Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Representatives”

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

NGEE Arctic Integrated Modeling (IM3): Improved snow-vegetation interaction

This data product represents the integration of new code capability for arctic tundra snow-vegetation-terrain interactions into the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM), through the E3SM Land Model (ELM) component. This code integration is the result of collaborative effort between the NGEE Arctic project and the E3SM project. The NGEE Arctic project developed a total of six Integrated Modeling (IM) modules informed by observations and experiments. New ELM capability represented by this data product (IM3) falls into three categories: 1) Downscaling from gridcell to topographic unit level when working through the existing coupler bypass code. 2) Four new parameters (taper, stocking, bendresist, and vegshape) have been added to ELM to allow for flexible definition of snow-vegetation interactions. 3) Vegshape and bendresist parameters are used to calculate the fraction of leaf area and/or stem area buried by snow for a given snow depth. This data record consists of a single document (pdf format) that describes the theoretical basis for the snow-vegetation-terrain interactions added to ELM, and describes the modifications made to the ELM code. The Methods section of this metadata record includes a link to the public E3SM code repository where the exact code modifications as integrated in E3SM can be accessed. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

Thornton, Peter E [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000247595158)↗

Carbon Management Projects (CONNECT) Database and Explorer

Overview The Carbon Management Projects (CONNECT) Toolkit is an online exploratory visualization tool developed by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM) with support from other federal agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). It provides a single point of access to authoritative information on federal agency investment in a portfolio of research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) projects that have been publicly announced to advance technologies for point source carbon capture, carbon dioxide removal, transport, storage, and conversion, collectively referred to as carbon management. The RD&D programs covered in this tool are authorized by annual congressional appropriations ("Base Program") and the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The tool also incorporates public information on other federal initiatives, such as the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs, and public information released by other government agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) and Primacy States’ Underground Injection Control Class VI permits and EPA’s facility level greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Developed in a geographic information system, the tool organizes carbon management projects into five groups based on the primary technology that a project aims to advance, each visually represented as a digital layer ("carbon management project layer"). Only federally funded projects are included, which can be awarded projects that are completed or ongoing, or projects that have been selected but are currently under negotiation. Project information can be viewed in the map or in the attribute table below it when turned on. In the map view, each project is displayed at either its host site (for field work), where available, or its performer site (project lead's location, further explained in the table below). Host sites and performer sites are represented in distinct icons. Several reference layers offer additional public information on infrastructural and natural resource environment for carbon management. These reference layers, combined with multiple geographical basemaps, enable users to visualize the carbon management project layers in context. Carbon management project information will be updated monthly based on feedback and information availability. Carbon management project layers Point Source Carbon Capture (PSC) This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from power plants or industrial facilities. Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on capturing CO2 from the atmosphere, including direct air capture (DAC) and DAC hubs, direct ocean capture, enhanced mineralization, and biomass carbon removal and storage. For projects with multiple host sites, each of the sites are displayed individually with the project cost and cost sharing information representing the total for the entire project. Carbon Transport This layer contains DOE- and DOT-funded projects focused on CO2 transport. The Transport Research and Development sublayer contains projects that do not involve physical infrastructure; the Proposed Transport Corridor sublayer contains projects for which either a route for the transport infrastructure has been proposed or a general area for the transport infrastructure has been identified. Carbon Storage This layer contains DOE-funded key projects focused on CO2 storage. For projects with multiple field-work sites, each of the sites are displayed individually on the map with the project cost and cost sharing information representing the overall total for the entire project. Carbon Conversion This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on converting CO2 into economically valuable products. Reference layers The following layers provide additional information in the geographic proximity of carbon management projects. Users should reference the original sources for more details (weblinks provided below and in pop-up windows on the map). Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub and Facility These layers illustrate the approximate areas of the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs announced by DOE's Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) and the approximate locations of individual facilities that constitute the hubs (see "Where are the H2Hubs located?" on the webpage linked above). EPA Facility Level GHG Emissions (direct emitter) This layer shows direct CO2 emissions from stationary sources in 2022, using data extracted from EPA's Facility Level Information on GreenHouse gases Tool (FLIGHT). Captured and injected CO2 are not deducted from direct emitters’ total emissions. Contact EPA for additional details. Underground Injection Control Class VI permit/permit application This layer shows the locations of CO2 injection wells that are granted or in the process of applying for an Underground Injection Control Class VI permit by EPA or a Primacy State (currently Louisiana, North Dakota, and Wyoming). The URLs for the permits or permit applications are provided in the pop-up windows associated with the well locations. Contact EPA for additional details. Carbon Storage Resource This layer contains information on prospective CO2 storage resources in saline formations and oil and gas reservoirs provided by the National Carbon Sequestration Database and Geographic Information System (NATCARB) spatial database. Contact NETL for additional details. Existing CO2 pipeline This layer shows active CO2 pipelines based on information digitized from the map issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). Contact PHMSA for additional details.

