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 document summarizes the comments provided by peer reviewers on hydrogen and fuel cell projects presented at the FY 2011 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Hydrogen Program and Vehicle Technologies Program Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting (AMR), held May 9-13, 2011 in Arlington, Virginia
In 1957, Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia) initiated its first programs in fundamental science, in support of its primary nuclear weapons mission. In 1974, Sandia initiated programs in fundamental science supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Science (DOE-SC). These latter programs have grown to the point where, today in 2011, support of Sandia's programs in fundamental science is dominated by that Office. In comparison with Sandia's programs in technology and mission applications, however, Sandia's programs in fundamental science are small. Hence, Sandia's fundamental science has been strongly influenced by close interactions with technology and mission applications. In many instances, these interactions have been of great mutual benefit, with synergies akin to a positive 'Casimir's spiral' of progress. In this report, we review the history of Sandia's fundamental science programs supported by the Office of Science. We present: (a) a technical and budgetary snapshot of Sandia's current programs supported by the various suboffices within DOE-SC; (b) statistics of highly-cited articles supported by DOE-SC; (c) four case studies (ion-solid interactions, combustion science, compound semiconductors, advanced computing) with an emphasis on mutually beneficial interactions between science, technology, and mission; and (d) appendices with key memos and reminiscences related to fundamental science at Sandia.
EERE Wind Program Quarterly Newsletter - September 2011. In September, the U.S. Department of Energy announced that it will award $43 million over the next five years to 41 projects across 20 states to speed technical innovations, lower costs, and shorten the timeline for deploying offshore wind energy systems. The projects will advance wind turbine design tools and hardware, improve information about U.S. offshore wind resources, and accelerate the deployment of offshore wind by reducing market barriers such as supply chain development, transmission and infrastructure. The projects announced in September focus on approaches to advancing offshore technology and removing market barriers to responsible offshore wind energy deployment. Funding is subject to Congressional appropriations.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) sponsors a set of Clean Energy Application Centers that promote the development and deployment of clean energy technologies. There are eight regional centers that provide assistance for specific areas of the country plus a separate center operated by the International District Energy Association that provides technical assistance on district energy issues and applications to the regional centers. The original focus of the centers was on combined heat and power (CHP) alone but, beginning in fiscal year 2010, their scope expanded to include district energy systems and waste heat recovery. At that time, the official name of the centers changed from CHP Regional Application Centers (RACs) to Clean Energy Application Centers, and their number was expanded to include the previously-mentioned center focusing on district energy. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has performed two previous studies of RAC activities. The first one examined what the RACs had done each year from the initiation of the program through fiscal year (FY) 2008 and the second one examined RAC activities for the 2009 fiscal year. The most recent study, described in this report, examines what was accomplished in fiscal year 2010, the first year since the RACs expanded their focus and changed their name to Clean Energy Application Centers.
This report contains the groundwater and surface water monitoring data that were obtained during calendar year (CY) 2010 at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Y-12 National Security Complex (hereafter referenced as Y-12) on the DOE Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The CY 2010 monitoring data were obtained from wells, springs, and surface water sampling locations in three hydrogeologic regimes at Y-12 (Figure A.1). The Bear Creek Hydrogeologic Regime (Bear Creek Regime) encompasses a section of Bear Creek Valley (BCV) between the west end of Y-12 and the west end of the Bear Creek Watershed (directions are in reference to the Y-12 grid system). The Upper East Fork Poplar Creek Hydrogeologic Regime (East Fork Regime) encompasses the Y-12 industrial facilities and support structures in BCV. The Chestnut Ridge Hydrogeologic Regime (Chestnut Ridge Regime) encompasses a section of Chestnut Ridge directly south of Y-12. Section 2 of this report provides background information pertinent to groundwater and surface water quality monitoring in each hydrogeologic regime, including the topography and bedrock geology, surface water drainage, groundwater system, and extent of groundwater contamination. The CY 2010 groundwater and surface water monitoring data in this report were obtained from sampling and analysis activities implemented under the Y-12 Groundwater Protection Program (GWPP) managed by Babcock & Wilcox Technical Services Y-12, LLC (B&W Y-12) and