Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “RETROFITTING”

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 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2015

Building America Case Study: Retrofitting a 1960s Split-Level, Cold-Climate Home, Westport, Connecticut; Whole-House Solutions for Existing Homes, Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (EERE)

??National programs such as Home Performance with ENERGY STAR(R) and numerous other utility air sealing programs have brought awareness to homeowners of the benefits of energy efficiency retrofits. Yet, these programs tend to focus on the low-hanging fruit: air-sealing the thermal envelope and ductwork where accessible, switch to efficient lighting, and low-flow fixtures. At the other end of the spectrum, deep-energy retrofit programs are also being encouraged by various utilities across the country. While deep energy retrofits typically seek 50% energy savings, they are often quite costly and most applicable to gut-rehab projects. A significant potential for lowering energy usage in existing homes lies between the low hanging fruit and deep energy retrofit approaches - retrofits that save approximately 30% in energy over the existing conditions. A key is to be non-intrusive with the efficiency measures so the retrofit projects can be accomplished in occupied homes. This cold climate retrofit project involved the design and optimization of a home in Connecticut that sought to improve energy savings by at least 30% (excluding solar PV) over the existing home's performance. This report documents the successful implementation of a cost-effective solution package that achieved performance greater than 30% over the pre-retrofit - what worked, what did not, and what improvements could be made. Confirmation of successfully achieving 30% source energy savings over the pre-existing conditions was confirmed through energy modeling and comparison of the utility bills pre- and post- retrofit.

1960 split level↗
DOE OSTI2016

A regression-based approach to estimating retrofit savings using the Building Performance Database

Retrofitting building systems is known to provide cost-effective energy savings. This article addresses how the Building Performance Database is used to help identify potential savings. Currently, prioritizing retrofits and computing their expected energy savings and cost/benefits can be a complicated, costly, and an uncertain effort. Prioritizing retrofits for a portfolio of buildings can be even more difficult if the owner must determine different investment strategies for each of the buildings. Meanwhile, we are seeing greater availability of data on building energy use, characteristics, and equipment. These data provide opportunities for the development of algorithms that link building characteristics and retrofits empirically. In this paper we explore the potential of using such data for predicting the expected energy savings from equipment retrofits for a large number of buildings. We show that building data with statistical algorithms can provide savings estimates when detailed energy audits and physics-based simulations are not cost- or time-feasible. We develop a multivariate linear regression model with numerical predictors (e.g., operating hours, occupant density) and categorical indicator variables (e.g., climate zone, heating system type) to predict energy use intensity. The model quantifies the contribution of building characteristics and systems to energy use, and we use it to infer the expected savings when modifying particular equipment. We verify the model using residual analysis and cross-validation. We demonstrate the retrofit analysis by providing a probabilistic estimate of energy savings for several hypothetical building retrofits. We discuss the ways understanding the risk associated with retrofit investments can inform decision making. The contributions of this work are the development of a statistical model for estimating energy savings, its application to a large empirical building dataset, and a discussion of its use in informing building retrofit decisions.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2014

Existing Whole-House Solutions Case Study: National Grid Deep Energy Retrofit Pilot, Massachusetts and Rhode Island

Between December, 2009 and December, 2012 42 deep energy retrofit (DER) projects were completed through a pilot program sponsored by National Grid and conducted in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Thirty-seven of these projects were comprehensive retrofits while five were partial DERs, meaning that high performance retrofit was implemented for a single major enclosure component or a limited number of major enclosure components. Building Science Corporation developed a consistent "package" of measures in terms of the performance targeted for major building components. Pre- and post-retrofit air leakage measurements were performed for each of the projects. Each project also reported information about project costs including identification of energy-related costs. Post-retrofit energy-use data was obtained for 29 of the DER projects, and was analyzed based on the net energy used by the DER project regardless of whether the energy was generated on site or delivered to the site. Based on the community experience, this DER package is expected to result in yearly source energy use near 110 MMBtu/year or approximately 40% below the Northeast regional average. Larger to medium sized homes that successful implement these retrofits can be expected to achieve source EUI that is comparable to Passive House targets for new construction. The community of DER projects show post-retrofit airtightness below 1.5 ACH50 to be eminently achievable.

