Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “cost projections”

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

Cost Projections for Utility-Scale Battery Storage: 2025 Update

In this work we describe the development of cost and performance projections for utility-scale lithium-ion battery systems, with a focus on 4-hour duration systems. The projections are developed from an analysis of recent publications that include utility-scale storage costs. The suite of publications demonstrates wide variation in projected cost reductions for battery storage over time. We present the suite of projected cost reductions collected from the literature as well as the low, mid, and high cost projections developed in this work. Storage cost projections are $\$$152/kWh, $\$$247/kWh, and $\$$349/kWh in 2035 and $\$$111/kWh, $\$$184/kWh, and $\$$333/kWh in 2050 for the low, mid, and high cases respectively. Battery variable operations and maintenance costs, lifetimes, and efficiencies are also discussed, with recommended values selected based on the publications surveyed.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2023

Cost Projections for Utility-Scale Battery Storage: 2023 Update

In this work we describe the development of cost and performance projections for utility-scale lithium-ion battery systems, with a focus on 4-hour duration systems. The projections are developed from an analysis of recent publications that include utility-scale storage costs. The suite of publications demonstrates wide variation in projected cost reductions for battery storage over time. We use the recent publications to create low, mid, and high cost projections. Projected storage costs are $245/kWh, $326/kWh, and $403/kWh in 2030 and $159/kWh, $226/kWh, and $348/kWh in 2050. Battery variable operations and maintenance costs, lifetimes, and efficiencies are also discussed, with recommended values selected based on the publications surveyed.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2020

Cost Projections for Utility-Scale Battery Storage (2020 Update)

In this work we describe the development of cost and performance projections for utility-scale lithium-ion battery systems, with a focus on 4-hour duration systems. The projections are developed from an analysis of 19 publications that consider utility-scale storage costs. The suite of publications demonstrates varied cost reductions for battery storage over time. Figure ES-1 shows the low, mid, and high cost projections developed in this work (on a normalized basis) relative to the published values. Figure ES-2 shows the overall capital cost for a 4-hour battery system based on those projections, with storage costs of $\$$144/kWh, $\$$208/kWh, and $\$$293/kWh in 2030 and $\$$88/kWh, $\$$156/kWh, and $\$$219/kWh in 2050. Battery variable operations and maintenance costs, lifetimes, and efficiencies are also discussed, with recommended values selected based on the publications surveyed.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Cost Projections for Utility-Scale Battery Storage: 2021 Update

In this work we describe the development of cost and performance projections for utility-scale lithium-ion battery systems, with a focus on 4-hour duration systems. The projections are developed from an analysis of recent publications that consider utility-scale storage costs. The suite of publications demonstrates varied cost reductions for battery storage over time. Figure ES-1 shows the low, mid, and high cost projections developed in this work (on a normalized basis) relative to the published values. Figure ES-2 shows the overall capital cost for a 4-hour battery system based on those projections, with storage costs of $\$$143/kWh, $\$$198/kWh, and $\$$248/kWh in 2030 and $\$$87/kWh, $\$$149/kWh, and $\$$248/kWh in 2050. Battery variable operations and maintenance costs, lifetimes, and efficiencies are also discussed, with recommended values selected based on the publications surveyed.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2023

Identifying and Estimating Project Development Costs [Slides]

This presentation focuses on renewable energy project development and planning and highlights common project costs at each stage of a project's lifecycle. The presentation was produced as part of a series of trainings for awardees of the Energizing Rural Communities prize.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Soft costs and EVSE – Knowledge gaps as a barrier to successful projects

There has been a recent push to increase access to electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program, part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) has made significant funding available for major charging infrastructure projects along state thruways, and many state and local incentives exist for EV owners to install chargers in their homes. However, deployment of these chargers has not kept up with demand, primarily due to issues in project planning, permitting processes, and unforeseen delays. This paper serves as a review of the current understanding of these and other non-hardware costs in EV charging infrastructure projects (collectively known as “soft costs”). We found that soft costs in EV charging infrastructure projects are not well understood. Specifically, there is little agreement on how soft costs should be categorized and tracked, and less agreement still on best practices for controlling these costs and lowering barriers to infrastructure deployment. A broader review of EV charging infrastructure cost analyses shows that these costs can have significant impacts on project outcomes. EV charging infrastructure projects may be able to examine the success of the solar industry in lowering soft costs, and a similar effort may lower project costs significantly. Further work on standardizing and collecting data on EV charging infrastructure costs is required to begin addressing and controlling these costs.

