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 summarizes comments from the Peer Review Panel at the 2015 DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Annual Merit Review, held on June 8-12, 2015, in Arlington, Virginia. It covers the program areas of hydrogen production and delivery; hydrogen storage; fuel cells; manufacturing R&D; technology validation; safety, codes, and standards; market transformation; and systems analysis.
This report summarizes comments from the Peer Review Panel at the 2013 DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Annual Merit Review, held on May 13-17, 2013, in Arlington, Virginia. It covers the program areas of hydrogen production and delivery; hydrogen storage; fuel cells; manufacturing R&D; technology validation; safety, codes, and standards; market transformation; and systems analysis.
This report provides site-specific return level analyses for rain, snow, and straight-line wind extreme events. These analyses are in support of the 10-year review plan for the assessment of meteorological natural phenomena hazards at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). These analyses follow guidance from Department of Energy, DOE Standard, Natural Phenomena Hazards Analysis and Design Criteria for DOE Facilities (DOE-STD-1020-2012), Nuclear Regulatory Commission Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800, 2007) and ANSI/ ANS-2.3-2011, Estimating Tornado, Hurricane, and Extreme Straight-Line Wind Characteristics at Nuclear Facility Sites. LANL precipitation and snow level data have been collected since 1910, although not all years are complete. In this report the results from the more recent data (1990–2014) are compared to those of past analyses and a 2004 National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration report. Given the many differences in the data sets used in these different analyses, the lack of statistically significant differences in return level estimates increases confidence in the data and in the modeling and analysis approach.
The Commission to Review the Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories was charged by Congress in January 2014 to evaluate the mission, capabilities, size, performance, governance, and agency oversight of the 17 Department of Energy (DOE) laboratories. Given the incredibly broad scope and aggressive timeline (the original deadline was February 2015), the Secretary of Energy and Congress agreed to split the task into two phases. This interim report contains the preliminary observations and recommendations gleaned from Phase 1 of the study, which consisted of a literature review; visits to five of the National Laboratories; semi-structured interviews with staff from across the National Laboratories, DOE, other Federal agencies, companies, other non-governmental organizations, and additional interested parties; and presentations at monthly public Commission meetings. The Commission notes that the purpose of the National Laboratories is to provide critical capabilities and facilities in service of DOE’s mission and the needs of the broader national and international science and technology (S&T) community, including other Federal agencies, academia, and private industry. The National Laboratories are successfully fulfilling that mission today. While the Commission believes significant improvements can be made to many aspects of DOE management and governance of the laboratories, those issues do not detract from the National Laboratories’ remarkable contributions to the American public. In Phase 2 the Commission will focus on ways to make the process of carrying out their missions more efficient and effective.
If, despite risks to workers and these potential impacts, stakeholders decide that P4 wastes need to be excavated and treated, the Review Team determined that a number of the ETTs examined warrant further consideration for the treatment of P4 waste that has been characterized (for example, P4 waste present in the historical ponds). Nevertheless, concerns about the health and safety of site investigation workers using then-available investigation approaches prevented the collection of subsurface samples containing P4 from large areas of the site (e.g., the railroad swale, the vadose zone beneath the Furnace Building, and the abandoned railcars), As a result, the contaminant CSM in those particular areas was not refined enough to allow the Review Team to draw conclusions about using some of the ETTs to treat P4 waste in those areas. The readiness of an ETT for implementation varies depending on many factors, including stakeholder input, permitting, and remedial action construction requirements. Technologies that could be ready for use in the near term (within 1 year) include the following: mechanical excavation, containment technologies, off-site incineration, and drying and mechanical mixing under a tent structure. Technologies that could be ready for use in the mid-term (1 to 2 years) include cutter suction dredging, thermal-hydraulic dredging, and underground pipeline cleaning technologies. Technologies requiring a longer lead time (2 to 5 years) include on-site incineration, a land disposal restriction waste treatment system, an Albright & Wilson batch mud still, post-treatment on-site disposal, and post-treatment off-site disposal.
