SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
This fact sheet summarizes 7 common external financing modes and provides examples for each: Energy-as-a-Service, Energy Savings Performance Contracts, Power Purchase Agreements, Sustainability Linked-Loans, Green Loans, Property Assessed Clean Energy, and On-Bill Financing/Repayment.
To meet clean energy goals, states will need significant capital. Federal funding from the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act will help, including by capitalizing clean energy state revolving loan funds (RLFs). States can leverage state clean water revolving funds to finance even more clean energy improvements. New York and Pennsylvania have used this innovative mechanism to extend the impact of their clean energy loan programs. For states looking to extend the reach of their clean energy financing programs, the brief: -Explains how each state leveraged their state revolving funds, -Identifies critical success factors for doing so, and -Offers key elements for replicating this model In New York, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority structured a sale of bonds secured by the repayments from a portfolio of residential energy efficiency loans from its Green Jobs – Green New York Program, with the additional support of a guarantee from the state’s clean water revolving fund. The Pennsylvania Treasury Department received a direct investment of funds from Pennsylvania’s clean water revolving fund to support the relaunch of the Keystone Home Energy Loan Program (HELP), which had previously been shuttered due to lack of support funding. From our review of these two case studies, when facilitating state clean water revolving fund transactions to support clean energy lending, the following critical success factors emerged: -Reference to preventing atmospheric deposition resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels in the state’s Clean Water Act Section 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Plan, which sets out that state’s strategy for reducing pollution into state waterways. -Strong relationships and trust between the clean water revolving fund administrator and the state agency administering the clean energy loan program. -Limited funding exposure for the clean water revolving funds—which are generally large and well capitalized—to ensure that any losses experienced by clean water revolving funds would have a negligible impact on the fund’s ability to support core water and wastewater projects. -Willingness, on the part of the clean water revolving fund administrator, to innovate and engage in careful analysis to support transaction structuring, and support from state energy partner organizations. The brief provides case studies of these states’ experiences, critical success factors, and key elements for replicating the model.
Paramagnetic susceptibility thermometers used in fundamental physics experiments are capable of measuring temperature changes with a precision of a part in 2 x 10(exp 10). However, heater controllers are only able to control open-loop power dissipation to about a part in 10(exp 5). We used an array of rf-biased Josephson junctions to precisely control the electrical power dissipation in a heater resistor mounted on a thermally isolated cryogenic platform. Theoretically, this method is capable of controlling the electrical power dissipation to better than a part in 10(exp 12). However, this level has not yet been demonstrated experimentally. The experiment consists of a liquid helium cell that also functions as a high-resolution PdMn thermometer, with a heater resistor mounted on it. The cell is thermally connected to a temperature-controlled cooling stage via a weak thermal link. The heater resistor is electrically connected to the array of Josephson junctions using superconducting wire. An rf-biased array of capacitively shunted Josephson junctions drives the voltage across the heater. The quantized voltage across the resistor is Vn = nf(h/2e), where h is Planck's constant, f is the array biasing frequency, e is the charge of an electron, and n is the integer quantum state of the Josephson array. This results in an electrical power dissipation on the cell of Pn = (Vn)(sup 2/R), where R is the heater resistance. The change of the quantum state of the array changes the power dissipated in the heater, which in turn, results in the change of the cell temperature. This temperature change is compared to the expected values based on the known thermal standoff resistance of the cell from the cooling stage. We will present our initial experimental results and discuss future improvements. This work has been funded by the Fundamental Physics Discipline of the Microgravity Science Office of NASA, and supported by a no-cost equipment loan from Sandia National Laboratories.
Decarbonizing to meet aggressive climate change mitigation targets requires energy transition within all sectors. In the industrial sector, global emissions will need to decrease by 65–90% by 2050 to avert warming greater than 1.5°C (Pörtner et al., 2022). Recent U.S. laws, including the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), Defense Production Act, Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (or CHIPS), state programs, and other recent laws, have clean energy requirements and provide financial incentives to accelerate the use of clean energy technologies in the industrial sector. These new laws include supporting mechanisms with direct financial support for nuclear power (e.g., advanced reactor development and hydrogen production). However, advanced nuclear could also gain these financial benefits by coupling with low-carbon industrial projects. For example, microreactors could supply low-carbon energy to producers of critical metals that (1) are eligible to receive investment and production tax credits and favorable loans, and (2) the low-carbon product could gain preference in emerging markets for green products.
