Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “smart grid use case”

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 OSTI2024

BENEFIT with Northeastern University: HVAC Hardware-in-the-Loop Experimental Testing of a Heat Pump and Air Conditioner

This dataset includes HVAC Hardware-in-the-Loop (HIL) experimental results for a single stage, SEER 16, HSPF 9.5, 3-ton single-speed air source heat pump with 15 kW of backup auxiliary heating tested in both cooling and heating mode, and a two stage, SEER 21, 2-ton central air conditioner tested in cooling mode for a set of outdoor temperatures and indoor setpoint temperatures. In addition to these tests, experimental tests focused on the operation of auxiliary heating for the heat pump for winter condition were also conducted. The laboratory experiments for transient testing of the heat pump and air conditioner were conducted using the two HIL systems in the Systems Performance Laboratory (SPL) at NREL’s Energy Systems Integration Facility (ESIF). Further information on laboratory design and capabilities of the SPL along with the architecture of HVAC HIL system can be found in: Sparn, B. F. 2018. Laboratory Resources and Techniques to Evaluate Smart Home Technology (No. NREL/CP-5500-71696). National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO (United States). https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/71696.pdf and the experimental setup and validation of HVAC HIL platform can be found in: Ramaraj, S. and Sparn, B. 2022. Validation of HVAC Hardware-In-the-Loop Simulation for Advanced Control Strategies in Smart Homes (No. NREL/CP-5500-82562). National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL), Golden, CO (United States). https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82562.pdf. These experimental results can be used to validate how we currently model the cycling behavior of heat pumps and air conditioners. Additionally, many demand response programs implement heat pump and air conditioner control by changing the thermostat set point – these data may also be used to verify our models for heat pump and air conditioner demand response control are implemented correctly. The Test_Matrix file describes all the indoor and outdoor test conditions for heat pump and air conditioner and the file names of data sets include information about the test conditions. A wide range of outdoor air temperatures were chosen to accommodate summer and winter conditions. In addition to operating the HVAC equipment with different outdoor temperatures, we also operate the system with different indoor temperature set points to represent different grid signals or different operating conditions. For cooling conditions, the baseline set point is 72°F. To represent Load Up signals, the setpoint is changed to 68°F. The Load Shed set point is 76°F. For heating conditions, the baseline set point was assumed to be 68°F. The Load add set point is 72°F and the Load shed set point is 64°F. The starting indoor temperature for cooling conditions was set ~2°F above the indoor setpoint temperature so that the equipment turned on quickly. Similarly, the initial indoor temperature was set ~2°F lower than setpoint for heating mode tests to ensure that heating began quickly. The return air temperature was assumed to be equal to the indoor setpoint temperature in all cases. The experimental data are sampled at 1-second intervals. The data from ecobee thermostat at 5-minute interval are resampled and added to the corresponding file. The content of each data set is as follows: • T_Return (C): Measured return air temperature [C] • T_Return_SP (C): Return air temperature setpoint from E+ model, sent to HIL [C] • T_Supply (C): Measured supply air temperature at evaporator outlet [C] • T_Outdoor (C): Measured outdoor air temperature [C] • T_Outdoor_SP (C): Outdoor air temperature setpoint from weather file, sent to HIL [C] • T_Indoor (C): Measured indoor air temperature [C] • T_Indoor_SP (C): Indoor air temperature setpoint from E+ model, sent to HIL [C] • Outdoor Unit Power (W): Measured power of the outdoor unit [W] • Indoor Unit Power (W): Measured power of the indoor unit [W] • Evaporator Airflow Rate (CFM): Measured evaporator or indoor unit airflow rate sent to E+ model [CFM] • Cooling/Heating Capacity (kW): Calculated cooling/heating capacity sent to E+ model [kW] • T_SP_Thermostat (C): Thermostat cooling/heating setpoint temperature [C] • T_Indoor_Thermostat (C): Thermostat indoor air temperature [C]

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2026

Unified Modeling Architecture for Load Management in Extreme Heat: The New York City Case

Integration of renewable resources to meet growing energy demand is becoming a global priority under decarbonization mandates. This study contributes to ongoing efforts on this key subject by assessing the feasibility of using coastal-urban renewable energy resources, namely, offshore wind and rooftop photovoltaic systems, to meet electricity demand of New York City during the intense recent heat wave period of June 2025. A unified modeling framework, based on the urbanized weather research and forecasting model, is used to simulate climate, renewable resources, and energy demand variables. Findings show significant energy load mismatch of approximately 1150 GWh over the month, between the demand and the combined renewable generation outcome. Three storage integration scenarios are analyzed to mitigate the deficits, reducing said deficits by a minimum of approximately 9% over the duration of the month. This study provides a transferable modeling framework tool for evaluating renewable integration in dense urban environments that can be used by grid operators to support grid resilience during extreme heat events.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Assessment of peak power demand reduction available via modulation of building ventilation systems.

