Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “DOE Contracts”

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.

292 records · Page 17
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Life-Cycle Baseline Customization for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program - 20304

One of the responsibilities of the federal government is to estimate sound and defensible life-cycle baseline costs for use in federal budget estimates and to meet federal financial reporting requirements. To accomplish this, the US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Legacy Management (LM) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) have partnered together to ensure that the liabilities documented in each Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site's life-cycle baseline are specifically tailored. FUSRAP was created in the mid-1970's to clean up radiological contamination resulting from the early development of nuclear weapons. DOE was responsible for FUSRAP until October 1997, when Congress transferred the administration and execution of FUSRAP site cleanups to USACE. By 1997, DOE had completed the cleanup of 25 of the 46 sites that were active within the program and had begun cleanup at 13 additional sites. USACE was assigned responsibility for the cleanup of the 21 remaining FUSRAP sites, and at 8 additional sites that had since been referred for cleanup. The LM mission for the FUSRAP sites is to perform long-term surveillance and maintenance (LTS and M). Currently, LM provides long-term stewardship for 34 completed FUSRAP sites. Another 20 sites are under active remediation by USACE. Within the last 5 years, USACE has completed the cleanup at five FUSRAP sites and the LTS and M responsibility has been transferred to LM. By 2029, USACE will compete remediation at eight additional sites and LTS and M for those sites will transfer to LM. Because responsibilities for the FUSRAP sites transfer between USACE and LM upon completion of remedial actions, both agencies maintain life-cycle baselines for different stages of the project and both must have a strong understanding of the needs and requirements for each site. This understanding ensures that the life-cycle baselines form a complete and accurate picture of what is required for the site and for the FUSRAP program. LM focuses on several things when customizing the life-cycle baseline estimates for the FUSRAP sites, including (1) Understanding the unique requirements for each site. By reviewing site-specific documents prepared by USACE, such as Feasibility Studies and Records of Decision, and partnering with USACE to gain additional insight about site conditions and requirements for stewardship, as well as potential risks, LM can better develop the life-cycle baselines. (2) Developing site-specific labor breakdowns. This ensures the required labor mix is baselined for specific activities by comparing the labor mix required to perform activities at (a) other LM-managed FUSRAP sites and (b) non-FUSRAP LM sites and (c) by USACE at active FUSRAP sites. (3) Taking a tiered approach to life-cycle baseline planning. Estimates for sites transferring to LM in the near term (5 years) are more definitive than for sites transferring in the out-year period. Remedial actions at the near-term sites are at or near completion, providing LM a strong understanding of the LTS and M requirements and remaining liabilities. This in turn allows for site-specific customization of the baseline. (4) Using a robust risk management approach to ensure that liabilities specific to each site are identified, evaluated by probability and severity, and documented in relation to the impact to cost or schedule. To ensure the most accuracy within all the baselines, the FUSRAP life-cycle baselines are updated as needed to support program, project, and contract management needs. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2026

Data for The Value of Reversible Carbon Storage in a Zero-Emissions World

Atmospheric carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is required to stabilize global temperature. CDR can be achieved via ecosystem-based approaches that are cost-effective but reversible (e.g., soil and forest management) or by more durable but expensive approaches (e.g., direct air capture coupled with geologic storage). Here, we examine trade-offs between these approaches, focusing on timing, climate impacts, and cost. We simulated reversible carbon accrual for a range of CDR contract structures using a general minimalist model of ecosystem carbon cycling, and parameterized it to simulate US agricultural soil management─specifically cover cropping─as a case study. We then quantified the resulting impact on atmospheric carbon and global temperature using a climate model emulator. We find that maintaining a patchwork of reversible CDR projects by replacing lapsed projects with new projects can reduce warming by 22–195 μ°C in 2100 and that the magnitude of this cooling effect depends on how effectively the patchwork is maintained. Long-term maintenance of reversible CDR projects requires institutional stability that cannot be guaranteed over multiple decades. Consequently, effective CDR ultimately requires replacing reversible projects with durable projects. To address this problem, we modeled the cost of replacing reversible agricultural soil CDR with geologic CDR. We found that using reversible CDR as a bridge to durable CDR is potentially more cost-effective as a global cooling strategy (0.20–0.81 billion USD per μ°C avoided) than perpetual maintenance of reversible CDR (0.32–1.31 billion USD per μ°C avoided) or an immediate transition to durable CDR (1.37–2.19 billion USD per μ°C avoided). However, we emphasize that institutional commitments to maintain reversible CDR projects cannot be guaranteed. Reliance on reversible CDR as a bridge to durable CDR therefore carries an unknown amount of risk and will only function if efforts to maintain reversible CDR are robust.