airtightness↗
DOE OSTI2014

Data and Analytics to Inform Energy Retrofit of High Performance Buildings

Buildings consume more than one-third of the world?s primary energy. Reducing energy use in buildings with energy efficient technologies is feasible and also driven by energy policies such as energy benchmarking, disclosure, rating, and labeling in both the developed and developing countries. Current energy retrofits focus on the existing building stocks, especially older buildings, but the growing number of new high performance buildings built around the world raises a question that how these buildings perform and whether there are retrofit opportunities to further reduce their energy use. This is a new and unique problem for the building industry. Traditional energy audit or analysis methods are inadequate to look deep into the energy use of the high performance buildings. This study aims to tackle this problem with a new holistic approach powered by building performance data and analytics. First, three types of measured data are introduced, including the time series energy use, building systems operating conditions, and indoor and outdoor environmental parameters. An energy data model based on the ISO Standard 12655 is used to represent the energy use in buildings in a three-level hierarchy. Secondly, a suite of analytics were proposed to analyze energy use and to identify retrofit measures for high performance buildings. The data-driven analytics are based on monitored data at short time intervals, and cover three levels of analysis ? energy profiling, benchmarking and diagnostics. Thirdly, the analytics were applied to a high performance building in California to analyze its energy use and identify retrofit opportunities, including: (1) analyzing patterns of major energy end-use categories at various time scales, (2) benchmarking the whole building total energy use as well as major end-uses against its peers, (3) benchmarking the power usage effectiveness for the data center, which is the largest electricity consumer in this building, and (4) diagnosing HVAC equipment using detailed time-series operating data. Finally, a few energy efficiency measures were identified for retrofit, and their energy savings were estimated to be 20percent of the whole-building electricity consumption. Based on the analyses, the building manager took a few steps to improve the operation of fans, chillers, and data centers, which will lead to actual energy savings. This study demonstrated that there are energy retrofit opportunities for high performance buildings and detailed measured building performance data and analytics can help identify and estimate energy savings and to inform the decision making during the retrofit process. Challenges of data collection and analytics were also discussed to shape best practice of retrofitting high performance buildings.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2020

Association of residential energy efficiency retrofits with indoor environmental quality, comfort, and health: A review of empirical data

This paper reviews empirical data from evaluations of the influence of residential energy efficiency retrofits on indoor environmental quality conditions and self-reported thermal comfort and health. The data were extracted from 36 studies described in 44 papers plus two reports. Nearly all reviewed studies were performed in Europe or United States. Most studies evaluated retrofits of homes with low-income occupants. Indoor radon and formaldehyde concentrations tended to increase after retrofits that did not add whole-house mechanical ventilation. Study-average indoor concentrations of nitrogen dioxide and volatile organic compounds other than formaldehyde increased and decreased with approximately equal frequency. Average indoor temperatures during winter typically increased after retrofits, usually by less than 1.5 °C. Dampness and mold, usually based on occupant's reports, almost always decreased after retrofits. Subjectively reported thermal comfort, thermal discomfort, non-asthma respiratory symptoms, general health, and mental health nearly always improved after retrofits. For asthma symptoms, the evidence of improvement slightly outweighed the evidence of worsening. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether changes in thermal comfort and health outcomes varied depending on the type of energy efficiency retrofit. The published research has numerous limitations including a lack of data from retrofits in warm-humid climates and minimal data on changes in objective health outcomes. Suggestions for future research are provided.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2012

Building Energy Model Development for Retrofit Homes

Based on previous research conducted by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and Florida Solar Energy Center providing technical assistance to implement 23 deep energy retrofits across the nation, six homes were selected in Florida and Texas for detailed post-retrofit energy modeling to assess realized energy savings (Chandra et al, 2012). Of these homes, three homes in San Antonio were selected for detailed analysis of post-retrofit energy use and realized energy savings. The actual savings achieved in these homes post-retrofit, as determined by a utility bill comparison, is presented. For the three metered homes in Florida, no pre-retrofit utility bills are available, so a utility bill comparison to determine realized savings is not possible. Assessing realized savings can be difficult for some homes where pre-retrofit occupancy and energy performance are unknown. Initially, savings had been estimated using a HERS Index comparison for these homes. However, this does not account for confounding factors such as occupancy and weather. This research also addresses a method to more reliably assess energy savings achieved in deep energy retrofits for which pre-retrofit utility bills or occupancy information is not available.

