Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “utilization and storage”

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.

At least 127 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestration: Phase III (Final Scientific/Technical Report)

The Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestration (SWP) is one of 7 regional partnerships formed in 2003 under the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs) initiative. The overall purpose of the initiative was to help determine and implement the technology, infrastructure, and regulations most appropriate to promote carbon storage in different regions of the country. Covering Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and parts of Texas, Wyoming, and Kansas, the SWP evaluated regional carbon storage and utilization potential and focused on technologies and sites that could complement the region’s strong position in energy production. The project progressed through three phases: • Phase I (2003–2005): Characterized regional geologic formations and CO 2 sources, assessed sequestration potential, and identified pilot test sites. • Phase II (2005–2013): Conducted small-scale field tests to validate sequestration methods, including geologic and terrestrial projects. • Phase III (2008–2022): Demonstrated large-scale CO 2 injection at a commercial oil field to test monitoring, verification, and long-term storage strategies. This report covers Phase III. The final project site, the Farnsworth Unit (FWU) in Texas, provided real-world testing of reservoir characterization, monitoring, and risk evaluation tools and processes that could be used in any commercial scale carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) project. Extensive data collection and analysis helped refine best practices for reservoir characterization, injection monitoring, and storage verification. The SWP contributed to national databases, DOE best practice manuals, and regional geological assessments to support future sequestration efforts. Key lessons learned include the importance of robust data management, strategic site selection, regulatory navigation, and effective industry collaboration. The project’s findings will inform ongoing and future carbon storage initiatives. Task 1 (Regional Characterization) • The SWP continued to participate in national outreach efforts and NATCARB. • The SWP evaluated multiple potential sites before selecting the FWU as the primary field test location. Task 2 (Public Outreach and Education) • The SWP contributed to national databases, DOE best practice manuals, and regional geological assessments to support future sequestration efforts. Task 3 (Permitting and Regulatory Compliance) • The SWP ensured compliance with federal and state regulations, including National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. • The SWP obtained all necessary permits for drilling, injection, and monitoring activities. Task 4 (Site Characterization and Planning) • The SWP developed work plans for four key activities: characterization, simulation, monitoring and verification, and risk evaluation. • The SWP collected and synthesized legacy data from multiple sources to build initial static geological models and dynamic reservoir models demonstrating project feasibility. • The SWP conducted an initial risk evaluation and developed mitigation plans. Task 5 (Field Operations and Data Collection) • The SWP drilled, logged, and cored three characterization wells to gather critical subsurface data. • The SWP conducted multiple geophysical surveys, including 3D seismic, crosswell seismic, and vertical seismic profiling, to improve reservoir characterization. Task 6 (Monitoring and Verification) • The SWP performed extensive geological characterization using data from characterization wells and seismic surveys. • The SWP established a surface monitoring network to track CO 2 flux in soil gas, groundwater chemistry, and near-surface atmospheric CO 2 levels. • The SWP built and refined reservoir models to study the effects of relative permeability on simulation behavior and improve calibration with experimental data. Task 7 (Risk Assessment and Model Refinement) • The SWP conducted multiple studies to evaluate reservoir integrity, predict CO 2 plume behavior and improve predictive modeling capabilities. • The SWP refined geological models and used them to enhance the accuracy of simulation models. • The SWP continued quantitative risk assessment of top-ranked risks and strengthened the link between qualitative and quantitative risk methodologies.