Carbon↗
DOE OSTI2024

Reducing uncertainty of polar to midlatitude linkages using DOE’s E3SM in a coordinated model-experiment setting

This project brought DOE’s climate modeling effort with the Energy Exascale Earth System Model into the Polar Amplification Model Intercomparison Project (PAMIP), which is part of the sixth and latest Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, CMIP6. PAMIP examines the causes and consequences of polar amplification, when external forcing results in a larger temperature increase in high latitudes than the global average, in a coordinated set of model experiments with a common modeling protocol. Our teams from UC Irvine and the University of Toronto have designed, carried out, analyzed, and disseminated PAMIP output from the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) and the Community Earth System Model (CESM). PAMIP’s ongoing stream of significant new results have advanced progress in the community’s understanding and led to new outstanding research questions that have motivated further work. PAMIP has led to improved consensus on the atmospheric response to sea ice loss. The important finding is that for a similar sea ice anomaly forcing, the simulated atmospheric response in the troposphere is remarkably consistent among the 16 models’ runs analyzed. The zonal-mean tropospheric response consists of a very robust equatorward shift of the westerly flow in mid-latitudes. However, while the multi-model mean response is robust, it has a weak amplitude relative to internal variability. We identified a weakness in the models (including E3SM) in terms of their response to sea-ice forcing that is related to eddy forcing (or nonlinear dynamical effects) at mid- to high latitudes. In fact, E3SM is an outlier in terms of the models participating, and in that sense, it turned out to be a vital participant model. We found that reductions in energy transport due sea-ice loss and involving dry air only are compensated by increases in moist energy transport from warmer sea surface temperature in midlatitudes. This leads to a large spread in energy transport into the Arctic and is a potential source of spread in Arctic amplification. We identified an important role that climate modes, including tropical modes of variability (El Nino and the Southern Oscillation (ENSO); the Quasi-biennial Oscillation (QBO)) play in the response to sea-ice anomalies, including in ocean coupled experiments. Similarly, we identified and quantified the contribution of sea-ice thickness to the atmospheric response compared to the response to sea-ice extent only. We found that it is important to run large ensembles and even with an ensemble size of 100 simulations the response is largely influenced by internal variability. We demonstrated convincingly that Ural blocking, not sea-ice loss, provides the weakening of the stratospheric polar vortex in fall/early winter and a negative phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation that can last for up to two months. However, sea-ice anomalies can influence the background flow so that the response to Ural blocking is more persistent under low sea-ice conditions in the Barents/Kara Sea than high sea ice Atmospheric model hierarchies that progressively add individual processes have a long history in providing dynamical insight for modeling the atmosphere. Similarly, coupled model hierarchies that progressively add individual ocean processes can provide insights into the workings of the coupled climate system, however such hierarchies have not been available except for a non-dynamical slab ocean model. Because of the missing processes, surface flux corrections must be added to produce a target climate. In this project, we managed to overcome this problem and develop a globally coupled ocean model hierarchy in CESM that can turn on and off the processes of mixed-layer entrainment and Ekman flow. We used the hierarchy to study the impact of Arctic sea-ice loss on the climate system. We find that the effect of mixed-layer entrainment on ocean heat uptake influences the atmospheric circulation by shifting the latitudinal positions of the mid-latitude westerly jet and the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ). In quadrupled CO 2 experiments, we studied how air-sea coupling affects the response of tropical rainfall under global warming. In order to identify the importance of individual ocean processes, we used the hierarchy of ocean models to separate the effects of seasonal mixed-layer entrainment, wind-driven Ekman flows, and frictional flows. We showed that including Ekman and frictional flows allows our simulation to produce the Pacific Ocean's enhanced equatorial warming pattern and equatorward ITCZ contraction noted in previous climate simulations. We also showed that the frictional flow, which has yet to receive much attention, is as important as the Ekman flow in generating equatorial heat convergence.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

LLNL Kimberlina 1.2 NUFT Simulations June 2018 (v2)