energy efficiency↗
DOE OSTI2013

Retrofitting Vegas: Implementing Energy Efficiency in Two Las Vegas Test Homes

In 2009, the state of Nevada received nearly forty million dollars in Neighborhood Stabilization Funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The purpose of this funding was to stabilize communities that have suffered from foreclosures and abandonment. In an effort to provide guidance to local officials and maximize how effectively this NSP funding is utilized in retrofitting homes, CARB provided design specifications, energy modeling, and technical support for the Building America Retrofit Alliance (BARA) team and its local partners - Better Building Performance, Nevada Energy Star Partners Green Alliance, and Home Free Nevada - for two retrofit test homes. One home was to demonstrate a modest retrofit and the other a deep energy retrofit. Through this project, CARB has provided two robust solution packages for retrofitting homes built in this region between the 1980s and early 1990s without substantially inconveniencing the occupants. The two test homes, the Carmen and Sierra Hills, demonstrate how cost-effectively energy efficient upgrades can be implemented in the hot, dry climate of the Southwest. In addition, the homes were used as an educational experience for home performance professionals, building trades, remodelers, and the general public. In-field trainings on air-sealing, HVAC upgrades, and insulating were provided to local contractors during the retrofit and BARA documented these retrofits through a series of video presentations, beginning with a site survey and concluding with the finished remodel and test out.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2015

Retrofitting a 1960s Split-Level, Cold-Climate Home

National programs such as Home Performance with ENERGY STAR® and numerous other utility air sealing programs have brought awareness to homeowners of the benefits of energy efficiency retrofits. Yet, these programs tend to focus on the low-hanging fruit: air-sealing the thermal envelope and ductwork where accessible, switch to efficient lighting, and low-flow fixtures. At the other end of the spectrum, deep-energy retrofit programs are also being encouraged by various utilities across the country. While deep energy retrofits typically seek 50% energy savings, they are often quite costly and most applicable to gut-rehab projects. A significant potential for lowering energy usage in existing homes lies between the low hanging fruit and deep energy retrofit approaches - retrofits that save approximately 30% in energy over the existing conditions. A key is to be non-intrusive with the efficiency measures so the retrofit projects can be accomplished in occupied homes. This cold climate retrofit project involved the design and optimization of a home in Connecticut that sought to improve energy savings by at least 30% (excluding solar PV) over the existing home's performance. This report documents the successful implementation of a cost-effective solution package that achieved performance greater than 30% over the pre-retrofit - what worked, what did not, and what improvements could be made.

1960 split level↗
DOE OSTI2021

Energy Savings Results from Small Commercial Building Retrofits in the US

Small commercial buildings, or those comprising less than 50,000 square feet of floor area, represent 94% of U.S commercial buildings by count and consume approximately 8% of the nation’s primary energy; as such, they represent a largely unexploited opportunity for energy savings. Small commercial buildings also represent a large economic market—the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) estimated the small commercial retrofit market at USD 35.6 billion. Despite the prominence of small commercial buildings and the economic opportunity for energy retrofits, many energy efficiency programs focus on large commercial buildings, and create efficiency solutions that do not meet the needs of the small commercial market. This paper presents an analysis of 34 small commercial case study projects that implemented energy efficiency retrofits. This paper contributes to the existing building retrofit body of knowledge in the following ways: (1) it identifies the decision criteria used by small commercial building stakeholders that decided to complete an energy retrofit; (2) it identifies the most commonly implemented efficiency measures in small commercial buildings, and discusses why this is the case; and (3) it provides empirical evidence about the efficacy of installing single energy efficiency measures (EEMs) compared to packages of EEMs in small commercial buildings by reporting verified energy savings. To the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to catalog decision criteria and energy savings for the existing small commercial buildings market, and this research illustrates that small commercial building decision-makers seem most motivated to retrofit their spaces by energy cost savings and operational concerns. Furthermore, small commercial building decision-makers opted to implement single-system retrofits in fifteen (15) of the thirty-four cases studied. Finally, this research documents the improved savings, in the small commercial buildings market, associated with a more integrated package of EEMs compared to a single-system approach, achieving approximately 10% energy savings for a single-system approach and more than 20% energy savings for integrated approaches. These savings translate to CO2 savings of 1,324,000 kgCO2/year to 2,647,000 kgCO2/year, respectively, assuming small commercial buildings are retrofit at a rate of 0.95% of the stock annually.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2014

