Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “capacity factor”

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 OSTI2025

Existing Hydropower Assets (EHA) Capacity Factor Plant Database, 2005-2024

Existing Hydropower Asset (EHA) Annual Capacity Factor is a geospatial point-level dataset containing annual capacity factors over the years (2005-2024) and key characteristics of operational U.S. hydropower plants with 1 megawatt or greater of nameplate capacity. EIA form 860 and EHA are the primary sources of the derived data. Pumped storage and hybrid plants are excluded.

Johnson, Megan [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000290141741)↗
DOE OSTI2024

Hydropower Capacity Factor Trends & Analytics for the United States

This data repository contains all code, input data, and data generated for Turner et al. (2024)—“Hydropower capacity factors trending down in the United States”. File descriptions: – hydro-cf-trends-inputs.zip: Full set of input data used in this study, organized for direct entry into “/data” directory of hydro-cf-trends data processing pipeline. – hydro-cf-trends.zip: Full data processing pipeline, coded using the R {targets} framework. This is a snapshot release (v1.0) of the code repository stored at https://code.ornl.gov/turnersw/hydro-cf-trends/. – hydro-cf-trends-results.zip: Provides all dam level results required to reproduce results and graphics in Turner et al. (2024). Dams are identified by the “complxID” (root of the hydropower plant ID in the Existing Hydropower Assets Database, inherited from HILARRI). Results include: • dam_CF_trends.csv: Table of long-term trends in annualized capacity factors for 610 dams and modeled annualized capacity factors for 362 modeled dams (naturalized and assimilated flows). • dam_annualized_CF_gen.csv: Annualized time series of the following variables for each of 610 hydropower dams with nameplate > 5MW – Reported nameplate capacity (MW) – Implied maximum annual generation (MWh) – Reported net generation (MWh) – Computed annual capacity factor – Modeled annual capacity factor (362 modeled plants only)

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Assessing Photovoltaic Capacity Factor Variability Using Long-Term Satellite Derived Solar Resource Data Under Brazilian Climate

Accurate estimation of photovoltaic (PV) energy yield and its variability is essential for reducing financial risk and supporting reliable system planning for rapidly expanding PV markets. In Brazil, high solar adoption and increasing levels of distributed energy resources are beginning to introduce operational challenges such as curtailment and evolving grid requirements. Understanding how natural variability in solar resource propagates into PV system performance is therefore increasingly important for both project design and grid integration. Modern PV yield assessments commonly rely on multi-year meteorological datasets and probabilistic exceedance metrics (e.g., P50/P90) to quantify energy yield uncertainty for project financing. However, the implications of long-term solar resource variability for PV system design choices and high-adoption grid conditions remain less well characterized for rapidly expanding markets such as Brazil. In particular, understanding how weather-driven variability propagates into PV production distributions and capacity factor expectations is important for evaluating curtailment exposure, deployment strategies, and storage requirements in regions experiencing rapid growth of distributed and utility-scale PV. Seasonal and interannual variability in atmospheric conditions can produce substantial fluctuations in monthly PV energy production, which propagate into uncertainty in annual energy yield and capacity factor expectations. Characterizing this variability using long-term meteorological datasets allows probabilistic estimation of PV system performance and provides improved insight into the range of expected PV energy outcomes. This study explores the use of long-term satellite-derived meteorological data from the National Solar Radiation Database (NSRDB) to evaluate the variability of photovoltaic system performance across multiple locations in Brazil. Using a 27-year dataset (1998-2024), PV system simulations are performed to characterize the distribution of annual and seasonal capacity factors and energy yield outcomes, while propagating key sources of meteorological variability and model uncertainty through the PV modeling chain. The analysis also investigates the sensitivity of PV performance outcomes to key system design assumptions within the PV modeling chain, including tracking configuration and system sizing parameters. The resulting probabilistic performance characterization provides insight into how weather-driven variability influences PV production expectations and capacity factor distributions. These results provide a foundation for evaluating how weather-driven variability interacts with high PV adoption and potential storage or curtailment mitigation strategies.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Hydropower capacity factors trending down in the United States