02 PETROLEUM↗
DOE OSTI2022

Environmental and Energy Research at the Texas Center for Advanced Scientific Computing and Modeling (CASCaM)

The funding enabled the creation of the (University of North) Texas Center for Advanced Scientific Computing and Modeling (CASCaM). Due to its success, CASCaM has continued to grow beyond the initial team focused on the biological and environmental research discussed herein, with investments by the University of North Texas in new faculty and researchers who contribute to CASCaM research. CASCaM is now a sustainable effort, with researchers across multiple fields including chemistry, physics, biology, mechanical engineering, materials science, and other fields, with multiple researchers engaged in a broad variety of research, including other DOE projects. Over 20 PI’s and ~100 researchers are engaged in CASCaM research. The overall goal of the research effort was to provide greater understanding about carbon capture, storage, and utilization. As part of this effort, the development of computational methods and identification of novel strategies to support the CO2 and CO studies were necessary. Three primary themes were investigated: carbon dioxide and CO catalysis; protein- and amino acid-based strategies towards carbon dioxide capture, storage, and utilization; and, finally, the methodology improvements for modeling carbon dioxide chemistry

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

MRCI - Final Technical Report

The objective of the Midwest Regional Carbon Initiative (MRCI) project was to implement a collaborative Regional Initiative to accelerate the deployment of carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) in the Midwest-Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic areas of the United States. This area encompasses a 20-state region with much of the country’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The MRCI project is co-led by Battelle Memorial Institute (Battelle) in Columbus, Ohio, and the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) in Champaign, Illinois, and benefitted from the experience these organizations have acquired over the past 10-plus years leading two Department of Energy (DOE) Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs): the Midwestern Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP), led by Battelle, and the Midwest Geologic Sequestration Consortium (MGSC), led by the ISGS.

CCS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Can section 45Q tax credit foster decarbonization? A case study of geologic carbon storage at Acid Gas Injection wells in the Permian Basin

Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) is an important pathway for meeting climate mitigation goals. While the economic viability of CCUS is well understood, previous studies do not evaluate the economic feasibility of carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the Permian Basin specifically regarding the new Section 45Q tax credits. We developed a technoeconomic analysis method, evaluated the economic feasibility of CCS at the acid gas injection (AGI) wells, and assessed the implication of Section 45Q tax credits for CCS at the AGIs. We find that the compressors, well depth, and the permit and monitoring costs drive the facility costs. Compressors are the predominant contributors to capital and operating expenditure driving the levelized cost of CO 2 storage. Strategic cost reduction measures identified include 1) sourcing of low-cost electricity and 2) optimizing operational efficiency in well operations. In evaluating the impact of the tax credits on CCS projects, facility scale proved decisive. We found that facilities with an annual injection rate exceeding 10,000 MT storage capacity demonstrate economic viability contingent upon the procurement of inputs at the least cost. The new construction of AGI wells were found to be economically viable at a storage capacity of 100,000 MT. The basin is heavily focused on CCUS (tax credit – $\$$65/MT CO 2 ), which overshadows CCS ($\$$85/MT CO 2 ) opportunities. Balancing the dual objectives of CCS and CCUS requires planning and coordination for optimal resource and pore space utilization to attain the basin's decarbonization potential. We also found that CCS on AGI is a lower cost CCS option as compared to CCS on other industries.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Storage Futures Study: Storage Technology Modeling Input Data Report

The Storage Futures Study (SFS) is a multiyear research project to explore the role and impact of energy storage in the evolving electricity sector of the United States. The SFS is designed to examine the potential impact of energy storage technology advancement on the deployment of utility-scale storage and the adoption of distributed storage, and the implications for future power system infrastructure investment and operations. This specific report synthesizes current and projected cost performance assumptions along with location availability for storage technologies through 2050 that will be used in scenario analysis for the SFS at both the bulk power and distribution system scales. For comparison and context, this report also presents a synthesis of current cost and performance characteristics of energy storage technologies for storage durations ranging from minutes to months and including mechanical, thermal, and electrochemical storage technologies for the electricity sector. This information is intended to cover a broad range of storage technologies that are currently receiving significant attention from the investment community as well as in the media. In the report, we emphasize that energy storage technologies must be described in terms of both their power (kilowatts [kW]) capacity and energy (kilowatt-hours [kWh]) capacity to assess their costs and potential use cases.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2022