Carbon Conversion↗

End-Use Savings Shapes Measure Documentation: Dispatch Schedule Generation for Demand Flexibility Measures

This supplemental document describes the methodology used for determining the dispatch timing of various EUSS demand flexibility measures. Demand flexibility measures are designed to reduce/dispatch electricity demand in buildings during especially beneficial/critical times. The method used in this work utilizes predictions of building loads to generate a schedule that reflects the periods when the building's daily peak load occurs to support decision making in demand flexibility measures. The dispatch schedule generation method described in this document creates an hourly schedule that includes a load dispatch (peak) window for each day for a whole year based on load prediction, with options using different prediction methods: perfect prediction, bin-sampling method, fixed schedule, and outdoor air temperature (OAT)-based prediction method. The perfect prediction method performs a simulation to obtain the annual load profile as predicted load, representing the scenario of perfect load prediction. The bin-sampling method (1) categorizes days into representative bins by temperature characteristics, (2) performs simulations on sample days from each of those bins to create representative (or predicted) load, and (3) assigns representative loads for all days in a year based on the bin categorization. The fixed schedule method defines uniform start and end time of peak window with assumed fixed daily peak time, for all days in a season or a year. The OAT-based prediction method uses the statistics of OAT (minimum and maximum) as the indicators of peak load, with specified delay response time from building loads to temperature. Given the load prediction, daily peak periods are determined as a time window with specified length in each day that include the predicted daily peak load and with a secondary rule such as maximizing energy saving potential. The dispatch schedule generation method is not a standalone measure and is intended to be combined with other demand flexibility measures that could leverage the peak schedule and apply demand controls on specific systems or devices for demand response, such as measures described in "Measure Documentation - Thermostat Control for Load Shedding" and "Measure Documentation - Thermostat Control for Load Shifting".

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Cost of Wind Energy Review: 2024 Edition [Slides]

The primary elements of this analysis include: Estimated LCOE for (1) a representative land-based wind energy project installed in a moderate wind resource in the United States, (2) a representative fixed-bottom offshore wind energy project installed in the U.S. North Atlantic, and (3) a representative floating offshore wind energy project installed off the U.S. Pacific Coast. It also updates the LCOE estimates for representative residential-, commercial-, and large-scale distributed wind projects installed in a moderate wind resource in the United States. A sensitivity analyses is included that shows the range of effects that basic LCOE variables could have on the cost of wind energy for land-based and offshore wind projects and provides updated Fiscal Year 2024 values for land-based and offshore wind energy used for Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) reporting and illustrated progress toward established GPRA targets.

17 WIND ENERGY↗

DECOVALEX-2023: Task C Final Report

The Full-scale Emplacement (FE) heater experiment at the Mont Terri Underground Rock Laboratory (URL) was designed and conducted by Nagra to replicate an emplacement tunnel of Nagra’s reference repository design at 1:1 scale. Alongside testing the technical feasibility of constructing disposal tunnels, emplacing waste containers in the tunnels and then backfilling them, the main goals of the FE experiment are (1) to obtain a better understanding of the coupled effects of induced thermo-hydro-mechanical (THM) processes that may occur and (2) to validate existing coupled THM models (Müller et al., 2017). A key aspect of ensuring safety for repositories located in low-permeability rock involves minimizing any damage to the rock itself, thereby preserving its integrity and promoting a stable environment Amongst a number of processes that could damage the rock is the increase in pore pressure due to thermal loading caused by heat emitted from the waste. To reduce the potential damage of the rock, it is important to analyse the evolution of heat over time due to the heat load of the containers and assess possible consequences by coupled THM models. The aim of Task C of DECOVALEX-2023 was to build 3D numerical models of the FE experiment, focussing in particular on the heating induced pore pressure change in the Opalinus Clay. Data from a large number of sensors were available from the FE experiment for model comparison. These sensors measured temperature and relative humidity in the bentonite around the heaters, and temperature, pressure and displacement/strain in the surrounding Opalinus clay. Data were available from the start of excavation (April 2012) up to August 2020 for most sensors (more than 5 years from the start of heating in December 2014). To fulfil the overall aim of the task, the work was broken down into a number of steps, starting with simpler models to build confidence in each team’s approach and then moving to more complex models that better represent the FE experiment. Step 0 consisted of 2D benchmark models, gradually increasing the number of processes that are represented from thermal (T) only models in Step 0a, to coupled thermal hydraulic (TH) models in Step 0b with a representation of changing porosity, to coupled thermo-hydro-mechanical (THM) models in Step 0c, where porosity changes are calculated by the mechanical model. A detailed specification of processes, parameters, initial and boundary conditions was provided for this step, with the ambition that all teams would work towards close agreement in their model results, thus building confidence in the model implementations. vi It was not straightforward to achieve agreement between the teams, so additional steps (Step 0b2, 0b3, 0c2, 0c3) were added along with derivation of some analytical solutions against which the models could be compared. The reasons for the differences between teams were investigated and found to be caused primarily by different conceptual model assumptions (including temperature dependence of the thermal expansion of water), different model formulations (including porosity evolution) and differences in modelled domain sizes, boundary conditions and grid discretisation. This demonstrates that comparisons between multiple modelling teams and/or comparison with analytical results and experimental data are highly beneficial in providing an indication of uncertainty in model predictions. At the conclusion of Step 0, almost all teams had achieved a close agreement in model results and those that had not achieved an agreement knew the reason for this. Step 1 moved from 2D models to 3D models of the FE experiment without adding technical features like shotcrete or EDZ, and only considering the heating phase. Initially the 3D model was tightly specified to continue to build confidence in the model implementations (Step 1a). The results of Step 1a were compared to the data from the FE-experiment without the teams seeing the data. The teams were then provided with a sub-set of the data from the FE-experiment and invited to consider how best to use the large dataset for model comparison (Step 1b). Teams were then asked to use the data provided to calibrate their models, only changing material property values rather than adding features or processes to their models (Step 1c). In Step 1, teams were asked to only model the heating phase of the experiment, so pressure in the Opalinus Clay was reported as change in pressure since the initial conditions were specified rather than modelled. The change from 2D to 3D models was accompanied by an increase in the dispersion of results between the teams. Some of this was resolved during the task, but some remained and is potentially due to model discretisation. Calibration of parameters was useful in improving the fit of the models to the data but the remaining differences indicated that the models were missing features or processes. In Step 2, the teams were asked to update their models with additional features and processes as well as calibrating parameters to try and improve the fit of the models to the data. Teams were encouraged to represent ventilation of the open FE tunnel prior to backfilling with heaters and bentonite and in Step 2, the absolute pressure in the Opalinus Clay was compared between the teams. Teams took different approaches, but there was consideration of adding shotcrete and an EDZ into the model, representing stress change during excavation and different approaches to modelling ventilation of the FE tunnel. Overall, the documented results showed a very good agreement for temperature. The results for porewater pressure evolution showed a significant improvement for most teams compared to Step 1c with a good agreement to the measurements for several teams whereas some teams overpredicted the pressure increase and others overpredicted the drainage effect especially for the sensors close to the heater. Step 3 was an opportunity for teams to use the models developed in Step 1 and Step 2 to make predictions about the temperature and pressure changes that will be expected at the FE experiment over the next few years in light of the planned changes in thermal output of the heaters.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Coupled Aerodynamic and Hydrodynamic Hybrid Simulation of Floating Offshore Wind Turbines

