Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “energy conservation code”

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.

329 records · Page 19
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Hydronic Shell: An Affordable Solution for Multifamily Deep Energy Retrofit

Approximately 42% of multi-family buildings in the United States have do not have insulation as required by the building codes. Envelope retrofits of these buildings are needed to improve their thermal performance, provide thermal resilience, and enable a pathway to electrification of space heating systems. Hydronic shell (HS) is a retrofit technique where a stud wall layer is added to a masonry wall along with a convective coil and a fan coil unit fitted in the façade cavity which can provide both heating and cooling to the space. The HS system serves a dual purpose of 1) retrofitting the building envelope and 2) retrofitting the HVAC system and enabling electrification of space heating. The electrification of space heating is possible from the installation of a combination of hydronic system/fan coil unit system which uses a central heat pump as a source of heating water in the cavity between the existing wall and retrofit insulation layer. This study evaluates the performance of the HS system at varying outdoor conditions mimicked by a climate chamber and hot water supply temperature from a water bath. During the ramp-up period, the indoor chamber temperature could be increased from 66 ºF to 69.5 ºF within an hour using heating water at 120 ºF when the outdoor chamber temperature was at 0 ºF. When the indoor chamber temperature was maintained within a deadband, variation in cavity air temperature was mostly influenced by the duration when water was flowing through the cavity convector. It was seen from the testing that the hydronic system alone without use of fan in the system is able to maintain the space temperature at coldest outdoor condition used in the experiment (0 ºF) even at lowest hot water supply temperature chosen (90 ºF). During the ramp-down period, the fastest decline in temperature took 6.4 hours from temperature to drop from 69.6 ºF to 66 ºF which shows tremendous potential of thermal resilience and peak load shifting.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2020

A Comparison of RESRAD and GoldSim Models for Assessing Radiological Dose for a RCRA Landfill - 20418

US Ecology Idaho (USEI) operates a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C, Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (TSD) Facility on a 640-acre property in Owyhee County, Idaho. USEI accepts a wide variety of RCRA-exempt low activity radioactive wastes, including naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) and technologically enhanced NORM (TENORM) (USEI 2009). The performance of the landfill with regard to radiological operating permit requirements was previously assessed using a model constructed with the residual radioactivity (RESRAD) computer program, developed by Argonne National Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). RESRAD supports the evaluation of several environmental transport pathways related to a radionuclide-contaminated soil source term, but it was not conceived as a model for the evaluation of landfill radiological performance. A more comprehensive and realistic model is desired in order to better support submissions to both the State of Idaho's Department of Environmental Quality as well as the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A Performance Assessment (PA) computer model was developed using GoldSim software for the USEI RCRA Subtitle C landfill. The RESRAD computer model was specifically developed for calculating soil cleanup criteria and radiological dose and cancer risk from residual radioactive material in soil. To evaluate site-specific conditions, users may select from among a number of available environmental transport and exposure pathways and modify 'default' parameter values. In GoldSim, a user must construct the model 'from scratch.' However, this modeling is facilitated by a number of specialized elements available in GoldSim to support a radiological mass transport model. These include elements for defining radiological decay and ingrowth, container failure and radiological release, advective and diffusive transport, and other processes. Advantages afforded by the use of RESRAD for modeling radiological dose for a RCRA Subtitle C landfill include ease of use and reasonable flexibility in specifying site-specific conditions. GoldSim allows for considerably more flexibility and site-specificity than RESRAD, including evaluation of potentially relevant environmental transport processes not supported in RESRAD. The probabilistic modeling capabilities of GoldSim also far exceed those of RESRAD. The pros and cons of RESRAD and GoldSim for this modeling problem are explored with a focus on identifying approaches and critical factors in identifying the appropriate platform. The capabilities of RESRAD and GoldSim for mathematically modeling the disposal system will be contrasted and compared. For example, the existing RESRAD radiological safety assessment evaluated potentially complete exposure pathways related to infiltration to groundwater and upwards diffusion of radon. Additional transport pathways identified in the USEI Idaho facility Conceptual Site Model include deposition of radon decay products in cover material, root uptake of radionuclides in disposed wastes by native plants, and mixing of cover material by burrowing animals. Results of the two models and how the different transport and dose pathways affect results will be discussed. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Accuracy of HVAC Load Predictions: Validation of EnergyPlus and DOE-2 using FLEXLAB Measurements

