Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “net expansions”

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.

130 records · Page 8

A Mid-Century Net-Zero Scenario for the State of Wyoming and its Economic Impacts

Clean hydrogen has the potential to help achieve 10% economy-wide emissions reductions by 2050 relative to 2005, promote energy security and resilience, and develop a new economy in the United States. In 2030, the hydrogen economy could create about 100,000 new jobs to build new capital projects and clean hydrogen infrastructure. The Wyoming Energy Authority recently announced the state’s energy strategy, which establishes a goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. Under all likely scenarios, achieving a mid-century net-zero target will pose challenges and create opportunities for Wyoming’s energy sector. If executed properly, the transition could favorably affect the state’s economy overall in the long term. This research program examines the economic impact of fossil energy production in Wyoming and provides various predictions for future energy mixes to achieve net-zero emissions. Preliminary work suggests that Wyoming-based hydrogen production could have significant economic benefits and job creation implications for Wyoming. This study further assesses Wyoming’s opportunities to create hydrogen-based industries, assess economic impacts, identify knowledge gaps and research needs, and create a Hydrogen Center of Excellence to accelerate commercialization and deployment. This project helped to understand Wyoming's areas of focus for research and development and identified its areas of strength and potential challenges in creating a hydrogen ecosystem. As a result of this study, we estimate that for blue hydrogen produced from coal and gas resources, the overall cost reduction will be driven mainly by the carbon-sequestration tax credit and the improvement in carbon capture. Mature technologies, like SMR and PSA, will make limited contributions. They have no or limited reductions from an additional capacity deployment in future costs. We also understand the importance of continued support from public and private sectors for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)-related research, development, and demonstration programs at federal and state levels. The successful and efficient production of blue hydrogen requires a unique blend of energy resources, geology, regulation, law, and infrastructure. Wyoming has the distinction of meeting all these demands. The team also estimates that the availability and command of water resources accessible for hydrogen production are crucial for developing new projects. Water treatment, use, and disposal after treatment will also make projects possible. Primarily, this is relevant for hydrogen made using renewable energy. Wyoming has one of the best wind resource capacity in the nation. Harnessing this resource is challenging due to limited transmission line availability. Hydrogen could become one of the solutions to the stranded resource problem, primarily if the water availability challenge is addressed. Using produced oil & gas water could help to solve the problem. A commonly cited barrier to the expansion of hydrogen markets is the cost associated with constructing new pipelines, which typically require large amounts of capital to develop. Wyoming already possesses much of the export infrastructure needed to connect Wyoming’s hydrogen production with major markets across the West Coast, Pacific Northwest, Midwest, and Front Range regions of the United States, where a large portion of Wyoming’s natural gas is already transported. In addition to transportation by pipeline, rail transportation of hydrogen has also proven feasible. Wyoming uses its extensive railway system to transport large amounts of coal to its export partners across the United States. By using cryogenic or compressed-gas cars, Wyoming has the potential to add hydrogen to its existing network of railroad energy exports. The same technology may also be applied to hydrogen transport via trucks traveling interstate highways. Wyoming’s workforce is ready to meet the demands of clean hydrogen development. Many of the skills and training needed for hydrogen production are the same skills already possessed by Wyoming’s oil & gas and coal workforce. Many government and industry leaders expect clean hydrogen and other low-carbon energy projects to generate significant job growth and to recruit many already-trained oil & gas and coal workers whose jobs may be displaced. As energy companies seek to penetrate the markets for Wyoming hydrogen production, there is a natural mutual benefit to Wyoming’s workers and companies seeking to launch projects with the assistance of a trained workforce. Wyoming’s university and community college system have adopted several programs to ensure that highly qualified engineers and other technically skilled employees continue to graduate with skills to support the development of hydrogen and other innovative energy projects moving forward. Throughout the project, stakeholder outreach and education took many forms, including meetings with several major companies in the industry, collaborating with local government organizations, educational organizations, and national laboratories, tribal outreach and engagement, the sponsoring of several hydrogen-focused projects in many departments throughout the University of Wyoming, and developing a collaboration with international universities. The products of these collaborations consist of working relationships with several companies in the industry, educational institutions, national labs, and local government, as well as strong connections with individuals who will play an essential role in the success of the Hydrogen Energy Research Center.

