Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “OCE”

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.

A self-healing plastic ceramic electrolyte by an aprotic dynamic polymer network for lithium metal batteries

Abstract Oxide ceramic electrolytes (OCEs) have great potential for solid-state lithium metal (Li 0 ) battery applications because, in theory, their high elastic modulus provides better resistance to Li 0 dendrite growth. However, in practice, OCEs can hardly survive critical current densities higher than 1 mA/cm 2 . Key issues that contribute to the breakdown of OCEs include Li 0 penetration promoted by grain boundaries (GBs), uncontrolled side reactions at electrode-OCE interfaces, and, equally importantly, defects evolution (e.g., void growth and crack propagation) that leads to local current concentration and mechanical failure inside and on OCEs. Here, taking advantage of a dynamically crosslinked aprotic polymer with non-covalent –CH 3 ⋯CF 3 bonds, we developed a plastic ceramic electrolyte (PCE) by hybridizing the polymer framework with ionically conductive ceramics. Using in-situ synchrotron X-ray technique and Cryogenic transmission electron microscopy (Cryo-TEM), we uncover that the PCE exhibits self-healing/repairing capability through a two-step dynamic defects removal mechanism. This significantly suppresses the generation of hotspots for Li 0 penetration and chemomechanical degradations, resulting in durability beyond 2000 hours in Li 0 -Li 0 cells at 1 mA/cm 2 . Furthermore, by introducing a polyacrylate buffer layer between PCE and Li 0 -anode, long cycle life >3600 cycles was achieved when paired with a 4.2 V zero-strain cathode, all under near-zero stack pressure.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

WHONDRS River Corridor Sediment and Water Geochemistry and In Situ Sensor Data from Machine-Learning-Informed Sites across the Contiguous United States (v6)

