Results for “#technology” — Page 45

NASA NTRS2016

JPL Technology Readiness Assessment Guideline

New capabilities in spaceflight missions are enabled by new technologies. Transitioning new technology to spaceflight elements is difficult and introduces risk, but finding the right balance between benefit and risk leads to scientific advancements and novel space missions. A clear understanding of the risks of new technology can create an environment where innovation is nurtured rather than avoided. The Technology Readiness Level (TRL) was developed as a metric for the maturity of new technology, but, in the past, assessing the TRL was often done informally and inconsistently. This frequently led to discrepancies between the TRL as perceived by the technologist and that perceived by a project. JPL has developed a guideline for their projects to provide a basis for a consistent Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA). Highlights of this guideline are presented here. It is anticipated that the implementation of this guideline will enable the hand-off from technologists to project engineers leading to greater acceptance of technologies by flight projects. On completion of a satisfactory TRA, an agreement can be made between the parties on the maturation plan required for successful infusion of the technology into a flight mission.

Frerking, Margaret A.↗

NASA NTRS2017

High Density Packaging Technologies for RF Electronics in Small Spacecraft

This paper will describe a few high density packaging technologies which we are currently exploring for use in current and future small spacecraft applications. The three categories of technologies include organic multichip modules (MCMs), ceramic leadless surface mount technology (SMT) and 3D printed waveguide structures. There are many other packaging technologies that currently exist but these three were selected in part due to their long heritage in various commercial, military and space applications along with each having a relatively clear path to flight. For each of these technologies, detailed examples will be included in which hardware has been fabricated and tested for use in RF electronics for spacecraft transponders. The organic MCM example will be described in most detail and it utilizes a packaging technology by the name of CoreEZ which is a trademark of i3 Electronics. This MCM has shrunk a portion of our electronics down to 1/8th of its previous area. The CoreEZ technology has been shown to be rad hard beyond a total ionizing dose (TID) of 300kRad and the MCM which was fabricated has gone through thermal cycling and shown to have no degradation in performance. The ceramic leadless package examples include packages from high reliability manufactures by the name of KCB solutions and Barry Industries. In the case of KCB solutions, we have multiple products that will be described including a hermetic ceramic carrier which houses three microwave monolithic integrated circuits (MMICs) along with small discrete components. Finally, we will discuss the results of our search for a 3D printing process that allows us to reduce the cost and volume of our waveguide filters and diplexers for low cost small satellite applications. We have fabricated a few prototypes using direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) and metal coated plastics. Each of these packaging technology discussions will have a brief overview of its current and future use.

Aquirre, Fernando↗

NASA NTRS2021

Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as the foundation of Human Readiness Level (HRL)

As space programs became more complex, it became evident to NASA that a means of defining a methodological way to evaluate the maturity of technologies for spacecraft design was needed for risk assessment that could affect technical, cost and schedule. NASA first saw that infusing technology intoNASA programs required some means to assess technology maturity like flight readiness for a mission. Hence, a seven-point technology readiness level scale was developed in the mid-70s by a NASA researcher and later formally defined in 1989 (Sadin et al., 1989) that comprised of seven levels (See Table 1). These levels provided a definitive meaning of what complexity a research and technology development program should be followed. NASA recognized the approach as a useful way of an effective assessment of,and communication regarding the maturity of new technologies, using a simplistic figure of merit, the state of maturity of a technology-particularly, critical technology necessary to meet a mission/application objective

