Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Resource Reporting”

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 OSTI2019

Akutan Geothermal: Resource Report

Geothermal energy resources are present in the Hot Springs Bay Valley geothermal area, and the City has invested considerable money and time in the exploration of the resource for future use. Exploration activities funded primarily through a grant the City was awarded from Alaska Energy Authority and later supplemented by the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE), with cost share from the City. The exploration led to the development of a geothermal resource conceptual model that was built and refined between 2008 and 2018. During this period, geological and geophysical studies, exploration drilling and other activities were completed, including a preliminary feasibility study for a power project, investigations of the terrain for suitability for access and development, environmental and archeological review, plus TG well abandonment and a review of economic considerations. The model of the resource predicts that there is a viable geothermal resource in two general areas: on the northwest edge of Hot Springs Bay Valley going northwest of the valley (hot springs area) and southwest of the Valley (fumarole area). The resource temperature for the valley area is expected to be about 170°C (340°F) and given the size and permeability estimates (with a factor for the level of confidence in the estimates), the mean power capacity of the outflow resource is 3 MWe and the P50 (most likely) power capacity is 1 MWe. The fumarole area has an expected resource temperature of 240°C (464°F) and given the size and permeability estimates mean capacity is 20 MWe and the P50 (most likely) capacity is 9 MWe. Permeability is the most difficult factor to predict and has a significant impact on the available geothermal fluids and therefore the amount of power that can be generated. The uncertainty in this value is the main reason for lower confidence in the likelihood of exploration success and the wide range in predicted MW values. The permeability has been difficult to locate as indicated by the results of the flow test at AK-3 in 2017. The test resulted in the production of some fluid, but due to low permeability, the recharge to the wellbore was too slow to sustain flow. The greatest probability of overall MWe production is in the fumarole region, but development is hampered by poor accessibility. The extremely high cost of road building for exploratory drilling, put an end to planning at an intermediate stage of the project and refocused attention on the viability of development in the hot spring outflow part of the resource. The City will be determining what the next steps are with AK-3, which is still that is still open and maintained in a suspended status in HSBV. While AK-3 remains accessible (not plugged with cement) it will need to be maintained. The City has a bond with AOGCC that will remain in place until the well is abandoned. GRG recommends that the well be maintained open as an asset for the foreseeable future.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Final Site 300 Sensitive Botanical Resource Report for the Sitewide Environmental Impact Statement, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Alameda and San Joaquin Counties, California

At the request of Lawrence Livermore National Security (LLNS), Nomad Ecology (Nomad) conducted sensitive botanical resource surveys, and vegetation mapping and classification of the 7,000-acre Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) Experimental Test Site (Site 300). In addition to surveying for sensitive botanical resources, Nomad also compiled existing rare plant and vegetation data provided by LLNL from past monitoring and environmental impact evaluations. The results of these efforts will provide supporting information for a Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement (SWEIS). These surveys were conducted during the months of April-June, and August 2020, and February and March 2021. Rare plant surveys were originally scheduled for February and March 2020; however, February surveys were not initiated because the contract for this work was not finalized, and March surveys were cut short due to the timing of the Covid-19 shelter in place. Therefore, February and March rare plant surveys were conducted in 2021. A total of seven special status plant species were recorded within Site 300. Special status plant species known from the site total 26 rare plant occurrences (populations), which represent an estimated 14,077 rare plant individuals. This total of all special status plant species breaks down to one occurrence of a federally and/or state listed plant species (98 individuals), five occurrences of California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1 & 2 species (11,553 individuals), and 20 occurrences of CRPR 3 & 4 species (2,426 individuals). A total of 35 vegetation communities were mapped at Site 300, of which 20 are considered Sensitive Natural Communities.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Energy Management Information Systems Technical Resources Report

Guide supports federal facility staff in understanding, designing, procuring, and implementing Energy Management Information Systems (EMIS) as a valuable component of their portfolio-level energy and water planning and management strategies. As a broad and rapidly evolving family of tools that monitor, analyze, and control building energy use and system performance, EMIS tools present significant opportunities for federal sector energy savings and improved operational performance. EMIS are at the forefront of transforming energy management best practices by providing building owners and operators with well-organized building performance and energy consumption data, enabling a host of analytic capabilities. These capabilities include portfolio-wide energy benchmarking, data visualization, and key performance indicator tracking; automated fault detection and diagnostics (AFDD); artificial intelligence for predictive analytics and control; automated measurement and verification of energy conservation measures; and supervisory control enabling automated system optimization and demand management.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Energy Management Information Systems Technical Resources Report

This report illustrates how energy management information systems (EMIS) can enable federal agencies to improve energy performance, reduce costs, and meet energy goals. The guide discusses how to identify and implement needed EMIS functions and capabilities, covering the entire EMIS life cycle including system design, procurement, implementation, and ongoing maintenance.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Fragility Functions Resource Report: Documented Sources for Electricity and Water Resilience Valuation

