Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “executable files”

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.

226 records · Page 13
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

FOSWEC v2: System identification and control testing at Hinsdale Wave Research Laboratory

This report summarizes the design and execution of a wave tank test of the floating oscillating surge wave energy converter (FOSWEC) in the O.H. Hinsdale Wave Research Laboratory Directional Wave Basin at Oregon State University. This device, which uses two "flaps" that pivot about a central platform when excited by waves, has a natural frequency within the range of the waves by which it is excited. The FOSWEC was originally considered to be a 1:33 scale device, however, for the current tests, no fixed relative scale is used (i.e., the WEC is considered to be scaled for the basin’s wave environment in which it operates). The primary goal of this test was to assess the degree to which previously developed modeling, experimentation, and control design methods could be applied to a broad range of wave energy converter designs. Testing was conducted to identify a dynamic model for the impedance and excitation behavior of the device. Using these models, a series of closed loop tests were conducted using a causal impedance matching controller. This report provides a brief description of the results, as well as a summary of the device and experimental design. The results show that the methods applied to this experimental device perform well and should be broadly applicable. The data collected during testing is compressed into FOSWEC.zip. Please refer to Appendix C (pages 61-63) of the test report for descriptions of each test ID corresponding to the compressed files.

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
DOE OSTI2025

Implementation of the D1S Methodology for Shutdown Dose Rate Calculations in the OpenMC Monte Carlo Particle Transport Code

We present an implementation of the direct one-step (D1S) methodology for shutdown dose rate (SDR) calculations in the OpenMC Monte Carlo particle transport code. In addition to being the first fully open-source D1S implementation, it is also the first to require no ad hoc source code or nuclear data library modifications. The code can seamlessly switch between production of prompt and decay photons based on a user input parameter, and the decay data needed for decay photon generation are made available through a depletion chain file, which is already used for OpenMC’s built-in depletion/activation solver. A set of Python functions significantly eases the burden of computing and applying time correction factors needed to properly account for the time dependence of radionuclide activity. To assess the accuracy of the D1S implementation, SDR calculations have been carried out for three problems: a prism of iron irradiated by 14-MeV neutrons, the ITER port plug computational benchmark, and the Frascati Neutron Generator (FNG) ITER dose rate benchmark problem from the Shielding INtegral Benchmark Archive and Database (SINBAD). For each of these problems, comparisons were made to calculations using the rigorous two-step (R2S) method. The results on the iron prism problem illustrate how the D1S method achieves superior spatial resolution compared to the R2S method without the need for spatial discretization of the activation regions. The D1S and R2S results for the ITER port plug benchmark agree well with previously reported results in the literature. While the D1S results are 10% to 15% lower than the R2S results, this may be due to stochastic uncertainty and/or spatial discretization in the R2S calculations. On the FNG dose rate benchmark problem, the D1S method produces dose rate estimates that are within 4% of the dose rates predicted using a cell-based R2S workflow. The D1S estimates of the SDR are also in reasonable agreement with the experimental measurements and show the same basic trends that have been observed in previous works. A qualitative analysis of the execution time and uncertainty for the R2S and D1S workflows suggests that the D1S method would attain a higher figure of merit.

D1S method↗
DOE OSTI2023

Management and International Sorption Model Collaboration (M4SF-23LL010302062-NEA-TDB)

