SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
The FEMP Cyber Security Arsenal is a family of cyber security tools for the federal facility owners and operators. Using these tools, facility owners can evaluate their overall cybersecurity posture. These tools are web-based front-end tools.
The FEMP Cyber Security Arsenal is a family of cyber security tools for the federal facility owners and operators. Using these tools, facility owners can evaluate their overall cybersecurity posture. These tools are web-based front-end tools. This is an upgrade of the tools available from the earlier version in DOE CODE ID: #41457
This software is an API for create and modify XML that are used for Plexos. DISCLAIMER: PLEXOS is a registered trademark of Energy Exemplar Pty Ltd ("Owner"). Owner has no affiliation to or participation in this software. Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC ("Alliance"). The views and opinions of authors expressed in the available or referenced documents do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or Alliance.
Software supply chain attacks are becoming increasingly more prevalent in both information communications technology and operational technology environments. Often, a supplier or other entity discloses vulnerability information about software components and subcomponents used in a digital asset, but an asset owner is unable to quickly ascertain if the vulnerable component is installed in their facility. The generation and use of a software bill of materials (SBOM) for installed digital assets can enable an asset owner to quickly identify if and where a component is used, allowing them to evaluate the risk and determine necessary risk treatments. The integration of an SBOM program into a nuclear facility not only improves vulnerability management and risk management processes, it also benefits asset and configuration management, cybersecurity, and supply chain programs. This paper reviews the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy Cybersecurity Crosscutting Technology Development program’s work on integrating an SBOM program into a nuclear facility. It also provides a discussion on the benefits of such a program.
The 2013 California Vehicle Survey (CVS) collected data on household and commercial vehicle usage, and on future vehicle purchases. ICF International conducted the survey on behalf of the California Energy Commission. Approximately 8,000 respondents, from California households and businesses, completed the survey. The household component of the CVS included a selection of households from the 2010-2012 California Household Travel Survey (CHTS), who had stated their intention to purchase a vehicle in the near future. Both household surveys used the same survey ID numbers enabling the integration of responses. The commercial vehicle component of the CVS—a stand-alone survey of commercial fleet owners in California—asked vehicle owners questions pertaining to economic and demographic attributes, current fleets, and preferences about planned vehicle purchases.
This data set contains metadata associated with peat core samples collected from the Spruce and Peatland Responses Under Changing Environments (SPRUCE) experiment in August 2024. This sample metadata contains no analytical results and is a reference for analytical datasets. To ensure accessibility and discoverability, each sample was assigned an International Generic Sample Number (IGSN), a persistent identifier, using System for Earth and Extraterrestrial Sample Registration (SESAR). These samples were used for downstream analysis by multiple teams of researchers the results of which will be reported separately. This dataset contains one data file in comma separate (.csv) format. Additional metadata are provided: one data dictionary and a file-level metadata file in comma separate (.csv) format and a user guide in PDF (*.pdf) format. An aliquot of most samples is stored at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and may be available for further analysis. Access this collection event on SESAR https://doi.org/10.58052/IEJ9B00VQ. To inquire about obtaining archived samples for analysis, reach out using the Contact Sample Owner form located on the bottom of the landing page in SESAR. Note: Only dried and ground material from C Cores are available for new analysis.
This is the AmeriFlux version of the carbon flux data for the site US-UC1 LTAR UCB (Upper Chesapeake Bay) EC1. Site Description - Upper Chesapeake Bay farm is privately owned. The farming that took place was performed by the Farm Owner. The ground is rolling terrain, next to wooded areas, private resdiences and other large fields maintained by private land owners. At the time of this collection period, the site housed another Eddy Covariance System and a two Phenocams. Crop has been continuous corn with plans to rotate to alfalfa grass mixture.
This is the AmeriFlux version of the carbon flux data for the site US-UC2 LTAR UCB (Upper Chesapeake Bay) EC2. Site Description - Upper Chesapeake Bay farm is privately owned. The farming that took place was performed by the Farm Owner. The ground is rolling terrain, next to wooded areas, private resdiences and other large fields maintained by private land owners. At the time of this collection period, the site housed another Eddy Covariance System and a two Phenocams. Crop has been continuous corn with plans to rotate to alfalfa grass mixture.
