Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “cost analysis”

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 OSTI2022

Manufacturing Cost Analysis of Advanced Parabolic Trough Collector

The research team performed a detailed bottom-up manufacturing cost estimate for an advanced parabolic trough design - the Solar Dynamics Sunbeam-MT (Sunbeam Mid-Term). This includes all components for manufacturing and assembly in a manufacturing facility (e.g. space frame and arms), and the purchased parts (e.g. mirrors and receiver tubes). Estimates of the construction and assembly activities have been made to then determine an estimated installed cost. Prior analysis has already undertaken detailed bottom-up manufacturing, assembly, and construction analysis for the Ultimate Trough from schlaich bergermann partner (sbp), and this work updates the solar field cost estimates based on a similar aperture area as the SunBeam-MT. For this analysis, the Ultimate Trough is considered the commercial parabolic trough and the Sunbeam-MT as the advanced parabolic trough. For similarity, both the Sunbeam-MT and the Ultimate Trough have been modelled with a solar field with approximately 800,000 square meters (m2) in aperture area - the equivalent of a large CSP plant. The analysis has found a potential installed cost estimate of the Sunbeam-MT could be $120/m2 but must be built at scale to confirm this estimate. Compared to prior analysis, the commercial Ultimate Trough using U.S. conditions, has reduced in installed cost from $178/m2 to $152/m2. Both designs could be even cheaper with Chinese steel.

cost analysis↗
DOE OSTI2018

Risk and Cost Analysis of Utilizing FLEX Equipment for O&M Cost Reduction in Nuclear Power Plants

Several Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) operators in USA have announced to close their plants despite there are remaining years on their operating licenses. The cause of these closures is because the plant operators suffer financial losses. Approximately 80% of USA NPPs would have undergone financial losses if they were situated in a deregulated electricity market. In a deregulated market, electricity generators are independent entities separate from the transmission companies and Independent System Operator (ISO) which manages the market. NPPs in this market are termed merchant NPPs, and their profitability is determined solely from electricity generation revenues. Meanwhile, regulated and public power nuclear units’ profitability is determined by the regulatory process in place for each unit. Due to the complexity of differentiating each regulated and public power NPP’s regulations 36 NPPs are at an immediate risk of retiring early to stop losses, while 27 units will likely to follow in the long run. Today, cost is well-recognized and important factor in NPP decision-making that cannot be ignored. Therefore, it is essential to consider risk and cost together in decision-making to strengthen the position of the nuclear industry in an economically challenging energy market. With operational and maintenance (O&M) cost at 70% of the total operating expenditure of an NPP and some plants closing prematurely despite excellent safety record, there is an urgent need to address the high O&M cost. One of the novel entities that provide additional safety resulting in reduced risk of nuclear power plants is Flex equipment. Flex strategies were postulated by the US NRC in the wake of Fukushima Dai-chi accident to address beyond design-basis accidents and improve plant flexibility. Flex strategy comprise both onsite and off-site component storage for the provision of additional materials and equipment. This work explored innovative ways of utilizing the onsite Flex equipment during regular plant operation, for purposes in addition to the intended use of beyond design basis accidents. This report describes the risk and cost analysis of using Flex equipment during regular or unplanned maintenance.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
DOE OSTI2021