Abstract The United States hydropower fleet has faced increasing environmental and regulatory pressures over the last half century, potentially constraining total generation. Here we show that annual capacity factor has declined at four fifths of United States hydropower plants since 1980, with two thirds of decreasing trends significant at p < 0.05. Results are based on an analysis of annual energy generation totals and nameplate capacities for 610 plants (>5 megawatt), representing 87% of total conventional hydropower capacity in the United States. On aggregate, changes in capacity factor imply a fleetwide, cumulative generation decrease of 23% since 1980 before factoring in capacity upgrades—akin to retiring a Hoover Dam once every two to three years. Changes in water availability explain energy decline in only 21% of plants, highlighting the importance of non-climatic drivers of generation, including deterioration of plant equipment as well as changes to dam operations in support of nonpower objectives.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
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 OSTI2026

Marginal Soils Index Analysis & Geospatial Data

This data package contains output files associated with Mongird et al. (in prep) organized into four dataset directories. Each dataset is described in more detail below. 1. Marginal Soils Index Analysis Description: This folder contains a csv file with land needs and availability by state, power generating technology type, and scenario in 2050 when suitable siting areas are additionally constrained to areas with increasing levels of soil marginality. Files: msi_constrained_siting_availability_2050.csv Variables: Scenario - Projected 2050 scenario name State - US state abbreviation Technology - Generating technology type solar = solar photovoltaic gas_cc_re = natural gas combined cycle (recirculating cooling) wind = onshore wind gas_cc_ccs_re = natural gas combined cycle with carbon capture sequestration (recirculating cooling) gas_cc_dry = natural gas combined cycle with (dry cooling) gas_cc_pond = natural gas combined cycle with (pond cooling) coal_conv_ccs_re = conventional coal with carbon capture sequestration (recirculating cooling) Req_Capacity_MW - The amount of rated capacity required in 2050 of the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario from the capacity expansion plan Req_Capacity_Factor - The assumed capacity factor (fraction between 0 and 1) for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario by the capacity expansion plan Req_Land_km2 - The amount of land required (in km-squared) to host the required generating capacity that is capable of meeting the specified capacity factor for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario Req_Energy_TWh - Product of Req_Capacity_MW, Req_Capacity_Factor, and 8760/1e6 for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario MSI_Case - The level of MSI that siting the given technology is additionally constrained to, where >0 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than 0 >=1 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 1 >=2 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 2 >=3 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 3 Soil Attribute Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files for individual soil parameters upscaled to the listed grid resolution (30m or 1 km). 1 km resolution files are a spatial average of non-missing 30m resolution values. All raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. Files: avg_cond_raster_ .tif - Average conductivity of the saturation extract across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches, measured in mmhos/cm max_cond_raster_ .tif - Maximum conductivity of the saturation extract across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches, measured in mmhos/cm min_ph_raster_ .tif- Min pH values across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. avg_ph_raster_ .tif - Average pH value across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. max_ph_raster_ .tif- Max pH value across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. erosion_factor_raster_ .tif - Product of k-factor and percent slope flood_freq_raster_ .tif - Number of months of the year during which the area is commonly, frequently, or very frequently flooded. max_sar_raster_ .tif - Maximum sodium adsorption ratio across all horizons within a depth of 40 inches rock_frac_raster_ .tif - Fraction of the upper 6 inches of soil composed of rock fragments larger than 3 inches. temp_regime_raster_ .tif - Soil temperature regime with the following key: 0 = pergelic 1 = gelic 2 = cryic 3 = frigid 4 = isofrigid 5 = mesic 6 = isomesic 7 = thermic 8 = isothermic 9 = hyperthermic 10 =isohyperthermic Marginal Soils Index Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files of the Marginal Soils Index at the listed grid resolution (30m or 1 km). 1 km resolution files are a spatial average of 30m resolution. Both raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. A value of 0 indicates that there were no soil attributes present that indicate marginal soil. NA values indicate that data was unavailable or bodies of water. Files: marginal_soils_index_30m_raster.tif marginal_soils_index_1km_raster.tif Marginal Soils Index Resource Potential Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files of the Marginal Soils Index + Resource Potential (MSI+RP) score at 1km resolution for geothermal, solar, and wind technologies. Raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. NA values indicate that the location is not suitable for siting the given technology due to policy, environmental, socioeconomic, topological, and other constraints regardless of soil marginality level. Areas with values greater than or equal to zero represent the product of the normalized MSI value and the normalized resource potential value. Files: geothermal_msi_ep_score_raster.tif solar_msi_ep_score_raster.tif wind_msi_ep_score_raster.tif Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Agriculture↗
DOE OSTI2026