The development and innovation of floating offshore wind energy in the U.S. requires detailed high-fidelity observations and measurements of turbine and platform loading due to wind, waves, and currents. However, full-scale and quasi-full-scale experiments require significant financial and temporal investments for construction, experimental testing, and long-term field campaigns. To support the commercial advancement of the offshore wind energy industry, specialized wind tunnel and wave basin experimental facilities are critical to be able to test FOWT designs at small scale under controlled conditions prior to full-scale deployment. Oregon State University (OSU) is internationally known as a leader in water and energy research, development, and testing. The O.H. Hinsdale Wave Research Laboratory (HWRL) and the Wallace Energy Systems and Renewables Facility (WESRF) at OSU have extensive experience building, modeling, monitoring, controlling, and actuating scaled systems. Experiments on wave-structure interaction have been performed at the HWRL since its establishment in 1972. Studies have included the interaction of waves with coastal structures (breakwaters, seawalls, buildings, cylinders, bridges, fixed foundations of offshore wind turbines, etc.) and with floating structures (e.g., wave energy converters, maneuvering of vessels, etc.). Hinsdale is actively used by marine energy technology developers, both for private testing and OSU-collaborative research projects. However, despite the availability of several large-scale facilities for hydrodynamic testing (at OSU and elsewhere in the U.S.), existing experimental laboratories are generally limited in their ability to accurately generate combined wind and wave conditions. The simulation of both wind and waves in experimental testing is complicated due to a number of constraints, including: [i] incompatible similitude laws governing the wind and waves for scaled experiments, [ii] producing accurate wind over a large enough control volume via fans, and [iii] generating wind that reasonably represents the atmospheric boundary layer in existing wave basins/flumes. Hence, physical test data providing insight into the simultaneous wave- and wind-structure response of floating offshore wind components can be difficult to generate. Given the aforementioned challenges in classic hydrodynamic experiments, the motivation of this project is to establish a real-time hybrid simulation (RTHS) approach that can apply aero- and hydro-dynamic loading by augmenting wave-only experimental facilities with virtual aerodynamic forces through numerical models representing the remaining dynamic forces. RTHS is a physical-numerical approach that partitions a prototype system into physical and numerical sub-assemblies that interact with each other through actuators and sensors in real time. In coupling physical and numerical models, the hybrid simulation approach applied herein is ideal for problems with: (1) structures subjected to different scaling laws, such as floating offshore wind turbines subjected to combined aero/hydro-dynamic loading, (2) structures that are too large or complex to be tested entirely in a laboratory setting, such as deep-water mooring applications, and (3) component testing, where the behavior of a portion of the assembly is uncertain but still interacts with other portions of the structure, such as testing the fatigue life of turbine blades. Few U.S. experimental facilities are able to test simultaneous aero- and hydro-dynamic loading and none can accurately produce aero/hydro-dynamic response on scaled FOWT models due to conflicting similitude laws between the wind (commonly Reynolds) and the waves (commonly Froude). To aid in accelerating the development of the U.S. floating offshore industry, there is a significant need to develop a flexible, modular framework that can expand the capacities of existing wave-only laboratories. The project goal is to demonstrate a hydrodynamic real-time hybrid simulation (hydro-RTHS) framework that couples numerical wind and physical waves acting on a FOWT, thus representing simultaneous aero/hydro-dynamic loading. The FOWT is partitioned into a full-scale numerical sub-assembly associated with the aerodynamics and a model-scale physical sub-assembly associated with the hydrodynamics. The numerical-physical partition associated with hydro-RTHS mitigates scaling constraints by supplying different scaling laws to the physical and numerical sub-assemblies. Herein, length, force, and time are scaled and exchanged between the sub-assemblies using Froude scaling to represent the open-channel flow in the physical sub-assembly. Other similitude laws could also be utilized depending on the problem definition. It is envisioned that the ability to model FOWTs under waves and wind, with mitigation of similitude distortions, would result in reduced development costs (currently, FOWT concept development is performed with full-size pro- totypes at enormous expense and risk) and increase the reliability of the FOWT industry (since extreme wave and wind conditions and contingency events can be tested safely in a controlled environment).

