Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Duke Energy”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Phase 1: Duke Energy Zero Emission Resource Integration Study (ZERIS); Phase 2: Carbon-Free Resource Integration Study for Duke Energy (Final Report)

Phase 1: This statement of work makes up Phase 1 of a larger effort. During this Phase 1 effort, NREL will work with Duke Energy to analyze the impacts of integrating significant amounts of new solar power into the Duke Energy power system under a variety of different penetrations scenarios, with a maximum of ten (10) full scenarios examined. The existing fleet, particularly the nuclear generation, will be considered in the quantitative assessments and discussions. Duke Energy is looking to quantify how much solar generation its system can handle. NREL will work with Duke Energy to quantify solar potential, identify likely integration challenges and possible opportunities for wind, storage, demand side resources and other technologies. Phase 2: This Statement of Work consists of a follow-up effort (Phase 2) to a recently completed Phase 1 modeling effort. During Phase 2, NREL will work closely with Duke Energy to analyze the impacts of integrating significant amounts of variable generation resources (wind and solar) and storage into Duke Energy's system in the Carolinas. The existing fleet, particularly nuclear generation, will be considered in the quantitative assessment and discussions. This Statement of Work also includes an extension to Phase II of the Carbon-Free Resource Integration Study for Duke Energy. In this extension, NREL will work closely with Duke Energy to extend the production cost analysis developed in Phase II to 2018 weather and load data for Duke Energy's territory. This extension leverages the modeling tools and datasets developed as part of Phase II. The analysis will compare results from Phase II (using 2012 weather and load) with 2018 results to assess system operations with increased penetration of renewables and storage. Simplifying assumptions will be made for modeling Duke Energy's neighbors in the production cost model.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Duke Energy Carbon-Free Resource Integration Study

Duke Energy has partnered with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to evaluate pathways to achieving their carbon-free targets and to assess the operational impacts of the resulting system. This report details findings from Phase II of the Duke Low Carbon Resource Integration study, which consisted of three separate but interrelated analyses: (1) a resource assessment exploring the technical and economic potential and characteristics of wind and solar resources in the Carolinas; (2) capacity expansion modeling identifying the least-cost investment pathways for achieving 70% CO 2 emissions reductions in North Carolina by 2030 and a net-zero electricity system by 2050; and (3) detailed production cost modeling of power system operations at the higher shares of low- and zero-carbon emitting generation sources, informed by the capacity expansion modeling portion of the analysis. The analysis finds that Duke Energy can approach the 2030 and 2050 emissions target in North Carolina through investment in a combination of solar, wind, and storage along with maintaining its existing nuclear fleet. The average cost of CO 2 abatement in the Carolinas through 2021-2050 is on the order of $\$27-33$ per metric ton (range of $\$9-34$ per metric ton across key sensitivities).Duke Energy can expected increased interchange with neighbors to help balance higher levels of solar, although the ability to do this will depend on whether neighboring regions also move to integrate more carbon-free resources. As Duke Energy moves toward both the 2030 and 2050 targets, addressing energy needs during the winter peak period becomes particularly important, and the system relies on the availability of resources such as renewable or hydrogen combustion turbines, seasonal storage, or other similar technologies that are dispatchable but able to operate at low capacity factors.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Duke Energy’s Integrated System and Operations Planning: A comparative analysis of integrated planning practices

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory provided technical assistance to the South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff to examine how Duke Energy’s Integrated System Operations Planning (ISOP) framework interacts with other electricity planning processes in South Carolina. While this report was prepared for the South Carolina ORS, the information contained herein may be useful to audiences in other states who are interested in IDP, including public utility commissions, state energy offices, other state agencies, utilities, and stakeholders. The report discusses how to access the ISOP process diagram created for the report, provides observations about Duke Energy’s ISOP from our interviews and review of publicly available materials; and assesses ISOP, based on best practices for integrated distribution planning.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Initial Engineering Design of a Post-Combustion CO 2 Capture (PCC) System for Duke Energy’s East Bend Station Using Membrane-Based Technology