Marginal Soils Index Analysis & Geospatial Data

This data package contains output files associated with the Mongird et al. paper entitled "Can US power grid expansion avoid prime agricultural lands?" and is organized into four dataset directories. Each dataset is described in more detail below. 1. Marginal Soils Index Analysis Description: This folder contains a csv file with land needs and availability by state, power generating technology type, and scenario in 2050 when suitable siting areas are additionally constrained to areas with increasing levels of soil marginality. Files: msi_constrained_siting_availability_2050.csv Variables: Scenario - Projected 2050 scenario name State - US state abbreviation Technology - Generating technology type solar = solar photovoltaic gas_cc_re = natural gas combined cycle (recirculating cooling) wind = onshore wind gas_cc_ccs_re = natural gas combined cycle with carbon capture sequestration (recirculating cooling) gas_cc_dry = natural gas combined cycle with (dry cooling) gas_cc_pond = natural gas combined cycle with (pond cooling) coal_conv_ccs_re = conventional coal with carbon capture sequestration (recirculating cooling) Req_Capacity_MW - The amount of rated capacity required in 2050 of the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario from the capacity expansion plan Req_Capacity_Factor - The assumed capacity factor (fraction between 0 and 1) for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario by the capacity expansion plan Req_Land_km2 - The amount of land required (in km-squared) to host the required generating capacity that is capable of meeting the specified capacity factor for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario Req_Energy_TWh - Product of Req_Capacity_MW, Req_Capacity_Factor, and 8760/1e6 for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario MSI_Case - The level of MSI that siting the given technology is additionally constrained to, where >0 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than 0 >=1 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 1 >=2 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 2 >=3 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 3 Soil Attribute Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files for individual soil parameters upscaled to the listed grid resolution (30m or 1 km). 1 km resolution files are a spatial average of non-missing 30m resolution values. All raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. Files: avg_cond_raster_ .tif - Average conductivity of the saturation extract across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches, measured in mmhos/cm max_cond_raster_ .tif - Maximum conductivity of the saturation extract across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches, measured in mmhos/cm min_ph_raster_ .tif- Min pH values across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. avg_ph_raster_ .tif - Average pH value across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. max_ph_raster_ .tif- Max pH value across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. erosion_factor_raster_ .tif - Product of k-factor and percent slope flood_freq_raster_ .tif - Number of months of the year during which the area is commonly, frequently, or very frequently flooded. max_sar_raster_ .tif - Maximum sodium adsorption ratio across all horizons within a depth of 40 inches rock_frac_raster_ .tif - Fraction of the upper 6 inches of soil composed of rock fragments larger than 3 inches. temp_regime_raster_ .tif - Soil temperature regime with the following key: 0 = pergelic 1 = gelic 2 = cryic 3 = frigid 4 = isofrigid 5 = mesic 6 = isomesic 7 = thermic 8 = isothermic 9 = hyperthermic 10 =isohyperthermic Marginal Soils Index Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files of the Marginal Soils Index at the listed grid resolution (30m or 1 km). 1 km resolution files are a spatial average of 30m resolution. Both raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. A value of 0 indicates that there were no soil attributes present that indicate marginal soil. NA values indicate that data was unavailable or bodies of water. Files: marginal_soils_index_30m_raster.tif marginal_soils_index_1km_raster.tif Marginal Soils Index Resource Potential Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files of the Marginal Soils Index + Resource Potential (MSIxRP) score at 1km resolution for geothermal, solar, and wind technologies. Raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. NA values indicate that the location is not suitable for siting the given technology due to policy, environmental, socioeconomic, topological, and other constraints regardless of soil marginality level. Areas with values greater than or equal to zero represent the product of the normalized MSI value and the normalized resource potential value. Files: geothermal_msi_rp_score_raster.tif solar_msi_rp_score_raster.tif wind_msi_rp_score_raster.tif Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Agriculture↗
DOE OSTI2025