George Salazar↗

NASA NTRS2016

High Density Packaging Technologies for RF Electronics in Small Spacecraft

This paper will describe a few high density packaging technologies which we are currently exploring for use in current and future small spacecraft applications. The three categories of technologies include organic multichip modules (MCMs), ceramic leadless surface mount technology (SMT) and 3D printed waveguide structures. There are many other packaging technologies that currently exist but these three were selected in part due to their long heritage in various commercial, military and space applications along with each having a relatively clear path to flight. For each of these technologies, detailed examples will be included in which hardware has been fabricated and tested for use in RF electronics for spacecraft transponders. The organic MCM example will be described in most detail and it utilizes a packaging technology by the name of CoreEZ which is a trademark of i3 Electronics. This MCM has shrunk a portion of our electronics down to 1/8th of its previous area. The CoreEZ technology has been shown to be rad hard beyond a total ionizing dose (TID) of 300kRad and the MCM which was fabricated has gone through thermal cycling and shown to have no degradation in performance. The ceramic leadless package examples include packages from high reliability manufactures by the name of KCB solutions and Barry Industries. In the case of KCB solutions, we have multiple products that will be described including a hermetic ceramic carrier which houses three microwave monolithic integrated circuits (MMICs) along with small discrete components. Finally, we will discuss the results of our search for a 3D printing process that allows us to reduce the cost and volume of our waveguide filters and diplexers for low cost small satellite applications. We have fabricated a few prototypes using direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) and metal coated plastics. Each of these packaging technology discussions will have a brief overview of its current and future use.

Schatzel, Donald↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Technology Development for Exploration: 2020 to 2021 Overview

This paper provides an overview of NASA supported activities developing Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) technologies in the following capability areas: life support, environmental monitoring, fire safety, and logistics. NASA has been refining technology needs for deep space missions including Gateway, lunar surface, Mars transit, and Mars surface missions. Validating technologies in relevant environments, both in low earth orbit (LEO) and ground tests is critical in understanding technology performance and long duration performance. On-orbit and ground tests inform NASA’s technology decisions to fill exploration gaps. NASA has multiple technology projects across the technology readiness spectrum with potential to fill or partially fill exploration gaps. For each capability area, this paper will describe select capability gaps, NASA technology project maturation over the past year, and how key performance parameters (KPPs) are being used to measure the degree of capability gap closure. KPPs are evolving but they still provide a useful measure in communicating progress and identifying development needs to fill exploration gaps. The intent is to provide a very high-level overview describing the strategic approach to gap closure and provide references to additional technical details, progress, and KPPs.

Life Support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Technology Development for Exploration: 2020 to 2021 Overview

This paper provides an overview of NASA supported activities developing Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) technologies in the following capability areas: life support, environmental monitoring, fire safety, and logistics. NASA has been refining technology needs for deep space missions including Gateway, lunar surface, Mars transit, and Mars surface missions. Validating technologies in relevant environments, both in low earth orbit (LEO) and ground tests is critical in understanding technology performance and long duration performance. On-orbit and ground tests inform NASA’s technology decisions to fill exploration gaps. NASA has multiple technology projects across the technology readiness spectrum with potential to fill or partially fill exploration gaps. For each capability area, this paper will describe select capability gaps, NASA technology project maturation over the past year, and key performance parameters (KPPs). KPPs are evolving but they still provide a useful measure in communicating progress and identifying development needs to fill exploration gaps. The intent is to provide a very high-level overview describing the projects that are supporting gap closure and provide references to additional technical details, progress, and KPPs.

James Lee Broyan↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Technology Development for Exploration: 2020 to 2021 Overview

This PowerPoint presentation supports the following paper submission's abstract (STRIVES 20210015025). This paper provides an overview of NASA supported activities developing Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) technologies in the following capability areas: life support, environmental monitoring, fire safety, and logistics. NASA has been refining technology needs for deep space missions including Gateway, lunar surface, Mars transit, and Mars surface missions. Validating technologies in relevant environments, both in low earth orbit (LEO) and ground tests is critical in understanding technology performance and long duration performance. On-orbit and ground tests inform NASA’s technology decisions to fill exploration gaps. NASA has multiple technology projects across the technology readiness spectrum with potential to fill or partially fill exploration gaps. For each capability area, this paper will describe select capability gaps, NASA technology project maturation over the past year, and key performance parameters (KPPs). KPPs are evolving but they still provide a useful measure in communicating progress and identifying development needs to fill exploration gaps. The intent is to provide a very high-level overview describing the projects that are supporting gap closure and provide references to additional technical details, progress, and KPPs.