This dataset supports a broader study examining hyporheic zone respiration rates to improve predictive models at a contiguous United States (CONUS) scale. The CONUS-Scale Model-Sample Study (CM) was designed following ICON (integrated, coordinated, open, and networked) principles to facilitate a model-experiment (ModEx) iteration approach, leveraging crowdsourced sampling across the CONUS. New machine learning models were created every month to guide sampling locations. Data from the resulting samples were used to test and rebuild the machine learning models for the next round of sampling guidance. Sampling began in April 2022 and ended in October 2023. In addition to the widely distributed CONUS sites, a more spatially focused sampling occurred in the Yakima River Basin, WA in summer 2022. Data from this more spatially intensive sampling occurred under the label “Second Spatial Study (SSS)” and were also included in the machine learning models. Other data types collected from SSS that were not part of CM were published in a separate data package (https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/view/doi:10.15485/1969566). This data package was originally published in February 2023. It was updated in June 2023 (v2; new and modified files); December 2023 (v3; new and modified files); June 2024 (v4; new and modified files); April 2024 (v5; new and modified files); and September 2025 (v6; modified files). See the change history section in the readme for more details. For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About. This dataset is comprised of two folders of field photos and videos, one folder of raw Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTICR-MS) data and one main data folder containing (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) field metadata; (4) readme; (5) international generic sample number (IGSN) mapping file; (6) field protocols; (7) a subfolder with sample data; and (8) a subfolder with sensor data. The sample data subfolder contains (1) surface water and sediment dissolved organic carbon (DOC, measured as non-purgeable organic carbon, NPOC) data and averages; (2) surface water and sediment total nitrogen data and averages; (3) surface water major cations and anions and averages; (4) sediment grain size data; (5) sediment iron (II) data and averages; (6) wet sediment mass, dry sediment mass, water mass, and wet sediment volume in incubation and sediment ICR vials; (7) sediment incubation respiration rate data and averages; (8) normalized respiration rate data and averages; (9) methods codes; (10) sediment specific surface area; (11) sediment percent carbon and nitrogen; (12) sediment gravimetric moisture and averages; (15) sediment X-ray diffraction (XRD) data; (16) sediment adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and averages; (17) a subfolder with sediment incubation respiration data, scripts, and plots; (18) surface water and sediment FTICR methods; and (19) a subfolder of 9.4 Tesla (9.4T) FTICR-MS data. This folder contains five subfolders, one containing the sediment .xml data files, one containing the water .xml files, one containing the sediment CoreMS output files, one containing the water CoreMS output files, and the other containing instructions and scripts for processing the files in CoreMS (https://github.com/EMSL-Computing/CoreMS).The sensor data subfolder contains (1) a subfolder with miniDOT dissolved oxygen and temperature data and plots; (2) miniDOT dissolved oxygen and temperature summary data; and (3) miniDOT installation methods. All files are .csv, .pdf, .R, .xml, .d, .html, .Rmd, .py, .cal, .json, .jpg, .jpeg, .png, .mov, or .mp4. CORRECTION: Carbon and nitrogen content are reported as percentages. The current column headers "01395_C_percent_per_mg" and "01397_N_percent_per_mg" are incorrect. These should read "01395_C_percent" and "01397_N_percent" and will be corrected in the next version of this data package. We thank the United States Forest Service, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Cowiche Canyon Conservatory, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (Scientific Research Permit #210901), and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation for access to field locations where the samples labeled “SSS” were collected. We also thank the Yakama Nation Tribal Council and Yakama Nation Fisheries for working with us to facilitate sample collection and optimization of data usage according to their values and worldview. WHONDRS consortium members were asked to provide any acknowledgments for the collection of samples labeled “CM” and the following is a list of acknowledgments that were submitted with their corresponding Site IDs: (MART) Research activities were conducted in part on the Wind River Experimental Forest within the Gifford Pinchot National Forest; (MP- 100379) Philadelphia is part of Lenapehoking, the ancestral homelands of the Lenape peoples; (MP-102398) Land surveyed is the ancestral homelands of the Nookhose'iinenno (Arapaho), Tsis tsis'tas (Cheyenne), and Nuuchu (Ute); (MP-100749 and MP- 100747) Georgia Coastal Ecosystem LTER, OCE-1832178; (SP-70 and SP-72) Eastern Shoshone, Shoshone-Bannock; (MP- 102944) Funded by Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. On the traditional lands of the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Rhonde, and the Clatsop-Nehalem Confederated Tribe; (MP- 100607) Holiday Creek is located on the traditional territory of the Monacan Indian Nation; (SP-45) Lafayette Blue Springs State Park; (MP-102420) NSF DEB-2016749; (MP-100019) New Hampshire Agriculture Experiment Station; (SP-35) Rayonier (land owner; https://www.rayonier.com/); (MP- 101276) US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research, Subsurface Biogeochemical Research, Watershed Dynamics and Evolution SFA at ORNL; (MP- 103224) Watershed Dynamics and Evolution SFA at ORNL; (MP- 101584) Traditional lands of the Oceti Sakowin (Dakota, Lakota, Nakoda) and Anishinaabe Peoples.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Machine learning model inputs, outputs, and scripts associated with “Artificial intelligence-guided iterations between observations and modeling significantly improve environmental predictions”

