Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Resource Reporting”

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 1,441 records · Page 80
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2014

BC Transit Fuel Cell Bus Project: Evaluation Results Report

This report evaluates a fuel cell electric bus demonstration led by British Columbia Transit (BC Transit) in Whistler, Canada. BC Transit is collaborating with the California Air Resources Board and the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory to evaluate the buses in revenue service. This evaluation report covers two years of revenue service data on the buses from April 2011 through March 2013.

30 DIRECT ENERGY CONVERSION↗
NASA NTRS2024

Area South of K7-516, SWMU 100 Performance Monitoring Report Kennedy Space Center, Florida

This Performance Monitoring Report (PMR) presents operations, maintenance, and monitoring information and performance monitoring results for the air sparging (AS) groundwater Interim Measure at the Area South of K7-516 (516S) located at Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Florida. AS expansion activities are also included in this PMR. The 516S site has been designated Solid Waste Management Unit 100 under the KSC Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Program. The timeframe for activities included in this report extends from January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023.

Mark J. Jonnet↗
DOE OSTI2022

Wabash CarbonSAFE. Geologic Analysis of the Potosi Dolomite Reservoir Interval and Potential Confining Units, at the Wabash #1 Well, Vigo Co., Indiana, Subtask 7.2, Technical Report

The Wabash CarbonSAFE project drilled the Wabash #1 stratigraphic test well (ID# 168045) at the Wabash Valley Resources (WVR) IGCC facility in Vigo County, Indiana, to evaluate the feasibility of commercial-scale CO 2 storage near the site. The Mt. Simon Sandstone was the initial target for storage evaluation and was found to have generally poor reservoir qualities in the Wabash #1 well. Focus was then placed on the secondary target, the Potosi Dolomite. For storage and containment evaluation an extensive suite of geophysical logs was collected throughout the borehole, and whole cores were obtained from the Mt. Simon Sandstone, Eau Claire Formation, and Maquoketa Group. The Maquoketa Group is identified as a regionally extensive secondary sealing interval above the Mt. Simon Sandstone and as a primary seal for the Potosi Dolomite storage complex. Due to concerns over potential lost circulation zones in the Potosi Dolomite during drilling, no core samples or Formation Micro Imager (FMI) logs were acquired in the Potosi Dolomite. However, cased hole well testing was performed over a 20 feet (6 m) interval within the Potosi Dolomite during which a fluid swab sample was obtained. Approximately 35 miles of 2D seismic information was acquired in the project area near Wabash #1 to aid in reservoir and caprock characterization. The highly porous and permeable zones in the Potosi Dolomite and lower Oneota Dolomite observed within the Wabash #1 well are, for the purpose of this report, considered the same reservoir package and referred to as the Potosi reservoir interval. This report presents a regional depositional context for the Potosi reservoir interval, the overlying confining zones in the Knox Group, and Maquoketa Group primary seal. This context is developed through detailed information obtained from the Wabash #1 well such as lithologic data collected from cuttings and core, geophysical logging, geomechanical analysis of core samples, and well testing and fluid sampling within the Potosi reservoir interval. Information discussed in this report was compiled as a basis for the development of static and dynamic geologic models of the Potosi Dolomite storage complex. The static and dynamic modeling of CO 2 injection in the Potosi reservoir interval are discussed in a separate report (Dessenberger et al., 2022) under the Wabash CarbonSAFE project.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2014

Expanded Materials Degradation Analysis (EMDA) Volume 3: Aging of Reactor Pressure Vessels

In NUREG/CR-6923 ORNL/TM-2013/532, "Expert Panel Report on Proactive Materials Degradation Assessment," referred to as the PMDA report, NRC conducted a comprehensive evaluation of potential aging-related degradation modes for core internal components, as well as primary, secondary, and some tertiary piping systems, considering operation up to 40 years. This document has been a very valuable resource, supporting NRC staff evaluations of licensees' aging management programs and allowing for prioritization of research needs.This report describes an expanded materials degradation assessment (EMDA), which significantly broadens the scope of the PMDA report. The analytical timeframe is expanded to 80 years to encompass a potential second 20-year license-renewal operating-period, beyond the initial 40-year licensing term and a first 20-year license renewal. Further, a broader range of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) was evaluated, including core internals, piping systems, the reactor pressure vessel (RPV), electrical cables, and concrete and civil structures. The EMDA uses the approach of the phenomena identification and ranking table (PIRT), wherein an expert panel is convened to rank potential degradation scenarios according to their judgment of susceptibility and current state of knowledge.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

ICE Calculator 2.0: Final Report for Phase 1 of the National Initiative to Update the Interruption Cost Estimate (ICE) Calculator

In 2021, Berkeley Lab and Resource Innovations, Inc. launched the “ICE 2.0 Initiative” – a national study to refresh the underlying data and enhance the functionality of the ICE Calculator. The Initiative involves Berkeley Lab contracting with sponsoring utilities to administer identical, updated and comprehensive interruption cost surveys to statistically representative samples of each utility’s customers. Berkeley Lab and Resource Innovations then pool the survey results across the utilities and use them to update the analytical engines that drive the ICE Calculator. The ICE 2.0 Initiative is being conducted in phases. Each phase involves the administration of interruption cost surveys to the customers of sponsoring utilities, followed by an update to the ICE Calculator based on analysis of the pooled survey results. This report describes the activities and findings from Phase 1 of the ICE 2.0 Initiative. Phase 1 was sponsored by eight utilities: American Electric Power, Commonwealth Edison, Dominion Energy, Duke Energy, DTE Electric, Exelon, National Grid, and Puget Sound Energy. Phase 1 involved 11 customer interruption cost survey activities representing a total of 24 electricity distribution service territories, 23 of them located in the Eastern and Midwestern regions of the U.S. and one located in the Pacific Northwest. ICE 2.0 vs. 1.0 Comparison This memorandum compares customer power interruption costs estimated using the recently updated Interruption Cost Estimate (ICE) Calculator (“ICE 2.0”) to the original ICE Calculator (“ICE 1.0”). ICE 1.0 was developed in 2009 based on 15 independent power interruption cost surveys conducted by 10 electric utilities between 1989 and 2012. ICE 2.0 was developed in 2025 through a national initiative based on a consistent set of power interruption cost surveys and 11 surveying efforts conducted across 24 electric utility service territories between 2022 and 2024.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