CERF: IM3 Projected Western US Power Plant Locations

Overview The Capacity Expansion Regional Feasibility (CERF) model is an open-source geospatial python package that provides new power plant locations at a 1km resolution. The model ingests U.S. state or regional-scale electricity system capacity expansion plans, such as those produced by the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM-USA), and identifies feasible, site-specific locations for individual new power plants (renewable and non-renewable). CERF combines high-resolution geospatial suitability analyses with an economic algorithm that selects individual plant siting locations based on grid interconnection costs and the locational marginal value of new generation. The model incorporates a wide range of dynamic constraints and opportunities, such as protected lands, population density, existing infrastructure, and water availability. This dataset provides CERF power plant siting results for IM3 Phase 2 simulations across eight different scenarios for the Western US through 2055. The scenarios include combinations of two Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP3 and SSP5) with four high-resolution climate projections specific to the United States (see, https://tgw-data.msdlive.org/). These climate projections include "hotter" and "cooler" variants for two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The resulting eight simulations are: rcp45cooler_ssp3 rcp45cooler_ssp5 rcp45hotter_ssp3 rcp45hotter_ssp5 rcp85cooler_ssp3 rcp85cooler_ssp5 rcp85hotter_ssp3 rcp85hotter_ssp5 CERF siting results in this dataset correspond to capacity expansion plans in the GCAM-USA IM3 Phase 2 simulation data and are available for each of the above scenarios. Data Details Temporal Range: 2015-2055 in 5-year timesteps. Note that 2015 is the experiment base year and 2020 and beyond represent model simulation years. Spatial Range: Plant locations are provided for the eleven states in the Western US including Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Spatial Resolution: 1 km-squared, provided in x and y coordinates Geospatial Projection: Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) File Type: csv The dataset contains subdirectories for each of the eight scenarios described in the overview. Each scenario folder contains two subfolders with the following information: 1. Power Plant Data This directory contains a single .csv file of power plant locations for both pre-existing (non-CERF sited plants in operation in 2015) and new (CERF-sited) power plants across the temporal range along with additional CERF model output parameters for CERF-sited plants. Plant with a siting year earlier than 2020 correspond to facilities that are operational leading into the first timestep CERF simulation. For a more detailed description of CERF model output parameters, see the CERF model documentation. Note that the cerf_plant_id parameter is unique within each scenario file but not across scenario files. Parameter Descriptions scenario - Name of scenario cerf_plant_id - Unique siting identifier cerf_sited - If True, indicates that plant was sited by CERF model. If False, indicates pre-existing facility region_name - Name of region (state) tech_id - Technology ID tech_name - Full generation technology name inclusive of cooling type (if applicable) and additional characteristics tech_simple - Simplified generation technology type unit_size_mw - Power plant unit size (MW) xcoord - X coordinate in the default CRS (meters) ycoord - Y coordinate in the default CRS (meters) index - Index position in the flattend 2D array buffer_in_km - Exclusion buffer around site (km) sited_year - Year of siting retirement_year - Year of retirement lmp_zone - Locational marginal price (LMP) zone ID locational_marginal_price_usd_per_mwh - Locational marginal price ($/MWh) generation_mwh_per_year - Generation output (MWh/yr) operating_cost_usd_per_year - Cost of plant operations ($/yr) net_operational_value - Net operational value based on LMP and and operating costs ($/yr) interconnection_cost - Cost of interconnection for transmission & gas pipeline (if applicable) net_locational_cost -- Difference of interconnection cost and operating value ($/yr) capacity_factor_fraction - Capacity factor (fraction) carbon_capture_rate_fraction - Carbon capture rate (fraction) fuel_co2_content_tons_per_btu - Fuel CO2 content (tons/Btu) fuel_price_usd_per_mmbtu - Fuel price ($/MMBtu) fuel_price_esc_rate_fraction - Fuel price escalation rate (fraction) heat_rate_btu_per_kWh - Heat rate (Btu/kWh) lifetime_yrs - Technology lifetime for annuity (years) operational_life_yrs - Operational lifetime for retirement (years) variable_om_usd_per_mwh - Variable operation and maintenance costs of yearly capacity use ($/MWh) variable_om_esc_rate_fraction - Variable operation and maintenance costs escalation rate (fraction) carbon_tax_usd_per_ton - Carbon tax ($/ton) carbon_tax_esc_rate_fraction - Carbon tax escalation rate (fraction) 2. Storage Data This directory contains information on new and pre-existing energy storage facilities operational in each timestep along with various storage operational parameters. The 2015 timestep provides pre-existing energy storage data and corresponds with facilities that are operational leading into the first model simulation timestep. Note that coordinates in the storage files correspond to the interconnection point on the grid (substation location), not individual energy storage locations. Energy storage is added in a cumulative process at each given interconnection point. That is, each individual file provides the total operational storage capacity interconnected to the specified substation for the given timestep, inclusive of previously installed storage at that location and new storage installed in that timestep at that location. Parameters scenario - Name of scenario timestep - Simulation timestep name - Unique storage identifier s_typ - Type of energy storage technology (battery or pumped storage hydro) s_node - Node ID of interconnecting substation xcoord - X coordinate in the default CRS (meters) ycoord - Y coordinate in the default CRS (meters) charge_rate - Maximum charge rate (power capacity) of storage system (MW) discharge_rate - Maximum discharge rate (power capacity) of storage system (MW) duration - Duration of storage system (hours) max_SoC - Allowed maximum state of charge (energy capacity) of storage system (MWh) min_SoC -Allowed minimum state of charge (energy capacity) of storage system (MWh) charge_eff - Efficiency of charge (fraction between 0 and 1) discharge_eff - Efficiency of discharge (fraction between 0 and 1) Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program.