NOTE: The manuscript associated with this data package is currently in review. The data may be revised based on reviewer feedback. Upon manuscript acceptance, this data package will be updated with the final dataset and additional metadata. This data package is associated with the manuscript “Artificial intelligence-guided iterations between observations and modeling significantly improve environmental predictions” (Malhotra et al., in prep). This effort was designed following ICON (integrated, coordinated, open, and networked) principles to facilitate a model-experiment (ModEx) iteration approach, leveraging crowdsourced sampling across the contiguous United States (CONUS). New machine learning models were created every month to guide sampling locations. Data from the resulting samples were used to test and rebuild the machine learning models for the next round of sampling guidance. Associated sediment and water geochemistry and in situ sensor data can be found at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/1923689, https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/1729719, and https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/1603775. This data package is associated with two GitHub repositories found at https://github.com/parallelworks/dynamic-learning-rivers and https://github.com/WHONDRS-Hub/ICON-ModEx_Open_Manuscript. In addition to this readme, this data package also includes two file-level metadata (FLMD) files that describes each file and two data dictionaries (DD) that describe all column/row headers and variable definitions. This data package consists of two main folders (1) dynamic-learning-rivers and (2) ICON-ModEx_Open_Manuscript which contain snapshots of the associated GitHub repositories. The input data, output data, and machine learning models used to guide sampling locations are within dynamic-learning-rivers. The folder is organized into five top-level directories: (1) “input_data” holds the training data for the ML models; (2) “ml_models” holds machine learning (ML) models trained on the data in “input_data”; (3) “examples” contains files for direct experimentation with the machine learning model, including scripts for setting up “hindcast” run; (4) “scripts” contains data preprocessing and postprocessing scripts and intermediate results specific to this data set that bookend the ML workflow; and (5) “output_data” holds the overall results of the ML model on that branch. Each trained ML model resides on its own branch in the repository; this means that inputs and outputs can be different branch-to-branch. There is also one hidden directory “.github/workflows”. This hidden directory contains information for how to run the ML workflow as an end-to-end automated GitHub Action but it is not needed for reusing the ML models archived here. Please see the top-level README.md in the GitHub repository for more details on the automation. The scripts and data used to create figures in the manuscript are within ICON-ModEx_Open_Manuscript. The folder is organized into four folders which contain the scripts, data, and pdf for each figure. Within the “fig-model-score-evolution” folder, there is a folder called “intermediate_branch_data” which contains some intermediate files pulled from dynamic-learning-rivers and reorganized to easily integrate into the workflows. NOTE: THIS FOLDER INCLUDES THE FILES AT THE POINT OF PAPER SUBMISSION. IT WILL BE UPDATED ONCE THE PAPER IS ACCEPTED WITH ANY REVISIONS AND WILL INCLUDE A DD/FLMD AT THAT POINT. We thank the United States Forest Service, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Cowiche Canyon Conservatory, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (Scientific Research Permit #210901), and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation for access to field locations where the samples labeled “SSS” were collected. We also thank the Yakama Nation Tribal Council and Yakama Nation Fisheries for working with us to facilitate sample collection and optimization of data usage according to their values and worldview. WHONDRS consortium members were asked to provide any acknowledgments for the collection of samples labeled “CM” and the following is a list of acknowledgments that were submitted with their corresponding Site IDs: (MART) Research activities were conducted in part on the Wind River Experimental Forest within the Gifford Pinchot National Forest; (MP- 100379) Philadelphia is part of Lenapehoking, the ancestral homelands of the Lenape peoples; (MP-102398) Land surveyed is the ancestral homelands of the Nookhose'iinenno (Arapaho), Tsis tsis'tas (Cheyenne), and Nuuchu (Ute); (MP-100749 and MP- 100747) Georgia Coastal Ecosystem LTER, OCE-1832178; (SP-70 and SP-72) Eastern Shoshone, Shoshone-Bannock; (MP- 102944) Funded by Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. On the traditional lands of the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Rhonde, and the Clatsop-Nehalem Confederated Tribe; (MP- 100607) Holiday Creek is located on the traditional territory of the Monacan Indian Nation; (SP-45) Lafayette Blue Springs State Park; (MP-102420) NSF DEB-2016749; (MP-100019) New Hampshire Agriculture Experiment Station; (SP-35) Rayonier (land owner; https://www.rayonier.com/); (MP- 101276) US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research, Subsurface Biogeochemical Research, Watershed Dynamics and Evolution SFA at ORNL; (MP- 103224) Watershed Dynamics and Evolution SFA at ORNL; (MP- 101584) Traditional lands of the Oceti Sakowin (Dakota, Lakota, Nakoda) and Anishinaabe Peoples.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Carbon Management Projects (CONNECT) Database and Explorer