2020 Cost Analysis of Hydropower Options at Non-Powered Dams

This report provides a cost analysis of potential hydropower development for representative non-powered dam (NPD) sites in the United States. The overarching objective is to support the establishment of a basis for evaluating progress towards improving the competitiveness of new hydropower development for electricity generation. The representative sites, herein referred to as “reference sites”, were selected from sites with detailed water resource data to support the cost analysis. Facility designs, capital costs, plant generation and efficiency profiles, capacity factors, and levelized costs of energy (LCOE) are presented for the sites under baseline and near-term innovation cases. The baseline case represents facility configurations using technologies that are already widely applied in the hydropower industry, whereas near-term innovations are technologies likely to reach wide acceptance within the next 5 to 10 years. Cost savings in the near-term relative to the baseline are discussed to illustrate the potential benefits to the hydropower industry from research and development (R&D) and adoption of these innovations. Medium- to long-term innovation options expected from ongoing private and government R&D efforts are also highlighted but are not quantified in this report because of a current lack of complete information on these options. The key findings of the cost analysis in this study imply that near-term innovations could reduce the baseline costs of hydropower development at US NPD sites. Thus, if remaining R&D issues with these near-term innovations can be resolved within the next 5 to 10 years, industry-wide adoption of these technologies and improved competitiveness of NPD hydropower development can be expected. Specific key findings of the analysis include the following: 1) Potential installed capacity at the NPD sites evaluated in this study vary from 200 kW to 70 MW, representing two orders of magnitude variation across nearly 20 sites; 2) Capital costs, not including development costs, for the sites evaluated in this study vary from $2,200/kW to $34,000/kW but are below $12,000/kW for most sites; 3) Baseline LCOE estimates for lake dams are from $79/MWh to $790/MWh with most sites under $400/MWh, whereas estimates for lock dams are from $134/MWh to $289/MWh with most sites under $200/MWh; 4) Reductions in capital cost per kilowatt under the near-term innovation case are from −77% to −14% for lake dams and −21% to −2.1% for lock dams (excluding one site with a 14% increase in per-kilowatt capital costs); 5) Combined changes in capital costs and capacity factors in the near-term case relative to the baseline lead to reductions in LCOE of −71% to −14% for lake dams and −21% to −14% for lock dams; 6) Overall, LCOE reductions lead to 8 of the 18 sites under the near-term case having LCOE values below $150/MWh compared with only 2 of 18 sites in the baseline case.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Framework for Water Efficiency Measures

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Framework for Water Efficiency Measures: Guidance Designed for Federal Agencies (hereafter referred to as “this report”) provides a technical framework for federal agencies to conduct a life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) for water efficiency projects in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 8253. This report leverages insights from the 2023 report, PNNL-34006, Water and Wastewater Annual Price Escalation Rates for Selected Cities Across the United States: 2023 Edition (Unger et al. 2023). The primary objective of this report is to provide a framework to assist federal agencies with evaluating the full economic impact of water efficiency projects by assessing both initial investments and long-term operational benefits. An LCCA can provide a comprehensive view of all costs associated with a water efficiency project, including initial investment, ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M), and eventual disposal or replacement, ensuring the most cost-effective solution is selected. The LCCA methodology outlined in this report enables users to compare base case scenarios with potential alternatives using a standardized present value approach. It incorporates key cost components such as energy, water and wastewater, installation, O&M, and equipment replacement. Additionally, the framework introduces relevant evaluation metrics, such as the net savings and the savings-to-investment ratio, to ensure that water efficiency measures are economically justified over the lifespan of the project. To support practical application, this report also describes various water efficiency strategies that may be analyzed using an LCCA, including plumbing retrofits, irrigation upgrades, alternative water use, and cooling system improvements. By applying this framework, federal agencies can ensure compliance with regulatory mandates while maximizing the return on investment and contributing to resilient water management practices. The information provided in this report is aligned with the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) life-cycle cost (LCC) methodology, as conveyed in National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 135 (Kneifel and Webb 2022). This report is intended to provide relatively high-level guidance, acting as a complement to, rather than a substitute for, that resource.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2021

H 2 Production Pathways Cost Analysis (2016 - 2021) (Final Report)