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) led a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) funded study for a membrane-based post-combustion CO 2 capture (PCC) system retrofit to an existing U.S. coal power plant. EPRI teamed with technology suppliers, Membrane Technology and Research (MTR), engineering consultants Nexant, Trimeric Corporation and Bechtel Power Corporation, to develop a first-of-a-kind initial design and cost estimate for a PCC system at Duke Energy’s East Bend Station (EBS) in Kentucky. This project provides a comprehensive overview of the plant design proposed and develops estimated costs to within +/- 30% accuracy for retrofitting the existing EBS coal-fired power plant with the latest MTR’s second-generation Polaris™ membrane technology for CO 2 flue gas removal. The projects primary objective was to develop a design for Duke Energy that will require “minimally invasive surgery” on their existing 600-MWe coal-fired power plant, located on the Ohio River in Boone County, Kentucky. Unlike the current commercially available solvent-based capture systems that require a reliable source of steam to operate, the MTR membrane-based capture system is driven primarily by electric power. This direct, bolt-on approach to retrofitting carbon capture could potentially reduce the impact on the existing power plant, by minimal disruption of the existing facility’s infrastructure and operating procedures. This may also reduce the amount of retrofit downtime before the power plant can resume normal operations. A second objective was to reduce the cost of each ton of captured CO 2 while maintaining the existing 600 MW net output of the East Bend Station. With this aim in mind, various options to provide the necessary auxiliary power for the capture system were evaluated for the site. The full report describes in detail the overall design, layout and components of the entire EBS membrane capture system. The equipment and sizes, the capital cost estimate encompassing both engineering design and construction for the carbon capture process and balance of plant systems is presented. A detailed techno-economic analysis is also undertaken to examine the business case for capture.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2020

Duke Energy Carbon-Free Resource Integration Study: Capacity Expansion Findings and Production Cost Modeling Plan [Slides]

This presentation highlights initial results from the NREL's Low-Carbon Integration study for Duke Energy. Specifically the presentation focuses on preliminary findings from the ReEDS capacity expansion model for the Carolinas. In addition, the presentation also introduces initial plans for the production cost modeling stage of the work.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2025

ICE Calculator 2.0: Final Report for Phase 1 of the National Initiative to Update the Interruption Cost Estimate (ICE) Calculator

In 2021, Berkeley Lab and Resource Innovations, Inc. launched the “ICE 2.0 Initiative” – a national study to refresh the underlying data and enhance the functionality of the ICE Calculator. The Initiative involves Berkeley Lab contracting with sponsoring utilities to administer identical, updated and comprehensive interruption cost surveys to statistically representative samples of each utility’s customers. Berkeley Lab and Resource Innovations then pool the survey results across the utilities and use them to update the analytical engines that drive the ICE Calculator. The ICE 2.0 Initiative is being conducted in phases. Each phase involves the administration of interruption cost surveys to the customers of sponsoring utilities, followed by an update to the ICE Calculator based on analysis of the pooled survey results. This report describes the activities and findings from Phase 1 of the ICE 2.0 Initiative. Phase 1 was sponsored by eight utilities: American Electric Power, Commonwealth Edison, Dominion Energy, Duke Energy, DTE Electric, Exelon, National Grid, and Puget Sound Energy. Phase 1 involved 11 customer interruption cost survey activities representing a total of 24 electricity distribution service territories, 23 of them located in the Eastern and Midwestern regions of the U.S. and one located in the Pacific Northwest. ICE 2.0 vs. 1.0 Comparison This memorandum compares customer power interruption costs estimated using the recently updated Interruption Cost Estimate (ICE) Calculator (“ICE 2.0”) to the original ICE Calculator (“ICE 1.0”). ICE 1.0 was developed in 2009 based on 15 independent power interruption cost surveys conducted by 10 electric utilities between 1989 and 2012. ICE 2.0 was developed in 2025 through a national initiative based on a consistent set of power interruption cost surveys and 11 surveying efforts conducted across 24 electric utility service territories between 2022 and 2024.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2026

ICE Calculator 2: Final Report for Phase 1 and 2 of the National Initiative to Update the Interruption Cost Estimate (ICE) Calculator

ICE 2.0 Phase 2 Final Report In 2021, Berkeley Lab and Resource Innovations, Inc. launched the “ICE Calculator 2 Initiative” – a national study to refresh the underlying data and enhance the functionality of the ICE Calculator. The Initiative involves Berkeley Lab contracting with sponsoring utilities to administer identical, updated and comprehensive interruption cost surveys to statistically representative samples of each utility’s customers. Berkeley Lab and Resource Innovations then pool the survey results across the utilities and use them to update the analytical engines that drive the ICE Calculator. The ICE Calculator 2 Initiative is being conducted in phases. Each phase involves the administration of interruption cost surveys to the customers of sponsoring utilities, followed by an update to the ICE Calculator based on analysis of the pooled survey results. This report describes the activities and findings from Phase 1 and 2 of the ICE Calculator 2 Initiative. Phase 1 was sponsored by eight utilities: American Electric Power, Commonwealth Edison, Dominion Energy, Duke Energy, DTE Electric, Exelon, National Grid, and Puget Sound Energy. Phase 2 was sponsored by six utilities: Empire District Electric Company, Evergy Missouri, Pacific Gas & Electric, San Diego Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and Union Electric. Phase 1 and 2 involved 15 customer interruption cost survey activities representing a total of 30 electricity distribution service territories. ICE Calculator Version 2.0 and 2.2 Comparison This memorandum describes–at a high-level–the improvements in interruption cost estimates for the version 2.2 of the ICE Calculator (released February 2026) compared to version 2.0 (released in April 2025). Version 2.2 of the ICE Calculator corresponds to Phase 2 of the initiative, while version 2.0 corresponds to Phase 1. The improvements in version 2.2 result from both a significant increase in the number of customer responses that have been collected and the identification of seven additional factors that help estimate customer interruption costs.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2026