Under Task Order 22 of the industry Advisory and Assistance Services (A&AS) Contract to the Department of Energy (DOE) DE-NE0000291, AREVA has been tasked with providing assistance with engineering, analysis, cost estimating, and design support of a system for disposal of radioactive wastes in deep boreholes (without the use of radioactive waste). As part of this task order, AREVA was requested, through a letter of technical direction, to evaluate Sandia National Laboratory’s (SNL’s) waste package borehole emplacement system concept recommendation using input from DOE and SNL. This summary review report (SRR) documents this evaluation, with its focus on the primary input document titled: “Deep Borehole Field Test Specifications/M2FT-15SN0817091” Rev. 1 [1], hereafter referred to as the “M2 report.” The M2 report focuses on the conceptual design development for the Deep Borehole Field Test (DBFT), mainly the test waste packages (WPs) and the system for demonstrating emplacement and retrieval of those packages in the Field Test Borehole (FTB). This SRR follows the same outline as the M2 report, which allows for easy correlation between AREVA’s review comments, discussion, potential proposed alternatives, and path forward with information established in the M2 report. AREVA’s assessment focused on three primary elements of the M2 report: the conceptual design of the WPs proposed for deep borehole disposal (DBD), the mode of emplacement of the WP into DBD, and the conceptual design of the DBFT. AREVA concurs with the M2 report’s selection of the wireline emplacement mode specifically over the drill-string emplacement mode and generically over alternative emplacement modes. Table 5-1 of this SRR compares the pros and cons of each emplacement mode considered viable for DBD. The primary positive characteristics of the wireline emplacement mode include: (1) considered a mature technology; (2) operations are relatively simple; (3) probability of a radiological release due to off-normal events are relatively low; (4) costs are relatively low; and (5) maintenance activities are relatively simple. The primary drawback associated with the wireline emplacement mode for DBD is the number of emplacement trips-in to the borehole, which results in a relatively higher probability for a drop event. Fortunately, the WPs can be engineered with impact limiters that will minimize the likelihood of a breach of the WP due to a drop. The WP designs presented in the M2 report appear to be focused on compatibility with the drill-string emplacement mode (e.g., the threaded connections). With the recommendation that the wireline emplacement mode be utilized for the DBFT, some changes may be warranted to these WPs. For example, the development of a WP release connection that is more reliable than the currently credited connection, which is considered to have a high failure probability, and the integration of an impact limiter into its design. The M2 report states the engineering demonstration of the DBFT will occur in the FTB over a 4-year period. AREVA recommends development and testing of the WP emplacement handling equipment occur separately (but concurrently, if not earlier) from the FTB at a mock-up facility. The separation of this activity would prevent schedule interference between the science and engineering thrusts of the project. Performing tests in a mock-up facility would allow additional control and observation compared to the FTB. The mock-up facility could also be utilized as a training facility for future operations. Terminal velocity and impact limiter testing would require the FTB for testing, since these areas would be difficult to reproduce in a limited depth mock-up. Although only at the end of the conceptual stage of design development, DBD appears to be a viable solution for some waste forms produced by the nuclear industry. However, regulatory requirements have yet to be established for pre- and post-closure performance of DBD and should be established as soon as possible. Some of the main areas of focus from a regulatory perspective include: (1) establishing acceptable performance requirements for the long-term behavior of DBD; (2) determining acceptable borehole abandonment criteria; (3) establishing retrievability requirements; (4) developing a consensus on the factor of safety (FoS) for the emplacement mode and WP; and (5) establishing safety and safeguards performance requirements for DBD. Although conservative requirements have been utilized to provide the foundation for the conceptual design of DBD, regulatory requirements and feedback are necessary to confirm recommendations made herein and to ensure the long-term performance of DBD is acceptable. The combination of the M2 report and this SRR is intended to facilitate the completion of the conceptual design for DBD for the Cs and Sr capsules and calcined waste forms. Using the conceptual design, preliminary design activities (the second stage of a three-stage process described in the M2 report) can proceed and the DBFT utilized to support, demonstrate, and confirm engineering elements of this design.