08 HYDROGEN↗

A hub and spoke approach to optimizing energy wheeling of renewable resources

The deployment of zero carbon renewable energy sources needs to increase significantly to support the goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. At the same time energy end use needs to decarbonize. This will change both energy supply and energy demand patterns, requiring the energy delivery infrastructure (grid-based transmission circuits) to become increasingly flexible to maintain security of supply everywhere and always. The integration of zero carbon renewable energy requires cross-border and cross energy system coupling and a fit-for-purpose design. Nowadays, energy systems are planned, designed and operated in silos with a strong national focus. However, large-scale offshore wind production needs to be transported to deep inland locations, across country borders. The increased peak generation capacity of renewable energy sources will, at times, significantly exceed demand (Matthew Langholtz, 2020). The traditional solution of continuously reinforcing and extending the electricity grid is not sustainable from a cost and societal perspective. This paper will, however, propose a deterministic approach on how networked (interconnected grid) Points of receipt (POR) to Points of Delivery (POD) can be optimized for wheeling renewable energy resources while minimizing energy cost with a hub and spoke approach. The statistical approach will be done via using existing daily energy market clearing prices, available transmission capacity and firm daily transmission prices in open access energy markets. Renewable energy targets, including specific offshore wind targets, need to be in line with the ramp-up as implied by the Paris Agreement. These targets are required to provide industry with a secure market outlook that allows them to build up supply chains accordingly. Optimizing wheeled energy paths from carbon neutral resources such as renewables make them not only cost competitive on the unit commitment stack, but also more accessible on the dispatch stack to other carbon heavy forms of generation such as coal and natural gas turbines (Matthew Langholtz, 2020). This correlates to maximizing renewable resource inertia (wind, solar, biomass) within an interconnected grid without having to consider additional expansion of resources via land purchases and de-forestation.

Mukherjee, Srijib↗

CERF: IM3 Projected Western US Power Plant Locations

Overview The Capacity Expansion Regional Feasibility (CERF) model is an open-source geospatial python package that provides new power plant locations at a 1km resolution. The model ingests U.S. state or regional-scale electricity system capacity expansion plans, such as those produced by the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM-USA), and identifies feasible, site-specific locations for individual new power plants (renewable and non-renewable). CERF combines high-resolution geospatial suitability analyses with an economic algorithm that selects individual plant siting locations based on grid interconnection costs and the locational marginal value of new generation. The model incorporates a wide range of dynamic constraints and opportunities, such as protected lands, population density, existing infrastructure, and water availability. This dataset provides CERF power plant siting results for IM3 Phase 2 simulations across eight different scenarios for the Western US through 2055. The scenarios include combinations of two Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP3 and SSP5) with four high-resolution climate projections specific to the United States (see, https://tgw-data.msdlive.org/). These climate projections include "hotter" and "cooler" variants for two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The resulting eight simulations are: rcp45cooler_ssp3 rcp45cooler_ssp5 rcp45hotter_ssp3 rcp45hotter_ssp5 rcp85cooler_ssp3 rcp85cooler_ssp5 rcp85hotter_ssp3 rcp85hotter_ssp5 CERF siting results in this dataset correspond to capacity expansion plans in the GCAM-USA IM3 Phase 2 simulation data and are available for each of the above scenarios. Data Details Temporal Range: 2015-2055 in 5-year timesteps. Note that 2015 is the experiment base year and 2020 and beyond represent model simulation years. Spatial Range: Plant locations are provided for the eleven states in the Western US including Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Spatial Resolution: 1 km-squared, provided in x and y coordinates Geospatial Projection: Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) File Type: csv The dataset contains subdirectories for each of the eight scenarios described in the overview. Each scenario folder contains two subfolders with the following information: 1. Power Plant Data This directory contains a single .csv file of power plant locations for both pre-existing (non-CERF sited plants in operation in 2015) and new (CERF-sited) power plants across the temporal range along with additional CERF model output parameters for CERF-sited plants. Plant with a siting year earlier than 2020 correspond to facilities that are operational leading into the first timestep CERF simulation. For a more detailed description of CERF model output parameters, see the CERF model documentation. Note that the cerf_plant_id parameter is unique within each scenario file but not across scenario files. Parameter Descriptions scenario - Name of scenario cerf_plant_id - Unique siting identifier cerf_sited - If True, indicates that plant was sited by CERF model. If False, indicates pre-existing facility region_name - Name of region (state) tech_id - Technology ID tech_name - Full generation technology name inclusive of cooling type (if applicable) and additional characteristics tech_simple - Simplified generation technology type unit_size_mw - Power plant unit size (MW) xcoord - X coordinate in the default CRS (meters) ycoord - Y coordinate in the default CRS (meters) index - Index position in the flattend 2D array buffer_in_km - Exclusion buffer around site (km) sited_year - Year of siting retirement_year - Year of retirement lmp_zone - Locational marginal price (LMP) zone ID locational_marginal_price_usd_per_mwh - Locational marginal price ($/MWh) generation_mwh_per_year - Generation output (MWh/yr) operating_cost_usd_per_year - Cost of plant operations ($/yr) net_operational_value - Net operational value based on LMP and and operating costs ($/yr) interconnection_cost - Cost of interconnection for transmission & gas pipeline (if applicable) net_locational_cost -- Difference of interconnection cost and operating value ($/yr) capacity_factor_fraction - Capacity factor (fraction) carbon_capture_rate_fraction - Carbon capture rate (fraction) fuel_co2_content_tons_per_btu - Fuel CO2 content (tons/Btu) fuel_price_usd_per_mmbtu - Fuel price ($/MMBtu) fuel_price_esc_rate_fraction - Fuel price escalation rate (fraction) heat_rate_btu_per_kWh - Heat rate (Btu/kWh) lifetime_yrs - Technology lifetime for annuity (years) operational_life_yrs - Operational lifetime for retirement (years) variable_om_usd_per_mwh - Variable operation and maintenance costs of yearly capacity use ($/MWh) variable_om_esc_rate_fraction - Variable operation and maintenance costs escalation rate (fraction) carbon_tax_usd_per_ton - Carbon tax ($/ton) carbon_tax_esc_rate_fraction - Carbon tax escalation rate (fraction) 2. Storage Data This directory contains information on new and pre-existing energy storage facilities operational in each timestep along with various storage operational parameters. The 2015 timestep provides pre-existing energy storage data and corresponds with facilities that are operational leading into the first model simulation timestep. Note that coordinates in the storage files correspond to the interconnection point on the grid (substation location), not individual energy storage locations. Energy storage is added in a cumulative process at each given interconnection point. That is, each individual file provides the total operational storage capacity interconnected to the specified substation for the given timestep, inclusive of previously installed storage at that location and new storage installed in that timestep at that location. Parameters scenario - Name of scenario timestep - Simulation timestep name - Unique storage identifier s_typ - Type of energy storage technology (battery or pumped storage hydro) s_node - Node ID of interconnecting substation xcoord - X coordinate in the default CRS (meters) ycoord - Y coordinate in the default CRS (meters) charge_rate - Maximum charge rate (power capacity) of storage system (MW) discharge_rate - Maximum discharge rate (power capacity) of storage system (MW) duration - Duration of storage system (hours) max_SoC - Allowed maximum state of charge (energy capacity) of storage system (MWh) min_SoC -Allowed minimum state of charge (energy capacity) of storage system (MWh) charge_eff - Efficiency of charge (fraction between 0 and 1) discharge_eff - Efficiency of discharge (fraction between 0 and 1) 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.