Storage Futures Study: Key Learnings for the Coming Decades

This report is the final in NREL's Storage Futures Study, a multiyear research project that explored the role and impact of energy storage in the evolution and operation of the U.S. power sector. The SFS examined the potential impact of energy storage technology advancement on the deployment of utility-scale storage and the adoption of distributed storage, and the implications for future power system infrastructure investment and operations. The research findings and supporting data were published across a series of six reports, culminating in this final, seventh publication that draws upon findings from across the study, previous work, and additional analysis to identify eight key learnings about the future of energy storage and its impact on the power system. The key learnings can help policymakers, technology developers, and grid operators prepare for the coming way of energy storage deployment.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2021

Storage Futures Study - Distributed Solar and Storage Outlook: Methodology and Scenarios

This presentation discusses the fourth report in NREL’s Storage Futures Study (SFS) publications. The SFS is a multiyear research project that explores the role and impact of energy storage in the evolution and operation of the U.S. power sector. The SFS is designed to examine the potential impact of energy storage technology advancement on the deployment of utility-scale storage and the adoption of distributed storage, and the implications for future power system infrastructure investment and operations. This report describes the expanded capabilities of the Distributed Generation Market Demand (dGen) model to analyze the economics of distributed (behind-the-meter) PV paired with battery storage systems and presents projections of adoption for the contiguous United States out to 2050 under a range of scenarios. These scenarios use technology cost and performance assumptions consistent with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s 2020 Standard Scenarios paired with updated battery cost projections and existing policies. Additional scenarios evaluate sensitivities to the value of backup power and DER compensation mechanisms, collectively characterizing the future potential for behind-the-meter storage and identifying key drivers of adoption. Adoption projections of DER and battery storage at high spatial and temporal resolution, as presented in this report, can enable informed planning of technical infrastructure that can help planners capture the benefits and mitigate challenges to support the ongoing trend toward distributed electricity generation.

backup power↗
DOE OSTI2022

Storage Futures Study: Key Learnings for the Coming Decades

The Storage Futures Study (SFS) is a multiyear research project that explored the role and impact of energy storage in the evolution and operation of the U.S. power sector. The SFS examined the potential impact of energy storage technology advancement on the deployment of utility-scale storage and the adoption of distributed storage, and the implications for future power system infrastructure investment and operations. The research findings and supporting data were published across a series of six reports, culminating in the final, seventh publication that draws upon findings from across the study, previous work, and additional analysis to identify eight key learnings about the coming decades. This presentation is from an NREL webinar to discuss the eight key learnings.

decarbonization↗
DOE OSTI2024

Optimizing Carbon Capture, Transport, and Storage: Overcoming Challenges with Machine Learning and Cost-Benefit Analysis

Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) is a critical strategy for reducing CO₂ emissions and mitigating climate change. However, its widespread deployment faces numerous challenges across the capture, transport, and storage phases. These challenges include the technical complexity of predicting subsurface behaviors during CO₂ injection, ensuring long-term storage integrity, optimizing transportation networks, and balancing the economic and environmental trade-offs. Addressing these issues requires an integrated approach combining advanced subsurface modeling with system-level analyses to assess costs, risks, and benefits. This presentation provides an overview of studies conducted by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) to tackle these challenges. NETL’s efforts encompass cutting-edge research in subsurface fluid behavior machine learning predictions, alongside the development of innovative tools for system optimization and economic evaluation. By bridging technical expertise and strategic analysis, NETL aims to advance the deployment of CCUS technologies to support global decarbonization efforts. Presented at the Carnegie Mellon University CEE IESS Student Seminar October 4, 2024.

