Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Levelized Cost Of Electricity”

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 OSTI2024

Hydrogen Storage for Load-Following and Clean Power: Duct-firing of Hydrogen to Improve the Capacity Factor of NGCC Plants (Final Report, Phase II Pre-Front End Engineering Design Study)

GTI Energy (GTI) and team members Southern Company Services (SCS), Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) performed a Phase II Pre-Feed Study under contract DE-FE0032008 for Hydrogen Storage for Load-Following and Clean Power. The configuration of the proposed system consists of subsystems for on-site H 2 production, on-site H 2 storage (up to 54 MWth in commercial vessels) and H 2 combustion in a duct burner in a Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) integrated with an existing fossil asset. Here, the firing rate of the duct burner is varied to let the plant respond to fluctuations of electrical load and H 2 production is relatively constant by storing H 2 . The proposed system is an improvement over alternate low carbon dispatchable power options. Technoeconomic analyses show H 2 produced with GTI’s patented Compact Hydrogen Generator (CHG) with inherent carbon capture will be lower cost (Levelized Cost of Hydrogen, LCOH) relative to hydrogen produced with a Steam Methane Reformer (SMR) with an amine system for carbon capture. This lower cost hydrogen enables our integrated system to deliver electricity (Levelized Cost of Electricity, LCOE) at 17.4% lower cost relative to a SMR sourced H 2 -fired HRSG (with an amine system for carbon capture) – Steam Turbine Generator (STG). Our analysis using EPRI’s US REGEN macroeconomic model shows our system will have significant demand in the power market and therefore require significant capacity expansion (CHG plants built to deliver hydrogen) to deliver low cost, low carbon power. In Phase II, our Team has completed a detailed system definition including the development of process models, definition of battery limits, Process Flow Diagrams (PFDs), Piping and Instrumentation Drawings (P&IDs), and a plant layout. A preliminary design for the key components of the CHG was developed including component lists & specifications. An evaluation of environmental and permitting considerations was completed and included the development of an Environmental Information Volume (EIV). The duct burners, which are flexible and can burn hydrogen and/or natural gas, were defined and initial CFD analyses were completed.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Techno-Economic Analysis of a Nuclear Reactor System coupled with a Liquid Metal Battery

There is a need for nuclear reactor systems to become more dynamic as defossilization and renewable energy sources continue to reshape the energy grid. One option to meet these changing demands is to pair the reactor with an energy storage system. This work details a technoeconomic analysis and sensitivity analysis of a high temperature gas cooled microreactor, supercritical carbon dioxide power cycle, and liquid metal battery. Dynamic modeling has shown that these three systems compliment each other to provide load following and black-start capabilities to the grid. Current cost estimates for installing the systems yield a competitive levelized cost of electricity and levelized cost of storage, indicating that such a combined system may be economically viable as technological advances lead to them being technically feasible.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2020

Concentrating photovoltaic retrofit for existing parabolic trough solar collectors: Design, experiments, and levelized cost of electricity

Photovoltaics and concentrating solar thermal power are two ways for generating electricity from sunlight, albeit through different methods. Parabolic trough style powerplants represent 3.6 GW of electricity production, but many of these plants are aging and being replaced with photovoltaics. An alternative option that could be employed to leverage the sunk capital cost associated with the primary optics would be the design of a pure photovoltaic retrofit working within the existing plant architecture. Here, a secondary optical concentrator is designed to use the existing primary optics of a parabolic trough type solar thermal powerplant. The design is a v-shaped secondary concentrator resulting in a predicted concentration ratio on a 20 mm wide target of 94. The concentrating photovoltaic receiver for retrofit of an RP-3 based parabolic trough has been constructed using multi-junction concentrator photovoltaic cells and experimentally demonstrated here for the first time. Calculated performance of the cells based on cell specifications should result in 31% efficiency at 85 °C. On-sun efficiencies were measured at an average value of 21% with operational temperatures between 55 and 120 °C. Levelized cost of electricity calculations predict the system to have the potential to be below 7¢/kWh based on predicted efficiencies and 13¢/kWh based on the measured values at cell costs of $5/cm 2 .

