Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “TIME VARYING BASELINES”

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.

112 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

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↗
DOE OSTI2025

Unified Universal Control and Coordination of Inverter-Based Resources, and Validation for a PV + Battery Hybrid Plant

As renewable energy deployment grows, hybrid power plants (HPPs) combining photovoltaic (PV) and battery systems must evolve to offer both energy and grid stability services. These systems typically include a mix of grid-following (GFL) and grid-forming (GFM) inverters, presenting unique coordination and control challenges. This Department of Energy–funded project developed and validated a Unified Universal Control and Coordination (UUCC) framework for such PV + battery hybrid plants, enabling seamless and stable operation, including ultrafast black start, autonomous synchronization, and robust frequency and voltage regulation, under different grid conditions. The project significantly advanced the understanding of inverter-based resource (IBR) control by developing and validating three complementary system-level approaches for hybrid GFL/GFM operation: 1. A combined Virtual Resistance (VR)-based GFL and Virtual Oscillator Control (VOC)-based GFM method, where each inverter type is governed by a specialized control strategy. Together, these achieve stable, fast-response coordination, eliminating inrush current and enabling smooth black start and grid synchronization across a wide range of grid strengths. 2. A Deadbeat-based UUCC strategy, which uses discrete-time, switching-cycle-level control for both GFL and GFM inverters. This approach replaces traditional PI/PLL control with a control parameter-free, high-bandwidth framework that supports stable LVRT and instantaneous synchronization under all conditions. 3. A benchmark comparison with Siemens’ commercial GFM microgrid controller, which provided a fast baseline platform. The commercial approach decoupled v & f control was implemented on a commercial microgrid controller.The baseline commercial benchmark helped highlight superior transient response and black start performance offered by the deadbeat and VOC approaches. These technical contributions offer substantial improvements over conventional inverter control schemes, which often rely on slow phase-locked loop (PLL)-based synchronization, require careful control parameters tuning, and prone to unstable in weak grids with GFL inverters and in stiff grid with GFM inverters therefore challenging for hybrid GFL+GFM under all grid conditions. The deadbeat-based UUCC framework enables simpler, faster, and more robust operation of hybrid IBR systems using wide-bandgap (WBG) devices such as SiC power semiconductors. The rapid expansion of hybrid distributed energy resources (DERs), including residential and commercial PV-BESS installations such as Tesla Powerwall, PV with vehicle-to-grid (V2G) capability, and other integrated configurations, presents complex operational challenges for medium-voltage radial distribution feeders. These networks are subject to frequent disturbances such as faults, switching operations, rapid reclosing sequences, and feeder reconfigurations, all of which introduce dynamic stress on IBRs. In addition, planned feeder segmentation and deliberate islanding for resilience will require DERs that can autonomously perform blackstart, establish voltage and frequency references, and resynchronize with the main grid. The advanced deadbeat-based UUCC control and blackstart functionalities developed in this project directly address these requirements, enabling decentralized and autonomous operation of inverter-dominated DERs in distribution systems under a wide range of fault and reconfiguration scenarios. From a public benefit perspective, these innovations enable more reliable and cost-effective integration of renewable energy into distribution networks. The ability to autonomously black start and stabilize grids under varying grid conditions support accelerates recovery from outages and support decentralized resilient energy systems. By reducing system complexity and improving performance, this project lays critical groundwork for future inverter-dominated power grids that are clean, reliable, and accessible to all.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Integrated Optimization and Control of a Hybrid Gas Turbine/sCO 2 Power System

