Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “storage benchmark”

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

Reservoir Thermal Energy Storage Benchmarking (Rev. 3)

A benchmarking analysis of RTES research funded by GTO through the Beyond Batteries projects was conducted against the ESGC to see where they fit within the identified ESGC Use Cases. The projects were found to advance knowledge in multiple ESGC use cases, either directly or in some cases, indirectly as enabling technologies. This analysis is helpful to understand where RTES and associated research fits into the larger discussion around energy storage technologies. Also, a retrospective analysis of the Beyond Batteries projects was conducted to evaluate what the projects learned and how the results can be applied to advance the value of RTES. Major results of each of the studies are summarized in Table 2. Additionally, a comparative metrics analysis for RTES was completed to understand where RTES lies within the energy storage industry. Metrics for evaluation of RTES and its comparison to other storage technologies were selected and ranges of their values compiled. The selected metrics – LCOE (levelized cost of energy), capital costs, roundtrip efficiency, energy storage capacity, and storage time – were chosen based on data availability and have a particularly strong influence on the potential deployment of a storage technology. Charts which compare the metrics are presented in section 4.3 and show ranges for each of the 10 selected technologies. However, due to a lack of domestic operational facilities, values for RTES and for portions of the remaining technologies are based on theoretical modeling and studies of best-case scenarios. LCOE estimates for RTES fall within the lower reaches of Figure 15, but nevertheless amount to 2 – 5 times the ESGC Roadmap goal for LCOE, for example in the Facilitating and Evolving Grid Use Case. Capital costs for RTES sit on the higher end (Figure 16) but are expected to decrease as new projects are developed and the technology is refined. The theoretical roundtrip efficiency reported for RTES varies from mid to high percentages (Figure 17) with efficiencies upwards of 93% in modeled scenarios in the Portland Basin (Bershaw et al.,2020). RTES is also expected to have the largest energy storage capacities and longest storage times, likely matched only by lower efficiency hydrogen storage. To better assess the role that RTES could play in energy storage we examined it’s potential in the U.S. The potential depends on many factors. Recently, many researchers have started looking at deep sedimentary basins, depleted oil and gas fields, and basalt formations as potential targets for RTES development. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has analyzed various cities and shown substantial RTES potential in the cooling sector (Pepin et al., 2021). By modeling RTES in low-quality groundwater (e.g., brackish), it is shown to be favorable across the U.S. with particular suitability in the Illinois Basin, Coastal Plains, and Basin and Range regions. Seasonal RTES operations have also been modeled in the Portland Basin by those at the USGS and Portland State University to simulate an RTES system supplying heating loads needed for the Oregon Health and Science University. Simulations suggest that high conductive heat loss in the initial years exists but tends to decrease with increasing time and development of the resource due to self-insulating nature of the basalts (Burns et al., 2020). Other national laboratory efforts are taking a close look at many of the technical issues involved with RTES (McLing et al., 2019, McLing et al., 2022). These include difficulties in understanding geochemical, hydrogeological, mechanical, and microbiological changes at such elevated temperatures and operational scenarios. Major gaps in research are identified and suggested for future work. With this increased focus to understand how to make RTES successful in the U.S., this technology could be a potential solution to many of the nation’s energy storage problems. For the energy independence of this country, the DOE should prioritize de-risking this technology by making future investments in pilot-scale demonstrations to attract potential investors.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System and Energy Storage Cost Benchmarks: Q1 2021

