Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Component Critical, Cold Critical”

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.

113 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Self-Powered Autonomous Sensing System for Arctic Ocean using a Frequency-multiplied Cylindrical Triboelectric Nanogenerator

An autonomous sensing system for collecting environmental observations in the Arctic region is critical for the estimation and prediction of climate change. Ocean waves are a great source of energy for these sensing systems but there has been limited research done on small-scale energy harvesting applications in the Arctic Ocean (subsea or surface). The available wave energy in the Arctic Ocean is lower than the typical ocean wave energy due to the low wave frequency, height, and operating months. Although the available wave energy depends on the specific location in the Arctic Ocean, the wave height decreases everywhere during the winter (Jan-March) [1]. Our target location in this work is the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, which are ice covered for about 195 days per year leaving only a few months (June-November) for wave energy harvesting [2]. During these few months, the average wave frequency is 0.2 Hz and the most common wave frequency is around 0.15 Hz. Many energy harvesting methods are unsuitable for use in the Arctic Ocean because of to the cold temperature, low wave frequency, and low wave height. Triboelectric nanogenerators (TENG) are one of the few energy harvesting methods that excel in these conditions. Zhong et al. [3] designed a stacked pendulum-structured TENG for low-frequency ocean wave energy and reported the device generated a peak power density of 11.2 W/m3 under the low wave frequency of 0.2 Hz. The autonomous sensing system we developed for the Arctic Ocean, the Arctic-TENG, is based on a frequency-multiplied cylindrical TENG (FMC-TENG) which is an optimized TENG configuration for Arctic Ocean conditions due to the high power density under low-frequency wave conditions [4]. Figure 1 shows an FMC-TENG with multiple pairs of free-standing triboelectric-layer mode materials (Aluminum and FEP). The mass and magnet attached to the rotor store gravitational potential energy which is released as kinetic energy when the potential energy overcomes the repulsive magnetic force generated by the opposing magnet attached to the stator. This force unbalance triggers a sudden rotation and swinging motion of the mass which increases the angular velocity of the system and therefore enhances the output power of the TENG system. The main components of the Arctic-TENG are a 3D-printed rotor and stator, electric and dielectric material adhesive tape, and bearings. All these materials were cold-soaked and tested at -40 °C in a chest freezer. Both the 3D-printed parts and adhesives were confirmed to have a minimal effect from the cold temperature. Multiple bearings were tested and the starting torque of each one was compared both at room temperature and -40 °C. The bearing with the lowest starting torque at -40 °C was selected for use in the Arctic-TENG. The Arctic-TENG was tested using an out-of-water motor-driven wave simulator (Figure 2). The wave simulator allows for controlled testing at a wave height of 0.2 m and frequencies between 0.1 Hz to 0.5 Hz. This wave simulator was used for both room temperature and -40 °C testing. The Arctic-TENG generated significantly more power at -40 °C compared to room temperature for each frequency tested. The system stored energy in a supercapacitor via a power management circuit, and the amount of energy stored per day was calculated at different wave frequencies. Based on the conditions at the proposed deployment location (days of non-ice-covered ocean and wave frequency), the amount of stored energy per year from Arctic-TENG was calculated to be enough energy for two transmissions every day. Durability testing was completed on the Arctic-TENG at room temperature to determine the lifetime. The rotor of the Arctic-TENG was attached to a DC motor and spun continuously for several millions of cycles without degradation of the electrical output, demonstrating the feasibility for long-term operation.

Jung, Hyunjun↗
DOE OSTI2022

Liquid Salt Combined-Cycle Pilot Plant Design

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

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2025

Exploring the Use of Non‐Invasive Drone‐Based Ground‐Penetrating Radar (GPR) to Characterize Biogenic Gas Dynamics in Subtropical Peat Soils