CERF↗

On the differences in the vertical distribution of modeled aerosol optical depth over the southeastern Atlantic

Abstract. The southeastern Atlantic is home to an expansive smoke aerosol plume overlying a large cloud deck for approximately a third of the year. The aerosol plume is mainly attributed to the extensive biomass burning activities that occur in southern Africa. Current Earth system models (ESMs) reveal significant differences in their estimates of regional aerosol radiative effects over this region. Such large differences partially stem from uncertainties in the vertical distribution of aerosols in the troposphere. These uncertainties translate into different aerosol optical depths (AODs) in the planetary boundary layer (PBL) and the free troposphere (FT). This study examines differences of AOD fraction in the FT and AOD differences among ESMs (WRF-CAM5, WRF-FINN, GEOS-Chem, EAM-E3SM, ALADIN, GEOS-FP, and MERRA-2) and aircraft-based measurements from the NASA ObseRvations of Aerosols above CLouds and their intEractionS (ORACLES) field campaign. Models frequently define the PBL as the well-mixed surface-based layer, but this definition misses the upper parts of decoupled PBLs, in which most low-level clouds occur. To account for the presence of decoupled boundary layers in the models, the height of maximum vertical gradient of specific humidity profiles from each model is used to define PBL heights. Results indicate that the monthly mean contribution of AOD in the FT to the total-column AOD ranges from 44 % to 74 % in September 2016 and from 54 % to 71 % in August 2017 within the region bounded by 25∘ S–0∘ N–S and 15∘ W–15∘ E (excluding land) among the ESMs. ALADIN and GEOS-Chem show similar aerosol plume patterns to a derived above-cloud aerosol product from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) during September 2016, but none of the models show a similar above-cloud plume pattern to MODIS in August 2017. Using the second-generation High Spectral Resolution Lidar (HSRL-2) to derive an aircraft-based constraint on the AOD and the fractional AOD, we found that WRF-CAM5 produces 40 % less AOD than those from the HSRL-2 measurements, but it performs well at separating AOD fraction between the FT and the PBL. AOD fractions in the FT for GEOS-Chem and EAM-E3SM are, respectively, 10 % and 15 % lower than the AOD fractions from the HSRL-2. Their similar mean AODs reflect a cancellation of high and low AOD biases. Compared with aircraft-based observations, GEOS-FP, MERRA-2, and ALADIN produce 24 %–36 % less AOD and tend to misplace more aerosols in the PBL. The models generally underestimate AODs for measured AODs that are above 0.8, indicating their limitations at reproducing high AODs. The differences in the absolute AOD, FT AOD, and the vertical apportioning of AOD in different models highlight the need to continue improving the accuracy of modeled AOD distributions. These differences affect the sign and magnitude of the net aerosol radiative forcing, especially when aerosols are in contact with clouds.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