Generator Interconnection Costs to the Transmission System in non-ISO Balancing Authorities [Slides]

Electric transmission system operators—including Independent System Operators (ISOs), Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs), and utilities—require proposed power plants to undergo a series of interconnection studies before connecting to the grid. These studies assess what transmission upgrades or new infrastructure may be necessary and assign the associated costs to the project. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has compiled, aggregated, and cleaned interconnection cost data, originally for ISOs/RTOs, and now for five non-ISO Balancing Authorities: PacifiCorp, Bonneville Power Authority, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Florida. Insufficient transparency in interconnection cost data may contribute to rapidly expanding interconnection queues, with active queue capacities tripling between 2020 and 2024 in the studied BAs. Most projects withdraw after receiving high interconnection cost estimates. Interconnection costs have increased since the early 2000s, with average costs for "complete" projects reaching $194/kW between 2018 and 2024. Active queue projects and withdrawn projects incur substantially higher costs, primarily due to rising network upgrade costs. Recent interconnection costs in non-ISO balancing authorities are higher than in ISO regions, potentially due to a greater willingness to pay among developers. Utility-scale solar, wind, and storage projects have interconnection costs that exceed those for natural gas. However, when focusing on projects that do not withdraw from the queue, the interconnection costs for these technologies are more similar to natural gas projects. Other key findings include: (1) Larger generation projects benefit from lower proportional interconnection costs, (2) capacity transmission service (NRIS) often requires additional network investments, and (3) projects with high network upgrade costs are often clustered geographically. The dataset includes results from 2,104 interconnection studies conducted between 2000 and 2024, covering projects that are operational, withdrawn, or still progressing through the study process. The Excel file contains (a) the complete project-level interconnection cost dataset, and (b) seven additional tabs summarizing cost metrics across dimensions such as time, market structure, cost category (point of interconnection vs. broader network upgrades), fuel type, service type (ERIS vs. NRIS), generator size, and geography.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2023

Cybersecurity for the Operational Technology Environment (CyOTE)

Cybersecurity for the Operational Technology Environment (CyOTE) briefing provided to Duke Energy during their visit to INL on January 25, 2023. This is following the process to release the slides to Duke Energy.

2023. This is following the process to release the↗
DOE OSTI2023

Cyber-Informed Engineering

Briefings provided to Duke Energy during their visit to INL on January 25, 2023. This is following the process to release the slides to Duke Energy.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Deploying Intra-hour Uncertainty Analysis Tools to ABB’s GridView - CRADA 445

The quickly-changing generation resource mix in the US grid, with large additions of variable resources, retirements of traditional thermal generation, distributed generation and demand response, are creating new challenges on the traditional operation of both the generation and transmission systems. The ability to perform intra-hour high fidelity production cost modeling (PCM) is needed to allow grid operators and grid planners to integrate high penetration (more than 50%) of variable energy resources, and to make prompt well informed decisions in market operations and planning. In the last decade, PNNL has developed several stand-alone tools to enable grid operators and planners to understand the impact of high variable generation on their systems. These tools have been used is studies such as: (1) Evaluation the benefits of WECC balancing authorities coordination under high variable generation penetration , (2) Benefits of Energy Imbalance Market in the North West Power Pool and (3) Duke Energy and NV Energy solar integration studies. ABB’s GridView is a widely used commercial PCM tool. It is the tool used by WECC and their stakeholders to develop the WECC PCM planning model on bi-annual basis. This proposal is focused on the integrating of PNNL intra-hour uncertainty analysis tools to GridView.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2020

Quantitative Evaluation of Reliability Improvement: Case Study on a Self-healing Distribution System

In this work, we develop a methodology and tool to quantitatively evaluate the reliability of a self-healing system that considers practical distribution system features such as the distributed energy resources, microgrids, and service restoration strategies. Also, this paper addresses various practical issues when being applied to an actual Duke Energy distribution system, including the design of feasible and practical service restoration strategies that are used to identify the customer interruptions after a fault, and the incorporation of the utility’s historical reliability indices that are used to calibrate the failure rate and repair time of distribution system components such as overhead lines and underground cables. This case study demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Dong, Jiaojiao↗
DOE OSTI2020

Quantitative Evaluation of Reliability Improvement: Case Study on a Self-healing Distribution System