Peak power demand strains electrical grids and increases cost of electricity generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure. Many studies have examined ways of reducing peak power demand, including modification of room air temperature setpoints or reduction of lighting levels. However, very few or no studies have examined the peak power reduction resource offered by temporary curtailment of building ventilation systems. For this reason, we conducted a simulation campaign in which we examined the resource offered by temporary ventilation curtailment in commercial buildings of different use types across the United States and in residences in the state of California, with the essential constraint that any changes resulted in air quality acceptable to occupants through additional ventilation to compensate for the curtailment. To do this, we employed previously validated building models implemented in the airflow and contaminant transport tool CONTAM and building thermal and systems modeling tool EnergyPlus, in some cases co-simulated. Overall, results show savings are highly dependent on building type and climate but range from 0–2 W/ft 2 and up to 40% of total peak building power demand. Depending on building type, this power shed can be conducted for 1.5–8 h before acute exposure or odor concerns are expected, assuming a safety factor of 2. This reduction is of the same magnitude as that offered by thermal control strategies such as setpoint increase, or from lighting reduction strategies.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
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 OSTI2021

Comprehensive Assessment of On-And Off-Board Vehicle-To-Grid Technology Performance and Impacts on Battery and the Grid

This project defined, developed, and tested the open standards-based requirements, engineering design and system integration of on and off-vehicle Vehicle-to-Grid technologies both on the grid and on the PEV, to assess their effectiveness in implementing the use cases that create value for the grid, which in turn, can be passed on to the ratepayers and the PEV owners. The project comprised of three key categories of work and four key sub-areas of work. The three key categories were: On-Vehicle V2G, Off-Vehicle V2G, and impact of V2G operation on the battery capacity degradation. The four key sub-areas of work under each of these categories were: defining requirements, implementing the technology, performing system integration testing, and estimating the value of each of the grid services under specific assumptions, on a per-vehicle and on an aggregated basis. The technical implementation demonstrated the validity of standards-based approach to grid integration that led to interoperability, in addition to assessing the operational details with grid constraints imposed at the transformer level. The technology implementation also identified the subtle gaps in the standards definition to close the feedback loop on the accuracy of the standards as written, which are being implemented as revisions to the appropriate protocols. The battery impacts assessment developed a test cycle that the batteries from a real PHEV were subjected to for both the mobility-only and mobility with V2G specific energy cycling. While the battery impact results show a clear incremental degradation in response to additional throughput for V2G application purposes, the amount of additional kWh that can be made available without exceeding the end-of-life capacity definition of the battery at its 10-year warranty period was found to be significant. Given that the PEV battery being exercised during testing was a PHEV battery (smaller energy capacity), and 44% of its usable energy (i.e., SOC) was utilized daily for V2G applications, the EVs with much larger batteries will fare much better, either in terms of extracting more value in terms of incremental kWh for V2G, or in terms of relative incremental degradation of the capacity through the battery lifespan. Further, this battery was the second-generation Lithium-Ion chemistry circa 2015, which is at least two generations ago. Continual improvements in electrochemistry and manufacturing techniques as well as on-board capacity will enable the future batteries to provide even more energy for non-mobility-related services. Finally, the valuation of V2G energy services at the premise, distribution, and the ISO/market level was carried out for both the on-vehicle and off-vehicle cases, to understand both the GHG mitigation and operational efficiency improvements in quantitative terms. The analysis indicates that between $\$400$ and $\$1400$ per year of total value to the grid can be realized. When netted of costs to implement V2G either on or off-vehicle, the net value is available to be shared between the ratepayers and the EV owners. Over the life of the EV, therefore, this value becomes significant and can easily provide both ratepayer and EV owner benefits more than the cost of the equipment, either on or off-board, in addition to providing GHG mitigation benefits both on the grid and on the mobility sides. For these benefits to accrue, the key learnings from both the on- and off-vehicle V2G parts of the project indicate the need for at-scale demonstrations through involvement of real EV owners to validate both the technical feasibility, interoperability, as well as real grid benefits by performing extensive data collection and analysis. This will help inform the grid planners, the program designs, and tariff designers, as well as automotive and equipment manufacturers how best to create their products to maximize grid, ratepayer, and EV owner value.

30 DIRECT ENERGY CONVERSION↗