Overview The Carbon Management Projects (CONNECT) Toolkit is an online exploratory visualization tool developed by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM) with support from other federal agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). It provides a single point of access to authoritative information on federal agency investment in a portfolio of research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) projects that have been publicly announced to advance technologies for point source carbon capture, carbon dioxide removal, transport, storage, and conversion, collectively referred to as carbon management. The RD&D programs covered in this tool are authorized by annual congressional appropriations ("Base Program") and the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The tool also incorporates public information on other federal initiatives, such as the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs, and public information released by other government agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) and Primacy States’ Underground Injection Control Class VI permits and EPA’s facility level greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Developed in a geographic information system, the tool organizes carbon management projects into five groups based on the primary technology that a project aims to advance, each visually represented as a digital layer ("carbon management project layer"). Only federally funded projects are included, which can be awarded projects that are completed or ongoing, or projects that have been selected but are currently under negotiation. Project information can be viewed in the map or in the attribute table below it when turned on. In the map view, each project is displayed at either its host site (for field work), where available, or its performer site (project lead's location, further explained in the table below). Host sites and performer sites are represented in distinct icons. Several reference layers offer additional public information on infrastructural and natural resource environment for carbon management. These reference layers, combined with multiple geographical basemaps, enable users to visualize the carbon management project layers in context. Carbon management project information will be updated monthly based on feedback and information availability. Carbon management project layers Point Source Carbon Capture (PSC) This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from power plants or industrial facilities. Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on capturing CO2 from the atmosphere, including direct air capture (DAC) and DAC hubs, direct ocean capture, enhanced mineralization, and biomass carbon removal and storage. For projects with multiple host sites, each of the sites are displayed individually with the project cost and cost sharing information representing the total for the entire project. Carbon Transport This layer contains DOE- and DOT-funded projects focused on CO2 transport. The Transport Research and Development sublayer contains projects that do not involve physical infrastructure; the Proposed Transport Corridor sublayer contains projects for which either a route for the transport infrastructure has been proposed or a general area for the transport infrastructure has been identified. Carbon Storage This layer contains DOE-funded key projects focused on CO2 storage. For projects with multiple field-work sites, each of the sites are displayed individually on the map with the project cost and cost sharing information representing the overall total for the entire project. Carbon Conversion This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on converting CO2 into economically valuable products. Reference layers The following layers provide additional information in the geographic proximity of carbon management projects. Users should reference the original sources for more details (weblinks provided below and in pop-up windows on the map). Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub and Facility These layers illustrate the approximate areas of the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs announced by DOE's Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) and the approximate locations of individual facilities that constitute the hubs (see "Where are the H2Hubs located?" on the webpage linked above). EPA Facility Level GHG Emissions (direct emitter) This layer shows direct CO2 emissions from stationary sources in 2022, using data extracted from EPA's Facility Level Information on GreenHouse gases Tool (FLIGHT). Captured and injected CO2 are not deducted from direct emitters’ total emissions. Contact EPA for additional details. Underground Injection Control Class VI permit/permit application This layer shows the locations of CO2 injection wells that are granted or in the process of applying for an Underground Injection Control Class VI permit by EPA or a Primacy State (currently Louisiana, North Dakota, and Wyoming). The URLs for the permits or permit applications are provided in the pop-up windows associated with the well locations. Contact EPA for additional details. Carbon Storage Resource This layer contains information on prospective CO2 storage resources in saline formations and oil and gas reservoirs provided by the National Carbon Sequestration Database and Geographic Information System (NATCARB) spatial database. Contact NETL for additional details. Existing CO2 pipeline This layer shows active CO2 pipelines based on information digitized from the map issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). Contact PHMSA for additional details.

Carbon Conversion↗

NORTH DAKOTA CARBONSAFE PHASE III: SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND PERMITTING OF GEOLOGIC STORAGE OF CARBON DIOXIDE