Energy-efficient homes save their occupants money through lower energy bills. These savings might be capitalized into higher home sale prices. They also improve the household’s net cash flow, which might make households better able to pay mortgage debt. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)’s Home Energy Score (HES) assigns a 1-10 score to homes and estimates annual energy bills based on modeled energy consumption. In this paper we investigated the relationship between HES metrics and two housing market outcomes: home sale price and mortgage performance. We found that the relationship was only statistically significant in places with a mandatory HES assessment at the time of sale. Using a sample of 26,291 home sales that occurred after HES assessments, we found that a one-point increase in HES in these locations was associated with a 0.5% increase in sale price, and an increase in $100 of estimated annual energy bills was associated with a 0.4% decrease. This magnitude of effect is consistent with estimated magnitudes of home sale premiums for other green or energy-efficient home certifications in the literature. We also found that a one-point increase in HES was associated with a 5.5% reduction in the odds of a loan going 30 days delinquent if the loan originated after the assessment occurred. Similarly, we found that a $100 decrease in estimated annual energy bills was associated with a 2.3% decrease in the odds of a loan going delinquent if it originated after the assessment occurred. Our results suggest that HES provides a valuable signal for housing market transactions in specific situations.
The Advanced Extra-vehicular Activity (EVA) team of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Johnson Space Center (JSC) Crew and Thermal Systems Division (CTSD) participated in the Desert Research and Technology Study (RATS) in September 2003, at Meteor Crater, AZ. The Desert RATS is an integrated remote field site te t with team members from several NASA centers (Johnson Space Center; Glenn and Ames Research Centers) and universities (Bowling Green State University, University of Cincinnati, Massachusetts Institute of Technology) participating. Each week of the two-week field test had a primary focus. The primary test hardware for the first week was the I-Gravity Lunar Rover Training Vehicle, or Grover, which was on loan to NASA from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Astrogeology Research Program. The 2003 Grover driving test results serve as a rover performance characterization baseline for the Science, Crew, Operation and Utility Testbed (SCOUT) project team, which will be designing and fabricating a next generation roving vehicle prototype in Fiscal Year (FY) 2004. The second week of testing focused on EVA geologic traverses that utilized a geologic sample field analysis science trailer and also focused on human-robotic interaction between the suited subjects and the EVA Robotic Assistant (ERA). This paper will review the Advanced EVA team's role in the context of the overall Desert RATS, as well as the EVA team results and lessons learned. For information regarding other test participants' results, the authors can refer interested parties to the test reports produced by those Desert RATS teams.
The Green Propellant Loading Demonstration (GPLD) was conducted December 2015 at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF), leveraging work performed over recent years to bring lower toxicity hydrazine replacement green propellants to flight missions. The objective of this collaboration between NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), WFF, the Swedish National Space Board (SNSB), and Ecological Advanced Propulsion Systems (ECAPS) was to successfully accept LMP-103S propellant at a U.S. Range, store the propellant, and perform a simulated flight vehicle propellant loading. NASA GSFC Propulsion (Code 597) managed all aspects of the operation, handling logistics, preparing the procedures, and implementing the demonstration. In addition to the partnership described above, Moog Inc. developed an LMP-103S propellant-compatible titanium rolling diaphragm flight development tank and loaned it to GSFC to act as the GPLD flight vessel. The flight development tank offered the GPLD an additional level of flight-like propellant handling process and procedures. Moog Inc. also provided a compatible latching isolation valve for remote propellant expulsion. The GPLD operation, in concert with Moog Inc. executed a flight development tank expulsion efficiency performance test using LMP-103S propellant. As part of the demonstration work, GSFC and WFF documented Range safety analyses and practices including all elements of shipping, storage, handling, operations, decontamination, and disposal. LMP-103S has not been previously handled at a U.S. Launch Range. Requisite for this activity was an LMP-103S Risk Analysis Report and Ground Safety Plan. GSFC and WFF safety offices jointly developed safety documentation for application into the GPLD operation. The GPLD along with the GSFC Propulsion historical hydrazine loading experiences offer direct comparison between handling green propellant versus safety intensive, highly toxic hydrazine propellant. These described motives initiated the GPLD operation in order to investigate the handling and process safety variances in project resources between LMP-103S and typical in-space propellants. The GPLD risk reduction operation proved successful for many reasons including handling the green propellant at a U.S. Range, loading and pressurizing a flight-like tank, expelling the propellant, measuring the tank expulsion efficiency, and most significantly, GSFC propulsion personnel's new insight into the LMP-103S propellant handling details.