Based on our bottom-up modeling, the Q1 2021 PV and energy storage cost benchmarks are: $\$2.65$ per watt DC (WDC) (or $\$3.05$/WAC) for residential PV systems, 1.56/WDC (or $\$1.79$/WAC) for commercial rooftop PV systems, $\$1.64$/WDC (or $\$1.88$/WAC) for commercial ground-mount PV systems, $\$0.83$/WDC (or $\$1.13$/WAC) for fixed-tilt utility-scale PV systems, $\$0.89$/WDC (or $\$1.20$/WAC) for one-axis-tracking utility-scale PV systems, $\$30,326$-$\$33,618$ for a 7.15-kWDC residential PV system with 5 kW/12.5 kWh nameplate of storage, $\$2.04$ - $\$2.10$ million for a 1-MWDC commercial ground-mount PV system colocated with 600 kW/2.4 MWhusable of storage, $\$166$ - $\$167$ million for a 100-MWDC one-axis tracker PV system colocated with 60 MW/240 MWhusable of storage. Between 2020 and 2021, there were 3.3% ($\$0.0$9/W), 10.7% ($\$0.19$/W), and 12.3% ($\$0.13$/W) reductions (in 2020 USD) in the residential, commercial rooftop, and utility-scale (one-axis) PV system cost benchmarks respectively. Balance of system (BOS) costs have either increased or remained flat across sectors, year-on-year, unlike in previous benchmark reports, which generally have reported declining BOS costs. The increase in BOS cost has been offset by a 17% reduction in module cost. Overall, modeled PV installed costs across the three sectors have declined compared to our Q1 2020 system costs.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System and Energy Storage Cost Benchmark: Q1 2020 [PowerPoint]

NREL has been modeling U.S. photovoltaic (PV) system costs since 2009. This report benchmarks costs of U.S. solar PV for residential, commercial, and utility-scale systems, with and without storage, built in the first quarter of 2020 (Q1 2020). Our methodology includes bottom-up accounting for all system and project-development costs incurred when installing residential, commercial, and utility-scale systems, and it models the capital costs for such systems.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

Toward Scalable Benchmarks for Mass Storage Systems

This paper presents guidelines for the design of a mass storage system benchmark suite, along with preliminary suggestions for programs to be included. The benchmarks will measure both peak and sustained performance of the system as well as predicting both short- and long-term behavior. These benchmarks should be both portable and scalable so they may be used on storage systems from tens of gigabytes to petabytes or more. By developing a standard set of benchmarks that reflect real user workload, we hope to encourage system designers and users to publish performance figures that can be compared with those of other systems. This will allow users to choose the system that best meets their needs and give designers a tool with which they can measure the performance effects of improvements to their systems.

Miller, Ethan L.↗

U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System and Energy Storage Cost Benchmark: Q1 2021 [Slides]

Our benchmarking method includes bottom-up accounting for all necessary system and projectdevelopment costs incurred when installing residential, commercial, and utility-scale systems, and it models the Q1 2021 costs for such systems, excluding any previous supply agreements or contracts. In general, we attempt to model the typical installation techniques and business operations from an installed-cost perspective, and our benchmarks are national averages. The residential PV-only benchmark and the commercial rooftop PV-only benchmark average costs by inverter type (string inverters, string inverters with direct current [DC] optimizers, and microinverters), weighted by inverter market share. The residential PV-only benchmark is further averaged across small installer and national integrator business models, weighted by market share. All benchmarks include variations—accounting for the differences in size, equipment, and operational use (particularly for storage)—that are currently available in the marketplace. All benchmarks assume nonunionized construction labor; residential and commercial PV systems predominantly use nonunionized labor, and the type of labor required for utility-scale PV systems depends heavily on the development process. All benchmarks assume the use of monofacial monocrystalline silicon PV modules. Benchmarks using cadmium telluride or bifacial modules could result in significantly different results. The data in this annual benchmark report inform the formulation of and track progress toward the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Solar Energy Technologies Office’s Government Performance and Reporting Act cost targets.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System and Energy Storage Cost Benchmarks, With Minimum Sustainable Price Analysis: Q1 2023