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Techno-Economic Analysis of Green Hydrogen Energy Storage in a Cryogenic Flux Capacitor

Abstract The Cryogenic Flux Capacitor (CFC) is a cold, dense energy storage core that is being studied in the cryo-compressed, about 300 bar and 80K, region of gaseous hydrogen (GH2) storage and liquid hydrogen (LH2) region near the normal boiling point. Hydrogen storage is improved by physically bonding the molecules within the nanoscale pores of the aerogel composite blanket material. The process of bonding or debonding is governed by principles of physical adsorption (physisorption) and thermodynamics. The large surface area afforded by the nanoporous aerogel (∼1,000 m2/g) allows its storage performance to easily exceed capacities of high-pressure GH2 storage for an equivalent volume. With the integrated aerogel, subscale tests have shown that storage is increased by about 36% over a simple tank filled with GH2 at the same operating temperature and pressure. For LH2 conditions, the CFC is shown to operate at improved densities, but testing is ongoing. For the techno-economic analysis (TEA), the source of hydrogen is compared between onsite steam methane reforming (SMR) and onsite solar photovoltaic (PV) panels providing power to electrolyzers to produce green GH2. The TEA compares pure hydrogen produced at a small scale for a 25 MW power system and at a large scale in a 500 MW power system. The system allowed for hydrogen imports and exports at a set price with a tank sized for 10 hours of power production. The two power producing technologies are a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) and hydrogen fuel cells. The SMR system uses natural gas as an input and includes a carbon capture and storage (CCS) system. The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH), and levelized cost of storage (LCOS) are developed based on the capital cost and operating cost of the systems. The results are shown for current costs using a 2021 benchmark and DOE projections for cost improvements by 2030. The TEA showed that onsite hydrogen generation from SMR has an LCOH of about 1.4 to 2 USD per kg over the life of the plant and the PV hydrogen production LCOH is about 5.2 to 5.5 USD per kg. The LCOS of conventional GH2 systems is estimated to be $210/MWh and cost of storage for LH2 systems is $205/MWh for fuel cell systems and $249/MWh for CCGT systems. CFC improved the LCOS of all these systems to $198/MWh, $191/MWh and $233/MWh respectively. The LCOE also improved with conventional systems between $171/MWh and $228/MWh improved by CFC to between $167/MWh and $212/MWh. Using projections for improvement in costs following DOE’s goals by 2030, green hydrogen improved to as low as $78/MWh LCOS and LCOE for conventional cases. CFC improved over conventional storage with the lowest LCOS being $62/MWh and the lowest LCOE being $73/MWh. These results correspond to an LCOH of $2/kg. Finally, the TEA shows how LCOE is improved for hydrogen conditioning and storage over conventional systems and caverns in the 10 to 50 hour range.

08 HYDROGEN↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Techno-Economic Analysis of Green Hydrogen Energy Storage in A Cryogenic Flux Capacitor

The Cryogenic Flux Capacitor (CFC) is a cold, dense energy storage core that is being studied in the cryo-compressed, about 300 bar and 80K, region of gaseous hydrogen (GH 2 ) storage and liquid hydrogen (LH 2 ) region near the normal boiling point. Hydrogen storage is improved by physically bonding the molecules within the nanoscale pores of the aerogel composite blanket material. The process of bonding or debonding is governed by principles of physical adsorption (physisorption) and thermodynamics. The large surface area afforded by the nanoporous aerogel (~1,000 m 2 /g) allows its storage performance to easily exceed capacities of high-pressure GH 2 storage for an equivalent volume. With the integrated aerogel, subscale tests have shown that storage is increased by about 36% over a simple tank filled with GH 2 at the same operating temperature and pressure. For LH 2 conditions, the CFC is shown to operate at improved densities, but testing is ongoing. For the techno-economic analysis (TEA), the source of hydrogen is compared between onsite steam methane reforming (SMR) and onsite solar photovoltaic (PV) panels providing power to electrolyzers to produce green GH 2 . The TEA compares pure hydrogen produced at a small scale for a 25 MW power system and at a large scale in a 500 MW power system. The system allowed for hydrogen imports and exports at a set price with a tank sized for 10 hours of power production. The two power producing technologies are a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) and hydrogen fuel cells. The SMR system uses natural gas as an input and includes a carbon capture and storage (CCS) system. The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH), and levelized cost of storage (LCOS) are developed based on the capital cost and operating cost of the systems. The results are shown for current costs using a 2021 benchmark and DOE projections for cost improvements by 2030. The TEA showed that onsite hydrogen generation from SMR has an LCOH of about 1.4 to 2 USD per kg over the life of the plant and the PV hydrogen production LCOH is about 5.2 to 5.5 USD per kg. The LCOS of conventional GH 2 systems is estimated to be $210/MWh and cost of storage for LH 2 systems is $205/MWh for fuel cell systems and $249/MWh for CCGT systems. CFC improved the LCOS of all these systems to $198/MWh, $191/MWh and $233/MWh respectively. The LCOE also improved with conventional systems between $171/MWh and $228/MWh improved by CFC to between $167/MWh and $212/MWh. Using projections for improvement in costs following DOE’s goals by 2030, green hydrogen improved to as low as $78/MWh LCOS and LCOE for conventional cases. CFC improved over conventional storage with the lowest LCOS being $62/MWh and the lowest LCOE being $73/MWh. These results correspond to an LCOH of $2/kg. Finally, the TEA shows how LCOE is improved for hydrogen conditioning and storage over conventional systems and caverns in the 10 to 50 hour range.

