Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “pro forma”

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.

Model results and data for Nontechnical Barriers to Geothermal Development

Data included in this submission support the analysis conducted for the report "Nontechnical Barriers to Geothermal Development" which is linked bellow. These data include information about the power purchase agreements (PPAs) analyzed for the report, inputs and model results for the pro forma economic analysis, and outputs from the regression analysis conducted on PPAs comparing geothermal and other power generation technologies.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Disaggregating Future Retail Electricity Rate Growth [Slides]

Recent Berkeley Lab research found that modest retail rate increases over the past 10 years were mostly driven by large increases in capital expenditures (CapEx) that were offset in part by substantial wholesale price reductions. Decision-makers are increasingly concerned about the potential future rate impacts of a number of policies and industry trends that support rapid decarbonization, electrification, and grid modernization. Using historical FERC Form 1 data and the existing literature on policies and industry trends that are likely to affect utility-incurred costs and retail sales, Berkeley Lab researchers developed ranges of forecasted growth rates for cost-related rate drivers (i.e., fuel and purchased power; transmission, distribution, generation, and other categories of both non-fuel operations & maintenance and CapEx) and non-cost related rate drivers (i.e., retail sales, peak demand, and customers). These were then used as inputs to a pro-forma utility financial model (FINDER) that estimated the growth in retail electric rates between 2020 and 2030 for a prototypical vertically-integrated investor-owned utility in the United States. The analysis produced the following results: 1. Assuming average growth rates in all rate drivers, future retail rate growth is driven by sizable increases in all CapEx costs, where fuel and purchased power costs are replaced by generation CapEx as the largest rate component between 2020 and 2030. 2. Growth in sales/peak demand/customers, generation CapEx costs, and fuel and purchased power (FPP) costs, in isolation, produce the most uncertainty in rate growth. Specifically, a 1% increase in the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of retail sales, coincident peak demand (CP), and customers (Sales-CP-Cust) results in a 0.88-0.93% decrease in the CAGR of rates, in isolation. However, a 1% increase in the CAGR of generation CapEx budgets results in a 0.07-0.14% increase in the CAGR of rates, while a 1% increase in the CAGR of FPP costs causes a 0.10-0.14% increase in the CAGR of rates, all else being equal. 3. Taking into account the correlation and variability of the growth in all rate drivers jointly, generation CapEx is expected to be both the largest and most uncertain rate component by 2030 (20-25% share of the retail rate). Transmission and distribution CapEx, along with fuel and purchased power costs are each expected to comprise between 12% and 17% of retail rates.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Development of a Fuel Cell for the Perhydrodibenzyltoluene / Dibenzyltolluene Fuel Pair

An experimental study of the performance of an LFC with H-DBT and other cyclic hydrogenated aromatic fuels was carried out, along with a characterization of the fuel cell conversion products. A technoeconomic analysis (TEA) of the LFC operating in a class 8 truck powertrain using the H-DBT / DBT fuel pair was completed to determine the total cost of ownership (TCO), comparing LFC vehicles (LFCVs) to HFC vehicles (HFCVs), battery electric vehicles (BEVs), and diesel trucks on a pro-forma basis assuming the LFC could be developed to HFC benchmarks.

08 HYDROGEN↗

Availability and Performance Loss Factors for U.S. PV Fleet Systems

In the PV Fleet Performance Data Initiative, we partner with photovoltaic (PV) fleet owners to collect time-series PV production data and publish aggregated, anonymized results. This report is an update of our previous publications, specifically a FY 2021 performance index publication and a FY 2022 fleet degradation analysis. In this analysis, we have increased our data participants and system totals by around 10% to 8.5 GW and 24,000 separate inverter data channels. Four major analysis topics are considered in this report: Performance Index (PI) trends, PV system availability, soiling losses, and PV system degradation. Performance Index and inverter availability are assessed on a larger set of data from our FY 2021 report: 1,128 systems compared with 200 systems from before. The increased number of systems is due to an improved data quality methodology, as well as introducing new systems to the analysis. Overall results are similar to previously published values - overall inverter availability is low in the first six months of system performance before reaching steady-state by the end of the first year. Excluding this six-month startup period, system-level aggregated data shows a median (P50) system availability of 0.99 and a lower 10th percentile (P90) value of 0.95 (Figure ES-1). A dependence on system size is also demonstrated, with worse inverter availability results for larger PV systems. Causes of this effect are under investigation, but may be impacted by inverter size, which also show lower availability for larger inverter sizes. This report also investigates PI, correcting for degradation, soiling, snow, and availability. Following these corrections, the median system PI over its entire lifetime is 0.95. PI values reported here are approximately 3% lower than what we presented in our previous FY 2021 report. Soiling loss is assessed in a comprehensive way for the first time in this report. Results are presented using the COmbined Degradation and Soiling (CODS) method, as implemented in RdTools (v3.0.0a4). Soiling values are presented for 255 systems, which indicated irradiance-weighted soiling loss greater than 1%. The values have been published in an updated NREL soiling map at nrel.gov/pv/soiling.html. Finally, we investigated system degradation using three different data analysis techniques: conventional RdTools (year-on-year (YOY)), CODS, and Performance Loss Rate (PLR) analysis. Overall degradation results are consistent with our previous publications. Rerunning conventional RdTools on our updated fleet shows that some data partners have systematically fallen below the median system degradation rate (change over time) of -0.75 %/year. A comparison with PLR analysis, which looks at change in annual PI over time, shows that median system degradation is consistent with -0.5% to -0.75% per year change. However, at the P90 value, system degradation is substantially faster. These two results are consistent and indicate that resulting degradation statistics depend to a great degree on the population of PV systems making up the analysis cohort and whether soiling impacts the systems. The use of CODS for degradation analysis provides a different method for degradation assessment, which explicitly excludes the impact of recoverable soiling on degradation analysis. Excluding soiling effects yields an annual system degradation around -0.5% per year on average. This indicates that a portion of system performance loss may be attributed to periodic soiling that is not fully recovered. This report provides PV system owners/operators with background and methods to analyze PV system performance, give guidance for expected cohort performance, and performance loss values for use in pro-forma financial models, which guide new-build system design and bankability reports.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