In this work, we develop a methodology and tool to quantitatively evaluate the reliability of a self-healing system that considers practical distribution system features such as the distributed energy resources, microgrids, and service restoration strategies. Also, this paper addresses various practical issues when being applied to an actual Duke Energy distribution system, including the design of feasible and practical service restoration strategies that are used to identify the customer interruptions after a fault, and the incorporation of the utility's historical reliability indices that are used to calibrate the failure rate and repair time of distribution system components such as overhead lines and underground cables. This case study demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Dong, Jiaojiao↗
DOE OSTI2022

Repurposing Fossil-Fueled Assets For Energy Storage

The annual retirement of U.S. coal-fired electricity generation units (CF-EGU) is at an all-time high and is expected to continue. This loss of reliable baseload generation, combined with predicted growth of variable renewable energy (VRE) generation, is expected to stress grid reliability as the number of load-following resources drops below the experienced load variability. Many regions are already experiencing challenges, and fossil retirement-related warnings by the North American Electric Reliability Corp. are becoming more dire. All CF-EGU retirements pose significant challenges to asset owners, local workforces, and their communities. Repurposing a retiring CF-EGU as a long-duration energy storage plant can address these challenges and offer a suite of additional benefits to asset owners, the grid, and society. This project performed a techno-economic evaluation and assessment of repurposing a Duke Energy fossil-fueled asset (in particular, a coal plant) into an energy storage system by integrating the retiring asset with a Malta long duration Pumped Heat Energy Storage (PHES) system. The project validated the technoeconomic benefits of repurposing retiring coal plants into long-duration energy storage using Malta’s PHES. Key findings for this project are summarized below: (1) Technical: (a) Retiring coal plants (and other steam turbine fossil generation) can be repurposed to enable the clean energy transition using Malta’s technology. (b) For older retiring coal plants, repurposing the site and electrical interconnection for a standalone PHES plant is the most economically favorable option. (c) For newer coal plants where there is also a local peaking capacity need, repowering the steam cycle into a hybrid integration with PHES is attractive. (d) A process was developed to assist fossil generation owners in choosing the best path for each plant’s circumstances. (2) Economic (a) Communities facing economic challenges caused by the retirement of fossil generation would benefit from repurposing the plant as long-duration energy storage using Malta’s PHES. (b) On a $/MW basis, repowering retiring coal units into Malta PHES plants can maintain the same number and types of jobs and economic activity. (c) For a 70% carbon reduction scenario, a 10-hour Malta PHES plant is more economic for the asset owner than similar-power 4-hour batteries. This project showed that repurposing a retiring coal unit into thermal energy storage, by integrating it with a Malta PHES system, makes techno-economic sense. At least two integration options are available, with the optimal solution depending on the coal plant and its location. Repurposing retiring coal plant into energy storage results in economic benefits for the plant owner and local communities.

20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Predicting peak day and peak hour of electricity demand with ensemble machine learning

Battery energy storage systems can be used for peak demand reduction in power systems, leading to significant economic benefits. Two practical challenges are 1) accurately determining the peak load days and hours and 2) quantifying and reducing uncertainties associated with the forecast in probabilistic risk measures for dispatch decision-making. In this study, we develop a supervised machine learning approach to generate 1) the probability of the next operation day containing the peak hour of the month and 2) the probability of an hour to be the peak hour of the day. Guidance is provided on preparation and augmentation of data as well as selection of machine learning models and decision-making thresholds. The proposed approach is applied to the Duke Energy Progress system and successfully captures 69 peak days out of 72 testing months with a 3% exceedance probability threshold. On 90% of the peak days, the actual peak hour is among the 2 h with the highest probabilities.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2021

Integrating Transactive Energy into Reliability Evaluation for a Self-healing Distribution System with Microgrid

Non-utility owned distributed energy resources (DERs) are mostly untapped currently, but they can provide many grid services such as voltage regulation and service restoration, if properly controlled, and can improve the distribution systems reliability when coordinated with utility-owned assets such as self-healing control and microgrids. This paper integrates transactive energy control into the distribution system reliability evaluation to quantitatively assess the impact of non-utility owned DERs on reliability improvement. Here, a transactive reactive power control strategy is designed to incentivize the DERs to provide reactive power support for improving voltage profiles thus enabling additional customer load restoration during an outage. Also, an operational sequence to coordinate the non-utility owned DERs with the utility owned self-healing control and utility owned microgrids is designed and integrated into the service restoration process with the operational constraints guaranteed by checking the three-phase unbalanced power flow for post-fault network reconfiguration. The reliability indices are then calculated through a Monte Carlo simulation. The transactive reactive power control strategy is tested on a four-feeder distribution system operated by Duke Energy in the U.S. Results demonstrate that the non-utility owned DERs with the transactive control improve the reliability of both the system and critical loads by more than 30%.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