This is the AmeriFlux Management Project (AMP) created FLUXNET-1F version of the carbon flux data for the site US-UC1 LTAR UCB (Upper Chesapeake Bay) EC1. This is the FLUXNET version of the carbon flux data for the site US-UC1 LTAR UCB (Upper Chesapeake Bay) EC1 produced by applying the standard ONEFlux (1F) software. Site Description - Upper Chesapeake Bay farm is privately owned. The farming that took place was performed by the Farm Owner. The ground is rolling terrain, next to wooded areas, private resdiences and other large fields maintained by private land owners. At the time of this collection period, the site housed another Eddy Covariance System and a two Phenocams. Crop has been continuous corn with plans to rotate to alfalfa grass mixture.
This is the AmeriFlux Management Project (AMP) created FLUXNET-1F version of the carbon flux data for the site US-UC2 LTAR UCB (Upper Chesapeake Bay) EC2. This is the FLUXNET version of the carbon flux data for the site US-UC2 LTAR UCB (Upper Chesapeake Bay) EC2 produced by applying the standard ONEFlux (1F) software. Site Description - Upper Chesapeake Bay farm is privately owned. The farming that took place was performed by the Farm Owner. The ground is rolling terrain, next to wooded areas, private resdiences and other large fields maintained by private land owners. At the time of this collection period, the site housed another Eddy Covariance System and a two Phenocams. Crop has been continuous corn with plans to rotate to alfalfa grass mixture.
This tool, available at https://energycommunities.gov/coal-power-plant-reinvestment-visualization-tool/, serves as a public database and map for the purposes of enabling state and local economic development officials, project developers, and power plant owners to identify and pursue opportunities for plant and community reinvestment. The Coal Power Plant Reinvestment Visualization Tool focuses on coal power plants that have been closed or set-to-retire, alongside key infrastructure characteristics that are relevant for potential redevelopment reinvestment opportunities, including the opportunity to query these data based off pre-defined or user-set queries to identify opportunities for coal power facility reinvestment to support solar, wind, manufacturing, and nuclear. These Data for visualization and query include, but are not limited to: • Electric Transmission Lines • EPA Brownfield Sites (assessed with Federal funding) • Petroleum Terminals • Ports • Railroads • Others The tool will be updated periodically to provide relevant information to enable state and local economic development officials, project developers, and power plant owners to identify and pursue opportunities for economic revitalization and community reinvestment. Within this application data are focused on U.S. power plants with coal generation, where at least one on-site generator utilizes or utilized coal as a fuel source, including planned retirements through 2058 (EIA, 2024). Additional information on energy communities and revitalization opportunities can be accessed on the Interagency Working Group on Coal & Power Plant Communities & Economic Revitalization Energy Communities website (https://energycommunities.gov).
The evolution of cyber-physical infrastructure has made its security more challenging. The last few years have witnessed a convergence of hardware and software segments in various domains, including operational technology (OT) which is responsible for carrying out critical tasks such as monitoring and controlling power grids, nuclear plants, transportation, and emergency services. Both hardware and software encapsulate numerous open source and proprietary subcomponents, making it crucial for end-users to understand the composition of the products they are using. For example, wind turbines incorporate thousands of lines of code (software) used for the turbine's design, planning, operation, and analytics in addition to the numerous hardware subcomponents that construct it. Due to the highly complex nature of software and hardware, knowledge of the components and subcomponents is required to mitigate cyber vulnerabilities and defend against cyberattacks. There has also been a transformation from a traditional linear supply chain into a global, dynamic, diverse, and interconnected system. The digitization of the supply chain makes it easier to find and exploit vulnerabilities. Critical infrastructures (e.g., power grids, oil, natural gas, water, and wastewater) rely on OT to function, and if the OT is compromised, equipment damage and potential interruption of services could result. A significant security measure to protect OT systems from disruption is to develop a supply chain bill of materials (BoM) corresponding to the software and hardware used in OT, along with attestations amongst vendors and asset owners. A supply chain BoM is a proactive way to understand the inherent vulnerabilities in the system and mitigate them in advance of being exploited. BoMs bolster the trust placed in the digital infrastructure and enhance software supply chain security by sustaining the management of component obsolescence and compliance, along with the seclusion of unsafe segments of a specific product. Adopting BoM tools is becoming increasingly important across various government sectors, as evidenced by the recent U.S. executive order on cybersecurity (NIST 2021). This paper aims to classify BoMs based on structure, functionality, component type, and architecture. The work also discusses case studies to further highlight the benefits of BoMs. In addition, it identifies missing pieces in existing BoM implementations so that future research may identify bounds on where it could expect to make improvements and directly enable researchers to identify promising areas for exploration. Further, the authors provide valuable recommendations to tool developers, researchers, and standardizing organizations (policymakers), additionally benefitting critical infrastructure owners and government executives. This aids in paving a path for future work, thereby, providing suggestions to determine a tool for consumers that best suit their needs.