Joshua Schmitt↗
DOE OSTI2022

Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) Content Model for Design of High Deflection Foils for MHK Applications

The LCOE Content Model provides data submitters with an easy and consistent means of uploading data that can be used to calculate the levelized cost of energy for MHK devices. These data are important to DOE and will be used to develop data products that provide quantitative information to guide and support programmatic decisions. Data will also be used to evaluate MHK products and determine costs and can help data users compare the combination of capital costs and operations and maintenance over time. The ultimate goal is to use these data to perform research and tailor programs to best benefit the industry.

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
DOE OSTI2020

Levelized Cost of Charging Electric Vehicles

This data set includes the levelized cost of charging (LCOC) and lifetime fuel cost savings (LFCS) values as reported in "Levelized Cost of Charging of Electric Vehicles in the United States." Values are reported at the state and national levels for battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). The data set also includes the four annual direct current fast charging (DCFC) station load profiles used to approximate the levelized cost of DCFC charging. Each profile provides 15-min resolved power requirements for one full year. Borlaug, B., Salisbury, S., Gerdes, M., and Muratori, M., Levelized Cost of Charging Electric Vehicles in the United States, Joule (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.05.013.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2020

Levelized Cost of Charging Electric Vehicles

This data set includes the levelized cost of charging (LCOC) and lifetime fuel cost savings (LFCS) values as reported in "Levelized Cost of Charging of Electric Vehicles in the United States." Values are reported at the state and national levels for battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). The data set also includes the four annual direct current fast charging (DCFC) station load profiles used to approximate the levelized cost of DCFC charging. Each profile provides 15-min resolved power requirements for one full year. Borlaug, B., Salisbury, S., Gerdes, M., and Muratori, M., Levelized Cost of Charging Electric Vehicles in the United States, Joule (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.05.013.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2022

Solar and Storage Techno-Economic Analysis Tutorial for the IEEE Photovoltaic Specialist Conference (PVSC)

This tutorial will highlight the most recent efforts from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to track solar photovoltaic (PV) technology trends and manufacturing costs, project levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), and project levelized cost of solar plus storage (LCOSS) for systems across the globe. We will begin with an overview of the global PV supply chain and 2021 benchmark input data for NREL's crystalline silicon (c-Si) and thin film PV module manufacturing cost models. The framework that we follow and will review during this tutorial provides a methodology to prepare bottom-up manufacturing cost models including the items within the U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). For the polysilicon, wafer, cell conversion, and module assembly steps of the c-Si supply chain, and for thin film modules, we will review input data and methods useful for calculating the costs of goods sold (COGS); research and development (R&D) expenses; and sales, general, and business administration (S, G, &A) expenses. This 2021 benchmark analysis is compiled for state-of-the-art c-Si and thin film module manufacturing. We will also review methods for our 2021 system benchmark costs calculations and LCOE technoeconomic analysis of PV systems and solar plus storage systems. Next generation technologies that lower PV manufacturing and installation costs, reduce operations and maintenance (O&M) expenses, and improve system energy yield will also be highlighted. Techniques for comparing LCOE performance will also be reviewed. We look forward to sharing NREL's extensive work in these areas and discussing ideas for future directions.

cost models↗
DOE OSTI2023

Tabulated Database of Closed-Loop Geothermal Systems Performance for Cloud-Based Technical and Economic Modeling of Heat Production and Electricity Generation: Preprint

To better understand the heat production, electricity generation performance and economic viability of closed loop geothermal systems in hot-dry-rock, the Closed Loop Geothermal Group, a consortium of several national labs and academic institutions has tabulated time-dependent numerical solutions and levelized cost results of two popular closed loop heat exchanger designs (u-tube and co-axial). The heat exchanger designs were evaluated for two working fluids (water and super-critical CO2) while varying seven continuous independent parameters of interest (i.e., mass flow rate, vertical depth, horizontal extent, borehole diameter, formation gradient, formation conductivity, and injection temperature). The corresponding numerical solutions (approximately 1.2 million per heat exchanger design) are stored as multi-dimensional HDF5 datasets and can be queried at off-grid points using multi-dimensional linear interpolation. A Python script was developed to query this database and estimate time-dependent electricity generation using an Organic Rankine cycle (for water) or direct turbine expansion cycle (for CO2) and perform a cost assessment. This document aims to give an overview of the HDF5 database file and highlights how to read, visualize, and query quantities of interest (e.g., levelized cost of electricity, levelized cost of heat) using the accompanying python scripts. Details regarding the capital, operation, and maintenance and levelized cost calculation using the TEA (techno-economic analysis) script are provided.

