Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Total Cost of Ownership”

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.

92 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Austin Sustainable and Holistic Integration of Energy Storage and Solar PV [Austin SHINES]. Final Report, Version 2

The Austin SHINES project and solution is a software management platform, for an electric grid with a high penetration of dispersed photovoltaic (PV) solar generation sites, which maintains the traditional power quality and reliability associated with grid service. This project developed and deployed the platform as a Distributed Energy Resource Management System (DERMS), engaging multiple advanced controls, to evaluate operation and optimization of a fleet of diverse DER assets, installed at several locations among Austin Energy’s customers and distribution system. The project also produced a methodology to create a replicable DERMS template, adaptable to other regions and market structures. Last, Austin SHINES aimed to demonstrate the solution’s methodology would enable the DER grid ecosystem to serve load at a technical cost (System Levelized Cost of Electricity, or System LCOE) of less than the U.S. Department of Energy SHINES program metric of $0.14/kWh, in a defined boundary, while enabling a high penetration of distributed PV. Research was categorized in 6 reports (Final Deliverables = FD) listed below, with titles and descriptions indicating which area of understanding was investigated: FD-1: System Levelized Cost of Electricity (System LCOE) Methodology The creation and use of the System LCOE to Serve Load metric that encompasses the holistic, system-level costs and benefits of all resources, and enables them to be evaluated based on their ability to support an efficient and low-cost integrated grid ecosystem. FD-2: Software Platform Product Description The creation of new DER control methodologies deployable within a utility-grade software platform that enable DER's to maximize their benefit within a grid, that is capable of serving load enabling a high penetration of distributed PV generation. FD-3: Optimal Design Methodology Optimal design methodologies for individual DER installations that enable utilities to determine the optimal combinations and sizing for individual DER sites. FD-4: Austin SHINES Ownership and Operation Models for DER System Performance A comparison of multiple DER aggregation and ownership methodologies including direct utility control, third-party aggregator, and autonomous. FD-5: Economic Modeling & Optimization A comparison of multiple DER technology mixes and configurations within the distribution system, providing insight into an optimal blend of technologies that best enable the distribution system to serve load at the lowest cost at high penetrations of solar. FD-6: Fielded Assets Deployed DER assets within the Austin Energy SHINES circuits. Austin SHINES provided an opening for state-of-the-art technology products to be deployed, providing a rich opportunity for improving how each of the products perform as stand-alone products, and in concert with other complementary products. The Austin SHINES project comprised of two key metrics for System LCOE: SystemLCOE_SHINES<$0.14/kWh Modeled ΔSystemLCOE_SHINES/ΔSystemLCOE_Base≥20% at same solar penetration The System LCOE calculation uses the costs of the utility-owned infrastructure as it exists today, the cost of the DERs that exist in the system today, and the cost of the purchase of energy from ERCOT wholesale markets over the course of the calendar year. All costs are on an annualized basis. The capital and operating costs are derived from the rate case, which produces a yearly cost. The net cost of energy and services imported to the system is integrated over the test year, as is the load served and solar penetration. The first metric was easily achieved by every scenario considered. The goal was set when the Department of Energy’s SHINES Funding Opportunity Announcement was written in 2015 and was a more difficult target at the time. Due mostly to rapidly declining costs for DERs and the significant decrease in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) energy market prices, which results in lower net cost of energy purchases, the System LCOE is well below this target for all scenarios considered. A fleet of DERs can assume different mixtures, each of which serves the load at a different