CERF↗
DOE OSTI2024

Performance Testing of an Integrated Magnetic Power Take-Off

A wave energy converter (WEC) and the power take-off (PTO) generator system can be represented by using a mass-spring-dampener model. By incorporating a negative stiffness spring within the PTO, the overall stiffness of the PTO can be lowered allowing the impedance of the PTO to be more closely matched with the WEC. By designing for impedance matching the WEC can greatly enhance its power generation capability. This project has involved the design, fabrication and testing of a new type of linear-stroke length and rotary stroke length adjustable negative stiffness magnetic springs for use within a wave energy converter (WEC). The magnetic springs were studied by using 3-D finite element analysis with the objective of creating high energy density and a long linear stroke length. After the construction and testing of both a proof-of-principle adjustable linear and rotary magnetic spring prototype the rotary (torsional) magnetic spring was selected for scaling up analysis. The selected scaled-up proof-of-principle magnetic spring had a peak torque of 850 Nm with a ±45 degree stroke length. By translating the inner rotor relative to the outer rotor, the stiffness could be adjusted to be either negative or positive stiffness. During this project a magnetic lead screw was also studied, and it was shown that by combining the magnetic lead screw with a linearly translating magnetic spring a very long rotary stroke length could be attained. However, as the magnetic lead screw increased complexity and reduced overall energy density relative to a rotary (torsional) spring, this design approach was not further pursed. Dynamometer testing of the variable stiffness magnetic springs was first completed by Portland State University and following this the magnetic spring performance was independently verified by Sandia National Laboratory (Sandia). A WEC analysis when using a variable stiffness magnetic spring was completed by using the WecOptTool. WecOptTool is an open-source WEC optimization software developed by Sandia that supports efficient power take-off (PTO) and control optimization. Wave condition data from the Oregon PacWave test-site was used in this study. The analysis showed that a WEC with a tunable stiffness value could consistently achieve about 80% of its maximum theoretical power production. The use of a tunable stiffness WEC, rather than zero-stiffness or a constant stiffness WEC was also shown to lead to a smaller maximum PTO force requirement. The variable stiffness magnetic spring was integrated into an experimental WEC developed by Sandia, called a Wave-Bot. Sandia successfully completed water-tank testing of the Wave-Bot at the Navy’s Carderock, Maryland, wave-basin test site. The wave-basin testing helped to experimentally demonstrate the operating capabilities and increased power generation capability of a WEC containing an integrated variable stiffness magnetic spring. A WEC capacity factor analysis was also completed. The capacity factor was defined as the ratio of annual average WEC generator power to the maximum (RMS) generated power. This capacity factor provided a means of identifying the ratio of potential revenue to cost. It was calculated that if a tunable variable stiffness magnetic spring has RMS constraints it could operate with a capacity factor above 30%. This is comparable to a wind turbine’s capacity factor.