32 - ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZA↗
DOE OSTI2022

Solar and Storage Techno-Economic Analysis Tutorial for the IEEE Photovoltaic Specialist Conference (PVSC)

This tutorial will highlight the most recent efforts from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to track solar photovoltaic (PV) technology trends and manufacturing costs, project levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), and project levelized cost of solar plus storage (LCOSS) for systems across the globe. We will begin with an overview of the global PV supply chain and 2021 benchmark input data for NREL's crystalline silicon (c-Si) and thin film PV module manufacturing cost models. The framework that we follow and will review during this tutorial provides a methodology to prepare bottom-up manufacturing cost models including the items within the U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). For the polysilicon, wafer, cell conversion, and module assembly steps of the c-Si supply chain, and for thin film modules, we will review input data and methods useful for calculating the costs of goods sold (COGS); research and development (R&D) expenses; and sales, general, and business administration (S, G, &A) expenses. This 2021 benchmark analysis is compiled for state-of-the-art c-Si and thin film module manufacturing. We will also review methods for our 2021 system benchmark costs calculations and LCOE technoeconomic analysis of PV systems and solar plus storage systems. Next generation technologies that lower PV manufacturing and installation costs, reduce operations and maintenance (O&M) expenses, and improve system energy yield will also be highlighted. Techniques for comparing LCOE performance will also be reviewed. We look forward to sharing NREL's extensive work in these areas and discussing ideas for future directions.

cost models↗
DOE OSTI2021

The Cost of Decarbonization and Energy Upgrade Retrofits for US Homes

Cost is a major barrier when upgrading homes to reduce carbon emissions required to meet DOE’s climate-related goals. This report summarizes a nationwide effort to gather home energy upgrade project cost data along with household energy performance data. The goal was to develop cost benchmarks and to guide future R&D efforts aimed at cost compression and scaling of the residential upgrade market. The cost data were compiled for both total project costs and costs of individual measures. The majority of energy savings were modeled, with some models using measured site data for calibration. The database was analyzed using clustering techniques to find common energy and CO2 reduction approaches. The individual measures were combined into archetypal solutions to determine least-cost approaches to maximizing energy and carbon savings. Several financial analyses were preformed to examine other cost metrics beyond first cost. Project data was obtained for 1,739 projects, from 15 states and 12 energy programs, with a total of 10,512 individual measures. The database includes a wide-array of projects, ranging from single-measure HVAC upgrades to net-zero energy whole home remodels. Projects were predominantly single-family detached dwellings with wood frame construction. Most of the data was obtained from energy programs because they had recorded the necessary information and were willing to share with this study. This sample of convenience can provide broad guidance and national cost benchmarks, but lacks sufficient detail to draw more disaggregated conclusions, such as geographical trends. The majority of data contributions were obtained without compensation from sources where the required data was already in some sort of structured format. We compensated sources to enter data from individual projects into a structured data format for about 500 projects, with an average cost of about $40 per project. The database was highly skewed to lower cost, lower impact projects due to the nature of the sample of convenience. Less than 10% of projects had savings greater than 50%. The cost data for individual measures in the database are being used in other DOE efforts on residential energy use/decarbonization. This data collection effort should continue in order to provide the best-informed guidance for DOE and industry R&D, as well as deployment efforts (including policy and program planning).

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2022

SSR COST – COmposite Structural Technologies for advanced reactor deployment (Final Scientific/Technical Report)

Moltex is designing a Generation 4 or Advanced nuclear reactor, the molten salt fast spectrum SSR-W. The design intent is to reduce the cost and complexity of the nuclear systems by relying on inherent safety characteristics, instead of engineered systems. One such characteristic as a natural tendency for power to decrease as temperature increases. Another characteristic that improves natural safety is the fact that the working fluids (molten salts) are at atmospheric pressure at operating temperatures. This significantly reduces the need for pressure boundary components and systems. Moltex is highly motivated to develop simple and economic reactors to reduce the carbon intensity and improve energy security of global electricity production. The COST project investigated the opportunities for reducing construction cost of advanced reactors with the adoption of Rigid Elastic Composite Civil works (RECC). The construction design and methods used in currently operational light water power plants would generally be suboptimal for the SSR-W since there is no requirement for civil structures to withstand high pressure accidents such as hydrogen combustion or steam explosion. In parallel to downselecting the most promising RECC-type technology, accident scenarios representing the largest credible challenge to the SSR-W civil and construction design were modelled. The capability of an SSR-W reactor constructed with and without the selected construction technology was evaluated and the consequential licensing challenges identified. A construction schedule and cost estimate of the SSR-W with and without the selected RECC construction technology was developed. Once the above data was collected, then Moltex was able to review the safety performance, license-ability and cost/schedule benefit of applying the preferred construction technology. The CAPEX/NPV benefit was quantified, and the licensing risks and opportunities were documented. Finally, the CAPEX/NPV benefit of the advanced construction technology was modest due to the suitability of traditional stick-built construction for the SSR-W design. However, previously unidentified benefits of the advanced construction technology were revealed during the studies that could credibly de-risk certain aspects of the design to be licensed. Since licensing (duration and delays) are very significant in new build project costs, the cost benefits may be significant. Further studies on the risk reduction of the construction technology are foreseen.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Meta-Analysis of Advanced Nuclear Reactor Cost Estimations