Despite being recognized as the best practice for advanced building controls, ASHRAE Guideline 36 (G36) has seen slow adoption in retrofit cases. Decisionmakers lack credible field evidence to justify the time and person-power investment. Most prior analyses have relied on software simulations, which overlook implementation challenges and fail to persuade owners to move from models to real-world deployment. This paper presents a multi-site field study of G36 performance, drawing on measured results from 17 projects across diverse building types and climate zones. The analysis disaggregates outcomes by the most widely adopted air handling unit (AHU) based G36 strategies, including trim-and-respond approaches to supply air temperature (SAT) and duct static pressure (DSP) reset, and economizer controls. Results for controls re programming implementations are encouraging, with HVAC savings ranging from 2% - 49%, with a median of 18%. The range aligns with simulation study findings showing 1% - 46% savings through these three strategies. These findings show that even without capital investment in control infrastructure upgrades, existing building owners are reaping significant benefits from updating HVAC sequences of operation to industry best-practice solutions. The results give practitioners and decisionmakers a reference point on what to expect, which strategies deliver, and how field performance may compare to simulation.
The combination of increased electric load growth across all sectors, deferred electrical infrastructure investment, and other factors resulting in variable electric power supply, has created technical challenges to maintaining a resilient and reliable grid. Many federal, regional, and local efforts are in play to modernize the electric grid, including advancing building technologies and distributed energy resources (DERs) that are utilizing smarter controls to become responsive to both occupant and grid needs. This report reviews ten pilot projects demonstrating how groups of buildings combined with behind-the-meter (BTM) DERs such as electric vehicle (EV) charging, battery storage, flexible HVAC and domestic hot water systems, and photovoltaic systems can reliably and cost effectively provide grid services. Each of the ten pilot projects aim to deliver both energy efficiency and demand flexibility (DF) while supporting load growth. The ten demonstration teams are piloting flexible DER packages across diverse communities of residential and commercial buildings to address a variety of regional grid needs. The outcomes of these pilot projects will be used to inform future scaling through utility program development. This paper characterizes the ten teams, showcasing the decision-making process used by each group to develop their packages (Section 2), the grid services they plan to deliver (Section 3), the types of DER packages selected for deployment within building sectors (Section 4) and trends between building sector, DER types, and grid services In order to achieve community scale benefits, the pilot projects must utilize aggregated control mechanisms for coordinating buildings and DERs together. Several types of coordinated control architectures have evolved amongst the teams, influenced by use type, existing market conditions, and integration type. Three coordinated controls architectures have been characterized, highlighting their use cases, benefits, challenges, and tradeoffs in their design. These insights can aid utilities, control vendors, and developers in scaling community-level energy systems (Paul, 2024). Ultimately, the technology packages selected by the ten teams will be coordinated to provide power system services, also known as grid services. Insights from these demonstrations will be useful for grid operators, regulators, aggregators and other stakeholders as they look to deploy demand flexible resources as grid services in the future. The grid services that each team is targeting for demonstration are described in Section 3 and Section 4. Methods for evaluating the grid services have been described in the paper Metrics for Evaluating Grid Service Provision from Communities of Grid-interactive and Efficient Buildings and other DER (MacDonald, 2023). To identify technology packages for demonstration, Section 2 shows that project teams used a range of analysis approaches, including building energy modeling, AMI data analysis, cost-benefit frameworks, and utility pilot data. Some teams emphasized technical modeling to quantify grid impacts and demand reduction potential, while others prioritized economic evaluations, stakeholder input, or exploratory pilots to inform deployment decisions. This diversity reflects the need to tailor selection methods to project goals, available data, and organizational context. Section 5 discusses trends between the DER technologies deployed and the grid service provisions from each team. Residential buildings (multifamily and single family) lean towards technologies that enhance energy efficiency (e.g. weatherization upgrades, smart thermostats) and onsite power generation integration (e.g. solar PV). Commercial building demonstrations prioritize technologies that ensure operational reliability (e.g. battery storage) and centralized energy management