Retrofit California: Better Buildings Program Overview

Energy efficiency retrofits (also called upgrades) are widely recognized as a critical component to achieving energy savings in the building sector to help lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. To date, however, upgrades have accounted for only a small percentage of aggregate energy savings in building stock, both in California and nationally. Although the measures and technologies to retrofit a building to become energy efficient are readily deployed, establishing this model as a standard practice remains elusive. Retrofit California sought to develop and test new program models to increase participation in the energy upgrade market in California. The Program encompassed 24 pilot projects, conducted between 2010 and mid-2013 and funded through a $30 million American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) grant from the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Better Buildings Neighborhood Program (BBNP). The broad scope of the Program can be seen in the involvement of the following regionally based Grant Partners: Los Angeles County (as prime grantee); Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), consisting of: StopWaste.org for Alameda County, Regional Climate Protection Authority (RCPA) for Sonoma County, SF Environment for the City and County of San Francisco, and City of San Jose; California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSE) for the San Diego region; Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (SMUD). Within these jurisdictions, nine different types of pilots were tested with the common goal of identifying, informing, and educating the people most likely to undertake energy upgrades (both homeowners and contractors), and to provide them with incentives and resources to facilitate the process. Despite its limited duration, Retrofit California undoubtedly succeeded in increasing awareness and education among home and property owners, as well as contractors, realtors, and community leaders. However, program results indicate that a longer timeframe will be needed to transform the market and establish energy retrofits as the new paradigm. Innovations such as Flex Path, which came about because of barriers encountered during the Program, have already shown promise and are enabling increased participation. Together, the pilots represent an unprecedented effort to identify and address market barriers to energy efficiency upgrades and to provide lessons learned to shape future program planning and implementation. The statistics reflects the scope of the marketing and outreach campaigns, which tested a variety of approaches to increase understanding of the benefits of energy upgrades to drive participation in the Program. More traditional methods such as TV and radio advertisements were complimented by innovative community based social marketing campaigns that sought to leverage the trusted status of neighborhood organizations and leaders in order to motivate their constituents to undertake retrofits. The remainder of this report provides an overview of Retrofit California including brief summaries of the pilots’ main components and highlights, followed by the major findings or takeaway lessons from the approaches that were tested. Eleven of the pilots will be continued, with modifications, under the ratepayer-funded Regional Energy Networks. Involvement in the RENS by many of the Retrofit California partners will ensure that early lessons learned are carried forward to guide future programs for energy upgrades in California.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2014

A Multi-State Model for Catalyzing the National Home Energy Retrofit Market (Final Technical Report)