LCOE. The optimal mixture of DERs serves load at the smallest System LCOE. The second metric (hereinafter %delta metric) asks that the holistic DERMS controls reduce the incremental cost above the baseline of going to a high solar penetration future by at least 20% as compared to the case of a DER deployment with no sophisticated controls (autonomous). Many comparison sets were created throughout this project. Physical technology was installed for informing utility engineering and testing several types of operational control schemes, through the DERMS. The types of operational control which were compared for valuation of the System LCOE Metric were: Holistic control = using the full suite of the DERMS platform to decide and optimize how/why the systems operate depending on weather, market, and reliability signal input. Autonomous control = a local mode at the asset site, wherein a schedule operates the asset, with visibility into performance only No control = the baseline for comparing value against the other two types of control The types of ownership control included: Direct Utility control = the utility dispatches a signal to each asset Third-Party Aggregator = a third party aggregates a fleet of assets and the utility dispatches one signal for all Autonomous = a local mode is set for operation at the asset site, wherein a schedule operates the asset, with visibility into performance only The types of control methodologies deployable within a utility-grade software platform included: Utility Peak Load Reduction = Lower transmission cost obligation Day-Ahead Energy Arbitrage = Realize economic value through price differential Real-Time Price Dispatch = Realize economic value from real-time price spikes Voltage support = Reduce losses and increase solar generation Distribution Congestion Management = Increase local grid reliability Demand Charge Reduction = Lower customer bills and realize system benefit The fielded assets deployed for the project were: Utility Scale Kingsbery Energy Storage System: 1.5 MW / 3 MWh Li-Ion battery storage Mueller Energy Storage System: 1.75 MW / 3.2 MWh Li-Ion battery storage, 7 Energy Storage Units (250 kW each) La Loma Community Solar: 2.6 MW Commercial Scale Aggregated storage installations at 3 sites, with existing solar (300+ kW): One 18 kW / 36 kWh Li-Ion battery storage Two 72 kW / 144 kWh Li-Ion battery storage Residential Scale Aggregated storage installations: -Six stationary battery storage systems (10 kWh each) at homes with existing solar -One Electric Vehicle installed as Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) Utility-Controlled Solar via Smart Inverters at 12 homes Autonomously-Controlled Smart Inverters at 6 homes Over the course of the project, Austin SHINES undertook installing more than 3 MW of distributed battery energy storage, smart PV inverters, a DER control platform, and other enabling technologies utilizing customer and utility locations and aggregation models. All of these resources were to be integrated and optimized at the utility level. DER assets and control methodologies were designed to achieve a credible pathway to a System LCOE for energy delivered to load of $0.14//kWh or less by 2020, while maximizing distributed solar generation and maintaining acceptable standards of power quality. The project also established a template for other regions to follow, to maximize the adoption of distributed solar PV in support of an economic and efficient grid. In total, the Austin SHINES project added value to the DER subject area in each layer of integration. From utility, to commercial to residential scales, the sheer hierarchy of communication and coordination was a significant accomplishment in addition to learnings from what these communications revealed was unique to each. Economically, the most effective method demonstrated was the criticality of planning phases. Contingencies and multiple projection scenarios helped guide the project to deploy optimal design as close as feasible, in real world conditions. The project and reports will serve public benefit by outlining specific areas of DER strategy and installation where many stakeholders and needs can be addressed with improved efficiency. Overall, communities and utilities should use the results to guide the increasing options available for powering the grid with DER, renewables, and carbon considerate energy.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