The aim of the project reported here was to better understand the level of accuracy of three building energy simulation (BES) engines (‘engines’) — EnergyPlus™, DOE-2.1e, and DOE-2.2 — by identifying and investigating significant deviations between the performance predicted by these engines and actual performance as measured in the FLEXLAB® test facility at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). The specific test conditions included some of those prescribed in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140 - Standard Method of Test for the Evaluation of Building Energy Analysis Computer Programs. Detailed measurements of FLEXLAB performance, including indoor temperatures and heat fluxes and air-flow and water flow rates and temperatures in the Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system, together with hourly weather data, were recorded and used in analyzing the simulation results from EnergyPlus v8.8, DOE-2.2 v3.65 and DOE-2.1e v127. These engines are commonly used in the United States for building energy code compliance, federal, state, and utility incentives programs, as well as energy efficient design of new buildings and energy retrofit of existing buildings. Seven conventional overhead mixing ventilation scenarios were tested and each engine was found to have a similar level of agreement with the measurements of space-level heating and sensible cooling loads. These results provide useful information regarding the accuracy of these engines in predicting the cooling and heating load elements of whole building energy performance. This information is intended for practitioners who are concerned about transitioning between simulation tools with different engines and for managers of utility programs leveraging these tools for evaluating and/or projecting measure savings to be incentivized under their programs. The results of the comparisons of simulated and measured performance indicate that the predictions from all three engines are not significantly different. The 24-hour average value of the absolute mean bias indicates the likely magnitude of the error in any particular case. The average mean bias is reduced by cancelation of overprediction in one case by underprediction in another. The daytime absolute mean biases, which may be more important for both energy performance and occupant comfort, are ~6%, presumably because of the greater complexity involved in simulating in the presence of solar radiation. EnergyPlus typically overpredicts the cooling load and/or underpredicts the heating load by ~1.5% and the DOE-2 engines typically underpredict the cooling load by approximately the same amount. The Root Mean Square Error is relatively more sensitive to shorter term variations in the difference between predicted and measured loads; the three engines have similar values, ~10%, suggesting that the uncertainties in their predictions of peak loads may also be similar in magnitude. The implication of these results is that users, both designers and program analysts, can use EnergyPlus, DOE-2.1e, or DOE-2.2 to model conventional commercial buildings equipped with overhead mixing ventilation with a similar level of confidence. Further work is required to better understand the variability in the level of agreement between the engine predictions and FLEXLAB measurements, where a particular engine will agree well with FLEXLAB in some cases and not so well in others and another engine will agree or disagree in different cases. As the sources of this variability are identified and eliminated or reduced significantly, it is recommended that the experimental capabilities and methods developed in the study reported here should be applied to validating heating and cooling load calculations for spaces with different types of furniture and miscellaneous loads. These methods should then be applied to low energy space conditioning systems in EnergyPlus including, in particular, radiant slab and radiant ceiling panel cooling and heating systems and ‘mixed mode’ systems that combine mechanical cooling and natural ventilation systems, focusing on controls, including control of thermal mass. The work reported here addresses the conventional method of heating and cooling occupied spaces; other methods, such as the use of radiant heating and cooling systems have the potential to provide equivalent occupant comfort, or better, with lower energy consumption. These systems are addressed more explicitly in EnergyPlus but there is a need for empirical validation to give users the same level of confidence in modeling these systems that they have, or should have, in modeling conventional systems, based on the results presented here.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2025

Reported Energy and Cost Savings from the DOE ESPC IDIQ Program: FY 2024

Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs)are a contractual mechanism that allow a federal agency to procure energy savings and facility improvements without upfront capital costs to reduce costs and resiliency. ESPCs are covered under FAR Part 23.2, and 42 USC § 8287. Section 8287(a)(2)(A) of Title 42 of the U.S. Code requires that each energy savings performance contract (ESPC) undergo an annual energy audit, resulting in a separate audit report for every project. The objective of the present report is to compile and analyze all annual ESPC audit reports issued between October 1, 2023, and September 30, 2024, for projects awarded under Generations 1, 2, and 3 of DOE’s ESPC IDIQ contracts. During this period, 205 measurement and verification (M&V) reports were produced for 200 projects; the total number of reports exceeds the number of projects because some projects generated more than one report(for example, a few projects measure savings twice per year and produce two audit reports annually, each covering a different six-month period). By aggregating the results from these individual audits, the report determines the portfolio-wide realization rate of energy and cost savings for all active ESPC projects awarded under DOE’s IDIQ program. For all 205audit reports, sufficient information was available to compare project-level estimated, reported, and guaranteed cost savings. Reported cost savings accounted for ESCO verified savings per each project’s M&V plan. The total reported cost savings for the period addressed were $\$$647.8million,compared with the total guaranteed cost savings of $\$$601.6million. On average across the reported projects: •ESPC contractors guaranteed 92.8% of the estimated cost savings• projects reported achieving 100.0% of the estimated cost savings• projects reported achieving 107.7% of the guaranteed cost savings. The M&V performed for the period indicated adjustments for government operations and maintenance impacts to savings amount to$\$$43.9millionandcould be restored with the original operational parameters for impacted projects. Accounting for this potential cost savings impact, these projects still realized 100.4% of the guaranteed cost savings. The information on estimated and reported energy savings was collected and compared for all 205of the reports examined. Based on site energy, estimated savings totaled 14.88million MMBtu, and reported savings were 15.33million MMBtu; 3.1% greater than the estimated energy savings. All of the reports examined contained sufficient information to calculate source energy savings. Based on site-adjusted source energy, total estimated energy savings were 20.90 million MMBtu, and reported savings were 21.22million MMBtu, 101.5% of the estimated energy savings. For water savings, the estimated savings were 11,539,055 kGal and the reported savings were 13,315,930 kGal. This means 1,776,875 kGal more water was saved than estimated, which is about 15% higher than the estimate. These results indicate that, overall, the reported energy savings slightly exceeded the estimated values, while estimated water savings significantly exceeded estimated values, suggesting that the projects achieved greater cost savings than originally projected. The total annual expense for the ESCOs to perform annual M&V audits and reporting was $\$$10.02million. Through this effort, $\$$647.8 million in annual cost savings was verified. The M&V results indicated that $\$$43.9 million of these verified savings reflected adjustments due to government operations A-6and maintenance impacts, which could be restored under the original operational parameters for the affected projects. These findings show the value of M&V that only costs 1.7%of the guaranteed cost savings to ensure guarantees are met.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Converter-Interfaced CHP Plant for Improved Grid-Integration, Flexibility and Resiliency