Supporting Data can be downloaded at: https://gain.inl.gov/content/uploads/4/2024/06/INL-RPT-24-77048-R1.xlsx Nuclear energy is a critical cornerstone of the current United States clean energy supply and may play a larger role in the future in support of a transition to a net-zero economy. The current fleet of nuclear reactors predominantly consists of large light-water reactors (LWRs), while many of the reactor designs under consideration are smaller and/or different technologies. Because these new designs have not yet been built, there is a high degree of uncertainty associated with their cost. This complicates energy-planning efforts because cost projections are not always standardized, consistent, and centralized in an easily accessible location. To help support energy planning in the US, this report provides advanced nuclear cost ranges using a transparent methodology along with other relevant information that can be used to help support decision making and energy planning. The purpose of this work was to conduct a methodical process for cost evaluation using only public information that was vetted with the end-goal to provide reference cost projections for nuclear energy. To provide a solid basis for these values, the approach and assumptions are explicitly laid out throughout the report allowing any user of the data to challenge or reconsider them. Because future US nuclear-reactor costs are still unknown due to little recent observed data, the report opted to compile a comprehensive list of bottom-up estimates and evaluate averages/trends within the data to identify reference ranges. This was deemed preferable to opining on the robustness or validity of one cost estimation versus another. To that end, the work evaluated thousands of lines of cost subaccounts from several bottom-up cost estimates. A wide variety of different reactor types captured in the data are of various sizes and technologies. Some of these reactors will be representative of advanced reactors under development while others will not. Thus, the results here are dependent on the data that are available and the accuracy of the estimates that are used. Each bottom-up estimate was reviewed to determine whether it was complete. Incomplete data sets were corrected to ensure an adequate basis of cross-comparison. The report is not without limitations and should be interpreted as an initial step to develop cost ranges for nuclear technology. Ultimately, future work can build upon the methodology with refined cost estimates to reduce uncertainty. US-based overnight capital cost (OCC) estimates were compiled from extensive data sets into ranges for both large and small reactor sizes for 2030. To project the cost declines over time, learning rates were sampled from literature sources. No SMRs were previously built; hence, learning rates based on bottom-up approaches (e.g., by quantifying the impact stemming from fabrication of different components, modular work, site construction, commissioning) were prioritized. For larger reactors, actual learning rates from deployments were used to project future costs (adjusted to account for standardization or lack thereof between designs). Other costs included are fixed and variable operations and maintenance costs. The final variables were capacity factors and ramp rates to support energy planning.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Carbon Management Projects (CONNECT) Database and Explorer