In the fall of 2010, the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA) launched the Multi-State Model for Catalyzing the National Home Energy Retrofit Market Project (Multi-State Project). This residential energy efficiency pilot program was a collaborative effort among the states of Alabama, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Washington, and was funded by competitive State Energy Program (SEP) awards through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The objective of this project was to catalyze the home energy efficiency retrofit market in select areas within the state of Alabama. To achieve this goal, the project addressed a variety of marketplace elements that did not exist, or were underdeveloped, at the outset of the effort. These included establishing minimum standards and credentials for marketplace suppliers, educating and engaging homeowners on the benefits of energy efficiency and addressing real or perceived financial barriers to investments in whole-home energy efficiency, among others. The anticipated effect of the activities would be increased market demand for retrofits, improved audit to retrofit conversion rates and growth in overall community understanding of energy efficiency. The four-state collaborative was created with the intent of accelerating market transformation by allowing each state to learn from their peers, each of whom possessed different starting points, resources, and strategies for achieving the overall objective. The four partner states engaged the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) to oversee a project steering committee and to manage the project evaluation for all four states. The steering committee, comprised of key program partners, met on a regular basis to provide overall project coordination, guidance, and progress assessment. While there were variances in program design among the states, there were several common elements: use of the Energy Performance Score (EPS) platform; an audit and home energy rating tool; emphasis on community based coordination and partnerships; marketing and outreach to increase homeowner participation; training for market actors; access to financing options including rebates, incentives, and loan products; and an in depth process evaluation to support continual program improvement and analysis. In Alabama, Nexus Energy Center operated energy efficiency retrofit programs in Huntsville and Birmingham. In the Huntsville community the AlabamaWISE program was available in five Alabama counties: Cullman, Lawrence, Limestone, Madison, and Morgan. In Birmingham, the program was available to residents in Jefferson and Shelby Counties. In both communities, the program was similar in terms of program design but tailored marketing and partnerships to address the unique local conditions and population of each community. ADECA and the Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance (SEEA) provided overall project management services and common resources to the local program administrator Nexus Energy Center, including contracted services for contractor training, quality assurance testing, data collection and reporting, and compliance. The fundamental components of the AlabamaWISE program included a vertical contractor-based business model; comprehensive energy assessments; third-party quality assurance; rebates for installation of energy saving measures; accessible, low-interest financing; targeted and inbound marketing; Energy Performance Score (EPS) tool to engage and educate homeowners; training for auditors, contractors, and real estate professionals; and online resources for education and program enrollment. Program participants were eligible to receive rebates or financing toward the assessments and upgrades to their home provided they reached at least 20 percent deemed or modeled energy savings. The design of each program focused on addressing several known barriers including: limited homeowner knowledge on the benefits of energy efficiency, lack of financing options, lack of community support for energy efficiency programs, and lack of trained market actors including contractors and real estate professionals. The programs were able to make progress on addressing all of these barriers and were most successful in offering financing options and training market actors. The most challenging barriers proved to be the act of building a market for energy efficiency where none previously existed, convincing homeowners of the value in investing in energy efficiency (and therefore completing retrofits), engaging electric and natural gas utilities to partner on delivery, and achieving the overall project target of 1,365 completed retrofits. The components that proved to be the most valuable to program success were engaged contractor networks that could promote and endorse the program, partnerships with local business and organizations, and the access to rebates, incentives and financing mechanisms. The programs were successful in building relationships with a variety of community participants including: local contractors, Associations of REALTORS, home builders associations, universities, utilities, local and state governments, and other non-profit organizations. Throughout this program, 933 building audits and 795 building retrofits were completed making homes in Alabama more comfortable, less expensive to operate, more valuable to the marketplace, and safer and healthier for families. Continuing on this momentum, Nexus Energy Center plans to continue operating and expanding operations in Alabama as a Home Performance with ENERGY STAR sponsor and will continue to provide energy services and education to communities in Alabama.