Fragility curves provide the vulnerability between hazard intensity and an asset. Federal installations may include many different electricity and water infrastructure types (or assets) such as generators, wind turbines, solar PV, switch yards, substations and power lines as well as water distribution systems that could be affected by different hazards. The vulnerability of each asset is a function of its age, type of materials and maintenance. In addition, the vulnerability changes with the hazards intensity and has a probability distribution function associated with it. The fragility functions are used in conjunction with hazard probability and consequence valuations to determine the values at risk for examination of investment grade analyses of alternative mitigation strategies. This document provides examples of fragility functions and links to their sources for different electricity and water infrastructure assets by hazard type.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2021

Introducing the GeoRePORT Resource Size Tool: Reporting on Geothermal Resource Size Estimations Using the Geothermal Resource Portfolio Optimization and Reporting Technique (GeoRePORT): Preprint

The Geothermal Resource Portfolio Optimization and Reporting Technique (GeoRePORT) was developed with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Office to assist in identifying and pursuing long-term investment strategies through the development of a resource reporting protocol. The assessment protocols used in GeoRePORT allow for comparison of project attributes across locations and geological settings to understand the feasibility of geothermal development. This work introduces the Resource Size Tool, a new feature within the GeoRePORT package that compiles two independent methods for estimating geothermal resource size in terms of energy capacity in MW. Energy production potential for twenty-three case studies was estimated with the Resource Size Tool in order to 1) generate a reasonable range of resource size estimates for a particular geothermal field; 2) illustrate the advantages and limitations of each methodology (such as data input requirements, estimate accuracy and precision, and the appropriate circumstances of use); and 3) test the ability of the resource size tool to provide useful and accurate information for geothermal stakeholders. The tool employs two methods widely used in the geothermal industry: (1) USGS Volumetric and (2) Power Density. Results from our case studies show general overlap between these two methods in terms of resource size estimates; however, they also reveal key differences between the two approaches that should be considered when using such estimates to drive development. First, the two methods rely on different input parameters and therefore one method may be more appropriate and/or accurate for a given project than the other. Second, the Power Density method was found to generate wider ranges of resource size predictions, more consistently aligning with actual power production of the field but with larger scales of error; whereas the USGS Volumetric method predicts narrower ranges but tends to overestimate when compared to current MW production. Future work will refine variables used in the methods with input data from other sections of GeoRePORT and modify uncertainty levels based on the particular datasets used for a given project.

geological↗
NASA NTRS1979

Analyzing water resources

Report on water resources discusses problems in water measurement demand, use, and availability. Also discussed are sensing accuracies, parameter monitoring, and status of forecasting, modeling, and future measurement techniques.

Source record↗
DOE OSTI2019

GeoRePORT Case Study Examples: Reporting Using the Geothermal Resource Portfolio Optimization and Reporting Technique (GeoRePORT): Preprint

The Geothermal Research Portfolio Optimization & Reporting Technique (GeoRePORT) was developed with funding from the United States Department of Energy's Geothermal Technologies Office (GTO) to assist in identifying and pursuing long-term investment strategies through the development of a resource reporting protocol. GeoRePORT provides scientists and non-scientists a comprehensive and quantitative means of reporting: (1) features intrinsic to geothermal sites (project grade) and, (2) maturity of the development (project readiness). Because geothermal feasibility is not determined by any single factor (e.g. temperature, permeability, permitting), a site's project grade and readiness are evaluated on twelve independent attributes pertaining to geological, technical, or socio-economic feasibility. In this paper, we present case studies illustrating how GeoRePORT can be used to compare geological, technical, and socio-economic attributes between geothermal systems. The consistent and objective assessment protocols used in GeoRePORT allow for comparison of project attributes across unique locations and geological settings. GeoRePORT case studies outline the geological, socio-economic and technical features of four individual geothermal sites: Coso, Chena, Dixie Valley, and White Sands Missile Range. The case studies presented herein illustrate the usefulness of GeoRePORT in evaluating project risk/return, identifying gaps in reported data, evaluating R&D impact, and gathering insights on successes/failures as applicable to future projects.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

GeoRePORT Case Study Examples: Reporting Using the Geothermal Resource Portfolio Optimization and Reporting Technique (GeoRePORT)