North Dakota Integrated Carbon Storage Complex Feasibility Study. Final report

In spring 2017, the Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) initiated an effort to determine the feasibility of developing a commercial-scale CO 2 geologic storage complex able to store 50+ million tonnes (Mt) of CO 2 in central North Dakota safely, permanently, and economically. The objective was to fulfill the goals of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Carbon Storage Assurance Facility Enterprise (CarbonSAFE) Initiative and address technical and nontechnical challenges specific to commercial-scale deployment of a CO2 storage project. The findings clearly show that the concept of capturing CO 2 from a lignite-fired electrical generation facility in central North Dakota and safely and permanently storing the CO 2 in the deep subsurface is indeed technically, economically, and socially feasible. This project evaluated two study areas and their respective geologic storage complexes located adjacent to separate coal-fired facilities in North Dakota: the Basin Electric Power Cooperative (BEPC)-owned Great Plains Synfuels Plant (GPSP) and the Minnkota Power Cooperative (Minnkota)-owned Milton R. Young Station (MRYS). These locations, one with CO 2 capture in place and an existing CO 2 pipeline, are bolstered by progressive North Dakota pore space ownership and long-term liability laws. These elements and a motivated team created an ideal synergistic scenario for ensuring success of the CarbonSAFE Initiative and promoting North Dakota’s statewide vision for carbon management. The project included drilling two new geologic characterization wells, integrating an existing 3-D seismic survey, creating a geologic model subsequently used for injection simulation, a risk assessment, public outreach, and generating a site development plan based on results. In addition, the performance of select National Risk Assessment Partnership tools was evaluated. The geologic characterization wells were drilled ~5600 feet deep to the Broom Creek Formation; ~350 feet of core was retrieved from each well. The core included the Broom Creek (targeted injection zone) and a portion of the overlying Opeche Shale (seal). The Flemmer-1 well, west of Beulah, North Dakota, yielded 169 feet of sandstone. The BNI-1 well located south of Center, North Dakota, yielded 124 feet of sandstone. In each case, laboratory analysis of the sandstone showed permeability in the 300–1000-mD range, with porosity of 20%–30%. The Flemmer-1 well was sited within the boundaries of an existing 3-D seismic survey. Colocating the well with the seismic survey maximized the relationship between new and legacy data and developed a first-of-its-kind interpretation of the geologic fabric of the Broom Creek. Geologic characterization data were integrated into a 5544-mi 2 geocellular model that encompassed both new wells and stratigraphy from the surface to the Amsden Formation (underlying the Broom Creek). The model was later expanded vertically to include the deeper Black Island–Deadwood interval to examine its potential viability as a storage target. The geocellular model provided the foundation for dynamic simulation of CO 2 into the Broom Creek. Results of the simulation suggest that the Broom Creek could accept the DOE target rate of 2 Mt/yr of CO 2 into as few as two wells. To bracket the expected capture from MRYS, simulations were also investigated for a 4-Mt/yr rate near MRYS. Although more wells are needed (two additional), the Broom Creek still has the storage resource to accept the CO 2 at the increased rate. A risk assessment exercise was conducted to identify and assess technical and nontechnical risks that could prevent potential candidate storage complexes within the study area from serving as commercial storage sites. The assessment identified and evaluated six technical risk categories: 1) CO 2 injectivity, 2) storage capacity, 3) lateral migration of CO 2 , 4) lateral pressure propagation, 5) vertical migration of CO 2 or formation brine, and 6) induced seismicity. Following two rounds of analysis and scoring, no risks were determined to preclude continued efforts to develop carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) in central North Dakota. The risk assessment results will be used to guide future site characterization, modeling and simulation, and monitoring activities. A specific nontechnical strategic risk based on challenges that may be realized in amalgamation of pore space resulted in vertically expanding the geologic model to incorporate the potential for stacked storage in multiple saline reservoirs. By including the Black Island–Deadwood interval (the basal sedimentary reservoir in this region), the amalgamated areal extent could be reduced by as much as 45%. Working with a smaller geographic area reduces risks and costs associated with monitoring and pore space leasing. An economic evaluation incorporating capture; transport (<5 mi); Class VI wells; permitting; and monitoring, verification, and accounting suggests implementing commercial-scale CCUS is economically attractive if the federal tax benefits of 45Q are included. This is validated by Minnkota’s continued pursuit of CO 2 capture and geologic storage at MRYS through its Project Tundra initiative, indicating that there is a business case for CCUS in central North Dakota. Currently, North Dakota is the only state with underground injection control (UIC) Class VI primacy. Built into the North Dakota Century Code is a series of regulatory requirements that guide the process to obtain a Class VI CO 2 storage facility permit. As part of this project, a site development plan was compiled to assure compliance with North Dakota’s requirements to permit a commercial-scale CO 2 storage operation and includes a prospective time line encompassing a general breakdown of activities. In total, an estimated 30 months would be needed to execute the necessary steps to attain a North Dakota CO 2 storage facility permit. Outreach was an integral part of the project and encompassed any project-related activity that had contact or exposure beyond the project team. The goals of outreach were to foster an environment from which stakeholders could make informed decisions about the project and gauge community receptiveness to a CCUS project. A consistent set of messages and outreach products were developed in conjunction with an outreach advisory board that integrated project partners and team members. To gauge public acceptability of geologically storing CO 2 , 5611 households in the project area were invited to participate in an online survey. The survey results indicate that the public attitude regarding CCUS is neutral to positive, with strong sentiment that CO 2 capture and storage may be an approach to maintain the economic vitality of the region. To achieve project objectives, critical support in the form of financial backing, engineering evaluations, site access, outreach collaboration, operations data, risk assessment/evaluation, and software access was provided by BEPC, the North Dakota Industrial Commission Lignite Research Council, ALLETE Clean Energy, BNI Energy, North American Coal Corporation, Minnkota, Prairie Public Broadcasting, Computer Modelling Group Ltd., and Schlumberger.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