Grimes, Elizabeth M.↗
DOE OSTI2022

Non-Powered Dam Retrofit Exemplary Design for Hydropower Applications

Non-powered dams (NPDs) represent complex systems, situated at the intersection of natural stream environments and the built environment. The presence and operations of NPDs affect stream constituents (e.g., fish, recreational craft, sediment, water) and serve one or more engineered purposes (e.g., recreation, flood control, water supply, irrigation, tailings and debris control, navigation). By definition, NPDs do not provide hydropower generation. However, every NPD contains some untapped hydropower resource potential, represented by the pre-existing hydraulic head created by the dam and presence of flowing water. Adding power generation to an NPD requires retrofitting the NPD, which could involve the addition of any new component or function beyond that currently installed. Because this research is funded by the US Department of Energy Water Power Technologies Office, adding hydropower to NPDs is among the primary objectives for research investment. However, NPD retrofitting extends beyond the purview of hydropower additions. This report provides background information regarding NPD development in the United States, including an overview of the US NPD population, development potential, and recent development. It also summarizes challenges and opportunities facing NPD retrofit development, highlights the importance of maintaining or improving stream and dam functionality, notes key NPD characteristics, describes NPD retrofit methods, and identifies innovation areas for spurring future NPD retrofit development. Section 4 describes retrofit exemplary design principles and concepts that could apply to a wide range of NPD projects. These principles and concepts inform an NPD Retrofit Exemplary Design Specification (REDS), as included in Appendix A. The NPD REDS is heavily influenced by prior work under the standard modular hydropower technology acceleration research initiative, especially the work documented in the Exemplary Design Envelope Specification for Standard Modular Hydropower Technology (Witt et al., 2017). Whereas this prior work focuses on a particular technology class that applies most intentionally for new stream-reach development (i.e., greenfield sites), the NPD REDS contained herein applies more broadly to the NPD resource class and is technology-agnostic (i.e., the specific technologies intended to be described are not explicitly prescribed). This report serves as a part of early-phase research on NPD retrofit development, aimed toward spurring additional, follow-on efforts to specifically address development challenges, capitalize on development opportunities, and inspire innovation. As documented in the landmark “Hydropower Vision” report (DOE 2016), “transformative technical innovations able to meet the co-objectives of environmental sustainability and low-carbon energy will be critical to enabling additional hydropower growth.” This report serves as an important step in steering transformation of US non-powered dam infrastructure.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Improving energy efficiency while reducing anthropogenic heat from buildings: how retrofits influence the building stock and urban microclimate in Los Angeles

Anthropogenic heat (AH) from buildings contributes to urban overheating, especially during heat waves, yet building retrofit studies usually evaluate energy savings without assessing impacts on AH. This study quantifies how common building retrofit measures affect both building energy use and AH emissions across the City of Los Angeles. Using a bottom-up urban building energy modeling framework coupled with high-resolution local weather from the Weather Research and Forecasting model with Building Effect Parameterization (WRF-BEP), we evaluate eleven retrofit measures and two multi-measure retrofit packages. HVAC and LED lighting retrofits provide the largest city-wide annual site energy savings, while roof coating is most effective for reducing AH. A package optimized for energy savings reduces summer site energy use by about 32% (2.3 TWh), while a package incorporating AH-focused measures reduces the total AH by over 50% (137 PJ) with minimal difference in energy savings. The AH-aware package produces substantially greater urban cooling, reducing mean near-surface air temperature by up to 0.62 ℃ and peak temperature by up to 3.79 ℃. These results show that retrofit strategies selected only for energy savings may overlook major opportunities for urban heat mitigation. The study provides a framework for integrating AH into building retrofit planning and urban heat resilience policy.

Anthropogenic heat↗
DOE OSTI2013

Liquid balance monitoring inside conventional, Retrofit, and bio-reactor landfill cells

