage is one way to increase the value of solar. Deployment of 52 new PV+battery hybrid plants set a record with 5.3 GW installed in 2023. Our public data file tracks metadata and PPA prices from more than 100 PV+battery hybrid projects that are already online or that have secured offtake arrangements. -Looking ahead, a massive pipeline of at least 1,085 GW of solar capacity dominates the nation’s interconnection queues at the end of 2023. Nearly 571 GW, or 53%, of that total was paired with a battery – in CAISO it was a staggering 98%. Historically only 10% of the requested solar capacity is built. -For more information, and to explore related interactive data visualizations, go to utilityscalesolar.lbl.gov.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