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗

Investigating Spatial Variability of Aerosol, Cloud Condensation Nuclei, and Ice Nucleating Particles in Mountainous Terrain Field Campaign Report

The U.S. Department of Energy Atmospheric System Research (ASR)-supported Surface Atmosphere Integrated Field Laboratory (SAIL) campaign in the East River Watershed (ERW) of the Upper Colorado River Basin in southwestern Colorado ran from fall 2021 to spring 2023. Two monitoring sites were deployed in the ERW as part of SAIL. The two sites were the Aerosol Observation System (AOS) located on Crested Butte Ski Mountain, and the second ARM Mobile Facility (AMF2), located at the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory in Gothic, Colorado. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of aerosols in complex, mountainous terrain, Handix Scientific deployed SAIL-Net, a distributed network of six measurement nodes spanning the domain of the SAIL research area from October 2021 to July 2023. Each node measured aerosol particles between 140 nm and 3.4 μm in diameter using a small portable optical particle spectrometer (POPS; Gao et al. 2016), cloud condensation nuclei (CNN) using a miniature CCN counter (CloudPuck), and ice nucleating particles (INP) using the time-resolved aerosol filter sampler (TRAPS; Creamean et al. 2018). Our approach was similar to other studies that aimed to better characterize and understand aerosols and gas-phase pollutants using networks of lower-cost sensors (Caubel et al. 2019, Kelly et al. 2021, Asher et al. 2022). Such studies have identified neighborhood-level variations in pollutant concentrations (Schneider et al. 2017, Popoola et al. 2018, Caubel et al. 2019). Small-scale variations such as this are poorly represented in models and poorly measured by a single monitoring system (Caubel et al. 2019). Previous work has shown the representation error (the ability of measurements to represent a larger area) increases with complex orography, leading to decreases in model accuracy (Schutgens et al. 2017). The overall goal of SAIL-Net was to improve our understanding of the variability of aerosol in the ERW, thus increasing our knowledge of aerosol-cloud interactions in this region and informing the usefulness of distributed networks of measurements for future studies. We met this goal by answering the following science questions: 1. What is the aerosol temporal variability, and how does aerosol inhomogeneity vary seasonally? Is there significant seasonal variability in sources, or are short-term meteorological conditions the most important determining factor in sources for cloud nuclei? 2. What is the aerosol spatial variability? What are the aerosol characteristics at cloud base, presumably the particles most representative of those acting as cloud nuclei? 3. How should measurement networks be designed to capture aerosol-cloud interactions, and what do they need to measure? Can a single measurement site accurately represent aerosol properties in regions of complex terrain? SAIL-Net consisted of six measurement nodes spread across the ERW near Crested Butte, Colorado. The primary objective in site placement was to select locations that captured the vertical variation in aerosol properties while also spanning the domain of the SAIL campaign. The elevation of the sites ranged from roughly 2750 m along the valley floor of the ERW to approximately 3500 m near the top of Crested Butte Mountain, which is one of the taller peaks in the ERW. The farthest distance between sites was 14 km, while the closest two sites were approximately 1 km apart. Two of the sites were collocated with the ARM SAIL sites; our instruments sat on top of one of the trailers at AOS and another one of our sites was located in a meadow just above AMF2.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Reservoir Storage Capacity Change (ResCap)

Overview Storage capacity is an essential reservoir metric that is directly linked to various water management and energy objectives. Accurate reporting and tracking of change in storage over time is crucial for the safe and reliable operation of the associated dam. While storage information is available for many reservoirs through the National Inventory of Dams, additional details, e.g. water elevation levels as well as changes over time are not included. This dataset contains reservoir storage capacities based on conducted surveys in CONUS. To represent changes in a reservoir’s storage over time, the storage capacity as determined by the first and last conducted survey is listed. The level of detail of surveys can vary greatly and improved with technological advancements. Therefore, the type of survey and year when it was conducted is noted. To ensure a fair comparison of storage capacities, the water elevation level along with the corresponding operation of the dam is reported. Structural changes, e.g. heightening of a dam will have an influence on the storage capacity and are therefore also mentioned. A total of 739 different reservoir storage capacity comparisons are listed, with some reservoirs represented more than once (storage capacity comparison at different water elevation levels). Methodology Data were acquired from USBR reservoir survey reports, TWDB lake survey reports and elevation-area-capacity tables, the RSI Web Portal and the NID (USACE, 2024). Initial storage capacity along with year and type of survey record is compared to the most recent reported storage capacity, survey type and year. Comparison elevation in feet as well as comparison elevation type were either extracted from survey reports (USBR, TWDB) or the Web Portal (RSI) and in some cases cross-referenced with data from other sources (Water Management Data, USACE, Water Data for Texas, TWDB).