The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Solar Energy Technologies Office (SETO) aims to accelerate the advancement and deployment of solar technology in support of an equitable transition to a decarbonized economy no later than 2050, starting with a decarbonized power sector by 2035. Its approach to achieving this goal includes driving innovations in technology, hardware, and soft cost reductions to make solar affordable and accessible for all. As part of this effort, SETO must track solar cost trends so it can focus its research and development (R&D) on the highest-impact activities. The benchmarks in this report are bottom-up cost estimates of all major inputs to PV and energy storage system installations. Bottom-up costs are based on national averages and do not necessarily represent typical costs in all local markets. Like last year's report, this year's report includes two distinct sets of benchmarks: minimum sustainable price (MSP) benchmarks and modeled market price (MMP) benchmarks. MSP benchmarks can be interpreted as the minimum price a company needs to charge to remain financially solvent in the long term based on the minimum sustainable prices of all inputs including minimum sustainable profit margins. MMP benchmarks can be interpreted as the actual cash sales price a company charges in the given benchmark period. These simplified estimates are useful for tracking technological progress, but they do not reflect all experiences. In fact, no individual estimate under any approach can reflect the diversity of the PV and storage manufacturing and installation industries. Our residential MMP benchmark ($2.90 per watt direct current [Wdc]) is 24% higher than the MSP benchmark ($2.34/Wdc) and 9% lower than our MMP benchmark ($3.18/Wdc) from Q1 2022 in 2022 U.S. dollars (USD). For community solar, our MMP benchmark ($1.75/Wdc) is 18% higher than our MSP benchmark ($1.49/Wdc). Our Q1 2022 benchmark report has no community solar system for comparison. For utility-scale systems with one-axis tracking, our MMP benchmark ($1.17/Wdc) is 22% higher than our MSP benchmark ($0.96/Wdc) and 10% higher than its counterpart ($1.07/Wdc) in Q1 2022 in 2022 USD.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

Benchmarking CO₂ storage simulations: Results from the 11 th Society of Petroleum Engineers Comparative Solution Project

The 11 th Society of Petroleum Engineers Comparative Solution Project (shortened SPE11 herein) benchmarked simulation tools for geological carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) storage. A total of 45 groups from leading research institutions and industry across the globe signed up to participate, with 18 ultimately contributing valid results that were included in the comparative study reported here. This paper summarizes the SPE11 results. A comprehensive introduction and qualitative discussion of the submitted data are provided, together with an overview of online resources for accessing the full depth of data. A global metric for analyzing the relative distance between submissions is proposed and used to conduct a quantitative analysis of the submissions. This analysis attempts to statistically resolve the key aspects influencing the variability between submissions. The study shows that the major qualitative variation between the submitted results is related to thermal effects, dissolution-driven convective mixing, and resolution of facies discontinuities. Moreover, a strong dependence on grid resolution is observed across all three versions of the SPE11. However, our quantitative analysis suggests that the observed variations are predominantly influenced by factors not documented in the technical responses provided by the participants. We therefore identify that unreported variations due to human choices within the process of setting up, conducting, and reporting on the simulations underlying each SPE11 submission are at least as impactful as the computational choices reported.

Nordbotten, Jan M. [Univ. of Bergen (Norway); Norw↗

U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System and Energy Storage Cost Benchmark (Q1 2020)

This report benchmarks U.S. solar photovoltaic (PV) system installed costs as of the first quarter of 2020 (Q1 2020). We use a bottom-up method, accounting for all system and project-development costs incurred during the installation to model the costs for residential (with and without storage), commercial (with and without storage), and utility-scale systems (with and without storage). We also incorporate other system characteristics and performance factors, as well as ongoing costs, to benchmark LCOE for PV-standalone systems, and LCOSS for solar+storage.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

Q1 2023 U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System and Energy Storage Cost Benchmarks With Minimum Sustainable Price Analysis Data File

The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Solar Energy Technologies Office (SETO) aims to accelerate the advancement and deployment of solar technology in support of an equitable transition to a decarbonized economy no later than 2050, starting with a decarbonized power sector by 2035. Its approach to achieving this goal includes driving innovations in technology, hardware, and soft cost reductions to make solar affordable and accessible for all. As part of this effort, SETO must track solar cost trends so it can focus its research and development (R&D) on the highest-impact activities. The benchmarks in this report are bottom-up cost estimates of all major inputs to PV and energy storage system installations. Bottom-up costs are based on national averages and do not necessarily represent typical costs in all local markets. Like last year's report, this year's report includes two distinct sets of benchmarks: minimum sustainable price (MSP) benchmarks and modeled market price (MMP) benchmarks. MSP benchmarks can be interpreted as the minimum price a company needs to charge to remain financially solvent in the long term based on the minimum sustainable prices of all inputs including minimum sustainable profit margins. MMP benchmarks can be interpreted as the actual cash sales price a company charges in the given benchmark period. These simplified estimates are useful for tracking technological progress, but they do not reflect all experiences. In fact, no individual estimate under any approach can reflect the diversity of the PV and storage manufacturing and installation industries.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System and Energy Storage Cost Benchmarks: Q1 2021