The Green Propellant Loading Demonstration (GPLD) was conducted December 2015 at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF), leveraging work performed over recent years to bring lower toxicity hydrazine replacement green propellants to flight missions. The objective of this collaboration between NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), WFF, the Swedish National Space Board (SNSB), and Ecological Advanced Propulsion Systems (ECAPS) was to successfully accept LMP-103S propellant at a U.S. Range, store the propellant, and perform a simulated flight vehicle propellant loading. NASA GSFC Propulsion (Code 597) managed all aspects of the operation, handling logistics, preparing the procedures, and implementing the demonstration. In addition to the partnership described above, Moog Inc. developed an LMP-103S propellant-compatible titanium rolling diaphragm flight development tank and loaned it to GSFC to act as the GPLD flight vessel. The flight development tank offered the GPLD an additional level of flight-like propellant handling process and procedures. Moog Inc. also provided a compatible latching isolation valve for remote propellant expulsion. The GPLD operation, in concert with Moog Inc. executed a flight development tank expulsion efficiency performance test using LMP-103S propellant. As part of the demonstration work, GSFC and WFF documented Range safety analyses and practices including all elements of shipping, storage, handling, operations, decontamination, and disposal. LMP-103S has not been previously handled at a U.S. Launch Range. Requisite for this activity was an LMP-103S Risk Analysis Report and Ground Safety Plan. GSFC and WFF safety offices jointly developed safety documentation for application into the GPLD operation. The GPLD along with the GSFC Propulsion historical hydrazine loading experiences offer direct comparison between handling green propellant versus safety intensive, highly toxic hydrazine propellant. These described motives initiated the GPLD operation in order to investigate the handling and process safety variances in project resources between LMP-103S and typical in-space propellants. The GPLD risk reduction operation proved successful for many reasons including handling the green propellant at a U.S. Range, loading and pressurizing a flight-like tank, expelling the propellant, measuring the tank expulsion efficiency, and most significantly, GSFC propulsion personnel's new insight into the LMP-103S propellant handling details.
Driven by dramatic declines in up-front cost, the U.S. solar photovoltaics (PV) industry has taken off over the past decade, growing from 1 gigawatt of installed capacity in 2009 to 89 gigawatts in 2020—or enough capacity to power roughly 19 million homes. The industry is expected to double in size over just the next 5 years.1 Much of the growth has been driven by large, utility-scale projects that can produce 5 mega- watts or more of power—enough to power at least 1,000 homes. The cost of electricity produced by these projects has decreased by more than 70 percent since 2010. As of Q3 2020, development costs of large, util- ity-scale solar PV power plants were under $1 per watt, down by more than 70 percent from 2010.2 A robust array of investors has come forward to efficiently deliver capital to these kinds of utility-scale projects including large banks, insurance companies, pension funds, and others. But low- and moderate-income communities, including communities of color, are at risk of being left behind in the transition to clean energy. Mission- driven solar project developers and financial institu- tions have been working alongside energy justice advocates to open up solar access for these communi- ties, using strategies ranging from community solar, to solar installations on affordable multifamily housing, to distributed solar and storage programs, and more. Their goals go beyond simply generating more green energy to advancing social equity by: • empowering communities to control their energy future • stabilizing energy prices, saving money, and build- ing wealth for low-income families • creating quality jobs • improving health by reducing pollution • providing energy resilience for vulnerable communities Mission-driven actors are successfully deploying a wide variety of strategies to meet these goals, from helping low-income homeowners get solar—and some- times battery storage, to developing solar projects serv- ing affordable rental housing and community facilities, to building larger “shared solar” projects to which households from across the community can subscribe. However, the financing ecosystem does not work nearly as well for these “mission driven” solar proj- ects as it does for utility-scale projects. For home rooftop solar, even if low-income consumers have a home and suitable roof, they may fail to qualify for federal tax incentives, lack adequate credit to qualify for a loan—or the mission-driven lenders seeking to serve them may not be adequately capitalized to make long-term