Life Support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Hybrid NEP-Chemical Vehicle and Propulsion Technology Study for Crewed Mars Missions

Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) is a suite of technologies with the potential to enable crewed opposition-class missions to Mars. Each subsystem comprising an NEP system has multiple technology options that present tradeoffs in vehicle sizing and technology development risk. Multiple vehicle concepts have been studied in the past and are currently being studied at NASA. Three models have been developed to illustrate the impact of key technology parameters on overall sizing for a crewed Mars transportation vehicle. Vehicle mass required to close the mission as a function of NEP system alpha (kWe/kg) and specific impulse (Isp) is estimated with a detailed trajectory model. A power system mass model estimates alpha as a function of power and radiator mass assumption. A power conversion system thermodynamic model predicts the radiator area required to close a Brayton cycle power conversion system. Combined with the architecture mass required for mission closure, the radiator area and alpha model provide insight into how technology development may impact the mission. Our focus is on parametric sweeps of the whole design space rather than any particular point design. Results from the mission model comparing electric propulsion technology (Hall, Ion, Magnetoplasmadynamic) and both 2039 and 2042 opposition-class mission launch windows are included. The results of the study illustrate the technology parameters that can result in mission closure and illustrate where the architecture is sensitive to variations in technology performance or requirements.

Matthew Duchek↗

NASA NTRS2022

Coordinating Innovative Technology Development at NASA

Innovation requires continually using and coordinating new knowledge on the current, anticipated, and even unanticipated developments in a given area. You do not want to simply repeat what others are doing, so you must remain aware of other activities in your area of interest. You also have to maintain awareness of where the cutting edge is, because the limit of what’s possible is continually pushed and redefined. Finally, “smart” innovation involves not only seeking innovative solutions to anticipated problems but also being prepared to respond to unanticipated problems or even unanticipated solutions. As the leading U.S. agency for aeronautics development, cutting-edge scientific discovery, and human space exploration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) must remain at the forefront of innovation. NASA enables innovation in technology development through a coordinated effort among its internal mission directorates and its partners in government, commercial, and academic sectors. As an independent office, NASA’s Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy (OTPS) provides the coordination effort necessary to ensure innovation. OTPS uses and coordinates inputs from a broad community of experts. With these inputs, OTPS identifies and communicates shared needs and opportunities for partnership. OTPS provides strategic advice to synergize and ultimately facilitate innovative technology development both within and outside NASA. This paper summarizes NASA’s approach to ensuring innovation through a deliberately coordinated effort. In this paper, we first provide examples of how this coordination has enabled innovative technology development. We then describe how NASA’s mission directorates use input from a broad community of experts to inform innovative technology development. Finally, we describe OTPS’s role in coordinating inputs from both internal and external experts, including standardizing communication about technology developments, facilitating conversations with external partners on shared technology needs and solutions, and advising on strategies and policies to ensure innovative technology development. This paper can help members of the aerospace community understand their role in NASA’s innovation efforts and how to engage OTPS in conversations about potential partnership.

Erica Rodgers↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Coordinating Innovative Technology Development at NASA

Innovation requires continually using and coordinating new knowledge on the current, anticipated, and even unanticipated developments in a given area. You do not want to simply repeat what others are doing, so you must remain aware of other activities in your area of interest. You also have to maintain awareness of where the cutting edge is, because the limit of what’s possible is continually pushed and redefined. Finally, “smart” innovation involves not only seeking innovative solutions to anticipated problems but also being prepared to respond to unanticipated problems or even unanticipated solutions. As the leading U.S. agency for aeronautics development, cutting-edge scientific discovery, and human space exploration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) must remain at the forefront of innovation. NASA enables innovation in technology development through a coordinated effort among its internal mission directorates and its partners in government, commercial, and academic sectors. As an independent office, NASA’s Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy (OTPS) provides the coordination effort necessary to ensure innovation. OTPS uses and coordinates inputs from a broad community of experts. With these inputs, OTPS identifies and communicates shared needs and opportunities for partnership. OTPS provides strategic advice to synergize and ultimately facilitate innovative technology development both within and outside NASA. This paper summarizes NASA’s approach to ensuring innovation through a deliberately coordinated effort. In this paper, we first provide examples of how this coordination has enabled innovative technology development. We then describe how NASA’s mission directorates use input from a broad community of experts to inform innovative technology development. Finally, we describe OTPS’s role in coordinating inputs from both internal and external experts, including standardizing communication about technology developments, facilitating conversations with external partners on shared technology needs and solutions, and advising on strategies and policies to ensure innovative technology development. This paper can help members of the aerospace community understand their role in NASA’s innovation efforts and how to engage OTPS in conversations about potential partnership.