NREL has been modeling U.S. solar photovoltaic (PV) system costs since 2009. This year, our report benchmarks costs of U.S. PV for residential, commercial, and utility-scale systems, with and without storage, built in the first quarter of 2021 (Q1 2021). The methodology includes bottom-up accounting for all system and project-development costs incurred when installing residential, commercial, and utility-scale systems and it models the capital costs and levelized cost of energy for such systems.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System and Energy Storage Cost Benchmarks, With Minimum Sustainable Price Analysis: Q1 2022

NREL's bottom-up cost models can be used to assess the minimum sustainable price (MSP) and modeled market price (MMP) of PV and storage systems having various configurations. MSP can be used to estimate future potential cost-reduction opportunities for PV and PV-plus-storage systems, thus helping guide research and development aimed at advancing cost-effective system configurations. MMP can be used to understand the cost of systems under recent market conditions. The MSP data in this annual benchmarking report will be used to inform the formulation of, and track progress toward, the Solar Energy Technologies Office's Government Performance and Reporting Act cost targets.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

Case Study: NREL Campus Chilled Water Storage Potential: Benchmark Datasets Development and Applications, Task 4 - Use Case Demonstration

The Benchmark Datasets Development and Applications project is a three-year collaboration between the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The project seeks to collect and curate high-resolution, well-calibrated time series of building operational and indoor/outdoor environmental data, which are crucial to understanding and optimizing building energy efficiency performance and demand flexibility capabilities as well as benchmarking energy algorithms. Project outcomes include approximately twelve high-fidelity building datasets, enhanced data representation tools, and four case studies to illustrate example applications. The goal of these case studies is to define and execute analyses that demonstrate how one or more datasets collected through this project can address a data gap or challenge historically faced by building stakeholders. This technical paper summarizes the findings of one of these case studies, in which we studied the operational efficiencies of the central cooling system at NREL. We looked at three years of data from the three chillers in the Field Test Laboratory Building (FTLB), from 2019 to 2021, to compare equipment operation and demand throughout the time period. Our analysis indicates that all three chillers are operating at or below the optimal loading conditions for most of the operation time, and thus there was no efficiency drop due to loading of the chillers at full capacity. Our recommendation is that no chiller capacity increase is needed; instead, the central plant could benefit from adopting advanced control logics for optimal sequencing of chillers during part load operations. Analysis of adding chilled water thermal storage to the central plant indicated 34% savings in demand cost and 24.5% savings in total cost (energy consumption and demand charge cost). The payback period is estimated to be 11-22 years with an assumed TES cost of $\$$100-$200 per ton. This case study shows how a selected dataset is used to solve a practical building problem - learning the operational status of its components, analyzing the effectiveness of a proposed new technique, and aiding decision-making for the building operations and maintenance team.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

When to use rsync

We have endeavored to show, using a series of data transfer results obtained from two testbeds, when to use the popular data copying tool rsync and related tools. Tests have been conducted in local area network (LAN) and wide area network (WAN) environments. We conclude that for files in a certain size range and network latency ≦ 10 ms round trip time (RTT), rsync is still useful for data moving tasks in the category 4 of the U.S. DOE Technical Report “Data Movement Categories”. For more demanding data movement requirements, tools of different classes are suggested. Sample histograms from two DOE user facilities are provided to further support our conclusions.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

