Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Repowering Evaluation”

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.

7 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Coronado Generating Station Repowering Evaluation - Siting Evaluation

The purpose of this initial siting evaluation is to consider the suitability of the Salt River Project (SRP) owned land at/near Coronado Generating Station (CGS) for a nuclear generating station (including advanced light water reactors, light water small modular reactors, and non-light-water designs1) and to assess if there are any exclusionary or avoidance factors associated with coal to nuclear repowering at CGS. This initial siting evaluation considers several characteristics (e.g., environmental conditions, seismic concerns, site footprint, water use, etc.) and highlights favorable/preferred characteristics as well as potential risks to feasibility. The results are intended to inform SRP on the strengths and weaknesses associated with the CGS site and inform the selection of candidate nuclear technologies for the CGS site that align with SRP’s mission and business objectives. This report relies on industry-recognized siting guidance, including Electric Power Research Institute’s (EPRI’s) Siting Guide (Reference 1) 2 and Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) Regulatory Guide (RG) 4.7 (Reference 3), as well as nuclear domain expertise within the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN), MPR Associates, Inc. (MPR), and the Idaho National Laboratory (INL).

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Ghent Generating Station Nuclear Study: Siting Evaluation

The purpose of this initial siting evaluation is to assess the suitability of the PPL Corporation (PPL) owned land at/near the Kentucky Utilities Ghent Generating Station (GGS) for the deployment of advanced nuclear reactors and to determine if there are any exclusionary or avoidance factors associated with siting nuclear power at GGS. The formal siting process for a nuclear reactor requires a great level of time (i.e., multiple years), effort, and detail. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) estimates the formal siting process could take a dedicated team between one and three years to complete. This initial siting evaluation considers several characteristics (e.g., environmental conditions, seismic concerns, footprint, water use, etc.) and highlights favorable/preferred characteristics as well as potential risks to feasibility. Potential risks were explored in greater detail to provide PPL with additional insights to support decision planning. The results indicate the strengths and weaknesses associated with the GGS site as a location for a nuclear generating station and are intended to inform PPL’s next steps. The results of this initial siting evaluation will also inform the selection of candidate nuclear technologies for the GGS site that align with PPL’s mission and business objectives.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2026

A New Chapter in Solar: Bifacial PV from Emerging Topic to Core Curriculum

Associated with the new edition of the bifacial PV book, this talk reviews the transition of bifacial PV from niche innovation to standard practice, including progress in modeling and performance evaluation, and ongoing challenges in reliability, new applications, and fleet repowering.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Repowering: The Other Side of the Reliability Coin

Extreme weather, cracked backsheets, severe PID, poorly built modules, and installation flaws - all can compromise a solar plant's health and force repowering long before end of life. With more than 70% of U.S. PV capacity less than seven years old, the fleet is young, but its rapid expansion has introduced new materials and system designs that are still being tested under real-world conditions. As a result, reliability - not economics - is what most often drives repowering decisions. Repowering is frequently assumed to be an economically motivated choice, but our work shows that reliability concerns are the real trigger. Drawing from industry interviews, case studies, and modeling, we highlight the physical, electrical, and policy barriers owners face when deciding whether to repair, repower, or decommission. At the same time, repowering can create opportunities: renewed interconnection periods, improved energy yields, and strategic upgrades to extend system value. We present a quantitative framework using NLR's System Advisor Model (SAM) and PV in Circular Economy (PV ICE) tool to evaluate trade-offs across financial, material, and energy impacts. These findings provide practical guidance for navigating the realities of repowering today and underscore the critical role of reliability in shaping the future performance and sustainability of the PV fleet.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Optimizing Repowering and Lifecycle Decisions with PV ICE and SAM

Should you repower or extend the life of your PV system? Are high-efficiency modules, durable modules, or recyclable modules the best option for your site and goals? Evaluating the trade-offs in design and lifecycle strategies can be complex. The PV in Circular Economy (PV ICE) tool is an open-source model designed to help developers, modelers, and decision-makers assess material flows, energy return on investment (EROI), and financial viability of PV systems. Now integrated with the System Advisor Model (SAM), PV ICE enables site-specific comparisons of lifecycle strategies - such as repowering benefits, module selection for reliability and recyclability, among others. This interactive tutorial will provide hands-on experience with PV ICE using Google Collab, exploring scenario-based analyses on these topics.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2026

Powering Circularity Through Data Reporting and Collection

Sustainability and Circular Economy have many metrics for evaluation. Calculating mass intensity, energy return on investment, financial payback, and recycling rate for proposed technology changes and lifecycle management can support decision making. Robust data with modeling tools can perform these calculations, informing good decision making. Analyses show that reliability is more critical than recyclability. Improved data gathering and tool accessibility will support our industry to make more circular choices for PV lifecycle management.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Biogas Utilization in Refuse Power Plants (BURP 2 )

The BURP 2 project investigated the technical and financial viability of co firing biogas with waste coal for power generation while using carbon capture and sequestration to achieve net negative emissions. A comparative assessment integrating geospatial mapping, technoeconomic analysis, and life cycle analysis was carried out to evaluate retrofitting an existing coal fired facility in West Virginia, versus developing a new greenfield power plant in Kentucky located near a low quality coal resource. The study found that CO 2 capture rates of 90% or higher, in combination with biogas feedstocks such as animal manure, could significantly reduce global warming potential compared to plants using neither biogas nor CO 2 capture systems. Economic feasibility depended heavily on federal tax credits and proximity to fuel sources. In both greenfield and retrofit scenarios, access to biogas played a key role. Because the retrofit site was located close to existing biogas resources, it represented a feasible option, whereas the greenfield site, being far from pipelines or biogas sources, would require prohibitively expensive biogas transport infrastructure. Overall, the research showed that repurposing waste or low-quality coal with renewable biogas and CO 2 capture systems could provide a viable approach for reducing carbon emissions in power production, if biogas resources are easily accessible and available in sufficient quantities.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