Erica Rodgers↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Coordinating Innovative Technology Development at NASA

Innovation requires continually using and coordinating new knowledge on the current, anticipated, and even unanticipated developments in a given area. You do not want to simply repeat what others are doing, so you must remain aware of other activities in your area of interest. You also have to maintain awareness of where the cutting edge is, because the limit of what’s possible is continually pushed and redefined. Finally, “smart” innovation involves not only seeking innovative solutions to anticipated problems but also being prepared to respond to unanticipated problems or even unanticipated solutions. As the leading U.S. agency for aeronautics development, cutting-edge scientific discovery, and human space exploration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) must remain at the forefront of innovation. NASA enables innovation in technology development through a coordinated effort among its internal mission directorates and its partners in government, commercial, and academic sectors. As an independent office, NASA’s Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy (OTPS) provides the coordination effort necessary to ensure innovation. OTPS uses and coordinates inputs from a broad community of experts. With these inputs, OTPS identifies and communicates shared needs and opportunities for partnership. OTPS provides strategic advice to synergize and ultimately facilitate innovative technology development both within and outside NASA. This paper summarizes NASA’s approach to ensuring innovation through a deliberately coordinated effort. In this paper, we first provide examples of how this coordination has enabled innovative technology development. We then describe how NASA’s mission directorates use input from a broad community of experts to inform innovative technology development. Finally, we describe OTPS’s role in coordinating inputs from both internal and external experts, including standardizing communication about technology developments, facilitating conversations with external partners on shared technology needs and solutions, and advising on strategies and policies to ensure innovative technology development. This paper can help members of the aerospace community understand their role in NASA’s innovation efforts and how to engage OTPS in conversations about potential partnership.

Erica Rodgers↗

DOE OSTI2022

WBS 1.2.3.405 - Life Cycle Assessment of Storage Technologies

Recent commitments by the Biden administration have established targets to achieve a net-zero energy system by 2050. Meeting these targets will spur a rapid transition to clean energy technologies and a commensurate need to develop and deploy energy storage technologies at scale. Pumped Storage Hydro (PSH) is expected to be part of this solution because its ability to provide grid flexibility and stability and enable the dispatching of disparate variable renewable energy technologies. Despite PSH being a mature technology with a history of deployment dating back several decades, there is very little information on the greenhouse gas (GHG) implications of PSH as compared to other storage technologies. The objective of this project is to perform a full lifecycle assessment (LCA) of new PSH projects in the U.S. This LCA includes all project phases (resource extraction, construction, operation, maintenance, end-of-life). The functional unit for this study is 1 kWh electricity delivered by system to grid substation connection point and the estimated lifetime for our base case is 80 years. Data used in this study are based on over 30 potential PSH projects that are in preliminary planning phases and are represent a wide range of potential closed-loop PSH systems in terms of location, technology, and capacity. The project approach, data sources, and modeling assumptions have been informed by a technical review committee of stakeholders that include experts from academia, national and international government, industry, and utilities. The GHGs and energy return on investment (EROI) from PSH will be compared to other storage technologies (e.g., stationary battery storage). Results from this project will improve the PSH community's understanding of the environmental impacts and sustainability of new PSH projects and how PSH compares to other storage technologies. The approach used in this project relies on open-source programming. The analysis framework (source code and data) and will be made publicly available at the end of the project. In addition to reporting results for the base case, we will perform rigorous sensitivity analysis to identify the major drivers, understand impacts of different configurations, and future energy markets. Results from this project will be published in a suitable journal.

ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY,HYDRO ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2025

Quantum sensing for emerging energy technologies

The ability to exploit quantum phenomena has enabled sensing technologies with detection limits below the classical limit. Sensors with applications in energy discovery, production, transportation, and consumption can be enhanced through quantum or hybrid quantum-classical sensors. Here, in this Review, we provide an overview of commercial and emerging quantum sensor platforms and their opportunity areas specific to advanced energy technologies. Key examples include: power grid-enhancing-technologies, where quantum magnetometers can detect powerline and transformer faults; electric vehicle-to-grid applications, where chip-scale atomic clocks can enable grid synchronization; and carbon capture and storage, where quantum gravimeters and single-photo LiDAR can detect microscopic leaks. Quantum sensor deployment requires further research into miniaturization and ruggedization for field deployment, cost-reduction, and workforce development. The maturation of clean energy technologies and quantum sensors provide opportunities for synergy, with the integration of quantum sensors into advanced energy technologies maximizing their security, reliability, and efficiency.

critical metals↗

NASA NTRS2017

NASA Technology Transfer System

NTTS is the IT infrastructure for the Agency's Technology Transfer (T2) program containing 60,000+ technology portfolio supporting all ten NASA field centers and HQ. It is the enterprise IT system for facilitating the Agency's technology transfer process, which includes reporting of new technologies (e.g., technology invention disclosures NF1679), protecting intellectual properties (e.g., patents), and commercializing technologies through various technology licenses, software releases, spinoffs, and success stories using custom built workflow, reporting, data consolidation, integration, and search engines.

enterprise information technology↗

DOE OSTI2024

The Building Business Network (B-Biz): Addressing Gaps in the High-Performance Building Technology Market, Especially for Underserved Customers

Increased market intelligence and business model innovation is needed to build contractor confidence in high-performance building technologies in order to increase the speed and scale of adoption to meet the U.S. Department of Energy's building stock decarbonization goals. Although there have been important innovations in energy efficiency, affordability, and decarbonization of building technologies, consumers are not purchasing these technologies at the necessary speed and scale partially due to a gap in institutional understanding around barriers contractors face in providing and servicing these technologies. Small businesses in this market must mitigate risk around high-performance building technologies, limiting their opportunities in the market and impacting the rate of adoption. The Building Business Network (B-Biz) aims to provide high-performance building technology solutions to underserved customers by collaborating with local small businesses that provide and service high-performance building technologies in communities with the lowest rates of adoption. This research explores the current market, the importance of business models, and the opportunity to utilize small businesses to address market gaps in underserved communities.

B-Biz↗

DOE OSTI2026

Understanding Advanced Vehicle Technology Adoption Potential in Commercial Fleets Across Major Trucking Sectors

Adopting advanced vehicle technologies, such as battery-electric, hybrid, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, can be an effective strategy for reducing fleet owners' operating costs. However, different trucking sectors, such as private and for-hire carriers and short- or long-haul operations, may face unique challenges in adopting those vehicle technologies due to their own operational needs and budget constraints. Current studies on fleet-wide vehicle technology projections frequently overlook such sectoral differences and fail to capture variation in adoption potential across sectors. This study addresses this gap by analyzing the disparities in the total cost of ownership (TCO) and payback period (PBP) among a large and heterogeneous sample of fleet owners. It aims to understand the sectoral differences in the long-term potential for adopting advanced vehicle technologies. Utilizing the 2021 US Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (US VIUS), which offers data on various commercial vehicle sectors, their operational patterns, and current vehicle assets, this research estimates the TCO and PBP for individual trucks over multiple future years. The results reveal variation in the cost-effectiveness of different vehicle technologies across trucking sectors, as well as the potential technology landscape in both the short and long term. The findings from this study can inform policymakers and practitioners on how to prioritize sectors with lower barriers for advanced vehicle technology adoption and support industries that face challenges in switching to advanced vehicles.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2020