Benchmarking thermal energy storage cost for industrial process heat

Process heat accounts for roughly half of industrial energy demand, and currently 95% of process heat is derived from the combustion of natural gas, oil, and coal. Electrification of industrial heating could be an alternative, potentially expanding locations suitable for manufacturing; however, industrial facility owners may desire energy storage to stabilize energy costs. In this work, the economic benefits of pairing thermal storage with electrified process heat to reduce the average price paid for energy are analyzed. Cost savings focus on energy arbitrage, or leveraging flexible energy pricing schemes, alone. The cost of natural gas combustion across decades (2019-2060) is compared to the costs of electricity and thermal energy storage in four United States Independent System Operator (ISO) regions. Systems installed today may not yield positive net present value (NPV) compared to the use of natural gas. However, using estimated electricity prices, systems installed in 2030 using arbitrage alone could be profitable when compared to natural gas in some regions of the U.S. Furthermore, if capital expenditures could be reduced by 50% for sensible thermal storage systems by 2030, profitable systems are found across all regions. This implies that electrification of industrial process heat, when paired with inexpensive thermal energy storage systems, could be less expensive than brownfield natural gas systems, using arbitrage as the only source of revenue and without a dependency on any future policy drivers such as pricing externalities that could further incentivize the electrification of industrial process heat.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

Zero-field J-spectroscopy of quadrupolar nuclei

Abstract Zero- to ultralow-field nuclear magnetic resonance (ZULF NMR) allows molecular structure elucidation via measurement of electron-mediated spin-spinJ-couplings. This study examines zero-fieldJ-spectra from molecules with quadrupolar nuclei, exemplified by solutions of various isotopologues of ammonium cations. The spectra reveal differences between various isotopologues upon extracting preciseJ-coupling values from pulse-acquire measurements. A primary isotope effect,$$\triangle J=\left({\gamma }_{{}^{14}{{{{{\rm{N}}}}}}}/{\gamma }_{{}^{15}{{{{{\rm{N}}}}}}}\right){J}_{{}^{15}{{{{{\rm{N}}}}}}{{{{{\rm{H}}}}}}}-{J}_{{}^{14}{{{{{\rm{N}}}}}}{{{{{\rm{H}}}}}}}\approx -58$$ △ J = γ 14 N / γ 15 N J 15 N H − J 14 N H ≈ − 58 mHz, is deduced by analysis of the proton-nitrogenJ-coupling ratios. This study points toward further experiments with symmetric cations containing quadrupolar nuclei, promising applications in biomedicine, energy storage, and benchmarking quantum chemistry calculations.

Science & Technology - Other Topics↗

Securing 3D NAND Without Density Loss via In-Situ Encryption Using a Single Transistor XOR Cell

In this article, we push lightweight XOR-based in-situ encryption to extreme density by proposing a singletransistor XOR memory cell and applying it to 3D NAND, enabling secure data storage without density loss. Using a ferroelectric field-effect transistor (FeFET) as an example technology, we demonstrate that: i) a single-transistor memory can realize the XOR function by exploiting the ability to charge the source and drain separately and control current flow direction, eliminating the need for conventional encrypted cells that rely on complementary devices; ii) with a XOR-based cipher, encryption and decryption can be mapped to in-situ array operations, where ciphertext is stored as the threshold voltage (VTH) states of FeFETs in a NAND string, and decryption is achieved through read operations using key-dependent complementary source/drain bias; iii) the proposed technique is scalable to multi-level cell (MLC) storage by encrypting and decrypting data bit by bit; iv) using an integrated NAND FeFET array, we experimentally demonstrate encryption and decryption operations for both single-level cell (SLC) and MLC storage; v) systemlevel benchmarking shows that the proposed technique achieves 48× and 278× improvements in encryption and decryption throughput, respectively, compared to AES.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

A Ceph S3 Object Data Store for HEP

We present a novel data format design that obviates the need for data tiers by storing individual event data products in column objects. The objects are stored and retrieved through Ceph S3 technology, with a layout designed to minimize metadata volume and maximize data processing parallelism. Performance benchmarks of data storage and retrieval are presented.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