loans. For mission-driven commercial or community-scale projects, assembling nearly every component of the project capital stack—whether bridging early-stage costs, attracting tax credit equity investors, securing long-term debt, or coming up with sponsor equity and filling gaps—can present challenges. A variety of obstacles contribute to the scarcity of financing for low-income solar, including small project sizes, lack of developer balance sheet capacity, both real and perceived issues with credit risk, elevated technical assistance needs, and greater subsidy requirements to pursue goals such as deep energy affordability, climate resilience, or job creation. Still other obstacles are regulatory: for example, not all states allow community solar projects or Power Purchase Agreements, common strategies used for providing low-income solar—and the potential for regulations to shift over time creates risks that mission-driven projects can ill afford. This report synthesizes information garnered from 47 key informant interviews, four focus group discus- sions involving 60 stakeholders, and a review of the substantial existing literature on low-income solar finance to assess the current landscape of mission- driven solar development in the United States, examine the roles that community-based financial institutions could play, and recommend public invest- ments and policy changes that could help to scale the provision of equitable solar finance. Key recommen- dations for policymakers and funders in the renew- able energy and community development fields that emerge from this process include the following: • Help to capitalize and support community-based lenders to provide flexible, low-cost, and long- term financing to mission-driven solar projects— including providing guarantees or other forms of credit enhancement. • Provide federal support for equitable solar, including a grant-in-lieu-of-credits option for the Investment Tax Credit to improve access to this critical government subsidy. • Develop pools of government and philanthropic support that can complement financing from community-based lenders to complete the capi- tal stack for mission-driven projects, as well as to support education and technical assistance to both consumers and potential project sponsors. • Create a national Renewable Energy Credits pro- gram that includes social equity targets to provide a baseline of support for clean energy generation. • Change utility regulations to remove barriers to low-income solar projects; lower permitting costs; provide greater certainty for developers, consumers and owners; and measure progress toward equity in renewable energy policy implementation.
Policymakers are increasingly interested in expanding access to rooftop photovoltaic systems. This study analyzes the financial performance of a Connecticut Green Bank (CGB) solar leasing program, run in partnership with PosiGen, that targets low- and moderate-income customers. We show that this program has successfully reached underserved customers and has reasonable repayment rates given the credit characteristics of the participants. The CGB/PosiGen program reaches many more underserved customers than other PV financing programs in Connecticut.For example, the majority of CGB/PosiGen participants (58%) live in census tracts that have a median income of less than 80% of the area median income (AMI). In contrast, only 9% of participants in the other CGB solar financing programs live in these census tracts. Furthermore, the majority of CGB/PosiGen participants (56%) have FICO scores that would generally be considered non-prime (<670), whereas only 2% of participants in the other programs have similarly low scores. Credit, not income, is the primary factor that explains participants’ financial performance. Overall, we find that delinquency and annualized losses are higher for PosiGen (2.3% and 0.9%) than for other CGB programs (1.4% and 0.1%). Across the CGB programs, lower credit scores are associated with higher rates of delinquency and loss. Therefore, participants’ lower credit scores explain much of the program’s higher rates of delinquency and annualized losses. PosiGen leases perform competitively with market-rate solar and non-solar leases and loans. When compared to securities backed by market-rate PV loans and leases with similar amounts of seasoning, we find that the PosiGen leases have higher delinquency rates but comparable gross loss rates. The similarity in losses is notable given that loss rates for PosiGen leases were higher than those of the other CGB leases and loans. Rather than the PosiGen leases having high loss rates, other CGB leases and loans have unusually low loss rates. We also compare PosiGen to non-solar benchmarks, including indices of auto and consumer loans. We find that the PosiGen leases have significantly less delinquency than non-prime auto loans and have performance comparable to many consumer loans. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Solar Energy Technologies Office supported this research.