Shih, Chung Yan↗
DOE OSTI2025

TRAILS Output Files

Overview This data repository contains ZIP files that store compressed versions of the output of running the WaterPaths utility planning and management tool in the DU Re-Evaluation mode (to download the tool, please see this GitHub repository). The tool was used to simulate the six-utility North Carolina Research Triangle problem. Details on the contents of each ZIP file can be seen below. Data details Temporal range: Weekly data for 2,344 weeks from 2015 to 2060 (45 years). Spatial range: Six water utilities in the North Carolina Research Triangle region (0: Chapel Hil/OWASA, 1: Durham, 2: Cary, 3: Raleigh, 4: Pittsboro, and 5: Chatham) File types: CSV and OUT Different solutions available The solution numbers correspond to the different pathway strategies (henceforth referred to as "solutions") discussed in paper's main and supporting text (abstract and link to the paper here). They are as follows: Sol92: The Durham-focused pathway strategy Sol132: The Raleigh-focused pathway strategy Sol140: The regionally-robust pathway strategy Objectives files These files can be accessed by unzipping solXX_objectives_pathways.zip that contains 1,000 Objectives_RDMXX_solsXX_to_XX.csv files. Each CSV file will consist of a row representing all the objective values for that specific solution, while every six columns represents the reliability, restriction frequency, infrastructure net present value ($ mil), peak financial cost, worst-case cost, and unit cost ($ per MG; in that order) for each of the six utilities. There will be 1,000 such files, denoting the performance of the six utilities across the 1,000 deeply uncertain states of the world (DU SOWs). Pathway files These files can be accessed by unzipping solXX_objectives_pathways.zip that contains 1,000 Pathways_sXX_RDMXX.out file. Each OUT corresponds to the set of infrastructure being triggered in a specific DU SOW, and each file will have the name file will consist of four tab-delimited columns that are described as follows: Realization: The realization in which an infrastructure options being triggered utility: The utility currently triggering infrastructure week: The week in which a specific infrastructure option is being triggered infra.: The infrastructure option being triggered If the OUT file contains only the header line, no infrastructure was triggered for that specific DU SOW. Policies files These files can be obtained by unzipping Policies.zip. Each of the 1,000 CSV files within the unzipped folder will contain weekly water use restriction policies for all 1,000 hydroclimatic realizations within a specific DU SOW. The column structure is as follows: 0rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 0 (values between 0 and 1) 1rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 1 (values between 0 and 1) 2rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 2 (values between 0 and 1) 3rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 3 (values between 0 and 1) 4rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 4 (values between 0 and 1) 5rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 5 (values between 0 and 1) 0transf: transfer volume for utility 0 (in MGD) 1transf: transfer volume for utility 1 (in MGD) 2transf: transfer volume for utility 2 (in MGD) 3transf: transfer volume for utility 3 (in MGD) 4transf: transfer volume for utility 4 (in MGD) 5transf: transfer volume for utility 5 (in MGD) Water Sources files These files can be obtained by unzipping WaterSources_subset.zip. Each of the 100 CSV files within the unzipped folder will contain weekly state variables at each water source for all 1,000 hydroclimatic realizations within a specific DU SOW. The column structure is as follows: Xvolume: available water volume from source X (in MGD) Xs_area: surface area of source X (in ACF) Xdemand: demand drawn from a water source from source X (in MGD) Xup_spill: upstream spillage from source X (in MGD) Xww_inflow: wastewater inflow from source X (in MGD) Xcatch_inflow: upstream catchment inflow to source X (in MGD) Xevap: evaporation multiplier for source X (values between 0 and 1) Xds_spill: downstream spillage from source X (in MGD) X_Y_alloc_cap: the allocated capacity from source X to utility Y (values between 0 and 1) X_Y_alloc_dem: the allocated demand from source X to utility Y (values between 0 and 1) Xtrmt_alloc_Y: the allocated treatment capacity from source X to utility Y (values between 0 and 1) Utilities files These files can be obtained by unzipping Utilities_subset.zip. Each of the 100 CSV files within the unzipped folder will contain weekly state variables at each utility for all 1,000 hydroclimatic realizations within a specific DU SOW. The column structure is as follows: Xst_vol: total available storage volume of utility X (in MG) Xcapacity: total storage capacity of utility X (in MG) Xnet_inf: : net inflow for all storage infrastructure for utility X (in MGD) Xst_rof: short term ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xst_stor_rof: short-term storage ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xst_trmt_rof: short-term treatment ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xlt_rof: long-term ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xlt_stor_rof: long-term storage ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xlt_trmt_rof: long-term treatment ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xrest_demand: restricted demand for utility X (in MGD) Xunrest_demand: unrestricted demand for utility X (in MGD) Xunfulf_demand: unfulfilled demand for utility X (in MGD) Xwastewater: wastewater return for utility X (in MGD) Xtreat_capacity: total treatment capacity for utility X (in MG) Xcont_fund: reserve (contingency) fund balance for utility X Xins_pout: insurance payout for utility X (% annual volumetric revenue) Xins_price: insurance price for utility X (% annual volumetric revenue) Xinfra_npv: infrastructure net present value for utility ($mil) Xst_vol: total available storage volume of utility X (in MG) Xdebt_serv: debt service for utility X (usually once per year if the infrastructure is triggered; % annual volumetric revenue) Xstor_vol: total stored volume (in MGD) Xobs_ann_dem: observed annual demand for utility X (in MGD) Xproj_dem: projected annual demand for utility X (in MGD) Xpv_debt_serv: present value of debt service payments for utility X (% annual volumetric revenue) Xgross_rev: gross revenue for utility X ($mil) Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program.