from sampling and analysis activities implemented under several monitoring programs managed by Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC (BJC). Cooperative implementation of the monitoring programs directed by the Y-12 GWPP and BJC (i.e., coordinating sample collection and sharing data) ensures that the CY 2010 monitoring results fulfill requirements of all the applicable monitoring drivers with no duplication of sampling and analysis efforts. Section 3 of this report contains a summary of information regarding the groundwater and surface water sampling and analysis activities implemented under the Y-12 GWPP including sampling locations and frequency; quality assurance (QA)/quality control (QC) sampling; sample collection and handling; field measurements and laboratory analytes; data management and data quality objective (DQO) evaluation; and groundwater elevation monitoring. However, this report does not include equivalent QA/QC or DQO evaluation information regarding the groundwater and surface water sampling and analysis activities associated with the monitoring programs implemented by BJC. Such details are deferred to the respective programmatic plans and reports issued by BJC (see Section 3.0). Collectively, the groundwater and surface water monitoring data obtained during CY 2010 by the Y-12 GWPP and BJC address DOE Order 450.1A (Environmental Protection Program) requirements for monitoring groundwater and surface water quality in areas: (1) which are, or could be, affected by operations at Y-12 (surveillance monitoring); and (2) where contaminants from Y-12 are most likely to migrate beyond the boundaries of the ORR (exit pathway/perimeter monitoring). Section 4 of this report presents a summary evaluation of the monitoring data with regard to the respective objectives of surveillance monitoring and exit pathway/perimeter monitoring, based on the analytical results for the principal groundwater contaminants at Y-12: nitrate, uranium, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), gross alpha activity, and gross beta activity. Section 5 of this report summarizes the most pertinent findings regarding the principal contaminants, along with recommendations proposed for ongoing groundwater and surface water quality monitoring performed under the Y-12 GWPP.
The Department of Defense (DoD) provides its standard for information assurance in its Instruction 8500.2, dated February 6, 2003. This Instruction lists 157 'IA Controls' for nine 'baseline IA levels.' Aside from distinguishing IA Controls that call for elevated levels of 'robustness' and grouping the IA Controls into eight 'subject areas' 8500.2 does not examine the nature of this set of controls, determining, for example, which controls do not vary in robustness, how this set of controls compares with other such sets, or even which controls are required for all nine baseline IA levels. This report analyzes (1) the IA Controls, (2) the subject areas, and (3) the Baseline IA levels. For example, this report notes that there are only 109 core IA Controls (which this report refers to as 'ICGs'), that 43 of these core IA Controls apply without variation to all nine baseline IA levels and that an additional 31 apply with variations. This report maps the IA Controls of 8500.2 to the controls in NIST 800-53 and ITGI's CoBIT. The result of this analysis and mapping, as shown in this report, serves as a companion to 8500.2. (An electronic spreadsheet accompanies this report.)
Calibration parameters from the Connolly et al. (2007) algorithm cannot be applied to the Department of Energy's (DOE) CPI because the DOE CPI is version 2.0. Thus, Dr. Junshik Um and Prof. Greg McFarquhar brought the DOE CPI to the University of Manchester, UK, where facilities for calibrating it were available. In addition, two other versions of CPIs (1.0 and 1.5) were available on-site at the University of Manchester so that an intercomparison of three different versions of the CPI was possible. The three CPIs (versions 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0) were calibrated by moving glass calibration beads and ice analogues of known size parallel to the object plane. The distance between the object plane and a particle, the particle's focus, its apparent maximum dimension, and a background image were measured in order to derive calibration parameters for each CPI version. The calibration parameters are used in two empirical equations that are applied to in situ CPI data to determine particle size and depth of field, and hence particle size distributions (PSDs). After the tests with the glass calibration beads to derive the calibration parameters, the three CPIs were installed at the base of the Manchester Ice Cloud Chamber and connected to air pumps that drew cloud through the sample volume. Warm liquid clouds at a temperature of 1-2 C and ice clouds at a temperature of -5 C were generated, and the resulting PSDs for each of the CPIs were determined by applying the results of each calibration.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) conducted a series of assessments of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) proposed Home Energy Scoring Tool (HEST). This report is an assessment of the 4/27/2012 release of HEST. Predictions of electric and natural gas consumption were compared with weather-normalized utility billing data for a mixture of newer and older homes located in Oregon, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Carolina and Texas.