This final report documents cost analysis conducted for the Department of Energy over a five year period (2016 to 2021) pertaining to hydrogen production and delivery system components, focusing on the key remaining challenges of the technology pathways within the Hydrogen Production and Delivery sub-program portfolio. A particular focus was placed on electrolysis for the generation of hydrogen. The effort primarily used the H2A discounted cash flow computational model as a tool to project hydrogen cost ($/kgH 2 ) and determine status improvements resulting from technology advancements. The effort also considered cost as a function of production volume, employed error bars to illustrate uncertainties in the cost estimates, and utilized sensitivity analyses to show the potential for cost reductions. The project examined a range of hydrogen production and delivery related systems. These included WireTough wire-wrapped pressure vessels for hydrogen storage, proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysis, solid oxide electrolysis (SOE), anion exchange membrane (AEM) electrolysis, photoelectrochemical (PEC) electrolysis, solar thermochemical hydrogen (STCH) production, the cost of energy transmission, and a study on the necessary price of hydrogen to produce competitively-priced electricity via fuel cell conversion.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2016

Cost Analysis of Complex Radiation Therapy for Patients With Head and Neck Cancer

Purpose: This cost analysis aimed to prospectively assess differences in costs between TomoTherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients with head and neck cancer. Methods and Materials: Economic data were gathered from a multicenter study. However, randomization was not possible due to the availability of equipment. Costs were calculated using the microcosting technique from the hospital's perspective (in 2013 euros), and the time horizon was radiation therapy. Only resources that entered the hospital production process and which were likely to vary between the strategies being compared were considered. Acute adverse events observed within the time horizon were also assessed. Results: The cost analysis was based on a total of 173 patient treatments given between 2010 and 2012 in 14 French cancer centers: 73 patients were treated with TomoTherapy, 92 with VMAT RapidArc, and 8 with VMAT SmartArc. Estimated costs of SmartArc were removed from the comparison due to the small sample size. The mean ± SD cost per patient of the treatment planning phase was €314 (±€214) for TomoTherapy and €511 (±€590) for RapidArc. Mean costs ± SD per patient of irradiation reached €3144 (±€565) for TomoTherapy and €1350 (±€299) for RapidArc. The most sensitive parameter of irradiation was the annual operating time of accelerators. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals for the mean costs of irradiation were €3016 to €3272 for TomoTherapy and €1281 to €1408 for RapidArc. The number of acute adverse events during radiation therapy was not significantly different between strategies. Conclusions: TomoTherapy appeared to be more expensive than RapidArc mainly due to the higher price of the accelerator, the higher costs of maintenance, and the longer duration of treatment sessions. Because strategies were not significantly different in clinical effect, RapidArc appeared to be the strategy to be recommended at this stage of knowledge.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗
DOE OSTI2015

The basics of least cost analysis for archaeological applications

Here we report that Least Cost Analysis (LCA) is a geospatially focused quantitative approach that can help archaeologists better understand how people may have moved across a landscape. At its core is the assumption that humans make decisions about movement as fully rational actors with complete knowledge of the landscape, attempting to minimize the cost of that movement as they travel from one location to another. LCA is most often used to construct a small number of hypothetical routes between locations of interest and, when used effectively, can even lead to the creation of entire transportation networks. Desktop GIS software packages, both commercial and open source, make running LCA relatively straightforward, but that does not necessarily mean that the output is informative or accurate. The following tutorial is designed to expose the reader to the foundational steps required to complete an LCA workflow, along with the scientific rationale behind each step and how to avoid potential pitfalls that one might run into along the way. Finally, relevant literature is cited throughout the tutorial in order to provide context for the technical methods that underpin available tools, to suggest various ways that LCA can be used to solve archaeological problems, and to show the art of the possible.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Cost Analysis of Heavy-Duty Vehicle Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell Stationary Power Plants

