Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “finance”

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 235 records · Page 13
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2010

Optimizing Air Transportation Service to Metroplex Airports: Analysis Using the Airline Schedule Optimization Model (ASOM) - Par 2

The air transportation system is a significant driver of the U.S. economy, providing safe, affordable, and rapid transportation. During the past three decades airspace and airport capacity has not grown in step with demand for air transportation; the failure to increase capacity at the same rate as the growth in demand results in unreliable service and systemic delay. This report describes the results of an analysis of airline strategic decision-making that affects geographic access, economic access, and airline finances, extending the analysis of these factors using historic data (from Part 1 of the report). The Airline Schedule Optimization Model (ASOM) was used to evaluate how exogenous factors (passenger demand, airline operating costs, and airport capacity limits) affect geographic access (markets-served, scheduled flights, aircraft size), economic access (airfares), airline finances (profit), and air transportation efficiency (aircraft size). This analysis captures the impact of the implementation of airport capacity limits, as well as the effect of increased hedged fuel prices, which serve as a proxy for increased costs per flight that might occur if auctions or congestion pricing are imposed; also incorporated are demand elasticity curves based on historical data that provide information about how passenger demand is affected by airfare changes.

Donoue, George↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of a Ground Multi-Mission Low-Cost Optical Terminal (LCOT) for Free-Space Optical Communications

Once confined to the realm of laboratory experiments and theoretical papers, space-based laser communications (lasercomm) are on the verge of achieving mainstream status. Organizations from Facebook to NASA, and missions from cubesats to Orion are employing lasercomm to achieve gigabit communication speeds at mass and power requirements lower than that of traditional radio frequency (RF) methods. Since first demonstrating free-space optical communications services with Lunar Laser Communications Demonstration (LLCD) in 2013, NASA has invested in developing optical communications technologies and capabilities to enhancing its space communications networks. Along with evolving optical space terminals, NASA is also developing lasercomm grounds stations capable of meeting the rapidly increasing data volume demands of upcoming missions, from low-earth to lunar orbits and beyond and integrating these advanced capabilities into its Near-Space and Deep Space Networks. To meet this emerging need, the Low-Cost Optical Terminal (LCOT) project at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) is designing, building and validating a prototype for a flexible, multi-mission, and economical optical ground terminal that could be used as a blueprint for a global network of optical ground stations, capable of supporting a wide variety of missions. To date a major impediment to widespread adoption of laser communication has been the lack of an existing ground network infrastructure. A mission that wishes to take advantage of laser communication not only needs to invest in an optical space terminal, but it must also finance the creation of ground terminals to receive the downlink signal. This adds significant additional cost. Missions that do decide to incur the cost of financing a network of ground terminals end up building highly specialized optical receivers that are operable as receivers for that specific mission only. Significant Non-Recurring Engineering (NRE) cost is invested to build highly specialized one-of-a-kind ground terminals that go into storage after that particular mission is over. This is not an economical approach and does nothing to grow the number of optical ground stations available to future missions. In essence each mission that wants to take advantage of the benefits of lasercom has to start from scratch to provide a ground terminal network to support it. As long as this is the case, the cost for using laser communications will be too