Chu, Antonia [ORNL] (ORCID:0009000510540427)↗

SuperLab 2.0 Showcase: Connecting Five Labs to Tackle Grid Complexity and Unlock Unique Grid Asset Potential

SuperLab 2.0 (5-Lab Demo) is a collaborative, national-scale experiment showcasing the coordination of geographically distributed energy assets in real time. The demonstration integrates 25 physical and digital assets, spanning wind, PV, batteries, electrolyzers, DC fast chargers, microgrid controllers, building automation systems, small modular reactor (SMR), control centers, and gas turbines, across five DOE national laboratories-NLR, INL, NETL, LBNL, and SNL. These assets are unified using Energy Sciences Network (ESnet), a low-latency, high-performance U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) network, and controlled via a centralized energy controller hosted at NLR's ARIES facility. The demonstration validates the ability to stress-test hybrid energy systems under dynamic scenarios to de-risk advanced control strategies for greater resilience and flexibility. SuperLab 2.0 (5-Lab Demo) showcased a major advancement in federated national laboratory collaboration, enabling real-time, cross-laboratory experimentation to coordinate geographically dispersed distributed energy resources (DERs) using various communication protocols and networks. SuperLab 2.0 (5-Lab Demo) built on previous demonstrations conducted between NLR-PNNL and NLR-INL connecting diverse assets including distant protection devices, a SMR simulator, and a high temperature electrolyzer (HTE). Previous demos were based on a single connection between two labs with minimal coordination challenges. The 5-Lab demo with a centralized controller, distributed testbeds across different geographical locations, and use of protocols-based communication represents a scenario closer to real-world grid operations that coordinate resources across a region to meet system needs. This experiment studied how local DER controllers interact with a centralized energy controller during normal and abnormal events to maintain reliability. The SuperLab team across the five labs implemented a notional power system model equivalent of transmission and distribution lines, represented by the data networks interconnecting the labs. Each lab continuously exchanged local parameters (such as P and Q) from its Hardware-In-Loop (CHIL) and Power Hardware-In-Loop (PHIL) assets through centralized energy controller at NLR, enabling real-time interaction and coordination across sites. By leveraging ESnet as the communication backbone, the team successfully operated the distributed assets as a unified power system, with each bus represented by a different laboratory. This setup mirrors how assets interact in real-world power systems across dispersed locations with various protocols and latencies. At each lab site, assets were operated using their own local controllers which were coordinated through an overarching operation and control layer of centralized energy controller, equivalent to how an energy management system (EMS) orchestrates assets across a regional or national grid. SuperLab's federated connectivity utilized a Digital Real-Time Simulators (DRTS)-type gateway to connect Controller Hardware-In-Loop (CHIL) and PHIL assets between labs. To enable this federated connection through ESnet, a deterministic network was established where latency variations were consistent. This consistency allowed the development of digital filters for the power system assets across CHIL and PHIL interfaces to avoid unstable and unreliable grid conditions. This report provides an overview of the cross-laboratory configuration and offers insights into interconnecting geographically distributed research assets to test them as if they were co-located. This experiment represents a step toward linking nine DOE national laboratories, enabling nation-wide simulations that can address utility-driven challenges with grid resilience, flexibility, and modernization.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