Herbaceous Feedstock 2019 State of Technology Report

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) promotes the production of advanced liquid transportation fuels from lignocellulosic biomass by funding fundamental and applied research that advances the State of Technology (SOT). As part of its involvement with this mission, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) completes an annual SOT report for biomass feedstock logistics. This report summarizes supply system impacts of Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO)-funded research and development efforts at INL and elsewhere (such as the High-Tonnage Feedstock Logistics projects (Webb et al. 2013a, Webb et al. 2013b, Webb et al. 2013c, Webb and Sokhansanj 2014, Sokhansanj et al. 2014)) that lead to improvements in feedstock supply systems. These include improvements to and observed performance of innovative harvest and collection methods, storage technologies, transportation and handling approaches, and advanced preprocessing technologies. Biomass quality and variability, and the interface between feedstock quality and conversion performance are key drivers in addition to delivered feedstock cost. In this report, we estimate the benefits of R&D improvements to individual supply system unit operations and present the status of feedstock logistics technology development for converting biomass into biofuels. These analyses are supported by experimental data where possible and help to align the SOT relative to the cost goals defined in the Multi-Year Program Plan. The 2019 Herbaceous SOT incorporates several technology changes in feedstock preprocessing and introduces opportunities from the integrated landscape management (ILM) strategy and increased grower participation to reduce biomass access costs, while maintaining or improving grower profitability. During FY18 uneven flow from the horizontal bale grinder was identified as a significant issue limiting preprocessing system throughput. Based on FSL-funded research at INL, the 2019 Herbaceous SOT replaces the horizontal bale grinder used in the first stage size reduction with a bale processor. The improved uniformity of biomass flow entering the PDU eliminated slugging flow from the first stage size reduction and improved the throughput of downstream operations. In order to achieve moisture reduction through frictional heating during grinding (which allowed elimination of the costly rotary drum dryer in previous SOTs), the second stage grinder was changed from a rotary shear, which does not remove moisture, back to a hammer mill. Finally, the 2019 Herbaceous SOT introduces modified three-pass and two-pass corn stover supply curves derived from the BT16 resource assessment, based on FY19 modeling results (WBS 4.2.1.20) quantifying economic benefits of ILM in the supply area, together with modeling results (WBS 1.2.1.5) identifying ILM strategies to increase grower participation. The 2019 Herbaceous SOT report documents the current modeled cost of an herbaceous feedstock supply system from harvest to the pretreatment reactor throat for hydrocarbon fuel production via biochemical conversion, based on equipment and processes now available or potentially available in the near term. The modeled cost also considers both the required quality and the availability of the biomass resources. The 2019 Herbaceous SOT predicts a modeled delivered feedstock cost of $81.37 /dry ton (2016$); this is a $2.30/dry ton (2016$) decrease from the 2018 Herbaceous SOT. Technology improvements that contributed to this modeled cost reduction include reduced cost for the new preprocessing design and quantification of the opportunities of the integrated landscape management (ILM) strategy and an increased grower participation rate to reduce the grower payment portion of biomass access costs, while maintaining or improving grower profitability. A greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) assessment was completed by Argonne National Laboratory using the 2019 Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation model, estimating an increase of 14.89 kg CO2e/ton from the 2018 SOT (69.27 kg CO2e/ton in 2018 to 84.16 kg CO2e/ton in 2019). The increase of energy consumption during preprocessing along with higher transportation distance to access low cost biomass from further distance contributed to the increase of GHG emissions in the 2019 Herbaceous SOT. The reason for the increased transportation distances was the cost tradeoff of going farther from the biorefinery to access the cheaper ILM-derived counties (the cheaper price outweighed the cost of increased supply radius).