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

Carbon Conversion↗
DOE OSTI2021

Land-Based Wind Market Report: 2021 Edition

The U.S. Department of Energy's 2021 edition of its land-based wind market report provides an overview of key trends in the U.S. wind power market, with a focus on 2020. You can find a report, data file and presentation on the Files tab, below. Additionally, several data visualizations are available on the Visualizations tab. Highlights of this year’s update include: -Wind comprises a growing share of electricity supply: U.S. wind power capacity grew at a record pace in 2020, with 25 billion dollars invested in 16.8 GW of capacity. Wind energy output rose to account for more than 8% of the entire nation’s electricity supply, and is more than 20% in 10 states. At least 209 GW of wind are seeking transmission interconnection; 61 GW of this capacity are offshore wind and 13 GW are hybrid plants that pair wind with storage or PV. -Wind project performance has increased over time: The average capacity factor among recently built projects was over 40%, considerably higher than projects built earlier. The highest capacity factors are seen in the interior ‘wind belt’ of the country. -Turbines continue to get larger: Improved plant performance has been driven by larger turbines mounted on taller towers and featuring longer blades. In 2010, no turbines employed blades that were 115 meters in diameter or larger, but in 2020, 91% of newly installed turbines featured such rotors. Proposed projects indicate that total turbine height will continue to rise. -Low wind turbine pricing has pushed down installed project costs over the last decade: Wind turbine prices are averaging 775–850 dollars/kW. The average installed cost of wind projects in 2020 was 1,460 dollars/kW, down more than 40% since the peak in 2010, though stable for the last three years. The lowest costs were found in Texas and the (non-ISO) West. -Wind energy prices remain low, around 20 dollars/MWh in the interior of the country: After topping out at 70 dollars/MWh for power purchase agreements (PPAs) executed in 2009, the national average price of wind PPAs has dropped. In the interior ‘wind belt’ of the country, recent pricing is around 20 dollars/MWh. In the West and East, prices tend to average 30 dollars/MWh or more. These prices, which are possible in part due to federal tax support, fall below the projected future fuel costs of gas-fired generation. -Wind PPA prices are often attractive compared to wind’s grid-system market value: The value of wind in wholesale power markets is affected by the location of wind plants, their hourly output profiles, and how those characteristics correlate with real-time electricity prices and capacity markets. The market value of wind declined in 2020, following natural gas prices lower and averaging under 15 dolalrs/MWh in ERCOT, MISO, NYISO and SPP; higher values were seen in CAISO, ISO-NE and PJM. -The average levelized cost of wind energy is down to 33 dollars/MWh: Levelized costs, which exclude the impacts of federal tax incentives, vary across time and geography, but the national average stood at 33 dollars/MWh in 2020—down substantially historically, though consistent with the previous two years. Levelized costs were lowest in ERCOT, SPP, and the (non-ISO) West. -The health and climate benefits of wind in 2020 were larger than its grid-system value, and the combination of all three far exceeds the current levelized cost of wind: Wind generation reduces power-sector emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide. These reductions, in turn, provide public health and climate benefits that vary regionally, but together are economically valued at an average of 76 dollars/MWh-wind nationwide in 2020. -The domestic supply chain for wind equipment is diverse: For wind projects recently installed in the U.S., domestically manufactured content is highest for nacelle assembly (>85%), towers (60-75%), and blades and hubs (30-50%), but is much lower for most components internal to the nacelle.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Land-Based Wind Market Report: 2022 Edition

The U.S. Department of Energy's 2022 edition of its Land-Based Wind Market Report provides an overview of key trends in the U.S. wind power market, with a focus on 2021. You can find a report, data file and presentation on the Files tab, below. Additionally, several data visualizations are available on the Visualizations tab. Despite ongoing supply chain challenges, wind energy in 2021 continued to see strong growth, technology improvements, and low prices in the U.S. Key highlights include: Wind comprises a growing share of electricity supply: U.S. wind power capacity grew at a strong pace in 2021, with the 13.4 GW of new additions representing a $\$20$ billion investment and 32% of all newly added U.S. generation capacity. Wind energy output rose to account for more than 9% of the entire nation’s electricity supply. At least 247 GW of wind are seeking transmission interconnection; 77 GW of this capacity are offshore wind and 19 GW are hybrid plants that pair wind with storage or solar PV. Wind project performance has increased over the decades: The average capacity factor among recently built projects was nearly 40%, considerably higher than projects built earlier. The highest capacity factors are seen in the interior ‘wind belt’ of the country. Turbines continue to get larger: Improved plant performance has been driven by larger turbines mounted on taller towers and featuring longer blades. In 2011, no turbines employed blades that were 115 meters in diameter or larger, but in 2021, 89% of newly installed turbines featured such rotors. Proposed projects indicate that total turbine height will continue to rise. Low wind turbine pricing has pushed down installed project costs over the last decade: Wind turbine prices averaged $\$800$–$\$950$/kW in 2021, a 5% to 10% increase from the year prior but substantially lower than in 2010. The average installed cost of wind projects in 2021 was $\$1,500$/kW, down more than 40% since the peak in 2010, though relatively stable in recent years. The lowest costs were found in Texas and the (non-ISO) West. Wind energy prices are on the rise, but generally remain low, around $\$20$/MWh in the interior of the country with higher prices in the West and East. After topping out above $\$75$/MWh for power purchase agreements (PPAs) executed in 2009, the national average price of wind PPAs has dropped—though supply-chain pressures have resulted in increased prices in recent years. In the interior ‘wind belt’ of the country, recent pricing is around $\$20$/MWh. In the West and East, prices tend to average above $\$30$/MWh. These prices, which are possible in part due to federal tax support, fall below the projected future fuel costs of gas-fired generation. Wind PPA prices are often attractive compared to wind’s grid-system market value: The value of wind in wholesale power markets is affected by the location of wind plants, their hourly output profiles, and how those characteristics correlate with real-time electricity prices and capacity markets. The market value of wind increased in 2021, averaging $\$16$/MWh in MISO, $\$19$/MWh in SPP, $\$23$/MWh in NYISO, $\$31$/MWh in ERCOT, $\$33$/MWh in PJM, $\$44$/MWh in ISO-NE, and $\$48$/MWh in CAISO. The average levelized cost of wind energy was $\$32$/MWh for plants built in 2021: Levelized costs, which exclude the impacts of federal tax incentives, vary across time and geography. The national average stood at $\$32$/MWh in 2021—down substantially historically, though relatively stable in recent years. Levelized costs were lowest in ERCOT, SPP, and the (non-ISO) West. The health and climate benefits of wind in 2021 were larger than its grid-system value, and the combination of all three far exceeds the current levelized cost of wind: Wind generation reduces power-sector emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide. These reductions, in turn, provide public health and climate benefits that vary regionally, but together are economically valued at an average of over $\$90$/MWh-wind for plants built in 2021.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