Peat soils are a critical component of the global carbon cycle as natural producers of biogenic greenhouse gases (e.g., methane and carbon dioxide) that accumulate within the soil and are released to the atmosphere. Previous studies have showed the ability of ground-based minimally-invasive geophysical methods such as ground-penetrating radar (GPR) to characterize carbon dynamics in peat soils. However, ground-based GPR is limited by scale of measurement and soil disturbance potentially altering gas releases during deployment. Here, we explore the potential of drone-based GPR for identification of hot spots and hot moments of gas accumulation and release in subtropical soils. Here, we collected drone-based GPR data sets across two grids (∼17,500 m 2 ) in the Everglades during January (dry season), September, and November (wet season) of 2023 to characterize peat thickness and seasonal variability of gas content. Results show that drone-based GPR is effective and efficient for: (a) capturing the temporal variation of in situ biogenic gas content in peat soils with changes between 1% and 25 % volumetric gas content over repeatable grids; (b) inferring a total peat thickness between 0.8 and 1.2 m; and (c) estimating flux releases of 63 and 135 mg CH 4 m −2 day −1 for specific locations and periods that are strikingly consistent with our coincident gas trap measurements. This work also indicates that (a) spatial distribution of gas content in the Everglades is strongly controlled by landscape morphology such as ridges and sloughs and (b) the temporal variation of gas content is seasonal with increased gas production during the wet season.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2011

U.S. Space Radioisotope Power Systems and Applications: Past, Present and Future

Radioisotope power systems (RPS) have been essential to the U.S. exploration of outer space. RPS have two primary uses: electrical power and thermal power. To provide electrical power, the RPS uses the heat produced by the natural decay of a radioisotope (e.g., plutonium-238 in U.S. RPS) to drive a converter (e.g., thermoelectric elements or Stirling linear alternator). As a thermal power source the heat is conducted to whatever component on the spacecraft needs to be kept warm; this heat can be produced by a radioisotope heater unit (RHU) or by using the excess heat of a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG). As of 2010, the U.S. has launched 41 RTGs on 26 space systems. These space systems have ranged from navigational satellites to challenging outer planet missions such as Pioneer 10/11, Voyager 1/2, Galileo, Ulysses, Cassini and the New Horizons mission to Pluto. In the fall of 2011, NASA plans to launch the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) that will employ the new Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (MMRTG) as the principal power source. Hundreds of radioisotope heater units (RHUs) have been launched to provide warmth to Apollo 11, used to provide heating of critical components in a seismic experiment package, Pioneer 10/11, Voyager 1/2, Galileo, Cassini, Mars Pathfinder, MER rovers, etc. to provide temperature control to critical spacecraft electronics and other mechanical devices such as propulsion system propellant valves. A radioisotope (electrical) power source or system (RPS) consists of three basic elements: (1) the radioisotope heat source that provides the thermal power, (2) the converter that transforms the thermal power into electrical power and (3) the heat rejection radiator. Figure 1 illustrates the basic features of an RPS. The idea of a radioisotope power source follows closely after the early investigations of radioactivity by researchers such as Henri Becquerel (1852-1908), Marie Curie (1867-1935), Pierre Curie (1859-1906) and R. J. Strut. Almost 100 years ago, in 1913, English physicist H. G. J. Moseley (1887-1915) constructed the first nuclear battery using a vacuum flask and 20 mCi of radium (Corliss and Harvey, 1964, Proceedings of the Royal Society, 1913). After World War II, serious interest in radioisotope power systems in the U.S. was sparked by studies of space satellites such as North American Aviation s 1947 report on nuclear space power and the RAND Corporation s 1949 report on radioisotope power. (Greenfield, 1947, Gendler and Kock, 1949). Radioisotopes were also considered in early studies of nuclear-powered aircraft (Corliss and Harvey, 1964). In 1951, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) signed several contracts to study a 1-kWe space power plant using reactors or radioisotopes. Several of these studies, which were completed in 1952, recommended the use of RPS. (Corliss and Harvey, 1964). In 1954, the RAND Corporation issued the summary report of the Project Feedback military satellite study in which radioisotope power was considered (Lipp and Salter, 1954, RAND). Paralleling these studies, in 1954, K. C. Jordan and J. H. Birden of the AEC s Mound Laboratory conceived and built the first RTG using chromel-constantan thermocouples and a polonium-210 (210Po or Po-210) radioisotope heat source (see Figure 2). While the power produced (1.8 mWe) was low by today s standards, this first RTG showed the feasibility of RPS. A second thermal battery was built with more Po-210, producing 9.4 mWe. Jordan and Birden concluded that the Po-210 thermal battery would have about ten times the energy of ordinary dry cells of the same mass (Jordan and Birden, 1954). The heat source consisted of a 1-cm-diameter sphere of 57 Ci (1.8 Wt) of Po-210 inside a capsule of nickel-coated cold-rolled steel all inside a container of Lucite. The thermocouples were silver-soldered chromel-constantan. The thermal battery produced 1.8 mWe.