This report summarizes the results and conclusions of the annual review of the performance assessments (PAs) and composite analyses (CAs) of the Area 3 and Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Sites (RWMSs). The Area 3 and Area 5 RWMSs were issued Disposal Authorization Statements (DASs) in accordance with U.S. Department of Energy Order DOE O 435.1 “Radioactive Waste Management” (U.S. Department of Energy [DOE] 2001). The Area 3 RWMS and Area 5 RWMS DASs (DOE 1999a, 2000) require preparation of an annual summary report and a determination of the continuing adequacy of the PAs and CAs. The requirement to prepare an annual summary report is implemented in the Maintenance Plan for the PAs and CAs (National Security Technologies, LLC [NSTec] 2007a). The annual summary report is submitted to the DOE Office of Environmental Management for review and approval.
The following report is a review of ToolingU, an online manufacturing training website. ToolingU provided the author with a trail account where a number of courses were taken and the overall program was evaluated. A review of the classes revealed that most of the offerings directly align with work at the Laboratory. Ease of use, effectiveness of the system and price all make ToolingU an attractive option for manufacturing training needs.
The review was conducted on March 31 – April 1, 2015 at the University of Utah. Overall the review team was impressed with the work presented and found that the CCMSC had met or exceeded all of their Year 1 milestones. Specific details, comments and recommendations are included in this document.
The U.S. federal government first introduced incentives for plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) through the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, which provided a tax credit of up to $7,500 for a new PEV purchase. Soon after, in December 2010, two mass-market PEVs were introduced, the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) Chevrolet Volt and the battery electric vehicle (BEV) Nissan LEAF. Since that time, numerous additional types of PEV incentives have been provided by federal and regional (state or city) government agencies and utility companies. These incentives cover vehicle purchases as well as the purchase and installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) through purchase rebates, tax credits, or discounted purchase taxes or registration fees. Additional incentives, such as free high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane access and parking benefits, may also be offered to PEV owners. Details about these incentives, such as the extent to which each type is offered by region, can be obtained from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Alternative Fuel Data Center (http://www.afdc.energy.gov/). In addition to these incentives, other policies, such as zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandates,1 have also been implemented, and community-scale federal incentives, such as the DOE PEV Readiness Grants, have been awarded throughout the country to improve PEV market penetration. This report reviews 18 studies that analyze the impacts of past or current incentives and policies that were designed to support PEV adoption in the U.S. These studies were selected for review after a comprehensive survey of the literature and discussion with a number of experts in the field. The report summarizes the lessons learned and best practices from the experiences of these incentive programs to date, as well as the challenges they face and barriers that inhibit further market adoption of PEVs. Studies that make projections based on future policy scenarios and those that focus solely on international markets are not included in this report. Studies that only provide an overview of the current market without discussing how incentives influence the market are also not included.
This review is intended to identify the method or methods--and the basic details of those methods--that might be used to develop an artificial abrasion test. Methods used in the PV literature were compared with their closest implementation in existing standards. Also, meetings of the International PV Quality Assurance Task Force Task Group 12-3 (TG12-3, which is concerned with coated glass) were used to identify established test methods. Feedback from the group, which included many of the authors from the PV literature, included insights not explored within the literature itself. The combined experience and examples from the literature are intended to provide an assessment of the present industry practices and an informed path forward. Recommendations toward artificial abrasion test methods are then identified based on the experiences in the literature and feedback from the PV community. The review here is strictly focused on abrasion. Assessment methods, including optical performance (e.g., transmittance or reflectance), surface energy, and verification of chemical composition were not examined. Methods of artificially soiling PV modules or other specimens were not examined. The weathering of artificial or naturally soiled specimens (which may ultimately include combined temperature and humidity, thermal cycling and ultraviolet light) were also not examined. A sense of the purpose or application of an abrasion test method within the PV industry should, however, be evident from the literature.