Public Reference Data for Megawatt-Scale Hydrogen Electrolysis – Simulated Wind

The U.S. Department of Energy and the National Laboratory of the Rockies (NLR) demonstrate hydrogen electrolysis, hydrogen compression and storage, and variable hydrogen fuel cell power production using megawatt-scale equipment at NLR’s Flatirons Campus as part of the Advanced Research on Integrated Energy Systems (ARIES) initiative. This dataset represents part of that effort and is intended for academic, national laboratory, industrial, and other stakeholders to plan, design, and validate models of megawatt-scale hydrogen technologies and diverse energy infrastructure nationwide. These data provide a baseline for how existing hydrogen electrolysis technologies perform when coupled with various energy technologies. Future datasets will demonstrate how existing hydrogen fuel cell technologies can provide controllable, dispatchable, and variable power output for artificial intelligence (AI) data centers and other variable loads. This dataset entry describes hydrogen production using a single, simulated wind turbine. The electrolyzer is a 1.25-MW proton exchange membrane type MC250 system manufactured by Nel Hydrogen . While the unit supports up to 2.5 MW of electrolysis, NLR only has a single 1.25-MW electrolysis stack. For the simulated wind energy profiles, NLR used OpenFAST to simulate a 3.4-MW International Energy Agency (IEA) reference wind turbine. The hour-long wind energy profiles varied over wind turbulence intensity (Class A or Class C) and average wind speed (5, 7, or 9 m/s). To match the power limits of the 1.25-MW electrolyzer and 3.4-MW IEA wind turbine most effectively and to maximize the efficiency of hydrogen production at a given average wind speed, the profiles were sometimes scaled by two times. This means that, in some cases, the experimental setup assumed two 1.25-MW electrolyzers were coupled with the wind turbine, representing a total maximum electrolysis load of 2.5 MW. Finally, NLR experimented with two settings for the electrolyzer power supply minimum and maximum current ramp rates (gain and slew): 200 and 400 amperes per second. The simulated profiles were translated from power (kilowatts) to current (amperes) using a curve fit with calibration data and sent to the electrolyzer power supply at 1-Hz frequency. These datasets report relevant hydrogen balance-of-plant and system data, all captured at 1 Hz, including hydrogen mass production measured with an Emerson Coriolis flow meter. Each .zip file represents a single wind turbine electrolysis experiment and is formatted as follows: {technology}-{average wind speed}-{turbulence class}_{number of 1.25 MW electrolyzers connected}-{electrolyzer ramp rate in amperes/second} For instance, “windIEA3.4-5ms-C_2-400.zip” represents the hour-long experiment using the IEA 3.4-MW turbine, subjected to an average wind speed of 5 m/s and Class C wind turbulence, and connected to two 1.25-MW electrolyzers with the power supply set to a maximum current ramp rate (gain and slew) of 400 A/s. Each .zip folder contains the following files: A .csv file containing raw data. An .xlsx file explaining all the fields in the raw data. A .png plot showing the time series of hydrogen production in kilograms per hour, electrolysis power consumption, and input wind turbine power. An experiment labeled “characterization_200.zip” demonstrates the MC250 electrolyzer steady-state response with 30 minute load steps for a total duration of 5 hours. Finally, a .csv file is provided with all simulated wind experiments combined into one dataset labeled "combined_wind_experiments.csv". NLR also built an AI/machine-learning predictive model based on these datasets. The model ingests the electrolyzer current command in amperes, as well as various pressures and temperatures across the system, and predicts hydrogen output in kilograms per hour. The complete model can be found at https://huggingface.co/NatLabRockies/ptmelt-hydrogen-electrolysis .

08 HYDROGEN↗

Public Reference Data for Megawatt-Scale Hydrogen Electrolysis - NLR Historical Wind

The U.S. Department of Energy and the National Laboratory of the Rockies (NLR) demonstrate hydrogen electrolysis from variable sources, hydrogen compression and storage, and hydrogen fuel cell power production using megawatt-scale equipment at NLR’s Flatirons Campus as part of the Advanced Research on Integrated Energy Systems (ARIES) initiative. This dataset represents part of that effort and is intended for academic, national laboratory, industrial, and other stakeholders to plan, design, and validate models of megawatt-scale hydrogen technologies and diverse energy infrastructure nationwide. These data provide a baseline for how existing hydrogen electrolysis technologies perform when coupled with various energy technologies. Future datasets will demonstrate how existing hydrogen fuel cell technologies can provide controllable, dispatchable, and variable power output for artificial intelligence (AI) data centers and other variable loads. This dataset entry describes hydrogen production by conducting a statistical analysis of historical wind data over a five-year period (2020-2025) from a single 1.5MW turbine manufactured by General Electric (GE) located at NLR’s Flatirons Campus, to generate an experimental test profile that was deployed on a 1.25-MW proton exchange membrane type MC250 electrolyzer system manufactured by Nel Hydrogen . [1] While the electrolyzer balance-of-plant supports up to 2.5 MW of electrolysis, NLR only has a single 1.25-MW electrolysis stack. The historical wind data provided several metrics, however, the analysis particularly focused on the measured power output by the wind turbine. The power output time series of data for each day was categorized by total energy generation and standard deviation, and the day that represented the highest combination of these two metrics was chosen – December 25th, 2022. This process was then repeated for a moving four-hour window within this day to identify the most statistically variable period. Finally, this four-hour period was scaled by 65% to match the 1.25 MW electrolyzer. The electrolysis system controls hydrogen production by varying DC current applied to the stack, from a maximum of 3000 A to a minimum safe operation of 300 A, or 10%. Because the current – voltage characteristic changes as the stack ages and efficiency degrades, the actual minimum safe operating power changes over time. The historical wind profiles were translated from power (kilowatts) to current (amperes) using a curve fit with calibration data and sent to the electrolyzer power supply at 1 Hz frequency. For more details on the statistical analysis process, see the presentation labeled “ Public Reference Data for Megawatt-Scale Hydrogen Electrolysis” provided with each data entry. These datasets report relevant hydrogen balance-of-plant and system data, all captured at 1 Hz, including hydrogen mass production measured with an Emerson Coriolis flow meter. Each .zip file represents a single wind turbine electrolysis experiment and is formatted as follows: {technology}_{scaling factor}-{electrolyzer ramp rate in amperes/second} For instance, “wind-GE1.5MW_0.65-400.zip” represents the hour-long experiment using historical data from the wind-GE1.5MW turbine, scaled to 65%, with the electrolyzer power supply set to a maximum ramp rate (gain and slew) of 400 A/s. Each .zip folder contains the following files: A .csv file containing raw data An .xlsx file explaining all the fields in the raw data. A .png plot showing the time series of hydrogen production, electrolysis power consumption, and wind power input. A PDF file detailing the historical wind data statistical analysis used to generate the wind profile. An experiment labeled “characterization_200.zip” demonstrates the MC250 electrolyzer steady-state response with 30-minute load steps for a total duration of 5 hours. Finally, a .csv file is provided with all simulated wind experiments combined into one dataset labeled "combined_historical_wind_experiments.csv". NLR also built an AI/machine-learning predictive model based on these datasets. The model ingests the electrolyzer current command in amperes, as well as various pressures and temperatures across the system, and predicts hydrogen output in kilograms per hour. The complete model can be found at https://huggingface.co/NatLabRockies/ptmelt-hydrogen-electrolysis [1] nelhydrogen.com/product/mc-series-electrolyser .