This U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) fact sheet highlights a June 2012 solar power purchase agreement between the Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority and three corporations. The fact sheet describes how financial support from DOE and technical assistance from DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory enabled the U.S. Virgin Islands torealistically assess its clean energy resources and identify the most viable and cost-effective solutions to its energy challenges--resulting in a $65 million investment in solar energy in the territory.
A status report on the cloud computing strategy for each Department of Energy laboratory and plant, showing the movement toward a cloud first IT strategy.
This newsletter describes the U.S. Department of Energy Wind Program's recent wind energy research and development efforts.
In 1988, groundwater contaminated with trichloroethene (TCE) and technetium-99 (Tc-99) was identified in samples collected from residential water wells withdrawing groundwater from the Regional Gravel Aquifer (RGA) north of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP) facility. In response, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) provided temporary drinking water supplies to approximately 100 potentially affected residents by initially supplying bottled water, water tanks, and water-treatment systems, and then by extending municipal water lines, all at no cost, to those persons whose wells could be affected by contaminated groundwater. The Water Policy boundary was established in 1993. In the Policy, DOE agreed to pay the reasonable monthly cost of water for homes and businesses and, in exchange, many of the land owners signed license agreements committing to cease using the groundwater via rural water wells. In 2012, DOE requested that Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU), managing contractor of Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE), provide an independent assessment of the quality and quantity of the existing groundwater monitoring data and determine if there is sufficient information to support a modification to the boundary of the current Water Policy. As a result of the assessment, ORAU concludes that sufficient groundwater monitoring data exists to determine that a shrinkage and/or shift of the plume(s) responsible for the initial development of this policy has occurred. Specifically, there is compelling evidence that the TCE plume is undergoing shrinkage due to natural attenuation and associated degradation. The plume shrinkage (and migration) has also been augmented in local areas where large volumes of groundwater were recovered by pump-and treat remedial systems along the eastern and western boundaries of the Northwest Plume, and in other areas where pump-and-treat systems have been deployed by DOE to remove source contaminants. The available evidence supports adjusting the western and northwestern Water Policy boundary. Based on the historical and modeled hydrogeological data reflecting past flow and plume attenuation, along with associated plume migration toward the northeast, the establishment of a new boundary along the westernmost margin of the earliest indication of the TCE plume is proposed and justified on hydrogeological grounds. Approximately 30% of the original area would remain within the adjusted Water Policy area west and northwest of the PGDP facility. This modification would release about 70% of the area, although individual properties would overlap the new boundary.
This report documents a solid-state lighting (SSL) technology demonstration at the parking structure of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Headquarters in Washington, DC, in which light-emitting diode (LED) luminaires were substituted for the incumbent high-pressure sodium (HPS) luminaires and evaluated for relative light quantity and performance. The demonstration results show energy savings of 52% from the initial conversion of HPS to the LED product. These savings were increased to 88% by using occupancy sensor controls that were ultimately set to reduce power to 10% of high state operation after a time delay of 2.5 minutes. Because of the relatively high cost of the LED luminaires at their time of purchase for this project (2010), the simple payback periods were 6.5 years and 4.9 years for retrofit and new construction scenarios, respectively. Staff at DOL Headquarters reported high satisfaction with the operation of the LED product.
The activities of the Princeton Elementary particles group funded through Department of Energy Grant# DEFG02-91 ER40671 during the period October 1, 1991 through January 31, 2013 are summarized. These activities include experiments performed at Brookhaven National Lab; the CERN Lab in Geneva, Switzerland; Fermilab; KEK in Tsukuba City, Japan; the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center; as well as extensive experimental and the- oretical studies conducted on the campus of Princeton University. Funded senior personnel include: Curtis Callan, Stephen Gubser, Valerie Halyo, Daniel Marlow, Kirk McDonald, Pe- ter Meyers, James Olsen, Pierre Pirou e, Eric Prebys, A.J. Stewart Smith, Frank Shoemaker (deceased), Paul Steinhardt, David Stickland, Christopher Tully, and Liantao Wang.