co-axial↗
DOE OSTI2023

Closed Loop Geothermal Working Group: GeoCLUSTER App, Subsurface Simulation Results, and Publications

To better understand the heat production, electricity generation performance, and economic viability of closed-loop geothermal systems in hot-dry rock, the Closed-Loop Geothermal Working Group -- a consortium of several national labs and academic institutions has tabulated time-dependent numerical solutions and levelized cost results of two popular closed-loop heat exchanger designs (u-tube and co-axial). The heat exchanger designs were evaluated for two working fluids (water and supercritical CO2) while varying seven continuous independent parameters of interest (mass flow rate, vertical depth, horizontal extent, borehole diameter, formation gradient, formation conductivity, and injection temperature). The corresponding numerical solutions (approximately 1.2 million per heat exchanger design) are stored as multi-dimensional HDF5 datasets and can be queried at off-grid points using multi-dimensional linear interpolation. A Python script was developed to query this database and estimate time-dependent electricity generation using an organic Rankine cycle (for water) or direct turbine expansion cycle (for CO2) and perform a cost assessment. This document aims to give an overview of the HDF5 database file and highlights how to read, visualize, and query quantities of interest (e.g., levelized cost of electricity, levelized cost of heat) using the accompanying Python scripts. Details regarding the capital, operation, and maintenance and levelized cost calculation using the techno-economic analysis script are provided. This data submission will contain results from the Closed Loop Geothermal Working Group study that are within the public domain, including publications, simulation results, databases, and computer codes. GeoCLUSTER is a Python-based web application created using Dash, an open-source framework built on top of Flask that streamlines the building of data dashboards. GeoCLUSTER provides users with a collection of interactive methods for streamlining the exploration and visualization of an HDF5 dataset. The GeoCluster app and database are contained in the compressed file geocluster_vx.zip, where the "x" refers to the version number. For example, geocluster_v1.zip is Version 1 of the app. This zip file also contains installation instructions. **To use the GeoCLUSTER app in the cloud, click the link to "GeoCLUSTER on AWS" in the Resources section below. To use the GeoCLUSTER app locally, download the geocluster_vx.zip to your computer and uncompress this file. When uncompressed this file comprises two directories and the geocluster_installation.pdf file. The geo-data app contains the HDF5 database in condensed format, and the GeoCLUSTER directory contains the GeoCLUSTER app in the subdirectory dash_app, as app.py. The geocluster_installation.pdf file provides instructions on installing Python, the needed Python modules, and then executing the app.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Modeling Annual Electricity Production and Levelized Cost of Energy from the US East Coast Offshore Wind Energy Lease Areas

Offshore wind energy development along the East Coast of the US is proceeding quickly as a result of large areas with an excellent wind resource, low water depths and proximity to large electricity markets. Careful planning of wind turbine deployments in these offshore wind energy lease areas (LA) is required to maximize power output and to minimize wake losses between neighboring wind farms as well as those internal to each wind farm. Here, we used microscale wind modeling with two wake parameterizations to evaluate the potential annual energy production (AEP) and wake losses in the different LA areas, and we developed and applied a levelized cost of energy (LCoE) model to quantify the impact of different wind turbine layouts on LCoE. The modeling illustrated that if the current suite of LA is subject to deployment of 15 MW wind turbines at a spacing of 1.85 km, they will generate 4 to 4.6% of total national electricity demand. The LCoE ranged from $68 to $102/MWh depending on the precise layout selected, which is cost competitive with many other generation sources. The scale of the wind farms that will be deployed greatly exceed those currently operating and mean that wake-induced power losses are considerable but still relatively poorly constrained. AEP and LCoE exhibited significant dependence on the precise wake model applied. For the largest LA, the AEP differed by over 10% depending on the wake model used, leading to a $10/MWh difference in LCoE for the wind turbine layout with 1.85 km spacing.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Case Study: Field Evaluation of a Low-Cost Circuit-Level Electrical Submetering System