08 HYDROGEN↗

Public Reference Data for Megawatt-Scale Hydrogen Electrolysis - NLR Historical Solar PV

The U.S. Department of Energy and National Laboratory of the Rockies (NLR) demonstrate hydrogen electrolysis from variable sources, hydrogen compression and storage, and hydrogen fuel cell power production using megawatt-scale equipment at NLR’s Flatirons Campus as part of the Advanced Research on Integrated Energy Systems (ARIES) research platform. This dataset represents part of that effort and is intended for academic, national laboratory, industrial, and other stakeholders to plan, design, and validate models of megawatt-scale hydrogen technologies and diverse energy infrastructure nationwide. These data provide a baseline for how existing hydrogen electrolysis technologies perform when coupled with various energy technologies. Future datasets will demonstrate how existing hydrogen fuel cell technologies can provide controllable, dispatchable, and variable power output for artificial intelligence data centers and other variable loads. This dataset entry describes the behavior of a 1.25-MW proton exchange membrane MC250 electrolyzer system, manufactured by Nel Hydrogen , [1] when fed historical data generated by the 430-kW, fixed-axis solar photovoltaic (PV) array located at NLR’s Flatirons Campus. (While the electrolyzer balance of plant supports up to 2.5 MW of electrolysis, NLR only has a single 1.25-MW electrolysis stack.) Solar PV power output data for the 2020 calendar year were categorized on a daily basis by total energy generation and standard deviation. Each day was then ranked by these metrics, and the 25th, 50th, and 100th percentiles were selected. The 75th percentile day did not exhibit sufficient variability to make for a valuable experiment. A similar process was used for the related historical wind dataset . [2] The historical days in 2020 that represented these percentiles are Dec. 19, March 29, and May 4, respectively. The entire solar day’s power profile was then fed through the MC250 electrolyzer. Due to its length, the 100th percentile day experiment was split into two parts, and the final 3 hours of the solar day were not captured. These final 3 hours contained no spikes or dips of interest and simply represented a slow decay of input solar power. Also, a single timestamp (13:13:47 on Jan. 14, 2026) was lost in the hydrogen system supervisory control and data acquisition. Finally, during the 25th percentile experiment (solar day Dec. 19, 2020) data recording was lost from 11:00:13 to 11:14:45. The roughly 15 minutes of the solar profile were rerun at the end of the experiment and spliced into this time slot during post-processing. The electrolysis system controls hydrogen production by varying direct current applied to the stack, from a maximum of 3,000 A to a minimum safe operation of 300 A, or 10%. Because the current–voltage characteristic changes as the stack ages and efficiency degrades, the actual minimum safe operating power changes over time. The historical solar profiles were translated from power (kilowatts) to current (amperes) using a curve fit with calibration data and sent to the electrolyzer power supply at 1-Hz frequency. For more details on the statistical analysis process, see the slide deck “Public Reference Data for Megawatt-Scale Hydrogen Electrolysis: NLR Historical Solar PV Analysis and Profile Generation” accessible with this data entry. These datasets report relevant hydrogen balance-of-plant and system data, all captured at 1 Hz, including hydrogen mass production measured with an Emerson Coriolis flow meter. Each .zip file represents a single solar PV electrolysis experiment and is formatted as: {technology}_{percentile}_{scaling factor} For instance, “solarPV-430kW_25_2x.zip” reports the experiment using the 25th percentile solar data from the historical 2020 solar PV dataset, scaled to 200%. Scaling factors were applied to the generated solar PV power output files to more closely match the 1.25-MW capacity of the electrolyzer. Each .zip folder contains the following files: A .csv file containing raw data. An .xlsx file explaining all the fields in the raw data. A .png plot showing the time series of hydrogen production, electrolysis power consumption, and solar power input. A PDF file detailing the historical solar data statistical analysis used to generate the solar profile. An experiment labeled “characterization_200.zip” demonstrates the MC250 electrolyzer steady-state response with 30-minute load steps for a total duration of 5 hours. Finally, a .csv file is provided with all experiments combined into one dataset labeled "combined_solarPV_experiments.csv". [1] nelhydrogen.com/product/mc-series-electrolyser . [2] data.nlr.gov/submissions/316 .

08 HYDROGEN↗

Can classical DEM simultaneously capture compressibility and flowability of milled biomass?