Artificial Intelligence↗
DOE OSTI2023

Risk Management for CO 2 Storage Projects

Conference poster presented at American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) Conference, Houston, Texas, April 25–27, 2023. There is no one-size-fits-all risk management approach for storage projects. Instead, risk management is about having a detailed process in place, adhering to that process throughout the project life cycle, and adapting the process depending on site-specific conditions, applicable regulatory requirements, and any additional requirements imposed by pursuing one or more financial incentive programs. The Plains CO 2 Reduction (PCOR) Partnership Initiative experience has demonstrated the value of managing risk analysis in concert with storage project regulatory permit requirements, which drive the geologic exhibits and site characterization needs for the permit and the risk analysis.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2024

Modeling the Cost of Onshore CO2 Pipeline Transport and Onshore CO2 Saline Storage

This paper describes the FECM/NETL CO2 Transport Cost Model (CO2_T_COM), a technoeconomic model of CO2 transport by pipeline, and the FECM/NETL CO2 Saline Storage Cost Model (CO2_S_COM), a technoeconomic model of storage of CO2 in a deep, subsurface saline formation. The results of applying CO2_T_COM to calculate break-even CO2 prices to transport CO2 at different mass flow rates and different distances are presented. Similarly, CO2_S_COM is used to calculate the break-even CO2 price for storing CO2 in 314 potential storage formations across the US. These break-even prices are used to construct cost-supply curves for CO2 storage which are presented on a national and regional basis. CO2_T_COM and CO2_S_COM are the most comprehensive open source technoeconomic models available for analyzing CO2 pipeline transport and CO2 saline storage. To be presented at the SPE?AAPG/SEG Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage Conference in Houston, TX, March 11-13, 2024.

Morgan, David↗
DOE OSTI2022

Pumped Storage Hydropower Augmented with Pressurized Air: The Ground-Level Integrated Diverse Energy Storage (GLIDES) System — GLIDES System Configurations and Use Cases