The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), in partnership with Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc. (Minnkota), SLB, and Computer Modelling Group Ltd. (CMG), supported wide-scale deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as part of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory Carbon Storage Assurance Facility Enterprise (CarbonSAFE) Initiative Phase III. This phase included the acquisition, analysis, and development of information to fully characterize two storage complexes to demonstrate viable storage resources for commercial volumes of CO2 (defined by DOE as a minimum of 50 million tonnes [MMt] of CO2 within a 30-year period) (National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2024). Phase III also involved the preparation, submission, and approval of North Dakota underground injection control (UIC) Class VI storage facility permits (SFPs)—required precursors to applications for Class VI injection well permits. The presumed viability of commercial-scale CCS, situated adjacent to Minnkota’s Milton R. Young Station (MRYS), is validated by Minnkota’s continued pursuit of Project Tundra—an initiative to build the world’s largest lignite-based CCS project in central North Dakota (www.projecttundrand.com). Project Tundra comprises two scopes of work, Tundra Capture (installation of postcombustion CO2 capture at MRYS) and Tundra SGS (secure geologic storage). The efforts of North Dakota CarbonSAFE Phase III, Site Characterization and Permitting, supported Tundra SGS. Extensive site-specific characterization activities included a successful multimeasurement geophysical approach and drilling a stratigraphic test well (J-ROC 1, subsequently renamed Liberty-1) adjacent to MRYS. Core collection and analyses, downhole testing and fluid sampling, and geophysical logging were performed on J-ROC 1 and on a nearby stratigraphic test well (known as J-LOC 1), which was drilled, cored, and tested under a complementary project funded by the North Dakota Lignite Research Program. The injection tests performed on J-LOC 1 positively impacted the CarbonSAFE project, resulting in fewer proposed injection wells and significant construction, operations, and monitoring cost savings. The characterization data collected and analyses performed were integrated into geologic models, and successive numerical simulations were run to determine CO2 plume extent and subsurface pressure buildup associated with the planned CO2 injection rate of nearly 4 MMt per year. The latter doubles the CarbonSAFE Initiative goal with an estimated 100 MMt of CO2 stored in 20 years. Application of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) method for estimating the Class VI Rule area of review (AOR) to the overpressurized Broom Creek Formation inspired an alternative method of calculation, called risk-based AOR delineation. This peer-reviewed method was applied for the first time during the storage facility-permitting process. The two SFP applications submitted in 2021 successfully resulted in North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC) orders in 2022 authorizing the creation of the storage facility areas and amalgamation of pore space as well as establishing financial responsibility requirements. After approval of the SFPs, Minnkota filed in 2022 applications for permits to reenter the J-ROC 1 well and to drill two new wells—all with the intended purpose to become Class VI injection wells. To establish eligibility under the Internal Revenue Code for Section 45Q tax incentives, a monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) plan was prepared and submitted by Minnkota to EPA in 2022, resulting in the first such plan approved in North Dakota. Also in 2022, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Minnkota prepared and submitted an environmental information volume (EIV) describing the proposed CCS project and associated potential environmental impacts. Based on the EIV, DOE determined that the proposed construction project required an environmental assessment, and Minnkota submitted the first draft in 2023 and a revised draft in 2024. Both submissions were followed by a public comment period. Subsequently, DOE issued a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) on September 13, 2024. A successful outreach program, strongly based in the production, presentation, and dissemination of informational material, fostered an environment to aid stakeholders in making informed decisions regarding the planned project. Opportunities for public input were provided at various steps along the way, including at county planning and zoning meetings, before and during the SFP administrative hearing, and during environmental assessment public comment periods. In addition, land/pore space owners and mineral owners had various points of contact, including granting access rights, securing pore space leasing, and mineral owner notifications. Based upon the successful storage facility permitting issued by NDIC, approval of the MRV plan by EPA, and receipt of a FONSI under the NEPA, Minnkota is continuing its pursuit of Project Tundra. In December 2023, the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations under its Carbon Capture Demonstrations Projects Program announced funding for the capture system (Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, 2023) and a proposal for CarbonSAFE Phase IV: Construction funding was submitted in March 2024 for the storage project. A go/no-go decision to proceed with construction and operations in the Broom Creek Formation is anticipated in 2024. References National Energy Technology Laboratory, CarbonSafe Initiative, https://netl.doe.gov/carbon-management/carbon-storage/carbonsafe (accessed August 2024). Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, 2023, OCED selects three projects in CA, ND, and TX to reduce harmful carbon pollution, create new economic opportunities, and advance carbon reducing technologies, December, www.energy.gov/oced/articles/oced-selects-three-projects-ca-nd-and-tx-reduce-harmful-carbon-pollution-create-new (accessed August 2024).