Flexible Gasification of Coal and Biomass to Generate Carbon Free Electric Power and Hydrogen

This paper describes the development of a coal and biomass-fed plant concept to co-produce electric power and hydrogen with net-negative CO2 emissions under the aegis of the 21st Century Power Plant initiative of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), whose goal is to advance innovative power plant concepts that are capable of flexible, net-zero carbon emission operations while producing cost-effective “blue” hydrogen to support economy-wide decarbonization goals. The proposed standalone plant will be in Nebraska, USA. The specified design feedstock is a hybrid blend of Powder River Basin (PRB) subbituminous coal from Wyoming and local Nebraska biomass (corn stover), 50 wt.% each (dry basis). Other potential feedstocks, including woody biomass (eastern red cedar) and waste plastic (auto shredder residue) were evaluated or reviewed as alternates. The proposed process block comprises a high-pressure, oxygen-blown fluidized bed gasifier (GTI Energy U-GAS® process) coupled with water gas shift, the Selexol process for acid gas (H2S and CO2) removal, and pressure-swing adsorption (PSA) to yield 8,500 kg/h of high-purity hydrogen. The off gas from the PSA unit is used in the power block (gas turbine combined cycle) to generate electric power to support the gasification process, hydrogen production, and 50 MWe net electric power to the grid. All major plant equipment including the gasifier, gas cleanup system, and power generation are commercially available and proven in other applications and considered at TRL 8-9. However, gasification of corn stover biomass is considered at TRL 6. Overall thermal efficiency of the plant is 50% (net HHV) with net atmospheric CO2 removal at a rate of 250-300,000 tpa. Design activities necessary to provide input to a FEED study (Phase II of the project), including the development of the Environmental Information Volume (EIV) for the host site, and an investment case, based on a pro-forma pre-FEED level cost estimate, have been completed and are described in detail in this paper.

Gülen, S. Can↗

Examining Weathering of Magnesite in an Arid Environment: Implications For Jezero Crater