systems and optimization solutions. Teams that are deploying controllable storage-based technologies are more likely to provide grid services that require a near real-time response. Teams incorporating load shifting technologies like smart thermostats with HEMs are likely to include energy markets participation and customer bill management offerings. Campus demonstrations are adopting diverse sets of DERs to emphasize renewable generation, paired with centralized control. This section also describes technologies that were considered during project planning but ultimately excluded from final deployment. These demonstrations reveal that effective DER package design should be tailored to building type, customer segment, and construction vintage. Multifamily buildings benefit from centralized HVAC upgrades and supervisory controls, while single-family homes are well-suited for individualized technologies like solar, storage, and smart home energy monitors. Commercial and campus settings prioritize EMIS integration and load optimization. New construction enables cost-effective integration of DER-ready infrastructure, whereas retrofits require deployments aligned with owner and tenant value streams. For utility program planners, early coordination with developers and building owners, paired with segmented and modular program offerings, can improve adoption, scalability, and grid impact.
This paper presents a prototype methodology to assess the possible transition of Class II carbon dioxide-enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR) wells to Class VI wells. The focus is on wellbore construction materials—casing, cement, tubing, and the packer—and includes comprehensive workflows to evaluate these materials, with primary emphasis on compliance with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Class VI well construction and conversion guidelines. These workflows systematically assess material properties and performance criteria to ensure regulatory compliance and optimize long-term wellbore integrity and functionality. Utilizing Python scripts and JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) representations, the study automates checks on digitized Texas Railroad Commission (TRRC) data to rank wells based on workflow criteria. By emphasizing critical factors such as casing integrity, cementing techniques, tubing compatibility, and packer selection, the methodology helps well owners and operators prioritize wells for potential reuse as CO2 injection wells. Given limitations in digitized data, manual user verification is required in some sections. Future improvements include integrating non-digitized data through web scraping and machine learning techniques. This research serves as a practical guide for stakeholders, supporting environmental compliance and sustainable well operations.
This paper draws on a survey of solar industry professionals and other sources to clarify trends in the expected useful life and operational expenditure (OpEx) of utility-scale photovoltaic (PV) plants in the United States. Solar project developers, sponsors, long-term owners, and consultants have increased project-life assumptions over time, from an average of ~21.5 years in 2007 to ~32.5 years in 2019. Current assumptions range from 25 years to more than 35 years depending on the organization; 17 out of 19 organizations surveyed or reviewed use 30 years or more. Levelized, lifetime OpEx estimates have declined from an average of ~$\$$35/kW DC -yr for projects built in 2007 to an average of ~$\$$17/kW DC -yr in 2019. Across 13 sources, the range in average lifetime OpEx for projects built in 2019 is broad, from $\$$13 to $\$$25/kW DC -yr. Operations and maintenance (O&M) costs—one component of OpEx—have declined precipitously in recent years, to $\$$5-8/kW DC -yr in many cases. Property taxes and land lease costs are highly variable across sites, but on average are—together—of similar magnitude. Other OpEx line items include security, insurance, and asset management. Given 2007-2009 values for not only project life and OpEx but also other drivers of the levelized cost of energy (LCOE, excluding the investment tax credit), the LCOE for utility-scale PV projects built from 2007 through 2009 averaged $\$$305 /MWh. Using 2019 values for all parameters yields an average LCOE of $\$$51 /MWh. The decline in LCOE from $\$$305 /MWh to $\$$51 /MWh was predominantly caused by reductions in up-front expenditures (and, to a much lesser extent, by changes in capacity factors, financing costs, and tax rates), but 9% ($\$$22 /MWh) of the overall decline is due to improvements in project life and OpEx. Project life extensions and OpEx reductions have had similarly sized impacts on LCOE over this period, at $\$$11 /MWh each. Had project life and OpEx not improved over the last decade, LCOE in 2019 would have instead been $\$$73 /MWh—43% higher. Given the limited quantity and comparability of previously available data on these cost drivers, the data and trends presented here may inform assumptions used by electric system planners, modelers, and analysts. The results may also provide useful benchmarks to the solar industry, helping developers and assets owners compare their expectations for project life and OpEx with those of their peers.