Peck, Wesley↗

Project "Right Way" Next Generation Melt Project: Phase 1 Performance Report Narrative (PRN)

In November 2024, AMERICAN entered into a Cooperative Agreement with the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) regarding the Industrial Decarbonization and Emissions Reduction Demonstration-To-Deployment Funding Opportunity for the “Right Way” Next Generation Melt Project (“Project”). This report encompasses initial planning and analysis activities to ensure that the project is viable.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Carbon Capture Pilot at Vicksburg Containerboard Mill (Final Technical Report)

This is the final technical report for the DOE-OCED project DE-CD0000051. The report provides the progress at the close of the project. The objective of the project is to design and build a large pilot plant for carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) capture from a pulp and paper (P&P) mill using RTI’s non-aqueous solvent (NAS) technology at a capacity of 120,000 t-CO 2 /year, with >90% CO 2 captured. The pilot plant will be used for testing and evaluating the NAS capture process using real flue gas from the P&P mill’s power boiler for a minimum of 1 year of parametric testing and a minimum of 2,000 hours of continuous long-term testing. The testing will provide data for process optimization and scale-up for the P&P industry, provide information on interaction of flue gas contaminants on solvent performance and degradation, and inform strategies for emission control. At the end of the project, the pilot plant will be managed by International Paper (IP), the host site owner, which will continue to capture CO 2 , sequester the captured CO 2 , and be eligible for the 45Q credit.

42 ENGINEERING↗

Studying f-Electron Contributions in Thorium and Uranium Containing Molecules

The pure rotational spectra of several actinide-containing compounds have been improved upon and, in two cases, been recorded for the first time. The diatomic molecules HfS and ThS have been studied in their ground electronic states but high vibrationally excited states. The results have yielded very accurate locations of the minima of the potential energy curves. The asymmetric molecules OThS and UO2S have been prepared by laser ablation synthesis and their pure rotational spectra recorded for the first time. Precise information pertinent to the geometric and electronic structure of these molecules has been obtained and is compared with other, newly recorded and related species such as OCeS.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗

The Manufacture of Advanced Key Energy Infrastructure Technologies (MAKE IT) Prize (Final Technical Report)

This is a final technical report for the American-Made Manufacture of Advanced Key Energy Infrastructure Technologies (MAKE IT) Prize, developed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Technology Commercialization (OTC) in collaboration with the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) with support from the National Laboratory of the Rockies (NLR). The MAKE IT Prize aims to catalyze domestic manufacturing of critical energy technology components, moving manufacturing facilities from planning to shovel-ready and enabling strategies for vibrant manufacturing activities in communities. This prize was launched with a prize pool of approximately $30 million spread across two tracks: Facilities and Strategies.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Solutions for Lasting, Viable Energy Infrastructure Technologies (SOLVE IT) Prize Final Technical Report

This is a final technical report for the American-Made The Solutions for Lasting, Viable Energy Infrastructure Technologies (SOLVE IT) Prize, funded by the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act through the Technology Commercialization Fund, administered by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Technology Commercialization (OTC) in collaboration with the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) with support from the National Laboratory of the Rockies (NLR). The SOLVE IT Prize aimed to enable local organizations to identify and implement innovative energy solutions in a way that works for their unique needs and challenges. The competition awarded $3,740,000 to winning teams across two phases. The prize was designed to support local stakeholders and organizations as they identified and implemented innovative energy solutions. In doing so, the SOLVE IT Prize looked to promote the commercialization of promising energy technologies that will lead to reliable, affordable energy across the U.S.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