Heavy-duty PEM fuel cells could be a low-cost, low emission alternative to combustion turbines for re-electrifying hydrogen if used as part of a long duration grid energy storage systems. Many studies expect heavy duty PEM fuel cell production costs to reduce as manufacturing volumes ramp up and their expected durability of 25,000-30,000 hours aligns well with a 30-year life for hydrogen seasonal energy storage plants that would likely operate less than 10% of the year. The labor, material, and equipment costs associated with installing PEM fuel cells and their required balance of plant for stationary applications have not been thoroughly explored, however. This study performs a detailed design and cost analysis of a 100 MW stationary PEM fuel cell power plant, capturing costs such as cooling, power electronics, pipes, valves, fittings, cabling, conduit, concrete foundations, buildings, and land. It employs methods consistent with NLR's solar PV benchmarking cost analysis and annual technology baseline to derive the total installed costs of stationary PEM fuel cell plants that utilize heavy duty PEM fuel cells.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2022

Hydrogen Storage System Cost Analysis (2017-2021) (Final Report)

This final technical report summarizes hydrogen storage system cost analysis results from 2017-2021. Results include onboard hydrogen storage system costs for light-duty vehicles, medium-duty vehicles, heavy-duty vehicles, class 8 long haul trucks, and passenger buses. Multiple storage systems are included, primarily focusing on compressed and cryo-compressed hydrogen in Type 3 and Type 4 storage systems. Additional analysis includes large-scale gaseous and liquid hydrogen storage at refueling stations in tube trailers and Dewars; advanced materials-based storage systems such as metal organic frameworks and metal hydrides; and a baseline setting analysis of compressed natural gas storage systems in support of the Institute for Advanced Composites Manufacturing Initiative (IACMI). Analyses were primarily conducted using a Design for Manufacture and Assembly ® methodology, which is a bottom-up process-based approach to estimating factory costs. Multiple annual production rates are reported to project high-volume costs relevant to mature markets.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2018

Benefit Cost Analysis of Improved Forecasting for Day-Ahead Hourly Regulation Requirements

A benefit cost analysis (BCA) of the Day-Ahead Regulation Prediction (DARP) tool found substantial savings to providing an improved forecast of the California Independent System Operators (CAISO) reserve requirements for regulation services with increasing amounts of solar generation. DARP predicts day-ahead reserve requirements for Regulation Up (Reg Up) and Regulation Down (Reg Down) using the balancing authority’s Area Control Error (ACE) and actual frequency. The BCA approach statistically estimated the price-quantity relationships for Reg Up and Reg Down. The estimated changes in Regulation reserve prices along with the estimated changes in day-ahead reserve requirements, forecast by DARP, provide a cost savings estimate. The results indicate that more savings were found for reducing Reg Up than reducing Reg Down purchases. A similar approach may be used to estimate savings from improved forecasting of reserves for other ancillary services, or to estimate benefits from other forecasting tools and methodologies.

Ancillary Services, Benefit Cost Analysis, Frequen↗
DOE OSTI2018

Technical & Programmatic Solutions for DPC Direct Disposal: Engineering Cost Analysis Support - Scoping

This memo describes the engineering technical and costing analysis support needed for identifying and evaluating technical and programmatic solutions for spent nuclear fuel (SNF) in dual-purpose canisters (DPCs), and the resources planned to provide that support. The Technical and Programmatic Solutions (T&PS) work scope is intended to identify and evaluate the range of feasible options available for DPC direct disposal, considering the range of DPC designs in the existing fleet and a range of generic geologic disposal concepts. It will also identify changes to the way DPCs are loaded, and/or additional hardware that could be installed in DPCs as they are loaded, to improve disposability (chiefly, post closure criticality control). These two thrusts are the focus of engineering support to the work package.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Benefit-Cost Analysis for Utility-Facing Grid Modernization Investments: Trends, Challenges, and Considerations

In recent years, many electric utilities have submitted grid modernization plans for review by state public utility commissions. A central objective of these plans is to demonstrate that grid modernization investments will provide net benefits to customers, be reasonable and be in the public interest. The plans typically include some form of benefit-cost analysis, but the assumptions, methodologies and frameworks vary considerably between utilities. This report: -Describes utility-facing technologies and projects for modernizing distribution systems, including interdependencies of grid components -Highlights benefit-cost considerations related to grid modernization -Summarizes recent trends in benefit-cost analysis for grid modernization based on a review of 21 plans by U.S. electric utilities -Discusses challenges state public utility commissions face in reviewing utility plans and provides options for addressing challenges

