SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2019 edition from Standard 90.1-2016 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.
This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2019 edition from Standard 90.1-2016 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.
This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2019 edition from Standard 90.1-2016 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.
This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2019 edition from Standard 90.1-2016 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.
This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2019 edition from Standard 90.1-2016 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.
This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2019 edition from Standard 90.1-2016 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.
This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2019 edition from Standard 90.1-2016 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.
This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2019 edition from Standard 90.1-2016 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.
Energy utilities are evaluating emerging energy technologies to reduce reliance on carbon as an energy carrier. Hydrogen has been identified as a potential substitute for carbon-based fuels that can be blended into other gaseous energy carriers, such as natural gas. However, hydrogen blending into natural gas has important implications on safety which need to be evaluated. Designers and installers of systems that utilize hydrogen gas blending into natural gas distribution systems need to adhere to local building codes and engage with the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) for safety and permitting approvals. These codes and standards must be considered to understand where safety gaps might be apparent when injecting hydrogen into the natural gas infrastructure. This report generates a list of relevant codes and standards for hydrogen blending on existing, upgraded, or new pipelines. Additionally, a preliminary assessment was made to identify the codes and standards that need to be modified to enable this technology as well as potential gaps due to the unique nature and safety concerns of gaseous hydrogen.
A pathway for road-ready and final disposition packaging configurations for the aluminum-clad spent nuclear fuel (ANSF) fuel dictates storage within helium backfilled sealed DOE standard canisters. The typical packaging configuration for the 15-foot DOE canisters places 10 advance test reactor (ATR) elements within a Type 1a basket, and three baskets are loaded within each DOE canister. During in-reactor operations and cooling pond storage conditions, oxyhydroxide layers form on the surface of the aluminum clad fuel. These layers produce hydrogen gas over time due to the fuel’s radiation field. As part of the packing procedure, the ATR fuel should be dried to remove any residual physio-/chemi- sorbed water bound to the surface. The results of this modeling will include results at fully saturated and fully dried conditions. In addition, fuels that are currently stored at the Savannah River Site were also studied for their potential for hydrogen and pressure build up. These two additional fuels modeled were the Missouri University Research Reactor (MURR) fuel, which is packaged in the same configuration as the ATR, but with a 10-foot-tall DOE standard canister. This was selected due to its relatively high decay heat compared to other DOE-managed ASNF. The second additional fuel studied with the modeling effort was the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) fuel. This fuel is modeled as two separate DOE canisters with the inner and outer annulus split for storage. The HFIR was selected for study due to its high aluminum cladding surface area. In the associated experimental work, Task 2 - Oxyhydroxide Layer Radiolytic Gas Generation Resolution, additional tests were completed in a helium environment, and updated G-values for the radiolytic production of hydrogen from the oxyhydroxide layers were provided. These values were 2.92 ×10 -4 µmol/J at 50% relative humidity and 4.12 ×10 -4 µmol/J at 100% relative humidity. These values are lower than the value for Argon that was used in prior modeling results. In addition, prior modeling results have been completed with the G-value applied to just the mass of the corrosion layer, and this has been updated to apply the G-value for hydrogen generation to the full mass of the fuel. These two effects combine to show much smaller pressure and hydrogen build up for the sealed canister model. For a nominal scenario of stored ATR fuel, after 50 years the model results give a 1.36 atm total pressure, 7% mole percent hydrogen, for the upper decay heat, 1.51 atm total pressure, 16% mole percent hydrogen, and for upper decay heat with undried fuel 2.6 atm total pressure, 15% mole percent hydrogen. For the MURR nominal case, the model results give 1.34 atm and 6% hydrogen, for upper decay heat this gives 1.41 atm total pressure with 10.8 % hydrogen, and for upper decay heat with undried fuel, this gives 2.38 atm total pressure with 9.9% hydrogen. The nominal scenario for HFIR fuel gives 1.39 atm total pressure with 9.9% hydrogen, the upper decay heat case gives 1.43 atm with 12.1% hydrogen, and the upper decay heat with undried fuel gives 2.17 atm total pressure with 11.9% hydrogen. These results confirm the ATR scenario bounds the other intact ASNF modeled here. No case modeled yields significant oxygen, and the lower decay heat cases for all fuels modeled have hydrogen concentrations that are under the 4% flammability limit after 50 years of storage. In addition, the modeled pressures for all cases are all significantly below the 500-psi limit for the DOE standard sealed canister.