high for most missions to consider. LCOT intends to close this gap in technology by designing and developing a standard optical ground terminal design that is flexible enough to serve as a receiver for a wide range of future missions – a ground terminal that can be quickly reconfigured to receive downlinks at different wavelengths using different signal formats. Not only does LCOT have the industry-building objectives of utilizing commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components to the maximum extent possible, but also spurs the commercial development of other necessary lasercomm components not currently offered by industry. Finally, LCOT will give NASA scientists and engineers a facility where they can gain real-world experience with optical communications. It will give engineers a cost-effective way to try out new concepts and processes by providing the infrastructure for such testing. In this way it is hoped LCOT will serve as a stimulus for innovation in optical communications and speed its widespread adoption by future missions. The LCOT is comprised of five subsystems: Free-Space Optical, Transceiver, Amplifier, Monitor and Control, and Observatory Infrastructure. In August 2021, the LCOT team installed a 70 cm telescope, developed by Planewave Instruments that was optimized for optical communications. Free-Space Optical subsystem comprises of the telescope and its associated hardware, including a transmitter optical assembly, wide field cameras, two optical benches, and an adaptive optics subsystem. The transmit optical assembly, a unique concept design, is a cluster of four functionally independent transmit subassemblies located on the receive telescope. In addition to receiving optical signals and directing the expanded beam with high precision to the space terminal, it also performs tracking functions. The transmit optical assembly will support operations from Low Earth Orbit (LEO) through lunar and will be used as a template for industry manufacturing. The Optical Infrastructure subsystem is responsible for providing environmentally controlled shelters for LCOT equipment and various other systems. To maintain the safety and proper functionality of the telescope, a 16 ft Astrohaven clamshell dome procured which provides all-sky coverage without the need to rotate the dome. Additionally, Atmospheric Monitoring Assembly (AMA) will be part of optical infrastructure subsystem to ensure accurate performance of the LCOT. Like existing optical ground stations, LCOT will measure standard weather station parameters, infrared all sky image of cloud cover, and cloud height. LCOT, however, adds requirements for measuring night time seeing and, in the future, daytime seeing. Unlike other optical ground terminals, the LCOT is transceiver agnostic; user transceivers may be duplex transceivers, standalone receivers, or standalone transmitters with or without acquisition beacon functionality. As such, the LCOT project accommodates testing with external customer transceivers in a flexible manor, further complimenting its intended multi-mission goals. Another unique component of LCOT is the use of a new amplifier technology – the Very Large Mode Area (VLMA) amplifiers. This new technology allows LCOT to avoid the issues faced by previous laser communications ground terminals, gives users more flexibility and modular capability, and is capable of reaching an order of magnitude higher peak power than traditional High Power Optical Amplifiers (HPOA). One drawback of the VLMA HPOA approach is that the amplified light is output into free-space. The solution developed by LCOT is an optics train that couples the output of the VLMA amplifier into a short fiber for transport to the transmit telescopes with high efficiency. Like many of the LCOT components, a set of detailed manufacturing drawings have been created for the optics train to allow any machine shop with a multi-axis Computer Numerical Control (CNC) machine to fabricate the piece parts from commonly available materials. In line with the goals of LCOT, the monitor and control functions are developed as a modular and flexible system with the ability to support future hardware or algorithm changes, minimizing disruptions. A main priority of development in the Monitor and Control Subsystem (MCS) is the safety monitor system.