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2024

Review of Life Cycle Cost Analysis Tools

Life cycle costing (LCC) is a vital aspect of decision-making in building retrofitting. It allows stakeholders to thoroughly assess all expenses involved throughout the lifespan of these retrofits, covering initial costs; ongoing operation, maintenance, and repair costs; and disposal costs of the system. The Federal Energy Management Program of the US Department of Energy has established clear guidelines for conducting LCC analysis, particularly for investments aimed at energy and water conservation, as well as renewable energy projects. These guidelines are detailed in the Code of Federal Regulations, 10 CFR 436, Subpart A, which outlines the methodology and procedure for LCC analysis (Department of Energy 1990). The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has developed the NIST Handbook 135 (Joshua Kneifel 2022) to standardize the process of LCC analysis within the building industry. Whereas the handbook is tailored to the needs of federal agencies, its principles and methodologies can be valuable for other organizations and industries interested in conducting life cycle costing analyses for their building projects.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2016

III-Vs at Scale: A PV Manufacturing Cost Analysis of the Thin Film Vapor-Liquid-Solid Growth Mode

The authors present a manufacturing cost analysis for producing thin-film indium phosphide modules by combining a novel thin-film vapor-liquid-solid (TF-VLS) growth process with a standard monolithic module platform. The example cell structure is ITO/n-TiO2/p-InP/Mo. For a benchmark scenario of 12% efficient modules, the module cost is estimated to be $0.66/W(DC) and the module cost is calculated to be around $0.36/W(DC) at a long-term potential efficiency of 24%. The manufacturing cost for the TF-VLS growth portion is estimated to be ~$23/m2, a significant reduction compared with traditional metalorganic chemical vapor deposition. The analysis here suggests the TF-VLS growth mode could enable lower-cost, high-efficiency III-V photovoltaics compared with manufacturing methods used today and open up possibilities for other optoelectronic applications as well.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Cost analysis of alternative large-scale high-temperature solid oxide electrolysis hydrogen production facilities

We extend our past cost analysis of gigawatt-scale solid oxide electrolysis (SOE) facilities that produce high purity hydrogen gas from water by estimating construction and operating costs for three new alternative design cases: (1) offsite feed steam generation; (2) near-atmospheric pressure (NAP) stack; and (3) onsite electric boiler feed steam generation. Pressure effects on hydrogen electrode-(cathode-)supported SOE cell (SOEC) stack performance are estimated for the same assumed cell and stack construction and used to determine facility-wide stack capital costs for achieving a fixed H2 production at different pressures. Modular balance of plant (BOP) process equipment capital costs are estimated for each new alternative design case using our past equipment sizing, design, and cost data and scaling relationships. Furthermore, we update BOP equipment sizing and design for the NAP case using Aspen®. Vendor quotes for electric boilers are used to estimate costs for the electric boiler design case. Factory and onsite assembly and installation costs for SOEC stacks and BOP equipment are calculated using our past simplified first-principles approach. First-of-a-kind (FOAK) and N th -of-a-kind (NOAK) production maturity cost estimates are included for all results. The case with NAP stacks offers the lowest facility total capital cost (TCC, ~23% lower than base) while use of small electric boilers requires the highest TCC (~3% higher than base). H 2 production prices decrease from the base of ~$\$2.17$ /kgH 2 to ~$\$1.92$/kgH 2 for 1 GW e DC SIP facilities utilizing NAP stacks supplied by offsites steam situated in large modules and blocks for $\$0.030$/kWh e and $0.009/kWh t prices for electricity and thermal energy, respectively. We report all costs in 2021 US dollars.

Balance of plant (BOP) process equipment↗