The Geothermal Research Portfolio Optimization & Reporting Technique (GeoRePORT) was developed with funding from the United States Department of Energy's Geothermal Technologies Office (GTO) to assist in identifying and pursuing long-term investment strategies through the development of a resource reporting protocol. GeoRePORT provides scientists and non-scientists a comprehensive and quantitative means of reporting: (1) features intrinsic to geothermal sites (project grade) and, (2) maturity of the development (project readiness). Because geothermal feasibility is not determined by any single factor (e.g. temperature, permeability, permitting), a site's project grade and readiness are evaluated on twelve independent attributes pertaining to geological, technical, or socio-economic feasibility. In this paper, we present case studies illustrating how GeoRePORT can be used to compare geological, technical, and socio-economic attributes between geothermal systems. The consistent and objective assessment protocols used in GeoRePORT allow for comparison of project attributes across unique locations and geological settings. GeoRePORT case studies outline the geological, socio-economic and technical features of four individual geothermal sites: Coso, Chena, Dixie Valley, and White Sands Missile Range. The case studies presented herein illustrate the usefulness of GeoRePORT in evaluating project risk/return, identifying gaps in reported data, evaluating R&D impact, and gathering insights on successes/failures as applicable to future projects.

40 EE - Geothermal Technologies Office (EE-4G)↗
DOE OSTI2020

GeoRePORT (Geothermal Resource Portfolio Optimization & Reporting Technique)

The Geothermal Resource Portfolio Optimization and Reporting Technique (GeoRePORT) Protocol provides a system for reporting resource grade and project readiness level. It is particularly useful for describing early-stage exploration projects. GeoRePORT can assist in evaluating project risk and return, identifying gaps in reported data, evaluating research and design impacts, and gathering insights on successes and failures. It helps users objectively and quantitatively compare project potential in geological, technical, and socioeconomic areas.

Young, Katherine↗
NASA NTRS1992

NASA Space Engineering Research Center for utilization of local planetary resources

Reports covering the period from 1 Nov. 1991 to 31 Oct. 1992 and documenting progress at the NASA Space Engineering Research Center are included. Topics covered include: (1) processing of propellants, volatiles, and metals; (2) production of structural and refractory materials; (3) system optimization discovery and characterization; (4) system automation and optimization; and (5) database development.

Source record↗
DOE OSTI2019

Incentive-Based Control and Coordination of Distributed Energy Resources. Final Report

The rapid growth of low-inertia renewable energy resources represents an immense opportunity for the U.S. to minimize its carbon footprint, while presenting a challenge for system operators as traditional “spinning” generation resources are displaced. This transformation requires solutions to robustly and cost-effectively manage dynamic changes on the grid while ensuring quality of service. There is growing recognition that distributed energy resources (DERs – loads, distributed generation, storage, electric vehicles, etc.) represent a great potential to perform this function. This report details a scalable hierarchical control strategy for coordinating thousands of heterogeneous DERs in order to provide three ancillary gird services: 1) frequency response, a rapid (within 2 seconds) service used to maintain the grid at 60 Hz; 2) regulation response, a larger response used to balance on-going differences in supply and demand on the grid; and, 3) ramping reserve, used to bring on capacity to replace lost generation. The developed control architecture consists of 1) a Distribution Reliability Coordinator (DRC), 2) aggregator controllers, and finally, 3) DER controllers. The DRC coordinates all the flexible loads and distributed energy resources on the distribution system and bids the aggregate flexibility into the wholesale market. The DRC also performs resource allocation (deciding how the flexible devices on the distribution system will be dispatched) to meet the requirements for each of the three ancillary services. The aggregators control a collection of devices that are geographically co-located and provide a platform to aggregate their flexibility and mitigate uncertainty associated with a single flexible load by managing a large aggregation of similar loads (so that any stochastic effects average out). Finally, DER controllers (for example, thermostats for air conditioners, chargers for electric vehicles) adjust the power consumption of individual devices to ensure accurate and reliable delivery of the requested grid services. Evaluation and validation of this approach was conducted with a mixture of simulation and hardware testing for a range of DERs in residential (air conditioners and water heaters), commercial HVAC (ventilation fans and central chiller plants), and micro-grids (battery energy storage, solar PV etc.). This culminated in DER hardware and simulation models operating in conjunction with grid simulations as part of a large scale federated test-bed demonstration. Simulations of over 10,000 controllable residential devices (a combination of air conditioners, water heaters, batteries, and electric vehicles) demonstrated that this advanced control approach could simultaneously meet all three grid services. Furthermore, hardware-in-the-loop testing was performed with operational micro-grid and commercial building HVAC equipment. The micro-grid equipment (representing PV, battery storage, and back-up generators) demonstrated the ability to meet all frequency response requirements (except ramping time). The commercial building HVAC ventilation equipment successfully provided the regulating response service. An Industry Advisory Board (IAB) was formed and engaged throughout the project to get feed-back on project risks and potential commercialization barriers. Their input was invaluable in identify key risks stemming from regulatory and market access challenges, financial risks from under-performance, and competitive threats from utility-scale solutions such as integrated storage. A phased commercialization plan was developed that addresses continued risk reduction (value proposition refinement and performance uncertainty assessments), piloting through field demonstrations with key stakeholders, and finally, deployment as an emerging standard for DER control.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