Highlights: • The Retrofit, Control, and As-Built cells received 48, 14, and 213 L Mg{sup −1} (liters of liquids per metric ton of waste). • The leachate collection system yielded 60, 57 and 198 L Mg{sup −1} from the Retrofit, Control, and As-Built cells. • The head on liner in all cells was below regulatory limits. • Measured moisture content of the waste samples was consistent with that calculated from accumulated liquid by balance. • The in-place saturated hydraulic conductivity of the MSW was calculated to be in the range of 10{sup −8} to 10{sup −7} m s{sup −1}. - Abstract: The Outer Loop landfill bioreactor (OLLB) in Louisville, KY, USA has been the site of a study to evaluate long-term bioreactor performance at a full-scale operational landfill. Three types of landfill units were studied including a conventional landfill (Control cell), a new landfill area that had an air addition and recirculation piping network installed as waste was being placed (As-Built cell), and a conventional landfill that was modified to allow for liquids recirculation (Retrofit cell). During the monitoring period, the Retrofit, Control, and As-Built cells received 48, 14, and 213 L Mg{sup −1} (liters of liquids per metric ton of waste), respectively. The leachate collection system yielded 60, 57 and 198 L Mg{sup −1} from the Retrofit, Control, and As-Built cells, respectively. The head on liner in all cells was below regulatory limits. In the Control and As-Built cells, leachate head on liner decreased once waste placement stopped. The measured moisture content of the waste samples was consistent with that calculated from the estimate of accumulated liquid by the liquid balance. Additionally, measurements on excavated solid waste samples revealed large spatial variability in waste moisture content. The degree of saturation in the Control cells decreased from 85% to 75%. The degree of saturation increased from 82% to 83% due to liquids addition in the Retrofit cells and decreased back to 80% once liquid addition stopped. In the As-Built cells, the degree of saturation increased from 87% to 97% during filling activities and then started to decrease soon after filling activities stopped to reach 92% at the end of the monitoring period. The measured leachate generation rates were used to estimate an in-place saturated hydraulic conductivity of the MSW in the range of 10{sup −8} to 10{sup −7} m s{sup −1} which is lower than previous reports. In the Control and Retrofit cells, the net loss in liquids, 43 and 12 L Mg{sup −1}, respectively, was similar to the measured settlement of 15% and 5–8% strain, respectively (Abichou et al., 2013). The increase in net liquid volume in the As-Built cells indicates that the 37% (average) measured settlement strain in these cells cannot be due to consolidation as the waste mass did not lose any moisture but rather suggests that settlement was attributable to lubrication of waste particle contacts, softening of flexible porous materials, and additional biological degradation.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2015

Retrofitting a 1960s Split-Level, Cold-Climate Home

National programs such as Home Performance with ENERGY STAR® and numerous other utility air-sealing programs have made homeowners aware of the benefits of energy-efficiency retrofits. Yet these programs tend to focus only on the low-hanging fruit: they recommend air sealing the thermal envelope and ductwork where accessible, switching to efficient lighting and low-flow fixtures, and improving the efficiency of mechanical systems (though insufficient funds or lack of knowledge to implement these improvements commonly prevent the implementation of these higher cost upgrades). At the other end of the spectrum, various utilities across the country are encouraging deep energy retrofit programs. Although deep energy retrofits typically seek 50% energy savings, they are often quite costly and are most applicable to gut-rehab projects. A significant potential for lowering energy use in existing homes lies between the lowhanging fruit and deep energy retrofit approaches—retrofits that save approximately 30% in energy compared to the pre-retrofit conditions. The energy-efficiency measures need to be nonintrusive so the retrofit projects can be accomplished in occupied homes.

1960 split level↗
DOE OSTI2024

Hydropower Black Start: A Guidebook for Retrofitting Grid Dependent Hydropower

Not all United States (US) hydropower plants were designed to provide black start, but they are increasingly needed to uphold resilience in the evolving electric grid. This guidance is designed to help understand the minimal retrofits required for grid dependent hydropower (GDH) plants behind the point of interconnection (POI). For distribution connected hydropower plants or those with dedicated cranking paths, such upgrades can be sufficient for the plant to provide black start. For others, more coordination with the transmission system operator will be needed. This guidebook answers a number of questions relevant to retrofitting hydropower plants with black start capabilities. For example, the guidebook answers: • How flexible do the wicket gate controls need to be? • Who needs to do hydro governor model validation, why, and how? • How robust and flexible do the excitation and AVR controls need to be? • What protection settings need to be adjusted? • What relay(s) will need to be bypassed or overridden and at what risk? • What is the electrical energy demand of the station load or auxiliary power systems? • What should the strategy to energize transformer(s) along cranking path to address inrush currents be? • How should the critical load restoration be sequenced? In addition to outlining the specifications that hydropower plants need to meet for each component to be able to perform black start, this guidebook provides a set of case studies for specific upgrades needed at actual plants. Between the case studies of plants that have already performed black start retrofits and the examples of how this guidebook can be applied to scope future retrofits, five key themes have been identified for retrofit needs. 1. Protection needs “black start” mode: hydropower plants that are not designed with black start capabilities will have protections that prevent them from interconnecting to a “dead bus.” These protections will need to be overridden in every retrofit case and a separate black start mode should be established so that operators can safely switch between black start and grid connected modes, minimizing the risk to the plant. 2. Wicket gates need modern controls: digital governors accelerate the parameter tuning process and gate position sensors improve controllability, so plants with mechanical governors should be upgraded. Furthermore, a black start and islanding mode should be established for controls to maximize plant performance. 3. Robust excitation support: the DC system or excitation generator needs to be reliable enough to form and sustain the rotor electromagnetic field. These systems are typically undersized in plants that were not designed for black start, so they will need to be upgraded. 4. Turbine-governor model validation and operator training: validation of a standard hydro governor model is needed to characterize the dynamic response (i.e., inertial and primary frequency response) of the GDH. This is required for control development and old hydropower plants often have outdated or incorrect models. Operator training is also typically required to ensure the hardware retrofits are utilized correctly during the black start process. 5. Transformer and cranking path energization: any upgradation and control adjustment in front of the POI will depend upon the existing interconnection. Coordination with the transmission or distribution operator may be required.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2019