Energy storage is essential for cost-effective integration of variable renewable energy sources to support a low-carbon grid. It is also a key enabler of a modern grid infrastructure for demand management. However, several main challenges remain for different kind of energy storage technologies in grid scale deployment. Currently, the largest source of utility-scale storage and long-duration storage in the US is pumped storage hydropower (PSH). Prospect of growth in conventional PSH faces challenges that have limited its deployment over the last three decades, including high capital costs and long deployment timelines. Batteries have high energy densities and are the primary technology of choice for small-scale energy storage. Compressed air energy storage (CAES) is another large-scale energy storage technology, but there are few plants deployed worldwide. They suffer from their low round trip efficiency (RTE) due to the use of high-pressure air compressors. To address some of the challenges associated with these various storage technologies, the Ground-Level Integrated Diverse Energy Storage (GLIDES) is a modular PSH technology that was invented in 2015 at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. It utilizes gas compression to store electric energy. GLIDES stores energy by compressing gas using a liquid piston in high-pressure vessels. In doing so the vessels act as the upper reservoir in conventional PSH. Initially, the vessels are filled with gas to a prescribed pressure. To store energy, GLIDES uses a hydraulic piston pump to pump water into the pressurized vessels. As the water volume increases inside the vessels, water acts as a hydraulic piston compressing the gas on top of it. This process can be thought of as pumping water from the lower reservoir to the higher reservoir in PSH, increasing the water head. To dispatch the stored energy, the high-head water in the vessel is discharge through a high head Pelton hydraulic turbine that is connected to an electric generator. Employing high-pressure vessels enables GLIDES to reach water heads ~10-80 times higher than conventional PSH, achieving ~40 times higher energy densities, and overcomes the geographic limitation of conventional PSH. Although its energy density is much lower than that of batteries, GLIDES holds the potential advantages of having long service life, ease of system integration and being less hazardous over batteries. GLIDES prospective scalability could make it suitable for wide range of applications from behind the meter storage in buildings to grid-scale storage. It also makes it suitable for installations in densely populated urban areas where energy storage is most needed and real estate is limited. Over the last 5 years, work has focused on increasing GLIDES’ energy density, decreasing its initial capital cost of the system, and increasing its revenue potential. Several designs were developed and prototyped to verify and demonstrate the improvement in energy density. The latest prototype achieved energy density of 1.21 kWh/m 3 . Our analysis showed that it could achieve up to 1.7 kWh/m 3 with a mixture of air and carbon dioxide as the gas being compressed.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

A simple and fast algorithm for estimating the capacity credit of solar and storage

Energy storage is a leading option to enhance the resource adequacy contribution of solar energy. Detailed analysis of the capacity credit of solar energy and energy storage is limited in part due to the data intensive and computationally complex nature of probabilistic resource adequacy assessments. This paper presents a simple algorithm for calculating the capacity credit of energy-limited resources that, due to the low computational and data needs, is well suited to exploratory analysis. Validation against benchmarks based on probabilistic techniques shows that it can yield similar insights. The method is used to evaluate the impact of different solar and storage configurations, particularly with respect to the strategy for coupling storage and solar photovoltaic systems. Furthermore, application of the method to a case study of utilities in Florida, where solar is rapidly growing and demand peaks in the winter and summer, demonstrates that it can improve on rules of thumb used in practice by some utilities. If storage is required to charge only from solar, periods of high demand driven by cold weather events accompanied by lower solar production can result in a capacity credit of solar and storage that is less than the capacity credit of storage alone.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Modeling State Transition and Head-Dependent Efficiency Curve for Pumped Storage Hydro in Look-Ahead Dispatch

As one of the most widely installed utility-scale storage facilities, pumped storage hydro (PSH) plays an essential role in providing flexibility for power systems worldwide. Thus, to accurately quantify the flexibility of PSH units in operational optimization problems is important. The conventional PSH models in the literature rarely consider detailed state transitions due to their hourly-based settings. However, it becomes imperative for operational optimization on short-term intervals, especially with increasing shares of renewable energy in power systems. To this end, this paper presents a novel deterministic PSH model that considers the transition time and trajectory between three states of PSH units in look-ahead dispatch. Moreover, to better characterize the varying efficiency of PSH units with water head and flow rate, this paper proposes to model detailed headdependent efficiency curves (hereafter called input-output curves) in look-ahead dispatch, which encounters heavy computational burdens when short time intervals are applied. In this work, a zig-zag piece-wise linear approximation method is used for input-output curve modeling. This can enable an accurate quantification for variable efficiency and head dependence in a computationally effective manner. Here, numerical results are presented to show performances of the proposed PSH model in both flexibility quantification and computation time.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