This document reviews 87 Sr/ 86 Sr isotope data across the Appalachian Basin from existing literature to show spatial and temporal variation. Isotope geochemistry presents a means of understanding the geochemical effects hydraulic fracturing may have on shallow ground substrates. Isotope fractionation is a naturally occurring phenomenon brought about by physical, chemical, and biological processes that partition isotopes between substances; therefore, stable isotope geochemistry allows geoscientists to understand several processes that shape the natural world. Strontium isotopes can be used as a tool to answer an array of geological and environmental inquiries. In some cases, strontium isotopes are sensitive to the introduction of a non-native fluid into a system. This ability allows strontium isotopes to serve as tracers in certain systems. Recently, it has been demonstrated that strontium isotopes can serve as a monitoring tool for groundwater and surface water systems that may be affected by hydraulic fracturing fluids (Chapman et al., 2013; Kolesar Kohl et al., 2014). These studies demonstrated that 87 Sr/ 86 Sr values have the potential to monitor subsurface fluid migration in regions where extraction of Marcellus Shale gas is occurring. This document reviews publicly available strontium isotope data from 39 sample locations in the Appalachian Basin (Hamel et al., 2010; Chapman et al., 2012; Osborn et al., 2012; Chapman et al., 2013; Capo et al., 2014; Kolesar Kohl et al., 2014). The data is divided into two sets: stratigraphic (Upper Devonian/Lower Mississippi, Middle Devonian, and Silurian) and groundwater. ArcMap™ (ESRI, Inc.) was used to complete inverse distance weighting (IDW) analyses for each dataset to create interpolated surfaces in an attempt to find regional trends or variations in strontium isotopic values across the Appalachian Basin. 87 Sr/ 86 Sr varies up to ~ 0.011 across the Appalachian Basin, but the current publicly available data is limited in frequency and regional extent, causing artifacts and high uncertainty when interpolating data for locations far from sampling sites. These factors highlight the need for additional strontium isotope sampling across the region. Identifying potential contamination from hydraulic fracturing fluid in Appalachian Basin groundwater using strontium isotopes would require additional sampling. For a more comprehensive strontium isotope database, samples would need to be collected during prefracturing, syn-fracturing, and post-fracturing stages. This would add a temporal component to the spatial data and make tracing of fluid migration with strontium isotopes more accurate. Future research and modeling that incorporates subsurface geology and watershed data would also serve to increase the accuracy and certainty of the interpolations of these analyses. Prospective geospatial Appalachian Basin isotope studies would also benefit from the integration of geologic mapping because surface and subsurface geology influences observed strontium isotope values.
In August 2016 The Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) and Colorado State University (CSU) organized a review to characterize the networking requirements of the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA) located on the campus of Colorado State University. Several key findings highlighting the results from the review were discovered, with benefits to improve the overall scientific process for CIRA and CSU.
The basic purpose of this paper is to provide a literature review relative to fabrication of the General Purpose Heat Source (GPHS) that is used to provide electrical power for deep space missions of NASA. The particular fabrication operation to be addressed here is arc welding of the GPHS encapsulation. A considerable effort was made to optimize the fabrication of the fuel pellets and of other elements of the encapsulation; that work will not be directly addressed in this paper. This report consists of three basic sections: 1) a brief description of the GPHS will be provided as background information for the reader; 2) mechanical properties and the optimization thereof as relevant to welding will be discussed; 3) a review of the arc welding process development and optimization will be presented. Since the welding equipment must be upgraded for future production, some discussion of the historical establishment of relevant welding variables and possible changes thereto will also be discussed.