laser communication↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of a Ground Multi-mission Low Cost Optical Terminal(LCOT) for Free-Space Optical Communication

Once confined to the realm of laboratory experiments and theoretical papers, space-based laser communications (lasercomm) are on the verge of achieving mainstream status. Organizations from Facebook to NASA, and missions from cubesats to Orion are employing lasercomm to achieve gigabit communication speeds at mass and power requirements lower than that of traditional radio frequency (RF) methods. Since first demonstrating free-space optical communications services with Lunar Laser Communications Demonstration (LLCD) in 2013, NASA has invested in developing optical communications technologies and capabilities to enhancing its space communications networks. Along with evolving optical space terminals, NASA is also developing lasercomm grounds stations capable of meeting the rapidly increasing data volume demands of upcoming missions, from low-earth to lunar orbits and beyond and integrating these advanced capabilities into its Near-Space and Deep Space Networks. To meet this emerging need, the Low-Cost Optical Terminal (LCOT) project at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) is designing, building and validating a prototype for a flexible, multi-mission, and economical optical ground terminal that could be used as a blueprint for a global network of optical ground stations, capable of supporting a wide variety of missions. To date a major impediment to widespread adoption of laser communication has been the lack of an existing ground network infrastructure. A mission that wishes to take advantage of laser communication not only needs to invest in an optical space terminal, but it must also finance the creation of ground terminals to receive the downlink signal. This adds significant additional cost. Missions that do decide to incur the cost of financing a network of ground terminals end up building highly specialized optical receivers that are operable as receivers for that specific mission only. Significant Non-Recurring Engineering (NRE) cost is invested to build highly specialized one-of-a-kind ground terminals that go into storage after that particular mission is over. This is not an economical approach and does nothing to grow the number of optical ground stations available to future missions. In essence each mission that wants to take advantage of the benefits of lasercom has to start from scratch to provide a ground terminal network to support it. As long as this is the case, the cost for using laser communications will be too high for most missions to consider. LCOT intends to close this gap in technology by designing and developing a standard optical ground terminal design that is flexible enough to serve as a receiver for a wide range of future missions – a ground terminal that can be quickly reconfigured to receive downlinks at different wavelengths using different signal formats. Not only does LCOT have the industry-building objectives of utilizing commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components to the maximum extent possible, but also spurs the commercial development of other necessary lasercomm components not currently offered by industry. Finally, LCOT will give NASA scientists and engineers a facility where they can gain real-world experience with optical communications. It will give engineers a cost-effective way to try out new concepts and processes by providing the infrastructure for such testing. In this way it is hoped LCOT will serve as a stimulus for innovation in optical communications and speed its widespread adoption by future missions. The LCOT is comprised of five subsystems: Free-Space Optical, Transceiver, Amplifier, Monitor and Control, and Observatory Infrastructure. In August 2021, the LCOT team installed a 70 cm telescope, developed by Planewave Instruments that was optimized for optical communications. Free-Space Optical subsystem comprises of the telescope and its associated hardware, including a transmitter optical assembly, wide field cameras, two optical benches, and an adaptive optics subsystem. The transmit optical assembly, a unique concept design, is a cluster of four functionally independent transmit subassemblies located on the receive telescope. In addition to receiving optical signals and directing the expanded beam with high precision to the space terminal, it also performs tracking functions. The transmit optical assembly will support operations from Low Earth Orbit (LEO) through lunar and will be used as a template for industry manufacturing. The Optical Infrastructure subsystem is responsible for providing environmentally controlled shelters for LCOT equipment and various other systems. To maintain the safety and proper functionality of the telescope, a 16 ft Astrohaven clamshell dome procured which provides all-sky coverage without the need to rotate the dome. Additionally, Atmospheric Monitoring Assembly (AMA) will be part of optical infrastructure subsystem to ensure accurate performance of the LCOT. Like existing optical ground stations, LCOT will measure standard weather station parameters, infrared all sky image of cloud cover, and cloud height. LCOT, however, adds requirements for measuring night time seeing and, in the future, daytime seeing. Unlike other optical ground terminals, the LCOT is transceiver agnostic; user transceivers may be duplex transceivers, standalone receivers, or standalone transmitters with or without acquisition beacon functionality. As such, the LCOT project accommodates testing with external customer transceivers in a flexible manor, further complimenting its intended multi-mission goals. Another unique component of LCOT is the use of a new amplifier technology – the Very Large Mode Area (VLMA) amplifiers. This new technology allows LCOT to avoid the issues faced by previous laser communications ground terminals, gives users more flexibility and modular capability, and is capable of reaching an order of magnitude higher peak power than traditional High Power Optical Amplifiers (HPOA). One drawback of the VLMA HPOA approach is that the amplified light is output into free-space. The solution developed by LCOT is an optics train that couples the output of the VLMA amplifier into a short fiber for transport to the transmit telescopes with high efficiency. Like many of the LCOT components, a set of detailed manufacturing drawings have been created for the optics train to allow any machine shop with a multi-axis Computer Numerical Control (CNC) machine to fabricate the piece parts from commonly available materials. In line with the goals of LCOT, the monitor and control functions are developed as a modular and flexible system with the ability to support future hardware or algorithm changes, minimizing disruptions. A main priority of development in the Monitor and Control Subsystem (MCS) is the safety monitor system.

Haleh Safavi↗
DOE OSTI2014

Distributed Wind Diffusion Model Overview (Presentation)

Distributed wind market demand is driven by current and future wind price and performance, along with several non-price market factors like financing terms, retail electricity rates and rate structures, future wind incentives, and others. We developed a new distributed wind technology diffusion model for the contiguous United States that combines hourly wind speed data at 200m resolution with high resolution electricity load data for various consumer segments (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial), electricity rates and rate structures for utility service territories, incentive data, and high resolution tree cover. The model first calculates the economics of distributed wind at high spatial resolution for each market segment, and then uses a Bass diffusion framework to estimate the evolution of market demand over time. The model provides a fundamental new tool for characterizing how distributed wind market potential could be impacted by a range of future conditions, such as electricity price escalations, improvements in wind generator performance and installed cost, and new financing structures. This paper describes model methodology and presents sample results for distributed wind market potential in the contiguous U.S. through 2050.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2013

Texas Clean Energy Project: Decision Point Application, Section 2: Topical Report - Phase 1, February 2010-October 2013