The overall objective of this project is to conduct cost analyses and estimate costs for on- and off-board hydrogen storage technologies under development by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on a consistent, independent basis. This can help guide DOE and stakeholders toward the most-promising research, development and commercialization pathways for hydrogen-fueled vehicles. A specific focus of the project is to estimate hydrogen storage system cost in high-volume production scenarios relative to the DOE target that was in place when this cost analysis was initiated. This report and its results reflect work conducted by TIAX between 2004 and 2012, including recent refinements and updates. The report provides a system-level evaluation of costs and performance for four broad categories of on-board hydrogen storage: (1) reversible on-board metal hydrides (e.g., magnesium hydride, sodium alanate); (2) regenerable off-board chemical hydrogen storage materials(e.g., hydrolysis of sodium borohydride, ammonia borane); (3) high surface area sorbents (e.g., carbon-based materials); and 4) advanced physical storage (e.g., 700-bar compressed, cryo-compressed and liquid hydrogen). Additionally, the off-board efficiency and processing costs of several hydrogen storage systems were evaluated and reported, including: (1) liquid carrier, (2) sodium borohydride, (3) ammonia borane, and (4) magnesium hydride. TIAX applied a bottom-up costing methodology customized to analyze and quantify the processes used in the manufacture of hydrogen storage systems. This methodology, used in conjunction with ® software and other tools, developed costs for all major tank components, balance-of-tank, tank assembly, and system assembly. Based on this methodology, the figure below shows the projected on-board high-volume factory costs of the various analyzed hydrogen storage systems, as designed. Reductions in the key cost drivers may bring hydrogen storage system costs closer to this DOE target. In general, tank costs are the largest component of system cost, responsible for at least 30 percent of total system cost, in all but two of the 12 systems. Purchased BOP cost also drives system cost, accounting for 10 to 50 percent of total system cost across the various storage systems. Potential improvements in these cost drivers for all storage systems may come from new manufacturing processes and higher production volumes for BOP components. In addition, advances in the production of storage media may help drive down overall costs for the sodium alanate, SBH, LCH2, MOF, and AX-21 systems.
This final technical report details the results of total work efforts and progress made from October 2007 – September 2011 under the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) cooperative agreement DE-FC26-07NT43264, Building Stronger State Energy Partnerships with the U.S. Department of Energy. Major topical project areas in this final report include work efforts in the following areas: Energy Assurance and Critical Infrastructure, State and Regional Technical Assistance, Regional Initiative, Regional Coordination and Technical Assistance, and International Activities in China. All required deliverables have been provided to the National Energy Technology Laboratory and DOE program officials.
This report contains the groundwater and surface water monitoring data that were obtained during calendar year (CY) 2011 at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12) on the DOE Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The CY 2011 monitoring data were obtained from wells, springs, and surface water sampling locations in three hydrogeologic regimes at Y-12. The Bear Creek Hydrogeologic Regime (Bear Creek Regime) encompasses a section of Bear Creek Valley (BCV) between the west end of Y-12 and the west end of the Bear Creek Watershed (directions are in reference to the Y-12 grid system). The Upper East Fork Poplar Creek Hydrogeologic Regime (East Fork Regime) encompasses the Y-12 industrial facilities and support structures in BCV. The Chestnut Ridge Hydrogeologic Regime (Chestnut Ridge Regime) encompasses a section of Chestnut Ridge directly south of Y-12. This report provides background information pertinent to groundwater and surface water quality monitoring in each hydrogeologic regime, including the topography and bedrock geology, surface water drainage, groundwater system, and known extent of groundwater contamination.
This report documents the results of Task 3 of Project Action Sheet PP05 between the United States Department of Energy (DOE) and the Republic of Korea (ROK) Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MEST) for Support with Review of an ROK Risk Evaluation Process. This task was to have Sandia National Laboratories collaborate with the Korea Institute of Nuclear Nonproliferation and Control (KINAC) on several activities concerning how to determine the Probability of Neutralization, P N , and the Probability of System Effectiveness, P E , to include: providing descriptions on how combat simulations are used to determine P N and P E ; comparisons of the strengths and weaknesses of two neutralization models (the Neutralization.xls spreadsheet model versus the Brief Adversary Threat-Loss Estimator (BATLE) software); and demonstrating how computer simulations can be used to determine P N . Note that the computer simulation used for the demonstration was the Scenario Toolkit And Generation Environment (STAGE) simulation, which is a stand-alone synthetic tactical simulation sold by Presagis Canada Incorporated. The demonstration is provided in a separate Audio Video Interleave (.AVI) file.