FY25 Electric Grid Security Annual Report

Sandia’s Electric Grid Security program advances a national vision of energy dominance and accessibility, while applying our national security -emphasis on ensuring of a secure, resilient, and affordable electric system for all users. Our achievements reflect a strategic approach combining technology development; modeling, simulation, and data analytics; and partnered demonstrations and outreach to further the adoption of advanced grid and storage technologies. Our FY25 efforts leverage the strengths of our partnerships—spanning Sandia’s core science and technology competencies as well as external technology leaders—to develop the solutions today which enable the grid of tomorrow. Key accomplishments in this report that support our strategy span our technical program areas and include: • New open-source analytical tools for systems -level planning and optimization, including significant advances to the QuESt analytical environment; • Further advancement of artificial intelligence and machine learning to enhanced grid operations and planning as we rise to the challenge of new large loads; • Development of solid-state power conversion technologies and a new medium-voltage research lab; • New technologies to assess wildfire vulnerabilities and mitigate potential impacts; • Advanced applications of new cybersecurity technologies with industry partners; • Contributions to understanding the impacts of electromagnetic pulses and geomagnetic disturbances on grid components; and • Digital twin development for hybrid microgrids with multiple generators, storage, and loads. This report indicates key areas of research and engagement and summarizes the impact of Sandia’s contributions through notable accomplishments, journal publications, patents, and technical conferences and presentations. It is provided with the hope that readers discover ways we can further team to create our modern grid and apply the outcomes of our efforts. The bulk of work described herein is funded by several offices within the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), including the Office of Electricity (OE); Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER); former offices such as the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), the Grid Deployment Office (GDO), the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED), and other key programs at USDOE. As we continue to state in these annual reports, the contributors to our successes are too numerous to name here, though our team wishes to express our deep gratitude to the numerous program and project sponsors at the US Department of Energy, who often function equally as technical collaborators; our many partners in industry, academia, utilities, and other national labs; and fellow researchers and business partners at Sandia whose leadership and creativity have enabled the accomplishments described herein.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

Advanced Reactors Spent Fuel & Waste Science and Technology Program

Based on the higher interest in Advanced Reactor (AR) deployment (e.g., ARDP ) for potential new fuel cycles, the Spent Fuel & Waste Science and Technology (SFWST) Program has begun to evaluate the possible implications of long-term management and final disposition of potential Advance Reactor spent nuclear fuels (SNF) that would be generated in potential advanced reactors. Safely managing and dispositioning the potential future AR SNF, and any other associated radioactive wastes, is the primary focus of this initial preliminary assessment of those. This paper summarizes three primary tasks the Spent Fuel & Waste Science and Technology (SFWST) Program is executing (or collaborating on) related to the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle (BENFC) for potential future advanced reactors: 1. Advanced Reactors Spent Fuel and Waste Streams: Strategies for the BENFC This set of activities define a high-level strategy for how to systematically approach, identify, and close research and development (R&D) gaps/potential issues associated with long-term management and final disposition of AR SNF and other possible AR waste streams. This task involves summarizing advanced reactor concepts, their likely SNF and other waste forms, and identifying previous experience with similar materials, for example from DOE-managed SNF, with closely related characteristics to the potential future AR SNF. Technical R&D gaps between the breadth of detailed understanding for safe storage, transportation and disposal of the existing light water reactor SNF fuel cycle (e.g., see NASEM, 2022) and potential future fuel cycles based on advanced reactors would then be identified. 2. Characterization and Packaging Options of Advanced Reactor SNF These activities evaluate characteristics and packaging options for advanced reactor spent fuel forms. The fuel forms are categorized into three types: (1) tri-structural isotropic (TRISO), (2) metallic, and (3) fuel salt. Emphasis is given to TRISO and metallic SNF and additional waste streams from such AR as driven by the near-term anticipated operation of the Xe-100 and the Natrium reactors as advanced-reactor demonstrations1. Preliminary information for the spent-fuel salt discharged from molten-salt reactors (MSRs) is examined to provide a baseline for future efforts. All calculations and assumptions in this work are based on publicly available information. The following characteristics are calculated or estimated for use in the preliminary assessments: SNF volume and mass, radiation/activity levels through time, thermal conditions through time, potential radionuclide source terms, chemical interactions and evolutions, disposal inventories, and waste-form lifetime. Using those characteristics, calculations to determine the applicability of existing canister designs were performed. These evaluations included geometric (e.g., dimension, volume) and mass/weight considerations, known operational approaches and loading procedures, physical and chemical considerations/conditions for storage environments, as-loaded radiation, thermal, and criticality analyses to identify constraints for storage, transportation, and disposal. 3. Back-End Management of Advanced Reactors (BEMAR) The DOE NE-8 organization has defined an Integrated Project Team to evaluate the Back End Management of Advanced Reactors (BEMAR) (includes DOE staff from a range of organizations (e.g., NE-81, NE-82, OCED) and national laboratory technical staff within the DOE NE-81 and NE-82 programs). This BEMAR group works directly with advance reactors developers to assess for the DOE the technical feasibility of storage, transportation, and disposal of AR SNF based on the characteristics provided by the developers to DOE (much of which is proprietary). The BEMAR is also tasked to develop rough-order-of-magnitude cost estimates to compare the waste management system for individual advanced reactors to existing light-water reactor management practices. To accomplish this, the BEMAR group is implementing a Systems Engineering approach.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Potential Availability of and Supply Curves for Low-Cost, Dispatch-Constrained Electricity