Accurate prediction of the rheological behavior of biomass is essential for the design and operation of hoppers, feeders, and storage systems in biorefineries. This study examines whether the classical, coarse-grained discrete element method (DEM) formulation can simultaneously reproduce the compressibility and flowability of milled herbaceous biomass, using Miscanthus × giganteus as a representative material. The model represents particles as rigid spheres interacting through Hertz-Mindlin elastic-frictional contacts augmented with an area-dependent cohesion term. Laboratory cyclic compression and wedge-shaped hopper discharge experiments were used as calibration benchmarks. Although the model can independently reproduce each behavior by appropriately tuning particle Young's modulus E and cohesion energy density k, an extensive parametric investigation comprising more than 600 simulations reveals that the optimal parameter regions for compression and hopper flow are distinct and non-overlapping in (E, k) space. Surrogate surface analysis further shows that the corresponding objective-function valleys exhibit similar trends but are approximately parallel and spatially offset, precluding a unified calibration within the explored domain. Sensitivity analysis indicates that compressibility is governed predominantly by stiffness and cohesion, whereas the slope of the mass flow rate-opening relation in hopper discharge is primarily controlled by tangential friction. Extensions incorporating particle size distribution and clumped-sphere representations do not eliminate the incompatibility. These results systematically reveal, for the first time, the structural limitation of simplified DEM formulations in representing biomass rheological behavior, underscoring the necessity for models incorporating additional physical mechanisms, such as particle deformability or enhanced interlocking, to achieve unified predictive capability for biomass handling behavior.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗

Co-training of multiple neural networks for simultaneous optimization and training of physics-informed neural networks for composite curing

This paper introduces a Physics-Informed Neural Network (PINN) technique that co-trains neural networks (NNs) that represent each function in a system of equations to simultaneously solve equations representing an out-of-autoclave (OOA) cure process while conducting optimization in adherence to process requirements. Specifically, this co-training approach benefits from using NNs to represent OOA inputs (air temperature profile) and outputs (part and tool temperature profiles and degree of cure). Production requirements can then be levied on the inputs, such as maximum air temperature and minimum cure cycle, and simultaneously on the outputs, such as degree of cure, maximum part temperature, and part temperature rate limits. The technique is validated with finite element (FE) simulations and physical experiments for curing a Toray T830H-6 K/3900-2D composite panel. Furthermore, this novel approach efficiently models and optimizes the OOA cure process.

Composite curing↗

Towards a liana plant functional type for vegetation models

Lianas (woody climbers) are crucial components of tropical forests and they have been increasingly recognized to have profound effects on tropical forest carbon dynamics. Despite their importance, lianas' representation in vegetation models remains limited, partly due to the complexity of liana-tree dynamics and the diversity in liana life history strategies. This paper provides a comprehensive review of advances and challenges for mechanistically representing lianas in forest ecosystem models and a proposed path towards effectively representing lianas in these models. Defining a liana plant functional type is a significant challenge because of the high morphological and physiological diversity amongst liana species, and because of their structural association with trees. Here, we identify critical liana traits that likely should contribute to establishing a liana plant functional type, along with key processes to properly represent lianas in ecosystem models. Subsequently, we discuss a variety of possible liana implementation strategies with their associated strengths, limitations, computational costs and data requirements. A fundamental redesign of the tree-centric demographic vegetation models seems appropriate to accommodate the unique growth and competition strategies of lianas. We illustrate the potential of such models with a single-site case study where we disentangle putative mechanisms of liana increasing abundance. Furthermore, we underscore the critical need for comprehensive liana demographic and functional data (including long-term, physiological, and pantropical observations) for the qualitative implementation and evaluation in the proposed modeling efforts. Currently, there is a scarcity of liana data and the data that do exist have a neotropical bias. We finally introduce a new liana functional trait database that can centralize existing liana trait data, incentivize improved data gathering and thus facilitate model development and scientific analyses.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Constrained Turret Defense with Fixed Final Time

In this paper, we extend existing turret defense differential game formulations involving a turn-constrained turret and mobile agent to include specified final time and a constraint. For the purposes of this analysis, the specified final time may represent some exogenous input, perhaps representing the time at which some other event will take place. As for the constraint, it represents a no-fly zone for the mobile agent. The scenario is formulated as a two-player, zero-sum differential game and solved via the method of characteristics (i.e., back-propagation of equilibrium trajectories). Three different trajectory types make up the solution: trajectories that end with the turret aligned with the mobile agent, trajectories that end with the mobile agent on the constraint boundary, and regular trajectories.

differential game, game theory↗

Scaling methodologies and similarity analysis for thermal hydraulics test facility development for water-cooled small modular reactor

Small modular reactors (SMRs) represent a promising option for providing clean and sustainable energy due to their potential for enhanced safety, reduced capital costs, and increased siting flexibility. However, new reactor systems require the development and operation of representative scaled-down test facilities to support the verification and validation of system computer codes and models. Here this study reviews the research on scaling methodologies and similarity principles pivotal in developing non-nuclear integral effects test and separate effects test facilities for water-cooled SMRs. The study focuses on a review of the scaling methods, similarity approaches, and possible challenges posed by the unique and compact design features of integral-pressurized water reactor-type SMRs, and their representative test facilities. This study also reviews previous research related to scaling and similarity methodologies and provides insights into design considerations for achieving prototypic conditions in test facilities. The findings and recommendations emphasize the broader impact of appropriate scaling and similarity principles to ensure meaningful and transferable results from non-nuclear test facilities to accelerate the safe and efficient deployment of next-generation water-cooled SMRs.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