This progress report (Level 4 Milestone Number M4SF-23LL010302062) summarizes research conducted at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) within the Crystalline International Collaborations Activity Number SF-23LL01030206. The activity is focused on our long-term commitment of engaging our partners in international nuclear waste repository research. This includes participation in the Nuclear Energy Agency Thermochemical Database (NEA-TDB) Project and development of methodologies for integrating US and international thermodynamic databases for use in SFWST Generic Disposal System Assessment (GDSA) efforts. A continuing focus for FY23 efforts has been to support the US participation in the NEA-TDB effort (Mavrik Zavarin replaced Cindy Atkins-Duffin on the NEA-TDB Management Board (MB) and Executive Group (EG)) and developing mechanisms for integration of NEA-TDB thermochemical data with LLNL’s SUPCRTNE thermodynamic database that supports the SFWST GDSA activities. This effort is coordinated with the Argillite work package SUPCRTNE database development efforts. The goal is to provide a downloadable database that will be hosted on a LLNL website which integrates NEA-TDB data into the LLNL SUPCRTNE database where appropriate. As part of our international activities, we continue our effort to integrate international sorption databases into L-SCIE (Zavarin et al., 2022b). We presented opportunities to include sorption in the next phase of NEA-TDB efforts at the April 2023 EG meeting in Paris. FY23 efforts focused on ensuring interoperable database development across multiple international database development activities. The overall goal is to produce an open source database that can be shared and integrated with multiple nuclear waste programs internationally and harness modern data science workflows and algorithms to incorporate these new approaches into reactive transport and performance assessment models. In collaboration with our Helmholtz Zentrum Dresden Rossendorf partners, we recently demonstrated the power of FAIR open source databases by fitting iron oxide (hydrous ferric oxide, goethite, hematite, and magnetite) protolysis constants to all available L-SCIE data. The results were submitted as a manuscript to J. Colloid Interface Science. This work will inform future metal sorption studies on a variety of iron oxides in order to discern the most appropriate acidity constants and surface complexation modeling constructs to account for pH-dependent mineral surface charge behavior. This work also explored automated surface complexation model development workflows in order to generate higher throughput model input files for a more facile incorporation into GDSA activities.

38 RADIATION CHEMISTRY, RADIOCHEMISTRY, AND NUCLEA↗
DOE OSTI2019

EGS Collab Experiment 1: Microseismic Monitoring

The U.S. Department of Energy's Enhanced Geothermal System (EGS) Collab project aims to improve our understanding of hydraulic stimulations in crystalline rock for enhanced geothermal energy production through execution of intensely monitored meso-scale experiments. The first experiment is being performed at the 4850 ft level of the Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF), approximately 1.5 km below the surface at Lead, South Dakota. Here we report on microseismic monitoring of repeated stimulation experiments and subsequent flow tests between two boreholes in the Poorman Formation. Stimulations were performed at several locations in the designated injection borehole at flow rates from 0.1 to 5 L/min over temporal durations from minutes to hours. Microseismic monitoring was performed using a dense 3D sensor array including two cemented hydrophone strings with 12 sensors at 1.75 m spacing accompanied by 18 3-C accelerometers, deployed in 6 monitoring boreholes, completely surrounding the stimulation region. Continuous records were obtained over a two-month period using a novel dual recording system consisting of a conventional 96 channel exploration seismograph and a high-performance 64 channel digitizer sampling sensors at 4 and 100 kHz respectively. Using a standard STA/LTA triggering algorithm, we detected thousands of microseismic events with recorded energy in a frequency range generally above 3 kHz and up to 40 kHz. The locations of these events are consistent with creation of a hydraulic fracture and additional reactivation of pre-existing structures. Using manual pick refinement and double-difference relocation we are able to track the fracture growth to high precision. We estimate the times and locations of the fracture intersecting a monitoring and the production borehole using microseismic events. They are in excellent agreement with independent measurements using distributed temperature sensing, in-situ strain observations and measurements of conductivity changes. This submission includes a microearthquake catalog, raw event files, a subset of the continuous microseismic monitoring data collected during stimulations and flow test activity on 05/22/2018, 05/23/2018, 05/24/2018, 05/25/2018, 06/25/2018, 07/19/2018, 07/20/2018, 12/7/2018, 12/20/2018, and 12/21/2018 (in binary format), and a binary file interpreter to read the continuous microseismic monitoring data. A Stanford Geothermal Workshop paper is also included to describe microseismic monitoring activities at SURF during these periods.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
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 OSTI2018

An Historic Perspective of NPDES Individual Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Solid Waste Management Units at Los Alamos National Laboratory - 18667

The Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and the associated communities of Los Alamos and White Rock are located in Los Alamos County in north-central New Mexico approximately 60 mi north-northeast of Albuquerque and 25 mi northwest of Santa Fe. The 36-mi{sup 2} facility is situated on the Pajarito Plateau, which consists of a series of fingerlike mesas separated by deep east-to-west oriented canyons cut by predominately ephemeral and intermittent streams. The mesa tops range in elevation from approximately 7800 ft. on the flanks of the Jemez Mountains to about 6200 ft. at their eastern termination above the Rio Grande Canyon. The land surrounding the Laboratory is largely undeveloped. Public access to much of the facility is limited for safety and security reasons. Large tracts of surrounding land are held by the U.S. Forest Service (Santa Fe National Forest), the Bureau of Land Management (Bandelier National Monument), the General Services Administration and San Ildefonso Pueblo. Storm water discharges from Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs) have been regulated at the LANL since the early 1990's and have evolved into an Individual Stormwater Permit (IP) that may be one of the most complex in the nation. Historically, storm water discharges from SWMUs at LANL were regulated under a nationwide general permit using a watershed based approach requiring a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), monitoring at sub-watershed scale 'USGS like' gage stations, and inspection and maintenance of erosion controls. In 2001, the Cerro Grande Fire destroyed many Laboratory structures, residential homes and over 80,000 acres of forested lands in the upper watershed above Los Alamos that significantly changed the local hydrology. Several years later, a Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement (FFCA) was issued by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) that was followed by a Clean Water Act lawsuit filed by concerned citizens, the result of which required more focus on stormwater discharges from individual SWMUs and an IP covering over 400 Sites. The IP contains non-numeric technology-based effluent limitations, coupled with a comprehensive, coordinated inspection and monitoring program, to minimize pollutants in LANL's storm water discharges associated with historical industrial activities from specified Sites. Non-numeric technology-based effluent limitations include minimizing pollutants in discharges through erosion and sedimentation controls, management of run-on and runoff, employee training, inspection and maintenance of controls, annual reporting and public involvement. The IP establishes Target Action Levels (TALs) that are equivalent to New Mexico State water-quality criteria. These TALs are used as benchmarks to determine the effectiveness of control measures implemented under the IP. That is, storm water quality sample results from SWMU discharges are compared with applicable TALs. If one or more sample results exceed a TAL, LANL must take additional corrective action. The TAL results are also confounded by high levels of naturally occurring constituents such as aluminum and gross alpha, and urban constituents such as copper, zinc and PCBs which may not be a source from the regulated SWMU. Due to the remote rugged terrain, security access issues, number of monitoring locations, stringent TALs, reporting requirements and public involvement requirements, this permit is likely one of the most stringent and complex in the country. The Laboratory has implemented this permit in a compliant manner for the past seven years and is anticipating the issuance of a new permit in the next few months. This paper will cover permit requirements related to control measure installations, monitoring, reporting and public involvement as well as process improvements and remaining water quality initiatives such as developing studies to address issues such as discriminating between natural background levels and LANL-related contaminants during the execution of this unique permit. (author)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
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 OSTI2023

Second Report of the Nuclear Data Subcommittee of the Nuclear Science Advisory Committee