GE Research and its partner GE Renewables have proposed the use of an interface converter solution to increase the penetration of small to medium-sized CHP (1MWe to 20MWe) into distribution grids and improve their flexibility and grid support capability. Indeed, the proposed interface converter solution thanks to presence of the grid-ready inverter, allows to streamline the compliance to grid codes requirements, reduce the interconnection delays and costs and ultimately one of the main barriers for CHP adoption by commercial and industrial facilities. An additional benefit provided by the interface converter is the use of the grid-ready inverter for reactive power which eliminates the need of sizing the generator for that capability. These two benefits highly favor the economic feasibility of converter-interfaced CHP. Five user cases, each in one of the leading U.S states for CHP potential reported by the DOE in its estimation of the U.S Technical Potential of CHP, were selected to compare the economic performances of converter-interfaced CHP as compared with directly-coupled. They include a college campus in California, a hospital in New York, a water reclamation plant in Texas, a hotel in Minnesota, and a large office building in Pennsylvania. Results showed that, the presence of the interface converter allows to increase the return on investment (ROI) by 0.5 to 2 percentage points in most of the cases (4 of 5). Indeed, the interface converter by shortening the interconnection process allows to accelerate revenues while reducing interconnection costs. Added to the reduced cost of the required generator these savings trade favorably the capital cost of the converter. The analysis also showed that the profitability of the converter-interfaced CHP is highly sensitive to the energy price, interconnection delay, and converter cost. However, it appears that if the interface converter can shorten the interconnection process by at least 6 months, adopting this solution will be more economically viable than directly-coupled configuration in almost all the +23,000 sites of the U.S Technical Potential CHP. The evaluation of the benefits of a converter-interfaced CHP also showed that it enables higher ROI when coupled with other distributed energy resources (DER) such as battery energy systems (BESS) or solar photovoltaic (PV). Indeed, in those scenario, the grid-ready inverter included in the interface converter eliminates the need of separate inverters if DC-coupling is used. On the technical performance, it has been verified that the presence of the interface converter allows to reduce by 70% to 80% the CHP short-circuit contribution to grid faults. This not only reduces the mechanical and thermal stresses exposed to the CHP electrical components but also increases the grid hosting capacity which ultimately enables higher penetrations CHP. Another key benefit of the interface converter validated with hardware-in-the-loop simulations and testing is its superior capability for reactive power support. Indeed, using a power hardware testbed with two +700kW inverters configured in back-to-back, a microgrid controller and actual facilities loads it was demonstrated that the presence of the interface converter can help maintain a power factor near ~1 or regulate the voltage to ~1.0pu at the point of common coupling. This benefit can be highly valuable if in the future, due to higher penetration of renewable distributed energy resources (DER), utilities start billing demand charge based on kVA instead of kW as currently. It was also validated that converter-interfaced CHP can dispatch heat and power commands and seamlessly switch between the two modes while consistently controlling the power factor or voltage at PCC. Indeed, the power hardware testing showed that grid-connected converter-interfaced CHP can follow either the power or heat demand while maintaining a unity power factor at converter output. This research proved that the adoption of an interface converter as the solution for interconnection of CHP system into the distribution grid can greatly improve the economic feasibility of small to medium-sized CHP as well as the plant power quality, flexibility and resiliency. Additionally, it allows increased penetrations of CHP into the distribution grid, extends their grid support capability, and facilitates the integration of BESS and PV DER by streamlining their collocation within the same facilities. This ultimately provides an opportunity for commercial and small industrial facilities in the U.S to accelerate their energy transition thanks to the high energy efficiency of CHP systems and its reliable, flexible, and resilient microgrid operation when interconnected with an interface converter.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