Summit Texas Clean Energy, LLC (STCE) is developing the Texas Clean Energy Project (TCEP or the Project) to be located near Penwell, Texas. The TCEP will include an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plant with a nameplate capacity of 400 megawatts electric (MWe), combined with the production of urea fertilizer and the capture, utilization and storage of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) sold commercially for regional use in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in the Permian Basin of west Texas. The TCEP will utilize coal gasification technology to convert Powder River Basin subbituminous coal delivered by rail from Wyoming into a synthetic gas (syngas) that will be cleaned and further treated so that at least 90 percent of the overall carbon entering the IGCC facility will be captured. The clean syngas will then be divided into two highhydrogen (H 2 ) concentration streams, one of which will be combusted as a fuel in a combined cycle power block for power generation and the other converted into urea fertilizer for commercial sale. The captured CO 2 will be divided into two streams: one will be used in producing the urea fertilizer and the other will be compressed for transport by pipeline for offsite use in EOR and permanent underground sequestration. The TCEP was selected by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy (FE) for cost-shared co-funded financial assistance under Round 3 of its Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI). A portion of this financial assistance was budgeted and provided for initial development, permitting and design activities. STCE and the DOE executed a Cooperative Agreement dated January 29, 2010, which defined the objectives of the Project for all phases. During Phase 1, STCE conducted and completed all objectives defined in the initial development, permitting and design portions of the Cooperative Agreement. This topical report summarizes all work associated with the project objectives, and additional work required to complete the financing of the Project. In general, STCE completed project definition, a front-end, engineering and design study (FEED), applied for and received its Record of Decision (ROD) associated with the NEPA requirements summarized in a detailed Environmental Impact Statement. A topical report covering the results of the FEED is the subject of a separate report submitted to the DOE on January 26, 2012. References to the FEED report are contained herein. In August 2013, STCE executed fixed-price turnkey EPC contracts and previously, in December 2011 a long-term O&M agreement, with industry-leading contractors. Other work completed during Phase 1 includes execution of all commercial input and offtake agreements required for project financing. STCE negotiated long-term agreements for power, CO 2 and urea offtake. A contract for the purchase of coal feedstock from Cloud Peak Energy’s Cordero Rojo mine was executed, as well as necessary agreements (supplementing the tariff) with the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) for delivery of the coal to the TCEP site. STCE executed firm agreements for natural gas transportation with ONEOK for long-term water supply with a private landowner. In addition, STCE secured options for critical easements and rights-of-way, completed and updated a transmission study, executed an interconnection agreement and has agreed a target October 31, 2013 financial closing date with debt and conventional and tax equity.

Mattes, Karl↗
DOE OSTI2018

2018 Research Highlight in Manufacturing: Global Value Chain and Manufacturing Analysis on Geothermal Power Plant Turbines

Currently, geothermal project developers customize the size of the power plant to fit the resource being developed. The turbine is designed and sized to optimize efficiency and resource utilization for electricity production; most often, other power plant components are then chosen to complement the turbine design. These custom turbine designs demand one-off manufacturing processes, which result in higher manufacturing setup costs, longer lead-times, and higher capital costs overall in comparison to larger-volume line manufacturing processes. In contrast, turbines produced in standard increments, manufactured in larger volumes, could result in lower costs per turbine. In this study, we developed a manufacturing cost model to identify requirements for equipment, facilities, raw materials, and labor. Then we used discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis to calculate the minimum sustainable price (MSP). We analyzed three different cases 1) 1 MWe geothermal ORC turboexpander 2) 5 MWe ORC turboexpander and 3) 20 MWe geothermal steam turbine, and calculated the cost of manufacturing the major components, such as the impellers/blades, shaft/rotor, nozzles, inlet guide lanes, disks, and casings. The results showed that MSP could highly vary between 893 $/kW and 30 $/kW based on turbine size, standardization and volume of manufacturing. The analysis also showed that the economy of scale applies both to the size of the turbine and the number manufactured in a single run. As an example, the unit price of a 5 MW standard design turbine could be 150 $/W cheaper than the custom design. Sensitivity analysis indicated that these savings come largely from reduced labor costs for design and engineering and manufacturing setup. In addition to manufacturing cost savings, there is a delivery time saving up to 10 months, which could have a positive effect to construction financing operation time. Another advantage of these standard turbines is their adaptability to different geothermal systems by operating at off-design conditions. We also modeled off-design turbine efficiencies within the commercially-favorable operating range of a standard ORC compared to custom-designed ORC equipment. Than we used these performance calculations and power output capacities in a discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis of plant operations and financing, thereby creating representative techno economic models of a total geothermal power plant. I this scope we used NREL's System Advisor model (SAM) and performed DCF analysis of standard and custom design turbines using results from IPSEpro over range of temperatures of interest. In this scope 63 different off-design cases were analyzed. This helped us to answer the question; 'Can today`s capital cost savings compensate the future revenue losses due to lower electricity generation?' The results showed that, the net capital cost savings for the modeled 5 MW case study may reach up to +$1,298,672. Also, the difference between NPV of standard design and custom design turbine could reach up to +$733,940. To sum up, when all the things mentioned above are taken into consideration, it can be said that, the standard turbines are competitive over a wide range of temperatures and flow rates and the give positive NPV differences for certain cases near their design point.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2019