Introduction:Orbiter data indicatethe presence of carbonates in severallocations on the surface of Mars[1],but Jezero crater, landing site of the Perseverancerover,is the only known location where carbonatesap-pear coincident with evidence of fluvialand lacustrineactivity [2].On Earth, carbonates in close proximity to these paleoenvironments mayindicatethe presence of past microbial life,like stromatolites[3], that could re-sult inbiosignatures [2]. However,in other cases,car-bonates can also form throughthe alteration of mafic materialwiththe introductionof carbonic acid[4].Hy-drated magnesites have also been found in evaporative environments along lake shores, and in playas[5,6,7].Correctly interpreting past carbonates on Mars is there-fore critical in the search for past signs of life. In Jezero crater,both thenorthernand western fans haveMg-rich carbonates intermixed with olivine-rich material[8].According to CRISM data, magnesite(MgCO3), along with hydromagnesite(Mg5(CO3)4(OH)2•4H2O), arepotential candidatesfor these Mg-carbonates [2]. Considering the spatial con-text with olivine,there aremultiplepotential explana-tions for the presence ofMg-carbonatesin this locationincludingin-situformation via alterationof olivine-rich materialwith carbonic acid,transportationfrom farther up in the watershed, or precipitation of lacustrine car-bonates[2]. The formation of hydromagnesite rather than magnesite is favored when Mg2+saturated solutions have a high CO32-/HCO3-ratio, which, on Earth, is thought to be caused byinflow of groundwater [4]. Additionally, Mg-carbonates tend to precipitate under high pH condi-tions and are unstable at lower pH conditions [5]. Hy-dromagnesite is stable at atmospheric CO2pressure and temperature conditions common to most Earth surface environments [9]. However, it is subject to transfor-mation to magnesite after dehydration and concomitant brucite formation or dissolution and reprecipitation [10].Previousresearch suggests that hydrated car-bonates, including hydromagnesite, can formas weath-ering productsof mafic minerals in the presenceof H2O and CO2in subfreezing temperatures and would not de-hydrate under Martian atmospheric conditions [11,12].It is critical to understand the formation conditions of Mg-carbonatesbecause of the different implications for the past history of Martian environments. Therefore, in this work we are investigating the weathering of Mg-carbonatesin arid environments to helpbetter understand Mg-carbonates in Jezero crater. Study Area:The Ala-Mar Mines(East and West)near Ely, NVare the site ofmultiple magnesitedepositsfound within a calcareous tuff formationthat overlies Tertiary aged volcanic rocks.Here,magnesiteis formed via the alteration of the calcareous tuff and occurs innodules, veins,and lenses[13]. Previous work suggests magnesite deposits are associated with faults [13]. Within the West Mine, magnesite can be found in two maincontexts: (1) relatively circular zones of cauli-flower-like material found within (2) a more massivelensthat is heavily fractured on the surface.Methods.Samplesof both the cauliflower texture and more massive materialwere collectedat Ala Mar West Mine. Both samples were thenpowdered, sieved and analyzed with an inXitu Terra Portable XRD. The program QualX was used to identify potential mineral phases [14].Both samples were also optically inspected using 10x and 20x hand lenses.Figure 1. XRD patterns for the cauliflower magnesite (top) and massive magnesite (bottom). Ongoing and future work on the samples discussed above includes scanning electron microscopy (SEM), electron microprobe analysis (EMPA), and near-infra-red spectroscopy to determine whether hydromagnesite is present. Separation and analysis of the clay-size frac-tionby XRD will helpto better identify any phyllosili-cate phases present. Results and Discussion:Both textures are a white to light tan with a porcelain luster on weathered sur-faces, along with minor iron staining in some areas. Likewise, both textures are white with a porcelain luster on fresh surfaces. When broken apart, the massive mag-nesite shows macroscopic crystals, unlike the cauli-flower magnesite. XRD analysis shows that both samples have high concentrationsof magnesite with lesser amounts of thecarbonatemineral huntite(Mg3Ca(CO3)4; Figure1).The more massive samplecontainsa serpentine-groupmineral,with lizardite being apotential candidate. The cauliflower sample has several minor peaks that may correspond to hydromagnesite(Figure 1), although more work is needed to confirm this.Additionally, thecauliflower deposits closely resemble hydromagnesite deposits found in southwestern Turkey, formed via mi-crobialites[15].As such, it is likely that moreaqueous alterationor weatheringis occurring at the locations where the cauliflower magnesite is present. However, additional field work will need to be conducted to con-firm this hypothesis. Conclusions and Future Work:Future work will include field mapping of fault locations andadditional samplingof the different magnesite types as well as of the calcareous tuffmaterial.We will also look specifi-cally for potential weathering products of magnesite in this arid location, which may yield important insight into the Mg-carbonates located in Jezero crater. XRD analyses on aPANalytical XRDusing non-ambient stages will be used to investigate the stability of hydro-magnesiteat different humiditiesand temperatures, which has implications for samples to bereturned to Earth in the future. Additionally, thermal and evolved gas analysis of magnesite and hydromagnesite will be compared to results from Gale Craterto help interpret the mineralogy inthat location[16]. The results of this research will further ourunderstanding of carbonate for-mationin volcanic settingsandtheirweathering pro-cessesin arid environments. Acknowledgments:We acknowledge funding for this research from Jacobs Technology at the Johnson Space Center.We would also like to thank Ngoc Luu, Christopher Adcock, Richard Allanson, and the rest of the UNLV Soil Science Teamfor their continued sup-portwith troubleshooting and otherlab work. References:[1] Ehlmann, B.L., and Edwards, C.S. (2014) Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sci., 42, 291–315. [2] Horgan, B.H.N., et al. (2020) Icarus, 339, 113526. [3] Bosak, T., et al. (2013) Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sci, 41, 21–44. [4] Pohl, W.L. (1989) Gebriider Borntraege, 28, 1-13. [5] Müller, G., et al. (1972) Die Naturwissenschaften, 59, 158–164. [6] Walter, M.R., et al. (1973) Journal of Sedimentary Pe-trology, 43, 1021–1030. [7] Braithwaite, C.J.R., and Zedef, V. (1994) Sedimentary Geology, 92, 1–5. [8] Goudge, T.A., et al. (2015) JGR: Planets, 120, 775–808. [9] Langmuir, D. (1965) Journal of Geology, 73, 730–754. [10] Zhang, P., et al. (2000) Applied Geo-chem., 286, 1748–1753. [11] Calvin, W.M., et al. (1994) JGR, 99, 14659-14675. [12]Russell, M.J., et al. (1999) Journal of the Geological Society of London, v. 156, p. 869–888. [13] Faust, G.T., and Callaghan, E. (1948) GSA Bulletin, 59, 11–74. [14] Altomare, A., et al. (2015) J. of Applied Crystallography, 48, 598–603. [15] Zedef, V.,et al. (2000) Economic Geology, 95, 429–445. [16] Leshin, L.A. et al., (2013) Science, 341, 1–9

A W Provow↗