Cataldo, Robert L.↗
NASA NTRS1994

A hydrodynamic approach to cosmology: The mixed dark matter cosmological scenario

We compute the evolution of spatially flat, mixed cold and hot dark matter models containing both baryonic matter and two kinds of dark matter. Hydrodynamics is treated with a highly developed Eulerian hydrodynamic code (see Cen 1992). A standard particle-mesh (PM) code is also used in parallel to calculate the motion of the dark matter components. We adopt the following parameters: h equivalent to (sub 0)/100 km/s Mpc(exp -1) = 0.5, OMEGA(sub C) = 0.3, and OMEGA(sub B) = 0.06, with amplitude of the perturbation spectrum fixed by the Cosmic Background Explorer Satellite (COBE) Dark Matter Radiation (DMR) measurements (Smoot et al. 1992) being sigma (sub 8) = 0.67. Four different boxes are simulated with box sizes of L = (64, 16, 4, 1) h(exp -1) Mpc, respectively, the two small boxes providing good resolution but little valid information due to absence of large-scale power. We use 128(exp 3) approximate 10(exp 6.3) baryonic cells, 128(exp .3) cold dark matter particles, and 2 x 128(exp 3) hot dark matter particles. In addition to the dark matter we follow separately six baryonic species (H, H(+), He, He(+), He(++), e(-)) with allowance for both (nonequilibrium) collisional and radiative ionization in every cell. The background radiation field is also followed in detail with allowance made for both continuum and line processes, to allow nonequilibrium heating and cooling processes to be followed in detail. The mean final Zeldovich-Sunyaev y parameter is estimated to be y Bar = (5.4 + or - 2.7) x 10(exp -7) below currently attainable observations, with a rms fluctuation of approximately delta bar y = (0.6 + or - 3.0) x 10(exp -7) on arcminute scales. The rate of galaxy formation peaks at an even later epoch (z approximate 0.3) than in the standard (OMEGA = 1, sigma sub 8 = 0.67) cold dark matter (CDM) model (z approximate 0.5) and, at a redshift of z = 4, is nearly a factor of 100 lower than for the CDM model with the same value of sigma sub 8. With regard to mass function, the smallest objects are stabilized against collapse by thermal energy: the mass-weighted mass spectrum has a broad peak in the vicinity of M(sub B) = 10(exp 9.5) solar mass with a reasonable fit to the Schechter luminosity function if the ratio of baryon mass to blue light is approximately 4. In addition, one very large PM simulation was made in a box with size (320 h(exp - 1) Mpc) containing 3 x 200(exp 3) = 10(exp 7.4) particles. Utilizing this simulation we find that the model yields a cluster mass function which is about a factor of 4 higher than observed, but a cluster-cluster correlation length marginally lower than observed, but that both are closer to observations than in the (COBE) normalized CDM model. The one-dimensional pairwise velocity dispersion is 605 + or - 8 km/s at 1/h separation, lower than that of the DCM model normalized to COBE, but still significant higher than observations (Davis & Peebles 1983). A plausible velocity bias b(sub v) = 0.8 + or - 0.1 on this scale will reduce but not remove the discrepancy. The velocity auto-correlat ion function has a coherence length of 40/h Mpc, which is somewhat lower than the observed counterpart. In all these respects the model would be improved by decreasing the cold fraction of the dark OMEGA(sub CDM)/ (OMEGA(sub CDM) + OMEGA(sub HDB). But formation of galaxies and clusters of galaxies is much later in this model than in COBE-normalized CDM, perhaps too late. To improve on these constraints a larger ratio of OMEGA(sub CDM)/ (OMEGA(sub CDM) + OMEGA(sub HDM)) is required than the value of 0.67 adopted here. It does not seem possible to find a value for this ratio which would satisfy all tests. Overall, the model is similar both on large and intermediate scales to the standard CDM model normalized to the same value of sigma(sub B), but the problem with regard to late formation of galaxies is more severe in this model than in that CDM model. Adding hot dark matter, significantly improves the ability of the COBE-normalized CDM scenario to fit existing observations, but the model is in fact not as good as the CDM model with the same sigma(sub 8) and is still probably unsatisfactory with regard to several critical tests.

Cen, Renyue↗