Among other changes, variable renewable energy (VRE) - primarily wind and solar photovoltaics - is achieving a growing share of total generation. High VRE penetrations may result in an increased level of curtailment and thus suppress the value of additional VRE. This VRE, that either would not be built due to price suppression or would be curtailed, can be considered a resource that we define as low-cost, dispatch-constrained electricity (LDE). LDE could be used for various applications which value low-cost electricity and can operate at reduced capacity factors. Examples include electrolytic hydrogen production and carbon capture. This report provides initial estimates of the quantity and availability of the potential LDE resource in the U.S. under scenarios with high VRE penetrations. It also provides supply curves that can be used in subsequent analysis of the opportunity to use the LDE. We modeled several scenarios using capacity expansion and production cost models for LDE prices ranging from $\$ $0/MWh to $\$ $30/MWh. These LDE prices, coupled with low renewable energy cost assumptions, resulted in VRE penetrations ranging from 48-66% in 2050. The resulting LDE supplies range from 100 - 300 TWh/yr at a price of $\$ $0/MWh to 3,500 - 4,200 TWh/yr at $\$ $30/MWh. Increasing LDE prices increases wind and photovoltaics deployment; however, other generation technology capacities do not decrease equivalently in our models. Thus, additional generation is available but the capacity of traditional dispatchable generation is only reduced slightly. The available LDE is concentrated in the central and southwest U.S. regions because of their high wind and solar resources.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

Electrolysis' Potential Value for Supporting the Electrical Grid

The H2@Scale concept includes a value proposition for electrolysis that benefits both hydrogen markets and the electricity system. Electrolysis has the potential to be an alternative low-cost hydrogen source by using low-price electricity that may be available for only a limited number of hours annually. It also has the potential to provide value to the grid through use of that low-cost electricity. By doing so, electrolysis can create a price floor which could support additional investment in low-cost, dispatch-constrained electricity (LDE) generation such as photovoltaic solar, wind, and nuclear. The rapid-response characteristics of low-temperature electrolysis enables it to also provide ancillary services to the grid such as operating reserves and frequency control. We evaluate the economic performance of water electrolysis in a selection of electricity markets - both current and potential future markets. To perform that evaluation, we collect locational marginal prices (LMPs) in each market, calculate levelized hydrogen costs, and compare them to cost estimates of producing hydrogen via steam methane reforming of natural gas. Those calculations also include electolyzer capital and operating costs. We perform the calculations across a range of capacity factors to identify the minimum levelized hydrogen cost in that range. We discuss the implications of that capacity factor for each market analyzed. For a couple of the analyzed electricity markets, we include the potential value of providing ancillary services in the calculation and discuss those impacts. LDE generation has been shown to suppress electricity prices because it generates electricity when the resource is available (i.e., the sun is shining, wind is blowing, nuclear heat is being produced) and the generation cannot be reduced without an economic penalty. Price suppression is likely to reduce investment in those technologies due to reductions in projected income of each marginal unit. If electrolyzers are willing to pay for the LDE, it could provide a price floor for electricity. We analyze how setting a price for LDE could impact the electricity generation fleet, the availability of LDE, and the potential levelized costs of producing hydrogen using that LDE. Among other results, we will present a set of supply curves showing potential production costs and availability for hydrogen produced from LDE in a future with high penetrations of renewable electricity on the grid.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