Residential retrofits at scale: opportunity identification, saving estimation, and personalized messaging based on communicating thermostat data

Basic insulation and heating system retrofits of existing homes could achieve annual energy savings of up to $4–5 billion in the USA. However, current US utility energy efficiency (EE) programs are costly and challenging to scale. Customer acquisition occurs primarily through energy bill mailers, mass media, and on-line advertising that lack specificity about particular home retrofit opportunities, expected energy savings, and cost-effectiveness. Specific retrofit opportunities are identified via on-site home energy assessments that can be inconvenient to homeowners, expensive, and of variable accuracy. Our paper discusses using communicating thermostat data to significantly increase the customer uptake of energy conservation measures (ECMs) by identifying homes with the most significant retrofit opportunities, estimating post-retrofit energy savings, and formulating home-specific outreach. We extended our previously developed gray-box building model to identify physical building parameters corresponding to the target retrofit opportunities, i.e., whole-home R value, air leakage characteristics, and heating system efficiency. Here, the estimated R values and air leakage characteristics compare favorably with the ground truth. The validated algorithms can calculate home-specific energy savings estimate for each ECM, and the algorithm outputs can be used by utility EE programs to formulate home-specific retrofit offers.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2014

A Meta-Analysis of Single-Family Deep Energy Retrofit Performance in the U.S.

The current state of Deep Energy Retrofit (DER) performance in the U.S. has been assessed in 116 homes in the United States (US), using actual and simulated data gathered from the available domestic literature. Substantial airtightness reductions averaging 63% (n=48) were reported (two- to three-times more than in conventional retrofits), with average post-retrofit airtightness of 4.7 Air Changes per House at 50 Pascal (ACH 50 ) (n=94). Yet, mechanical ventilation was not installed consistently. In order to avoid indoor air quality (IAQ) issues, all future DERs should comply with ASHRAE 62.2-2013 requirements or equivalent. Projects generally achieved good energy results, with average annual net-site and net-source energy savings of 47%±20% and 45%±24% (n=57 and n=35), respectively, and carbon emission reductions of 47%±22% (n=23). Net-energy reductions did not vary reliably with house age, airtightness, or reported project costs, but pre-retrofit energy usage was correlated with total reductions (MMBtu). Annual energy costs were reduced $\$1,283$ ± $\$804$ (n=31), from a pre-retrofit average of $\$2,738$ ± $\$1,065$ to $\$1,588$ ± $\$561$ post-retrofit (n=25 and n=39). The average reported incremental project cost was $\$40,420$ ± $\$30,358$ (n=59). When financed on a 30-year term, the median change in net-homeownership cost was only $\$1.00$ per month, ranging from $\$149$ in savings to an increase of $\$212$ (mean= $\$15.67$ ± $\$87.74$; n=28), and almost half of the projects resulted in reductions in net-cost. The economic value of a DER may be much greater than is suggested by these net-costs, because DERs entail substantial non-energy benefits (NEBs), and retrofit measures may add value to a home at resale similarly to general remodeling, PV panel installation, and green/energy efficient home labels. These results provide estimates of the potential of DERs to address energy use in existing homes across climate zones that can be used in future estimates of the technical potential to reduce household energy use and greenhouse gas emissions through DERs.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