This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2019 edition from Standard 90.1-2016 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.
This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2019 edition from Standard 90.1-2016 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.
This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2019 edition from Standard 90.1-2016 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.
This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2019 edition from Standard 90.1-2016 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.
This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2019 edition from Standard 90.1-2016 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.
This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2019 edition from Standard 90.1-2016 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.
The objectives of FOA DE- FOA-0001836- “Standard Modular Hydropower” included designing a standardized, modular, and environmentally compatible hydropower schematic for implementation in greenfield sites that generate up to 10 MW of capacity. Utilizing funds competitively awarded under DOE’s Water Power Technologies Office, the Natel Energy team developed a concept for modular new stream reach (NSR) hydropower that incorporates multi species upstream and downstream fish passage, improved river channel connectivity, and recreational modules. The in-stream design of the collective modules minimized site specific design and maximized the opportunities for modularity. Financial data was also presented using actual costs from regional suppliers, with figures provided in 2022 dollars. While the project team did not address potential permitting process improvements, the site selection criteria did consider established barriers to hydropower development such as tribal and preserved lands, interconnection proximity, and endangered species to exclude or deprioritize. The project’s design schematic met the objectives of the FOA, and presented a unique solution that targets alluvial pockets as natural features for sustainable development. Natel’s concept also incorporated the company's fish-safe Restoration Hydro Turbine for safe downstream passage, while featuring a rock arch that integrates fish passage, water, recreation, and grade control modules (including sediment). Alignment with the Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) “Innovative Design Concepts for Standard Modular Hydropower and Pumped-Storage Hydropower” Program: According to the Hydropower Vision (DOE, 2016), approximately 16 GW of hydropower growth is possible with the development of technology solutions that balance efficiency, economics, and environmental sustainability. The desired outcome of the SMH program is transformational innovation specifically in the site identification, conceptual, and detailed design phases of technology development lifecycles (DOE, 2018). In developing the SMH design schematic, the team aimed to address the opportunities outlined in the Vision through an inverted design philosophy; rather than singularly prioritizing efficiency and power production, the team focused on integrating hydropower with restoration of degraded streams to optimal ecosystem function and provision of exceptional recreation value as design criteria. To achieve this, Restoration Hydro incorporates the principles of nature-based engineering (WWAP, 2018) and biomimicry (Biomimicry NL.) to strategically deploy complementary combinations of permanent, semi-permanent, and ephemeral low-head structures - such as natural and engineered log jams - that harness geomorphological and hydrological processes at the landscape-scale. Primary applications of Restoration Hydro include: 1) restoration of degraded watersheds’ natural ecological function and enhancement of hydrological connectivity; and 2) creation of associated co-benefits to hydro production, including increased groundwater recharge, improved sediment transport and management, improved water security and water quality. Restoration Hydro projects build upon proven watershed restoration engineering techniques by integrating hydropower turbines into low-head structures using innovative and evolving civil works concepts that facilitate fish and sediment passage, and in some cases create additional revenue-generating recreational opportunities. Powering low-head structures creates a directly monetizable layer of economic value in the form of flexible, reliable, renewable energy on top of the already high-value water, environmental and recreational benefits of watershed and river restoration. The approach aims to create a virtuous, self-reinforcing cycle whereby Restoration Hydro projects support the scaling of ecosystem restoration activities, creating a water-energy-carbon multiplier effect that, through the principles of adaptive change management: 1) improves the resilience of landscapes and downstream population centers for changing hydrological cycles; 2) creates a reliable energy resource that facilitates the integration of intermittent renewable power sources into grids; and 3) supports climate change mitigation through grid decarbonization and enhanced ecosystem carbon capture and retention.
The benefits of using voluntary consensus standards and industry guidance documents and reports are evident in the design and licensing of the current generation of nuclear power plants. The use of voluntary consensus standards and industry guidance and reports facilitates the design and licensing of advanced reactors to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the licensing and regulation of non-light-water reactor (non-LWR) technologies. Most of the regulations, guidance, and standards applicable to nuclear power plants were developed for water-cooled plants, so they may not adequately address factors such as the coolants, materials, temperatures, operations, testing, and maintenance proposed for advanced reactors.