Applying Value at Risk Analysis towards Energy Efficiency Investments

Value at Risk (VaR) is a measure of risk for potential losses within a portfolio of investments. Investments in energy efficiency in a manufacturing environment compete in terms of payback period, ease of investment, and transaction costs with other investments (production, safety, engineering, etc.). Because manufacturers have limited amounts of capital to allocate, investments in productivity tend to be prioritized over energy efficiency projects that offer similar paybacks. Value at Risk (VaR) can be used to quantify how risk-weighted expenditures change over time. Energy efficiency investments are often believed to offer relatively stable payoffs compared to changes in production and other assets, particularly when evaluated using methodologies such as simple payback. Incorporating methodologies such as VaR can provide a stronger business case for energy efficiency investments by quantifying value beyond what is captured in other Return on Investment calculations.In this paper we outline a methodology for applying VaR in the context of the variety of investments made by manufacturing organizations. Additionally, we profile the stability of energy efficiency (EE) and renewable energy (RE) investments compared to other types of investments made in manufacturing. By applying VaR to these investments, energy managers can better translate the financial benefits of energy-related capital projects in a way that is more compelling to Corporate Finance and Treasury departments. This common language also allows Corporate Finance and Treasury departments to support large, strategic deployments of capital for such projects based on a targeted objective – the management of financial risk for the organization’s shareholders.

Levine, Eli↗
DOE OSTI2017

Cost-Saving Strategies to Improve County Economic and Energy Resilience: A Resilient Counties Forum - Cultivating and Protecting Energy Assests Panel

The Resilient Counties Forum is a FREE opportunity for county leaders to gain a better understanding of how they can help meet county disaster management, energy cultivation and protection, resource recycling and infrastructure financing goals. At the Forum, county leaders and the private sector will discuss successful resilience strategies, and create action plans for how county leaders might address certain issues in their counties. The morning session will include presentations featuring county examples of best practices in the following topic areas: Managing Disasters, Cultivating and Protecting Energy Assets, Infrastructure Financing and Resource Recycling.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Bringing Solar Energy to Low- and Moderate-Income Communities

The U.S. solar photovoltaics (PV) industry has taken off over the past decade, but without deliberate action low- and moderate-income communities could be left behind. Key recommendations for policymakers and funders in the renewable energy and community development fields that emerged 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 a grant-in-lieu-of-credits option for the Investment Tax Credit as was done during the last recession. • 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, provide greater certainty for developers, and measure progress toward equity in renewable energy policy implementation.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Bio-project “derisking” through development of systematic methodologies and frameworks for risk assessment