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗

DOE OSTI2020

Herbaceous Feedstock 2018 State of Technology Report

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) promotes the production of advanced liquid transportation fuels from lignocellulosic biomass by funding fundamental and applied research that advances the state of technology (SOT). As part of its involvement with this mission, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) completes an annual SOT report for biomass feedstock logistics. This report summarizes supply system impacts of Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO)-funded research and development efforts at INL and elsewhere (such as the High-Tonnage Feedstock Logistics projects (Webb et al. 2013a, Webb et al. 2013b, Webb et al. 2013c, Webb and Sokhansanj 2014, Sokhansanj et al. 2014) that lead to improvements in feedstock supply systems. These include improvements to and observed performance of innovative harvest and collection methods, storage technologies, transportation and handling approaches, and advanced preprocessing technologies. Biomass quality and variability, and the interface between feedstock quality and conversion performance are key drivers in addition to delivered feedstock cost. In this report, we estimate the benefits of R&D improvements to individual supply system unit operations, and present the status of feedstock logistics technology development for converting biomass into biofuels. These analyses are supported by experimental data where possible, and help to align the SOT relative to the cost goals defined in the Multi-Year Program Plan. The 2018 Herbaceous SOT aligned feedstock logistic design with current biorefinery’s design capacity utilized by biochemical conversion platform. Currently biochemical conversion platform utilizes a 725,000 dry ton/year biorefiney design for the techno economic analysis. Hence, feedstock delivered cost in the 2018 Herbaceous SOT is calculated based on biorefinery’s 725,000 dry ton design capacity instead of 800, 000 dry ton capacity utilized in the 2017 Herbaceous SOT. Biomass availabilities in this SOT were updated to year 2018 data from the 2016 Billion-Ton Report (BT16) (DOE 2016a), with the exception of switchgrass, for which the 2018 Herbaceous SOT utilized the 2019 switchgrass availability data from BT16. The BT16 report (DOE 2016a) does not project switchgrass availability in 2018; the soonest switchgrass is available in the BT16 report is 2019. Therefore, availability of switchgrass for this analysis was that projected for 2019. The 2018 Herbaceous SOT incorporates same technologies utilized in the 2017 Herbaceous SOT. However, a sensitivity analysis is performed to understand the impact of variation of process parameters on those technologies on feedstock logistic cost. New R&D data that shows the variations of process parameters affecting process performance is incorporated in the 2018 SOT to measure the variations in delivered feedstock cost. The 2018 Herbaceous SOT has also provided projected delivered feedstock of 2022 design case based on near term technical target under BETO funded R&D project. Finally, updated biorefinery size of 725,000 dry ton/year was incorporated within least-cost formulation model to select optimal siting and depot scales during optimization of the least cost blend. This modification to the optimization algorithm allows the trade-off between the cost of increased supply radius and the savings from selecting biomass from higher producing counties to be assessed. Such optimization has also showed the economic benefit of decentralized depots in comparison to centralized preprocessing co-located with the biorefinery by decoupling the biorefinery and feedstock locations. The 2018 Herbaceous SOT report documents the current modeled cost of a herbaceous feedstock supply system (from harvest to the pretreatment reactor throat, including grower payment) for hydrocarbon fuel production via biochemical conversion, based on equipment and processes now available or potentially available in the near term. The modeled cost also considers both the required quality and the availability of the biomass resources. The 2018 Herbaceous SOT predicts a modeled delivered feedstock cost of $83.67/dry ton (2016$); this is a $0.23/dry ton (2016$) decrease from the 2017 Herbaceous SOT. The modification of biorefinery’s designed capacity and increased projected biomass availability in the same supply shed contributed to this modeled cost reduction. The least-cost formulation model to optimally site and scale local distributed preprocessing depots also contributed to the cost reduction by considering county-level grower payment and distance from the biorefinery as variables in the optimization algorithm. Sensitivity analysis on various process parameters that affect delivered feedstock cost in the 2018 Herbaceous SOT shows that the delivered cost could varies from $80.45-$88.83/dry ton. The top factors that causes such variations are: effective baling rate, bale density, hammer mill throughput, interest rate and storage dry matter loss.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