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
DOE OSTI2026

GRIDCERF - Geospatial Raster Input Data for Capacity Expansion Regional Feasibility

The Geospatial Raster Input Data for Capacity Expansion Regional Feasibility (GRIDCERF) data package is a high-resolution product to evaluate siting suitability for renewable and non-renewable power plants in the conterminous United States. GRIDCERF offers hundreds of individual suitability layers for use with both renewable and non-renewable power plant technology configurations in a harmonized format that can be easily ingested by geospatially-enabled modeling software. It also provides pre-compiled technology-specific suitability layers and allows for user customization to robustly address science objectives when evaluating varying future conditions. GRIDCERF data can be directly used with the CERF (Capacity Expansion Regional Feasibility) model to site power plants at a 1km resolution. GRIDCERF includes composite technology siting suitability raster layers for the following utility scale technology configurations. Note that, in addition to technology sub-types shown below, various cooling types are also included (recirculating, pond, once-through, recirculating-seawater, dry-hybrid, or dry) for various technologies. Biomass Conventional (with or without CCS) IGCC (with or without CCS) Coal Conventional (with or without CCS) IGCC (with or without CCS) Natural Gas Combined-cycle (CC) (with or without CCS) Turbine Geothermal Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) - Class 1 through Class 5 resource potential Nuclear Gen 2 Light Water Reactor (LWR) Gen 3 Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Gen 3 AP1000 Refined Liquids Combined-cycle (CC) (with or without CCS) Turbine Solar Photovoltaic (PV) - for capacity factors in the range of 6-18% Utility-scale Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) - for capacity factors in the range of 24-46% Tower Wind (Onshore) - for capacity factors in the range of 5-50% 80m hub height 100m hub height 120m hub height 140m hub height Wind (Offshore) - for capacity factors in the range of 25-60% 100m hub height 140m hub height 160m hub height

capacity expansion↗
DOE OSTI2024

GRIDCERF - Geospatial Raster Input Data for Capacity Expansion Regional Feasibility

The Geospatial Raster Input Data for Capacity Expansion Regional Feasibility (GRIDCERF) data package is a high-resolution product to evaluate siting suitability for renewable and non-renewable power plants in the conterminous United States. GRIDCERF offers hundreds of individual suitability layers for use with both renewable and non-renewable power plant technology configurations in a harmonized format that can be easily ingested by geospatially-enabled modeling software. It also provides pre-compiled technology-specific suitability layers and allows for user customization to robustly address science objectives when evaluating varying future conditions. GRIDCERF data can be directly used with the CERF (Capacity Expansion Regional Feasibility) model to site power plants at a 1km resolution. GRIDCERF includes composite technology siting suitability raster layers for the following utility scale technology configurations. Note that, in addition to technology sub-types shown below, various cooling types are also included (recirculating, pond, once-through, recirculating-seawater, dry-hybrid, or dry) for various technologies. Biomass Conventional (with or without CCS) IGCC (with or without CCS) Coal Conventional (with or without CCS) IGCC (with or without CCS) Natural Gas Combined-cycle (CC) (with or without CCS) Turbine Geothermal Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) - Class 1 through Class 5 resource potential Nuclear Gen 2 Light Water Reactor (LWR) Gen 3 Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Gen 3 AP1000 Refined Liquids Combined-cycle (CC) (with or without CCS) Turbine Solar Photovoltaic (PV) - for capacity factors in the range of 6-18% Utility-scale Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) - for capacity factors in the range of 24-46% Tower Wind (Onshore) - for capacity factors in the range of 5-50% 80m hub height 100m hub height 120m hub height 140m hub height Wind (Offshore) - for capacity factors in the range of 25-60% 100m hub height 140m hub height 160m hub height