One of the primary hindrances to producing a viable, sustainable domestic biomass industry for renewable biofuels, bio-products and bio-power is the lack of understanding and quantification of the risks associated with both the biomass supply chain and preprocessing and conversion technologies. Currently a consistent method for assessing, comparing, and quantifying risks in biomass supply chains does not exist, creating a major investment barrier to bioenergy projects in the U.S. The lack of a standardized approach has resulted in bioenergy stakeholders independently using inconsistent approaches and evaluation criteria, leading to unreliable and incomparable assessments of risks and financing barriers to bio-project development. Along with the challenges of inconsistent risk assessment for supply chain risk, technology specific risks based on variability in biomass properties are not fully understood and can pose significant unforeseen challenges for bioenergy projects. In many cases these properties have not yet been identified and the impacts on the proposed technology and products unquantified. This is particularly challenging for emerging preprocessing and conversion technologies. Without a firm understanding of the preprocessing/conversion technology-specific critical properties, the risk of a proposed bio-project cannot be fully evaluated. To address inconsistent risk evaluation in the biomass supply chain supporting project financing, a Biomass Supply Chain Risk Standards (BSCRS) framework was developed. The BSCRS framework includes a comprehensive list of known and perceived risks (Risk Indicators) to the supply chain developed through 100’s of interviews with bioenergy industry experts spanning from feedstock growers and suppliers to representatives from the financial sector. These risks have been organized into a manageable hierarchy of Risk Categories and Risk Factors that can be practically assessed. This BSCRS framework also provides mitigation strategies for multiple Risk Indicators from best available industry practices and research findings. Additionally, a risk quantification methodology for each Risk Factor, Risk Category, and the bio-project as a whole was developed to enable capital markets to assess feedstock risk more efficiently and more accurately. Multiple case studies representing existing bio-projects have been used to evaluate and verify the BSCRS framework and scoring methodology. To address technological risk along with the supply chain risk captured in the developed BSCRS framework, this work also focuses on development of a systematic criticality assessment tool using well-accepted, quantitative risk analysis methods to evaluate bioenergy feedstock critical properties impacting system unit operations. The proposed Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) approach uses a team of subject area experts (SAEs) for each targeted unit operation within a system. Collectively, the team will develop and use a quantitative scoring system to assess the material attributes, process parameters, and quality attributes for key unit operations that have already been identified. The FMEA process generates Risk Priority Numbers (RPNs) for the various failures and predominant causes for each material/process unit/product combination resulting in a semi-quantitative, standardized methodology for assessing technological risk and biomass properties contributing to that risk.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2021

FY 2022 Idaho National Laboratory Site Sustainability Plan

The mission of the Department of Energy (DOE) is to ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions. This FY 2022 Idaho National Laboratory Site Sustainability Plan (SSP) was developed to enable and sustain Idaho National Laboratory’s (INL’s) mission to discover, demonstrate, and secure innovative nuclear solutions, clean energy options, and critical infrastructure. DOE Order 436.1, “Departmental Sustainability,” provides requirements and assigns responsibilities for managing sustainability within DOE to ensure that DOE missions are carried out in a sustainable manner, to institute wholesale cultural change to factor sustainability into all DOE decisions, and to ensure DOE achieves sustainability goals. DOE Order 436.1 also requires DOE sites to commit appropriate personnel resources, establish a financing plan that prioritizes the use of life-cycle cost effective private-sector financing, optimize the application of appropriations and budgeted funds, and establish specific performance measures and deliverables designed to achieve the listed requirements. The SSP was developed according to the narrative requirements from the “FY 2022 DOE Site Sustainability Plan Guidance” document issued in September 2021. The SSP contains strategies and activities that will lead to continual energy, water, and waste reductions that move the INL site toward meeting DOE sustainability goals and requirements. The SSP summarizes energy and available fuel use reporting requirements and references criteria for instituting sustainable design. SSP requirements are integrated into each INL site contractor’s Integrated Safety Management System and Environmental Management System (EMS). Finally, the Sustainability Program directives, based on this SSP, are integrated into INL/LTD-21-62463, Annual Laboratory Plan 2021, and operations and acquisition systems.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2018

The Birth of a Data Center

Since 2005, Research and Education Campus serves as the gateway to INL University Boulevard Consolidates scientific studies, increased interaction and educational opportunities Teams with local commercial developers, the State of Idaho, and Idaho universities Developed University Boulevard 7 major R&D Leased facilities (388,000 sq. ft.) $122M capital value of leased property Some facilities are at and others forecasted to exceed capacity within 2-3 years as mission growth continues DOE awarded the INL contract to BEA, Feb. 2005. Purpose; transform two uniquely different National Laboratories into the newly formed Idaho National Laboratory Become the pre-eminent, internationally recognized nuclear energy research, development and demonstration laboratory within 10 years. Aggressively streamline, upgrade and plan for new infrastructure INL Infrastructure Transformation Plan, Sept 2005, an overall roadmap for transforming INL to meet the new vision. Key goal; procure 400,000 sq ft of new facility space DOE-NE approved Mission Need document for consolidating the INL Research and Education Campus (REC), Dec. 2005; add or replace 200,000 to 500,000 sq ft of professional scientific space, existing facilities were fair to poor condition. Master Campus Plan requirements document and Environmental Assessment approved January and March 2007 respectively. Defined campus location and REC boundaries. INL and DOE-ID decided, in 2007, to suspend quest for third-party financing, because unlikely to succeed. The strategy was; Keep original target of 200,000 to 500,000 sq ft new space Consolidate existing scattered leases Pursue developer-financed facilities in smaller incremental sizes All leased general purpose buildings;No DOE capital investments (except for utility corridor), developed by others (local developers, State, University, private funding), no government land involved INL-funded tenant improvements