During phase-I, the project team led by Echogen Power Systems (EPS) had two primary objectives based on investigating the application of gas turbines with supercritical carbon dioxide (sCO 2 ) power cycles. The first objective was to improve the overall efficiency and performance of a hybrid gas turbine/sCO 2 power system through a joint optimization of the two subsystems (gas turbine and sCO 2 power cycle) using non-linear optimization techniques that simultaneously evaluate thermal performance of the combined cycle. The hybrid power system included several points of interaction, including (but not limited to) gas turbine exhaust, fuel heating, inlet chilling and turbine cooling. The second objective was to establish a baseline transient response model of the hybrid power system and a notional microgrid and begin steps to integrate the control systems of the three major elements (gas turbine, sCO 2 cycle and grid controller). The project team established a baseline performance for a combined cycle power plant using a production gas turbine and scaled sCO 2 power cycle only utilizing exhaust heat recovery. Echogen’s non-linear techno-economic optimization code was extended by adding gas turbine component models derived from a in-house developed gas turbine design code. With the two cycles coupled by the gas turbine exhaust, design parameters of both cycles were allowed to vary simultaneously to determine performance opportunity versus isolated designs. Returning to the baseline gas turbine/sCO 2 power cycle transient models: Echogen had in-house developed sCO 2 cycle transient model in GT-Suite system simulation software, and had partnered with Siemens Finspång for gas turbine transient model, and Siemens PTI group to provide micro-grid load profile as well as hybrid power cycle generated load (power and frequency) analysis. The transient model for the SGT-750 Siemens gas turbine was a “black-box” functional mock-up interface (FMI) model developed by Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery in Finspång, Sweden. The SGT-750 is a twin-shaft gas turbine that produces 40 MW electricity with an efficiency of about 40% at ISO conditions. At 100% gas turbine throttle (load), the SGT-750 has average exhaust conditions of 114.6 kg/s and 469.8°C. The transient model for sCO 2 power cycle was developed by Echogen in GT-SUITE 1D system simulation software platform. The basic CO 2 flow circuit has single-shaft turbomachinery with net 11.5 MW electrical power output at design conditions. The power turbine has a double-ended shaft with one end connected to synchronous generator through a fixed-ratio gearbox. The other end of power turbine is connected to the compressor through a continuously variable transmission. The major components of the sCO 2 power cycle modeled include air cooled condenser/cooler, CO 2 compressor, recuperator, two waste heat exchanger coils, power turbine, continuous variable transmission, gearbox and generator. Integration of SGT-750 transient model and sCO 2 power cycle transient model was done in Matlab Simulink. In the integrated model, the gas turbine and sCO 2 power cycle interacted at two points, first one being the gas turbine exhaust gas flow rate and temperature, which were inputs to sCO 2 power cycle model. The second point was the distribution of micro-grid load demand signal between the SGT-750 generator and sCO 2 cycle generator. For a given combined-cycle load demand, the gas turbine load demand was equal to the total demand minus the sCO 2 cycle power generated. In the present study the integrated model was simulated for two cases of grid load demand: (i) for a step change, both positive-step and negative-step, in grid load demand (ii) for a micro-grid load demand curve provided by Siemens PTI group. Finally, the time series plots representing load demand versus integrated system response were presented including the sCO 2 power cycle control system performance plots. The actual generated power and frequency of both the generators, gas turbine and sCO 2 power cycle, was supplied to Siemens PTI group for dynamic grid assessment, results of which are provided in appendices.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2024

A Clean Energy Deployment Baseline for the Energy Community and Low-Income Tax Credit Bonuses [Slides]

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 introduced, for the first time, place-based federal tax incentives for projects sited in “Energy Communities,” potentially changing the economic calculus of where projects are best sited. Storage projects can qualify for a 10-percentage-point bonus to the Investment Tax Credit (e.g., from 30% to 40%), while wind and solar projects may qualify for either the ITC bonus or a 10% bonus to the Production Tax Credit (e.g., from $\$27.5$ to $\$30.25$/MWh). Energy Communities are areas with historical ties to fossil fuel industries and above average unemployment levels (FFEU), with closed coal mines or power plants, or contaminated properties. They seek to identify locations across the US that could especially benefit from economic revitalization. This report explores how the new federal tax credit incentives are impacting clean energy deployment patterns and establishes historical baselines against which future changes can be compared. We include a few case studies of clean energy projects going specifically to areas that were recently impacted by coal power plant closures to provide concrete examples of investments in Energy Communities. However, this publication does not assess how much of the incentive benefits pass from clean energy developers to hosting communities, nor does it offer a comprehensive view of the economic effects of clean energy deployment on Energy Communities. Key highlights include: - As clean energy projects take multiple years to conceptualize and develop, it is likely too early to see shifts towards Energy Community locations either among newly built projects or those that entered interconnection queues in 2023. - Approximately 35% of onshore wind, 50% of solar, and 60% of storage capacity built in 2023 and the first half of 2024 are located in Energy Communities, making them likely eligible for bonus incentives. While these bonus incentives were not available to projects coming online before 2023, we used 2023 Energy Community definitions to classify whether past projects were built in what is now considered an Energy Community. The deployment levels for 2023-2024 are similar to recent years (2020-2022) for solar and storage but slightly lower for wind. - Clean energy capacity has surged in the interconnection queues over the last few years, with about 45-50% of both recently proposed and total queued capacity being located in Energy Communities. While the amount of capacity in Energy Communities has also grown, its relative share is either stable (solar and storage) or slightly lower (wind) among projects that entered the queue in 2023. - Clean energy projects can be built at lower costs in Energy Communities. The levelized cost of energy after incentives was on average $\$9$/MWh (24%) lower for solar projects and $\$2$/MWh (6%) lower for wind projects built in 2023, relative to projects not located in Energy Communities. Wholesale electricity values at Energy Community locations relative to the rest of the market vary by region. The average value was often higher for wind projects (-$\$3$ to $\$11$/MWh) but lower for solar projects (-$\$6$ to 0/MWh). - Distributed solar that is owned by commercial entities is eligible for the Energy Community bonus and also, potentially, a Low-Income Community bonus. Residential solar installations in qualifying Energy Communities that are third-party owned represent about 10% of the total residential market. Larger commercial and industrial solar installations in Energy Communities make up 17% of the total market in 2023. Nearly 2 GW of distributed solar was built in areas qualifying as Low-Income Communities in 2023, exceeding the available annual program cap of 700 MW. Continued tracking of these trends will be important for system planners, investors, and local communities.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