capacity expansion↗
DOE OSTI2025

Assessment of Climate Change Impacts on Renewable Energy Resources in Western North America

We examine a 25 km resolution climate model dataset to evaluate how regional climate change impacts solar and wind energy under a high-emission scenario. Our study considers the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) region, which covers the western United States and southwestern Canada, focusing specifically on locations with existing solar and wind infrastructure. First, we conduct a historical model comparison of solar and wind energy capacity factors to highlight model uncertainties across the study area. Using future climate projections, we then assess the seasonal patterns of solar and wind capacity factors for three timeframes: historical, mid-century, and end of century. Additionally, we estimate the frequency of solar and wind resource droughts during these periods for the entire WECC and its five operational subregions, finding that certain subregions are more susceptible to energy droughts due to limited renewable resources. Finally, we present day-ahead capacity factor forecasts to support energy storage planning and provide estimates of offshore wind energy capacity within the WECC. Our results indicate that offshore wind capacity factors are nearly twice as high as onshore values, with less seasonal variation, which suggests that offshore wind could offer a more consistent renewable energy supply in the future.

climate change↗
DOE OSTI2024

Technical Potential for Hydropower Capacity at Non-powered Dams

In the last decade, retrofits of existing nonpowered dams (NPDs) have made up the largest share of capacity increases for US hydropower. Accurate estimates of potential capacity and generation at NPDs help identify sites that may be worth investing in detailed feasibility analyses and design exploration. This dataset consists of NPDs in the conterminous US with at least 100kW of theoretical potential based on earlier resource assessments. Historical daily streamflow (modeled or from USGS gauge records), hydraulic head (based on historical observations or primary purpose and dam height) are the main inputs for HydroGenerate which determines design flow and turbine efficiencies and then calculates nominal capacity, daily generation, and capacity factor. These outputs are summarized on a monthly basis (i.e., generation (MWh) and capacity factor averaged for each month from January to December) and overall (i.e., nominal capacity, average annual generation (MWh), and average annual capacity factor). A total of 4.1 GW capacity is estimated across all 2,564 NPDs included in the dataset.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Using multiple high-resolution datasets to benchmark the energy exascale earth system model (E3SM) for renewable resource assessment

The United States is accelerating its shift toward a renewable energy system. However, renewable resources, which harness energy from the Earth system, are susceptible to both present-day climate variability and future climate change. For example, variations in regional climate can alter renewable energy production patterns and site viability. The use of high-resolution climate model projections can therefore facilitate and may be critical to long-term planning of renewable energy investments. However, climate models must first be validated for renewable resource assessment. This research employs multiple high-spatiotemporal-resolution datasets to assess the capability of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Energy Exascale Earth System Model version 2 North American Regionally Refined Model (E3SMv2-NARRM) for predicting multi-year climatological values of solar and wind energy capacity factors in the continental U.S., with a focus on regional and seasonal variability. Present-day E3SMv2-NARRM simulations are compared with reported utility-scale production data obtained from the Energy Information Administration (EIA). In addition, E3SMv2-NARRM data are evaluated against non-climate benchmark models from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, including the Wind Integration National Dataset Toolkit and the National Solar Radiation Database (NSRDB), as well as three wind energy datasets from PLUSWIND. Our analysis indicates that solar capacity factors from E3SM closely match those from the NSRDB dataset. However, both datasets tend to overestimate values by 10% in comparison to EIA data. Furthermore, biases in wind capacity factors within E3SM are notably pronounced in the West Coast regions, where the seasonal cycle diverges from EIA data.