The Cap-and-Trade and Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) programs being administered by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) include Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS) as a potential means to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, there is currently no universal standard approach that quantifies GHG emissions reductions for CCS and that is suitable for the quantitative needs of the Cap-and-Trade and LCFS programs. CCS involves emissions related to the capture (e.g., arising from increased energy needed to separate carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) from a flue gas and compress it for transport), transport (e.g., by pipeline), and storage of CO 2 (e.g., due to leakage to the atmosphere from geologic CO 2 storage sites). In this project, we reviewed and compared monitoring, verification, and accounting (MVA) protocols for CCS from around the world by focusing on protocols specific to the geologic storage part of CCS. In addition to presenting the review of these protocols, we highlight in this report those storage-related MVA protocols that we believe are particularly appropriate for CCS in California. We find that none of the existing protocols is completely appropriate for California, but various elements of all of them could be adopted and/or augmented to develop a rigorous, defensible, and practical surface leakage MVA protocol for California. The key features of a suitable surface leakage MVA plan for California are that it: (1) informs and validates the leakage risk assessment, (2) specifies use of the most effective monitoring strategies while still being flexible enough to accommodate special or site-specific conditions, (3) quantifies stored CO 2 , and (4) offers defensible estimates of uncertainty in monitored properties. California’s surface leakage MVA protocol needs to be applicable to the main CO 2 storage opportunities (in California and in other states with entities participating in California’s Cap-and-Trade or LCFS programs), specifically CO 2 -enhanced oil recovery (CO 2 -EOR), CO 2 injection into depleted gas reservoirs (with or without CO 2 -enhanced gas recovery (CO 2 -EGR)), as well as deep saline storage. Regarding the elements of an effective surface leakage MVA protocol, our recommendations for California are that: (1) both CO 2 and methane (CH 4 ) surface leakage should be monitored, especially for enhanced recovery scenarios, (2) emissions from all sources not directly related to injection and geologic storage (e.g., from capture, or pipeline transport) should be monitored and reported under a plan separate from the surface leakage MVA plan that is included as another component of the quantification methodology (QM), (3) the primary objective of the surface leakage MVA plan should be to quantify surface leakage of CO 2 and CH 4 and its uncertainty, with consideration of best-practices and state-of-the-art approaches to monitoring including attribution assessment, (4) effort should be made to monitor CO 2 storage and migration in the subsurface to anticipate future surface leakage monitoring needs, (5) detailed descriptions of specific monitoring technologies and approaches should be provided in the MVA plan, (6) the main purpose of the CO 2 injection project (CO 2 -EOR, CO 2 -EGR, or pure geologic carbon sequestration (GCS)) needs to be stated up front, (7) approaches to dealing with missing data and quantifying uncertainty need to be described, and (8) post-injection monitoring should go on for a period consistent with or longer than that prescribed by the U.S. EPA.
This literature review will focus on both laboratory and synchrotron based X-ray tomography of materials and highlight the inner workings of these instruments. X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy will also be reviewed and applications of the tandem use of these techniques will be explored. The real world application of these techniques during the internship will also be discussed.
In support of preparations for fabricating compacts for the Advanced Gas Reactor (AGR) fuel qualification irradiation experiments (AGR-5/6/7), Idaho National Laboratory (INL) conducted a readiness review of the BWX Technology (BWXT) procedures, processes, and equipment associated with compact fabrication activities at the BWXT Nuclear Operations Group (BWXT-NOG) facility outside Lynchburg, VirginiaVA. The readiness review used quality assurance requirements taken from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Nuclear Quality Assurance Standard (NQA-1-2008/1a-2009) as a basis to assess readiness to start compact fabrication.
The report outlines the initial explorations carried out by LBNL on available examples of energy data collection frameworks for buildings. Specifically, this monograph deals with European experience in the buildings sector, the US experience in the commercial buildings sector, and examples of data collection effort in Singapore and China to capture the Asian experience in the commercial sector. The review also provides a summary of the past efforts in India to collect and use commercial building energy data and its strengths and weaknesses. The overall aim of this activity is to help understand the use cases that drive the granularity of data being collected and the range of methodologies adopted for the data collection effort. This review is a key input and reference for developing a data collection framework for India, and also clarifies general thinking on the institutional structure that may be amenable for data collection effort to match the needs and requirements of commercial building sector in India.