The central importance of the nuclear data curated by the US Nuclear Data Program (USNDP) for clean energy generation, national security, nonproliferation, medical applications, and space exploration as well as basic science was described in a prior report issued by the DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee subcommittee on Nuclear Data (NSAC-ND) in September 2022. In this report, we present a set of fourteen (14) recommendations that will enhance and advance DOE-NP's stewardship of nuclear data. The first three recommendations focus on the existing core USNDP capabilities, namely: 1) Support the nuclear structure evaluation workforce to improve the currency, consistency, and accessibility of the Evaluated Nuclear Structure Data File (ENSDF); 2) Enhance nuclear reaction evaluation within the USNDP in support of the Evaluated Nuclear Data File (ENDF) through expansion of the workforce and integration of high-performance computing, automation, and machine learning and; 3) Continue atomic mass evaluation in support AME and NUBASE databases. This is followed by eight (8) recommendations representing new cross-cutting initiatives involving both measurement and evaluation to address outstanding nuclear data needs. These new initiatives require a highly trained, diverse workforce that includes personnel with expertise from both inside and outside the nuclear physics community from which evaluators have traditionally been recruited. As such, many of these initiatives are accomplished via a Topical Nuclear Data Collaborations (TNDC). A TNDC is made up of domestic and international stakeholders, subject matter and nuclear data experts, and nuclear data evaluators and features a workforce development plan to ensure that nuclear data evaluators maintain currency in the relevant applications and are seen as equity partners in the endeavor. These include: 1) Establish a coordinated effort to improve evaluation and modeling in nuclear astrophysics for stellar dynamics, multi-messenger astronomy and nucleosynthesis; 2) Initiate a TNDC to develop and maintain nuclear structure evaluation beyond discrete states, including nuclear level densities, photon strength functions and photonuclear data for improved reaction modeling, and exploring nuclear structure at finite temperature; 3) Create a TNDC to perform correlated fission data evaluation, including cross sections, fragment yields, v(A), v(E n ) for nuclear energy, national security, nonproliferation and basic science; 4) From a panel of subject matter experts to establish and annually update a roster of key decay data to nurture its accelerated dissemination including both measurement and evaluation for targeted high-value nuclides for national security, nonproliferation and medical applications; 5) Comprehensive, consistent neutron-induced structure and reaction data for nuclear energy, national security, nonproliferation and planetary nuclear spectroscopy; 6) Charged-particle stopping powers for detector design, space effects and ion beam therapy; 7) High-energy reactions for space exploration and medical nuclide production, and; 8) The creation of an infrastructure for open data and data preservation for use by the entire nuclear physics community. All told, these initiatives require approximately $6.5M increase in NP support of the USNDP in fiscal year 2023 dollars and would require at least 3-5 years to carry out due to the length of time needed to recruit and train new nuclear data researchers. This relatively modest investment would help ensure that the fruits of the nuclear data research carried out by DOE-NP and its collaborators would be brought to bear to address some of the most important needs of our nation and the world. To ensure effective execution of this plan, we present an overview of recruitment, training, and retention goals for the USNDP, the centerpiece of which is a mutually agreed upon code of conduct. Finally, we identify the facility and instrumentation needed to perform the recommended experimental activities. This includes a short review of target fabrication capabilities, reactors, neutron beam, light- and heavy-stable ion, gamma-ray, high-energy and radioactive ion beam facilities. Lastly, a more complete appendix of experimental facilities previously compiled is included with new input provided for 6 facilities.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2019

Preparing the FUSRAP Colonie Interim Storage Site for Transfer Back to the US Department of Energy Office of Legacy Management - 19215

The Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) Colonie Interim Storage Site was transferred from the US Department of Energy (US DOE) to the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in 1997. The USACE initiated remediation efforts at the Site under FUSRAP. The Site was separated into three distinct operable units (OU) to more efficiently manage the remedial process: 1) Groundwater OU, 2) Main Site Soils OU, and 3) Vicinity Property OU. The USACE has completed remedial actions at each of these three OUs and has advanced the OU remedies at the Site to the long-term stewardship stage to be executed by the US DOE Office of Legacy Management (LM). The US DOE LM is the current real property owner of record of the Colonie Main Site. A summary of each OU and the activities needed to prepare for site transfer follows: OU 1 - USACE issued the Colonie Groundwater OU Record of Decision (ROD) (USACE 2010a) on April 9, 2010. The Groundwater ROD remedy is monitored natural attenuation (MNA) and long-term monitoring (LTM) of groundwater after source removal completion. Results of groundwater monitoring indicate reductions in concentrations of contaminants of concern (COC). Based on the marked progress to date, USACE has optimized the groundwater LTM program (USACE, 2014) by reducing the well network, sampling frequency, and analytical parameters, and by abandoning wells that are no longer needed. A Groundwater ROD Five-Year Review report was submitted to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) for review in 2018. NYSDEC agreed that MNA is still an appropriate remedial method although it is progressing at a slower rate than predicted. OU 2 - From 1999 to 2007, USACE completed the large-scale removal of soil at the Main Site, which included the adjacent Town of Colonie Vicinity Property. Radioactively contaminated soil along with accessible metals-contaminated soil and soil containing volatile organic compounds (VOC) were removed during this effort. A total of 103,402 cubic meters (m{sup 3}) of soil was excavated and disposed offsite. On March 26, 2015, USACE signed the Main Site Soils OU ROD (USACE, 2015a). The ROD remedy included provisions for Land Use Controls (LUC) consisting of institutional controls (IC) through an Environmental Easement for management of three small and discrete inaccessible locations within three of the 27 Final Status Survey units of the Main Site. The Environmental Easement provides a means of protection based on both current and future land use by placing restrictions on soil excavation and reuse. The easement and a supporting Site Management Plan (SMP) will be finalized by LM in coordination with NYSDEC. OU 3 - the Vicinity Property OU ROD was signed on 20 September 2017. This ROD declared No Action (NA) for dust and No Further Action (NFA) for soil and other media for the Vicinity Properties. Prior to the ROD, USACE performed dust sampling and other characterization activities at representative commercial and residential Vicinity Property locations. These efforts were reported in the Colonie FUSRAP Site Vicinity Property Operable Unit Remedial Investigation Summary Report (USACE, 2016). A Site Closeout Report (SCOR) was issued to NYSDEC and approved in 2018. The approval of this report starts the transfer process back to the LM. Ongoing and future transfer activities include records retention and management, preparation and filing of real estate records, physical site management (fencing, landscape maintenance, well abandonment) and coordination with state regulators and LM staff. This presentation is intended to make all stakeholders aware of the necessary steps for site transfer from the USACE back to the LM. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