Energy forecasting, Capacity factor, Renewable ene↗
DOE OSTI2025

Evaluating the potential of short-term instrument deployment to improve distributed wind resource assessment

Distributed wind projects, which are connected at the distribution level of an electricity system or in off-grid applications to serve specific or local energy needs, often rely solely on wind resource models to establish wind speed and energy generation expectations. Historically, anemometer loan programs have provided an affordable avenue for more accurate onsite wind resource assessment, and the lowering cost of lidar systems has shown similar advantages for more recent assessments. While a full 12 months of onsite wind measurement is the standard for correcting model-based long-term wind speed estimates for utility-scale wind farms, the time and capital investment involved in gathering onsite measurements must be reconciled with the energy needs and funding opportunities that drive expedient deployment of distributed wind projects. Much literature exists to quantify the performance of correcting long-term wind speed estimates with 1 or more years of observational data, but few studies explore the impacts of correcting with months-long observational periods. This study aims to answer the question of how short you can go in terms of the observational time period needed to make impactful improvements to model-based long-term wind speed estimates. Three algorithms, multivariable linear regression, adaptive regression splines, and regression trees, are evaluated for their skill at correcting long-term wind resource estimates from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts Reanalysis version 5 (ERA5) using months-long periods of observational data from 66 locations across the US. On average, correction with even 1 month of observations provides significant improvement over the baseline ERA5 wind speed estimates and produces median bias magnitudes and relative errors within 0.22 m s −1 and 4 percentage points of the median bias magnitudes and relative errors achieved using the standard 12 months of data for correction. However, in cases when the shortest observational periods (1 to 2 months) used for correction are not well correlated with the overlapping ERA5 reference, the resultant long-term wind speed errors are worse than those produced using ERA5 without correction. Summer months, which are characterized by weaker relative wind speeds and standard deviations for most of the evaluation sites, tend to produce the worst results for long-term correction using months-long observations. The three tested algorithms perform similarly for long-term wind speed bias; however, regression trees perform notably worse than multivariable linear regression and adaptive regression splines in terms of correlation when using 6 months or less of observational data for correction. Translating the analysis to wind energy, median relative errors in the capacity factor are on average within 10 % using 1 month of training. If the observation period used for correction is not well correlated with the reference data, however, misrepresentation of the observed capacity factor can be substantial. The risk associated with poor correlation between the observed and reference datasets decreases with increasing training period length. In the worst-correlation scenarios, the median capacity factor relative errors from using 1, 3, and 6 months are within 47 %, 26 %, and 16 %, respectively.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Grid-responsive hydrogen production: Capital utilization and current density vs. efficiency in variable electricity markets

To achieve low-cost hydrogen production from water electrolyzers, grid tied electrolysis may need to operate dynamically to minimize the cost of supplying energy to the electrolyzer stack and produce hydrogen during low-cost hours and turn off/down during high-cost hours. Operating systems in this way can decrease capital utilization (capacity factor) and electricity costs. This strategy would shift the dominant cost drivers away from electricity (and thus efficiency) to the capital costs of the system, due to the underutilized capital when operating at low-capacity factors. Increasing the operational current density of the system could, in effect, reduce the capital cost of the system while producing hydrogen at a lower efficiency on a per unit energy basis. In the variable electricity cost profiles analyzed in this paper, increasing the current density for liquid alkaline from 0.5 A/cm2 to 1.5 Ac/m2 and proton exchange membrane electrolyzers from 2 A/cm2 to 4 A/cm2 resulted in substantial reductions in the levelized cost of hydrogen. Additionally, as capacity factors and electricity costs decrease, the optimal operating current density of the electrolyzer systems analyzed increases. These findings suggest R&D efforts should focus on increasing the operational current densities, reducing the turn down ratios, and understanding the durability implications of those strategies on low-temperature liquid alkaline and proton exchange membrane electrolyzers.

08 HYDROGEN↗