This dataset contains the output 6,000, 3-dimensional reactive multi-phase flow and transport aquifer simulations of brine and CO2 leakage into a protective aquiver in California’s San Joaquin Valley and input data files detailing the geologic mesh, aquifer physical properties and CO2 and brine injection rates. This data set was generated as an ongoing effort with the US DOE National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) to evaluate the effectiveness of monitoring techniques to detect brine and CO2 leakage from legacy wells into underground sources of drinking water overlaying a CO2 storage reservoir. Each simulation contains a unique set of input parameters, generated stochastically. The outputs consist of these upper three geologic layers (from top): the Etchegoin, Macoma-Chanac, Santa Margarita-McLure formations. These simulations span the several distances (1, 3 and 6 km or wells W31-0.2, W31-0.5 and W31-1.0, respectively) from the CO2 injector, initiated from bottom hole pressure and saturation to calculate wellbore leakage from the storage reservoir, with low and high regional groundwater gradients and wellbore leakage into 5 leaky nodes. The dataset includes 1,000 unique simulations for each distance, which each contain a unique aquifer heterogeneity, aquifer and caprock permeability, and two model generations are included with a high permeability (prod07) and hybrid permeability (prod09). The range of permeability distributions is listed in Table 1. Each model generation consists of 3,000 simulations. Included in the dataset are the leakage rates determined from 2D wellbore models which utilize the pressure and CO2 saturation from LBL's reservoir simulations, NUFT mesh files with distributed lithology, NUFT rocktab files which describe the material properties for the geologic layers and the NUFT input files and post-processed output 'ntab' files. Each ntab file contains spatial (rows) and temporal (columns) model output tables for each model cell, the locations (x,y,z) and dimensions for each cells (dx, dy, dz). Table 1. Permeability distribution ranges for prod07 and prod09 model generations Geologic Layer: Permeability Range (log10 m^2) prod07 prod09 Etchegoin -12.92 to -10.92 -13.70 to -11.44 Macoma-Chanac -12.72 to -10.72 -13.50 to -11.24 Santa Margarita-McLure -12.70 to -10.70 -13.48 to -11.22 The input files used to generate the model include which are included in the dataset are: Time series of CO2 leakage input into the model (ex: Q_brn.W31-0.2.sim1000.layers123.tab) Time series of CO2 leakage input into the model (ex: Q_CO2.W31-0.2.sim1000.layers123.tab) Physical properties of the aquifer materials detailing the aquifer porosity, solid density, partitioning coefficients, permeabilities and van-Genuchten parameters detailed in a NUFT rocktab file: (ex: sim1000.usnt.rocktab) Numerical mesh and geologic data assigned to each model cell detailed in a NUFT genmsh format (ex: sim1000.mesh_k16.prod07.trans.genmsh) The primary output parameters are: pH (use absolute value) Change in TDS (mg/kg) Change in Pressure (Pa) Change CO2 gas saturation (fraction range 0.0-1.0) for example, the directory /p/lscratchh/mansoor1/nrap/kimberlina/prod09/mainfiles/sim1000/W31- 0.2 contains: sim1000.W31-0.2.trans.pH.red.ntab sim1000.W31-0.2.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab sim1000.W31-0.2.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab sim1000.W31-0.2.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab Each row in the NTAB files consist of model output per numerical grid cell. Each output file contains 33 columns (variables), including the information of numerical records, geologic location and sizes and the simulated parameter values over time. The first 13 variables are about numerical records and relative geologic information for a simulation grid: 1. index: simulation index 2. i: the ith grid of x-axis 3. j: the ith grid of y-axis 4. k: the ith grid of z-axis 5. element_ref: element reference 6. nuft_ind: nuft index 7. x: grid location in the x axis direction 8. y: grid location in the y axis direction 9. z: grid location in the z axis direction 10. dx: grid length in the x axis direction 11. dy: grid length in the y axis direction 12. dz: grid length in the z axis direction 13. volume: volume of the simulation grid The remainder (14, 15, 16...) variables are the simulated parameter values over time, take Pressure as an example, are: 14. 0.0y: initial pressure per cell. 15. 10.0y: simulated pressure at the end of the 10th year. 16. 20.0y: simulated pressure at the end of the 20th year. ... (repeated for every 10 years until 200 years)... The model extends 10,000 m, 5,000 m and 1,411 m in the x,y and z dimensions, respectively. The mesh consists of 164,832 cells with mesh dimensions of 101 x 51 x 32 (nx, ny, nz), with cell dimensions ranging from 100 m laterally (along x and y-axis) and model layers are as designated in the z-axis: Layer 1: atmosphere (1e-30 m thick) Layer 2: upper caprock (10 m thick) Layers 3-13: Etchegoin (536.23 m thck) Layers 14-27: Macoma-Chanac (679.04 m thick) Layers 28-32: Santa Margarita-McLure (185.94 m thick) The wellbore is placed along node i=51, j=26, and extends vertically along 5 nodes from the top to the bottom of the model. Special instructions when extracting files: Each Gzip archive (ex: prod07.sim1000-sim00099.tar.gz) contains 100 simulations. Gzip archives should be transferred into base directories (ie. In Linux: mkdir prod07; mv prod07.*.tar.gz prod07/.) before extracting, or files will be overwritten. Each sub-simulation tree should have the following file structure pattern (using the linux 'tree' command): |-- prod07 | |-- sim0001 | |-- W31-0.2 | | |-- Q_brn.W31-0.2.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- Q_co2.W31-0.2.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.trans.pH.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab | |-- W31-0.5 | | |-- Q_brn.W31-0.5.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- Q_co2.W31-0.5.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.trans.pH.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab | |-- W31-1.0 | | |-- Q_brn.W31-1.0.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- Q_co2.W31-1.0.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.trans.pH.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab | |-- sim0001.mesh_k16.prod07.trans.genmsh Disclaimer This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is operated by Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. This report was reviewed and released as LLNL-MI-753464.

aquifer↗