University Coalition for Fossil Fuel Energy Research

Following a nationwide open competition, the University Coalition for Fossil Energy Research (UCFER) was established in October 2015 through a cooperative agreement between Penn State and the Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Penn State lead UCFER with the objective of advancing basic and applied research for clean and low-carbon energy based on fossil fuels in support of the DOE’s mission. UCFER focused on research that improves the efficiency of production and use of fossil energy resources, while minimizing the environmental impacts and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Penn State lead a team of nine universities (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Pennsylvania State University, Princeton University, Texas A&M University, University of Kentucky, University of Southern California, The University of Tulsa, University of Wyoming, and Virginia Polytechnic and State University) during the competition stage, adding seven more universities in 2017 (Carnegie Mellon University, Louisiana State University, The Ohio State University, University of North Dakota, University of Pittsburgh, University of Utah, and West Virginia University). This Coalition exhibited a wide geographical distribution across the U.S. bringing a wide variety of fossil energy expertise. This national university alliance was a major collaborative effort with NETL to address specific topics of R&D in NETL’s mission area, which involved one or more of NETL’s five core competencies (Geologic and Environmental Systems, Materials Engineering and Manufacturing, Energy Conversion Engineering, Systems Engineering and Analysis, and Computational Science and Engineering). The first five to six months of the project was the definitization stage. During this period, Penn State worked closely with NETL to finalize the Coalition organizational structure and By- Laws, prepare a statement of substantial involvement and a statement of project objectives, and develop operations and membership plans. A major component of this stage included preparing an execution plan to solicit research, evaluate proposals, recommend selected projects to NETL, and award projects. In addition, a plan was prepared to monitor projects, review projects, disseminate knowledge from research projects and develop an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. This included developing a website and several databases. The first of six rounds of solicitations started in mid-2016. Projects from the sixth solicitation started February 1, 2021, and ended January 31, 2023. Projects that were selected represented twelve technology lines. Approximately $16.6 million in funding was available for the six solicitations. Most of the funding was provided by DOE, Office of Fossil Energy (DOEFE) with the DOE Fuel Cells Technologies Office (DOE-FCTO) providing funding for a few projects. Coalition universities submitted 259 proposals in response to the solicitations, requesting approximately $67.0 million in funding, and forty-three projects were selected. However, one project withdrew after the principal investigator left the university. The management of the Coalition projects was a major activity by Penn State. Managing the Coalition projects consisted of monitoring the projects, reviewing the projects through annual technical review meetings, disseminating knowledge from the research projects, and developing an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. Penn State’s OMT monitored projects to ensure that all milestones (technical, schedule, budget) were met, expenditures were allowable, cost share (when applicable) were reported, and all technical reports were submitted. The OMT also posted the technical reports electronically on a secure members-only website for access and review by the Coalition members. Disseminating knowledge from the research projects was done through a website, newsletters, various meetings, conferences, journal articles, publicity/press releases, and project summaries that were prepared after each project was completed. Penn State kept NETL apprised of UCFER progress through quarterly reports (thirtyone were submitted by Penn State), verbal and written communications, yearly updates at the annual technical review meetings, and cost accrual reports. The UCFER project had a significant impacty. The UCFER program established the first national university alliance in fossil energy research with a major collaboration effort with DOE NETL that addressed specific topics in NETL’s research and development mission areas. It generated inter-university collaborations, which was another program interest. Twenty-two out of 259 proposals contained collaborations (≈8.5%) and three of forty-two funded projects involved inter-university collaborations (≈7.0%). The forty-two funded projects provided support at fourteen universities involving 269 personnel. Research was conducted by 106 faculty, 115 graduate and undergraduate students, forty-six research staff and post-doctoral scholars, and two visiting scholars. Students and post-doctoral scholars were also on-site at NETL through CRADAs. In addition, non-Coalition participants included six universities and sixteen companies and national laboratories. The non-Coalition participants were involved as subcontractors, providers of cost share, performed unpaid consultation and sample analysis, served as advisory board members, or were providers of samples and materials for testing. UCFER also produced visibility in that fifty-six refereed journal articles were published, fifty-seven conference papers and twenty-three posters were prepared, 190 presentations were given, eight patent applications were filed, two books/book chapters were written, and ten software codes were developed. Collaboration between NETL and the individual projects was a major requirement for all funded projects. This included NETL staff time to support collaboration, consultation, technical guidance, sample preparation and analysis, internships at NETL, on-site testing and equipment usage by Coalition participants at NETL, co-mentoring students, and coauthoring journal articles and conference papers. Collaboration was impacted by COVID-19 in that not all on-site activities could be performed. NETL personnel were coauthors on eight of the conference papers (fourteen percent of the conference papers that were prepared) and seventeen of the journal articles (thirty percent of the journal articles that were prepared). A website was developed for an online proposal solicitation and review process and to provide exposure to UCFER. A website analysis highlighted the large amount of member and general public interest in UCFER by interpreting access statistics from March 2016 through June 2023. Visitors to the site originated from many different organizations, businesses, and countries. The website provided a means to disseminate information to both the general public and the UCFER members and was successfully used for outreach activities. In addition, NETL required that RFP release, proposal submission, and proposal reviews all be performed online. Penn State successfully developed these capabilities in a secure section of the website, which were used throughout the UCFER project. It is recognized that each project had its technical successes. In addition, highlighted successes were compiled and summarized from the research projects. Information was requested from the PIs of completed projects. In addition, Penn State’s Operations Management Team reviewed subcontract reports to identify project successes. Examples of information requested from PIs included (not all-inclusive): new projects that have been funded as a result of UCFER funding; new commercial products; establishment of a new center; new patent; new software; best paper awards; highly-cited work; and graduate student successes. A total of forty-eight highlighted successes were reported.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