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2022

FY 2023 Idaho National Laboratory Site Sustainability Plan

The mission of the Department of Energy (DOE) is to ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions. This FY 2022 Idaho National Laboratory Site Sustainability Plan (SSP) was developed to enable and sustain Idaho National Laboratory’s (INL’s) mission to discover, demonstrate, and secure innovative nuclear solutions, clean energy options, and critical infrastructure. DOE Order 436.1, “Departmental Sustainability,” provides requirements and assigns responsibilities for managing sustainability within DOE to ensure that DOE missions are carried out in a sustainable manner, to institute wholesale cultural change to factor sustainability into all DOE decisions, and to ensure DOE achieves sustainability goals. DOE Order 436.1 also requires DOE sites to commit appropriate personnel resources, establish a financing plan that prioritizes the use of life-cycle cost effective private-sector financing, optimize the application of appropriations and budgeted funds, and establish specific performance measures and deliverables designed to achieve the listed requirements. The SSP was developed according to the narrative requirements from the “FY 2022 DOE Site Sustainability Plan Guidance” document issued in September 2021. The SSP contains strategies and activities that will lead to continual energy, water, and waste reductions that move the INL site toward meeting DOE sustainability goals and requirements. The SSP summarizes energy and available fuel use reporting requirements and references criteria for instituting sustainable design. SSP requirements are integrated into each INL site contractor’s Integrated Safety Management System and Environmental Management System (EMS). Finally, the Sustainability Program directives, based on this SSP, are integrated into INL/LTD-21-62463, Annual Laboratory Plan 2021, and operations and acquisition systems.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2013

Benchmarking Non-Hardware Balance-of-System (Soft) Costs for U.S. Photovoltaic Systems, Using a Bottom-Up Approach and Installer Survey – Second Edition

This report presents results from the second U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) sponsored, bottom-up data-collection and analysis of non-hardware balance-of-system costs -- often referred to as 'business process' or 'soft' costs -- for U.S. residential and commercial photovoltaic (PV) systems. In service to DOE's SunShot Initiative, annual expenditure and labor-hour-productivity data are analyzed to benchmark 2012 soft costs related to (1) customer acquisition and system design (2) permitting, inspection, and interconnection (PII). We also include an in-depth analysis of costs related to financing, overhead, and profit. Soft costs are both a major challenge and a major opportunity for reducing PV system prices and stimulating SunShot-level PV deployment in the United States. The data and analysis in this series of benchmarking reports are a step toward the more detailed understanding of PV soft costs required to track and accelerate these price reductions.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2014

Banking on Solar: An Analysis of Banking Opportunities in the U.S. Distributed Photovoltaic Market

This report provides a high-level overview of the developing U.S. solar loan product landscape, from both a market and economic perspective. It covers current and potential U.S. solar lending institutions; currently available loan products; loan program structures and post-loan origination options; risks and uncertainties of the solar asset class as it pertains to lenders; and an economic analysis comparing loan products to third party-financed systems in California.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2016

Meeting Summary of Kitchen Cabinet on Financial Due Diligence to Reduce Proliferation Risks

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory convened the Kitchen Cabinet (KC) to facilitate a candid discussion about the role of financial institutions (FIs) in antiproliferation efforts to reduce nuclear proliferation risks by identifying suspicious business transactions and exports when making lending or insurance decisions. The meeting brought together a group of export control specialists, largely representatives from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) Participating Governments (PGs) and finance experts representing banks and insurance companies. By assembling a KC of experts, the group could understand what suspicious transactions look like from each other’s perspectives and better inform each of their operations. The goal was to develop red flags FIs could use to identify suspicious proliferation-related transactions and to help governments gain a clearer picture of proliferation using financial information.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