The Foundations of an Electric Mobility Strategy for the city of Mexicali aligns with numerous energy, environmental, and transport plans and will help Mexicali meet multiple related goals. Mexicali’s energy mix, with 28% renewables, already enables plugin electric vehicles (PEVs) to reduce the mass of greenhouse gases (GHGs) per km driven 2/3 below that of their conventional counterparts. This GHG benefit will increase should Mexicali take steps to further increase their share of renewables in their electricity supply. Beyond increasing renewables, Mexicali could possibly deploy PEVs so that electric load is added in the right location (depending on further analysis of substations and feeders) and at the right time (between 21:00 and 11:00) in order to minimize grid upgrade costs. There are a handful of charge timing control mechanisms –at various stages of development– that Mexicali could implement. Transport electrification can facilitate mass transit by powering buses, trains, and small vehicles that get people from their homes or work to the transit stations and vice versa. Mexicali could utilize fleets as early PEV adopters in order to gain acceptance and add electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE). Recommended prioritization of different types of fleets are suggested in this report: transit buses, school buses, airport ground support equipment (GSE), refuse trucks, taxis, shuttle buses, campus vehicles, delivery trucks, utility trucks, and finally semitrailers. There are a handful of policy options that Mexicali could use to incentivize fleets to purchase PEVs, including mandates, economic incentives, energy performance contracts, waivers to access restrictions, electricity discounts, and EVSE requirements in building codes. Mexicali’s taxi fleet was an early adopter of PEVs and had experienced some challenges—mostly related to the insufficient range of the taxis due to hot weather. In this report, we strategize ways to extend the range of the current electric taxis, including ways to make charging more convenient to the drivers, and more suggestions for appropriate vehicles to purchase in the future. This report also includes the groundwork of geotracking Mexicali’s taxi fleet so that more detailed recommendations can be made in the future. Once fleets have increased PEV acceptance and EVSE installations, the market will be ready to expand to private vehicle owners. In order to do this, more EVSE needs to be installed in the right locations. This mobility strategy lays out general local areas where EVSE could be well utilized, based on traffic patterns, land use, and demographic data. Mexicali could approach businesses within these areas that would likely make suitable hosts, based on how well they can profit from the additional business that EVSE would bring. Mexicali could then adopt a series of purchase incentives (including sales tax waivers or access to high-occupancy vehicles [HOV] lanes) that would encourage private vehicle owners to purchase PEVs. Purchase incentives run the risk of creating equity issues, which can be countered by promoting electrification in mass transit, creating more HOV lanes that have PEV exemptions, and installing EVSEs in underserved communities. Private PEV ownership will require a set of experts that Mexicali can help train, including PEV repair technicians, EVSE installation electricians, and first responders.
REopt transforms complex energy project decisions into actionable results for building owners, utilities, and industry. Based on decades of NREL decision-support expertise, REopt guides investment in economic, resilient energy technologies. This presentation provides an overview of how REopt can help building owners, utilities, developers, and industry optimize the economic and resilience benefits of distributed energy resources.