Circuit-level metering technologies provide the ability to monitor individual circuits within an electrical panel in a building, providing detailed power and energy consumption data at a much more granular level than was previously achievable in a cost-effective manner. While the fundamental hardware components of circuit-level—split-core current transformers (CTs) and power monitoring meters—have existed for some time, the new offerings in the market have tightly integrated these components, lower costs, and have streamlined data organization, transport, and access via software solutions accessible through web and application programming interfaces (API). NREL evaluated Meazon’s single-circuit metering system. The evaluation of the equipment under test (EUT) focused on three aspects: (1) accuracy of the data provided by the system, (2) ease of installation of this technology and ease of data integration into existing U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) analytics platforms, and (3) total cost of ownership and cost-effectiveness of the technology. The metering technology was tested in a field deployment where it was installed in low and high-voltage commercial electrical panels in the César E. Chávez Memorial Building in Denver, Colorado. The goals were to assess the metering accuracy, the ease of installation and data retrieval, and the total cost of ownership and cost-effectiveness. This technology proved easy to install by a certified electrician who completed the install of 6 meters in 2 separate panels (120/208 V and 277/480 V) and 2 circuit disconnects (along with associated commissioning) at the César E. Chávez Memorial Building in less than one day. The technology was installed in high- and low-voltage panels and with limited space in the electrical room, demonstrating the applicability of this technology to almost all commercial buildings in the GSA portfolio. Primary considerations for this technology include appropriate sizing of CTs for each circuit, selection of loads/circuits/panels that are of high value for detailed submetering (e.g., tailored for high-load devices), and how GSA would like to integrate these data with its existing energy management infrastructure. Through the field evaluation, we demonstrated data integration from the vendor system into the primary software component on the GSA enterprise-level energy management and information system, GSA Link. Data from the circuit-level metering were integrated into this platform and used to perform FDD. This demonstrated the ability of the EUT to augment existing energy management and information systems in buildings where GSA Link is deployed and provides a pathway for delivering FDD at other buildings throughout the portfolio.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Development of high concentration photovoltaics (HCPV) power plants in the US Southwest: Economic assessment and sensitivity analysis

High concentration photovoltaic (HCPV) technologies offer several advantages over typical PV systems. In this study, a detailed economic assessment and sensitivity analysis of deploying HCPV plants in the US southwest is performed. To do this, a 20 MWdc HCPV power plant is designed using the System Advisor Model (SAM) and is evaluated from both technical and financial aspects. The sensitivity analysis shows that reducing the installed cost per capacity of the HCPV system can significantly improve the economics and reduce the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) and levelized power purchase agreement (LPPA). Also, providing proper incentives including both investment tax credits (ITC) and production tax credit (PTC), loan debt ratio, and interest rate are among the most influential parameters. The analysis shows that with the 30% ITC, the LCOE, and LPPA of the designed HCPV projects are between $65.4/MWh and $69.3/MWh and between $71.0/MWh and $75.2/MWh, respectively. The estimated LCOE and LPPA values are almost 50% higher than the utility-scale PV projects. If proper funding is provided to continue the support of the HCPV system, they would become more economical and competitive with PV plants. Federal and state government policies must also be established to advocate HCPV systems.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Dynamic optimization and economic evaluation of flexible heat integration in a hybrid concentrated solar power plant

Hybridization of concentrated solar power (CSP) plants provides flexibility in operation that can drastically improve the solar-to-electric (STE) efficiency and levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) relative to standalone CSP plants. Flexible heat integration (FHI) is a novel concept where the collection and integration of CSP within a power plant is modified relative to the amount of solar energy available. FHI improves the thermal efficiency of a hybrid solar tower steam Rankine cycle power plant but leads to increased pumping needs due to continuously elevated molten salt flow rates through the collection system, which can negatively impact STE efficiency. The present work is carried out to maximize the STE efficiency of a hybrid CSP plant utilizing FHI by employing a dynamic optimization framework where a genetic algorithm optimizes the operation of the plant over a given solar irradiance profile. The study concerns a plant hypothetically located in Salt Lake City, Utah. Here, the optimization results confirm the accuracy of a predictive heuristic where the preferred operation of the plant can be estimated relative to local peaks in the incident power generated by the heliostat collection field. The optimized FHI operation demonstrates a yearly STE efficiency of 13.8%, whereas the equivalent base-level hybrid and solar-only plants exhibit solar efficiencies of 13.4% and 11.2%, respectively. Economic analysis shows that FHI reduces yearly natural gas costs, leading to a $\$0.5$/MWh reduction in LCOE relative to the base-level hybrid configuration. Overall, the results show that hybrid FHI schemes exhibit economic benefits along with observed thermodynamic improvements.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