MARVEL Technical Overview: Breakdown of cost and scope growth through 90% Final Design

This report presents a breakdown of cost and scope growth for the Microreactor Applications Research Validation and Evaluation (MARVEL) project through the design phase, and includes observations, lessons learned, and the results from an independent project assessment. It presents the status and history of the project. Technology maturity is considered in high-level, qualitative comparison to other microreactor design efforts. Its purpose is to record MARVEL’s evolution and lessons learned from the planning and design phases through completion of 90% final design. Analyses included a detailed review of project cost, schedule, and periodic project reports and management documents. The Primary Coolant Apparatus Test (PCAT) is specifically highlighted. It was concluded that MARVEL would have benefited from more extensive planning early in the project to better define cost and schedule to provide more certainty in the total project cost and delivery date. Modest cost and schedule improvements may have been possible, but compared qualitatively, MARVEL’s total cost and schedule performance are consistent with that of other efforts currently underway. Better planning would have provided more certainty, improved risk mitigations, and potentially eliminated delays due to funding shortfalls. A recommended path forward is presented that addresses recommendations in the independent project assessment.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Probabilistic R&D Portfolio Management Applied to Energy Storage

Here this paper proposes a methodology to analyze the potential of several alternative technologies in advancing a research and development portfolio. The methodology considers technology maturation, use case requirements, performance goals, cost projections, and existing research and development (R&D) efforts to predict the impact of various R&D investment tracks across several energy storage technologies. Technology maturation and cost projections are derived from a probabilistic Monte Carlo simulation, yielding results that incorporate uncertainty in modeling the impact of future R&D. This framework allows the researcher to perform a robust sensitivity analysis to uncover critical pathways and areas where investment will have a high impact.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2022

Prefabricated Standard Modular Hydropower Installations for Low-cost Small Hydropower

The goal of the present project was to investigate the potential savings in greenfield hydropower project costs across sites having vastly different characteristics. Littoral Power Systems, Inc. (LPS) undertook the project described herein to explore the promise of Standard Modular Hydropower (SMH) to transform the processes of site identification, conceptual design, detailed design, and construction planning to support low- cost, environmentally attractive development of small hydropower facilities at new stream- reaches. This report includes descriptions of the work to develop these processes, the resulting facility designs achieved using these processes and the projected economics. Installation cost estimates for the resulting conceptual greenfield facility design at two different locations come in at $\$3,419$/kW for Balcony Falls and $\$2,124$/kW for LPS 566. The installation time from site preparation to commissioning-ready is estimated to be 58 weeks for the conceptual facility at Balcony Falls and 42 weeks for the conceptual facility at LPS 566. A real challenge to any hydropower facility – not only the two cases studied here – is that environmental and social conditions can change, and as such, the facility may be required to change. The h-Modulor modules connect uniquely and are structurally independent, enabling site configurations to be changed on the fly, as needed. These results show that LPS's h-Modulor SMH approach delivers an attractive balance between efficiency, economics, and environmental sustainability for small hydro greenfield sites.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