Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “cost effectiveness”

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 127 records · Page 7

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 for the State of Delaware

This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 for Delaware. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2016 edition from Standard 90.1-2013 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.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 for the State of Florida

This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 for Florida. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2016 edition from Standard 90.1-2013 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.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 for the State of Georgia

This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 for Georgia. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2016 edition from Standard 90.1-2013 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.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 for the State of Hawaii

This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 for Hawaii. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2016 edition from Standard 90.1-2013 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.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 for the State of Idaho

This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 for Idaho. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2016 edition from Standard 90.1-2013 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.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 for the State of New Hampshire

This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2016 edition from Standard 90.1-2013 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.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 for the State of New Jersey

This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2016 edition from Standard 90.1-2013 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.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 for the State of New Mexico

This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2016 edition from Standard 90.1-2013 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.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 for the State of New York

This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2016 edition from Standard 90.1-2013 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.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 for the State of North Carolina

This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2016 edition from Standard 90.1-2013 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.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 for the State of North Dakota

This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2016 edition from Standard 90.1-2013 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.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 for the State of Rhode Island

This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2016 edition from Standard 90.1-2013 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.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 for the State of South Carolina

This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2016 edition from Standard 90.1-2013 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.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 for the State of South Dakota

This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2016 edition from Standard 90.1-2013 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.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 for the State of West Virginia

This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2016 edition from Standard 90.1-2013 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.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Shared visions: Partnership of Rockwell International and NASA Cost Effectiveness Enhancements (CEE) for the space shuttle system integration program

As a result of limited resources and tight fiscal constraints over the past several years, the defense and aerospace industries have experienced a downturn in business activity. The impact of fewer contracts being awarded has placed a greater emphasis for effectiveness and efficiency on industry contractors. It is clear that a reallocation of resources is required for America to continue to lead the world in space and technology. The key to technological and economic survival is the transforming of existing programs, such as the Space Shuttle Program, into more cost efficient programs so as to divert the savings to other NASA programs. The partnership between Rockwell International and NASA and their joint improvement efforts that resulted in significant streamlining and cost reduction measures to Rockwell International Space System Division's work on the Space Shuttle System Integration Contract is described. This work was a result of an established Cost Effectiveness Enhancement (CEE) Team formed initially in Fiscal Year 1991, and more recently expanded to a larger scale CEE Initiative in 1992. By working closely with the customer in agreeing to contract content, obtaining management endorsement and commitment, and involving the employees in total quality management (TQM) and continuous improvement 'teams,' the initial annual cost reduction target was exceeded significantly. The CEE Initiative helped reduce the cost of the Shuttle Systems Integration contract while establishing a stronger program based upon customer needs, teamwork, quality enhancements, and cost effectiveness. This was accomplished by systematically analyzing, challenging, and changing the established processes, practices, and systems. This examination, in nature, was work intensive due to the depth and breadth of the activity. The CEE Initiative has provided opportunities to make a difference in the way Rockwell and NASA work together - to update the methods and processes of the organizations. The future success of NASA space programs and Rockwell hinges upon the ability to adopt new, more efficient and effective work processes. Efficiency, proficiency, cost effectiveness, and teamwork are a necessity for economic survival. Continuous improvement initiatives like the CEE are, and will continue to be, vehicles by which the road can be traveled with a vision to the future.

Bejmuk, Bohdan I.↗

Which “second-best” climate policies are best? Simulating cost-effective policy mixes for passenger vehicles

In the real-world of political opposition and complex market failures, carbon pricing alone will not achieve deep GHG mitigation targets. Hence, in this study, we search for the most cost-effective “second-best” policies. Focusing on the light-duty vehicle sector in the case of Canada, we compare several policies in terms of effectiveness (regarding 2030 GHG goals) and mitigation costs, namely: (i) a carbon tax; (ii) a vehicle emission standard (or VES); (iii) a zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate, and (iv) combinations of all three at various stringencies. In this effort, we apply the AUtomaker-consumer Model (AUM), which endogenously simulates consumer and automaker decisions and technological change. Comparing individual policies, the regulations are about three times more expensive than the carbon tax. Among “second-best” policies, the VES is cheaper than a ZEV mandate at lower stringencies, but at higher stringencies the two are similarly efficient (both incentivize widespread ZEV deployment). In policy mixes, cost-effectiveness is improved by a carbon tax. Specifically, inclusion of a CDN$100–150/tonne tax can achieve targets while being 30–40% less costly than a regulation alone. We suggest that policymakers implement carbon pricing as stringently as politically feasible (for efficiency), complemented by regulations as needed (for efficacy) to meet GHG targets.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

National Cost-Effectiveness of the Residential Provisions of the 2024 IECC

This analysis focuses on single-family and low-rise multifamily residential buildings based on the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). The IECC is developed by the International Code Council (ICC) on a 3-year cycle through a public development and consensus process. While proponents of code changes often include the energy and cost-effectiveness criteria for their respective code change, the IECC process does not include an energy or cost-effectiveness analysis of the entire edition of the code. PNNL evaluated the cost effectiveness of the changes in the prescriptive and mandatory residential provisions of the 2024 edition of the IECC, hereafter referred as the 2024 IECC, compared to those in the prior edition, the 2021 IECC. The simulated performance path and the Energy Rating Index (ERI) path (introduced in the 2015 IECC) are not considered in this analysis due to the wide variation in building construction characteristics that are allowed.

2024 IECC↗