Sandia Critical Experiments Program and Nuclear Criticality Safety Program.
Abstract not provided.
Ames, David↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “PROGRAMMING”
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.
Comparing Generalized Disjunctive Programming (GDP) and Mixed Integer Programming (MIP) in Energy Resilience Modeling.
Abstract not provided.
Johnson, Emma Savannah↗
Sandia Critical Experiments Program and Nuclear Criticality Safety Program.
Abstract not provided.
Ames, David↗
Technical Program Plan for INL Advanced Reactor Technologies Advanced Gas Reactor Fuel Development and Qualification Program
High-temperature gas cooled reactors (HTGRs) are graphite moderated nuclear reactors cooled with helium. Their high outlet temperatures and thermal energy conversion efficiency enable efficient and cost effective integration with non electricity generating applications. These applications include process heat and hydrogen production for petrochemical and other industrial processes that require operating temperatures between 300 and 900°C. HTGRs will supplement the use of premium fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas, improve overall energy security in the United States by reducing dependence on foreign fuels, and reduce carbon dioxide (CO2)/greenhouse gas emissions. The HTGR design uses helium as a coolant, graphite as a neutron moderator, and ceramic particle fuel. Helium is chemically inert and neutronically transparent. The graphite core slows down the neutrons, retains its strength at high temperatures, provides structural stability, and acts as a substantial heat sink during transient conditions. The ceramic particle fuel is extremely robust and retains the radioactive by products of the fission reaction within the coated particle under normal and off normal conditions.
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
Technical Program Plan for INL Advanced Reactor Technologies Advanced Gas Reactor Fuel Development and Qualification Program
High-temperature gas cooled reactors (HTGRs) are graphite moderated nuclear reactors cooled with helium. Their high outlet temperatures and thermal energy conversion efficiency enable efficient and cost effective integration with non electricity generating applications. These applications include process heat and hydrogen production for petrochemical and other industrial processes that require operating temperatures between 300 and 900°C. HTGRs will supplement the use of premium fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas, improve overall energy security in the United States by reducing dependence on foreign fuels, and reduce carbon dioxide (CO2)/greenhouse gas emissions. The HTGR design uses helium as a coolant, graphite as a neutron moderator, and ceramic particle fuel. Helium is chemically inert and neutronically transparent. The graphite core slows down the neutrons, retains its strength at high temperatures, provides structural stability, and acts as a substantial heat sink during transient conditions. The ceramic particle fuel is extremely robust and retains the radioactive by products of the fission reaction within the coated particle under normal and off normal conditions.
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
Technical Program Plan for INL Advanced Reactor Technologies Advanced Gas Reactor Fuel Development and Qualification Program
High-temperature gas cooled reactors (HTGRs) are graphite moderated nuclear reactors cooled with helium. Their high outlet temperatures and thermal energy conversion efficiency enable efficient and cost effective integration with non electricity generating applications. These applications include process heat and hydrogen production for petrochemical and other industrial processes that require operating temperatures between 300 and 900°C. HTGRs will supplement the use of premium fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas, improve overall energy security in the United States by reducing dependence on foreign fuels, and reduce carbon dioxide (CO2)/greenhouse gas emissions. The HTGR design uses helium as a coolant, graphite as a neutron moderator, and ceramic particle fuel. Helium is chemically inert and neutronically transparent. The graphite core slows down the neutrons, retains its strength at high temperatures, provides structural stability, and acts as a substantial heat sink during transient conditions. The ceramic particle fuel is extremely robust and retains the radioactive by products of the fission reaction within the coated particle under normal and off normal conditions.
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
Technical Program Plan for INL Advanced Reactor Technologies Advanced Gas Reactor Fuel Development and Qualification Program
High-temperature gas cooled reactors (HTGRs) are graphite moderated nuclear reactors cooled with helium. Their high outlet temperatures and thermal energy conversion efficiency enable efficient and cost effective integration with non electricity generating applications. These applications include process heat and hydrogen production for petrochemical and other industrial processes that require operating temperatures between 300 and 900°C. HTGRs will supplement the use of premium fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas, improve overall energy security in the United States by reducing dependence on foreign fuels, and reduce carbon dioxide (CO2)/greenhouse gas emissions. The HTGR design uses helium as a coolant, graphite as a neutron moderator, and ceramic particle fuel. Helium is chemically inert and neutronically transparent. The graphite core slows down the neutrons, retains its strength at high temperatures, provides structural stability, and acts as a substantial heat sink during transient conditions. The ceramic particle fuel is extremely robust and retains the radioactive by products of the fission reaction within the coated particle under normal and off normal conditions.
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
Microstructural Characterization of Irradiated Fuels and Materials for the United States High Performance Research Reactor Fuel Development Program and the Fuel Cycle Research and Development Program
In an effort to contribute to the development of advanced nuclear fuel for research reactors, monolithic and dispersion plate fuels will be examined to determine how irradiation parameters such as fission density, fission rate, and irradiation temperature, as well as mechanical parameters such as composition and fabrication, affect the final microstructure of the fuel, post irradiation. Electron Backscatter Detection (EBSD) analysis capabilities of irradiated materials will be developed as well as improvements on irradiated sample preparation in order to provide higher quality samples for SEM, FIB, and TEM. In addition, image analysis techniques developed at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) will be employed to examine microstructural features such as fission product precipitates and fission gas bubbles. The main goals are to further develop EBSD capabilities on irradiated material; characterize microstructure of irradiated fuel to support qualification; develop a consistent, effective process for image analysis using INL developed software; and provide repeatable, statistically-confident, critically assessed data to further modeling efforts. (authors)
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
City of Phoenix - Energize Phoenix Program
Energize Phoenix (EPHX) was designed as an ambitious, large-scale, three-year pilot program to provide energy efficiency upgrades in buildings, along Phoenix’s new Light Rail Corridor – part of a federal effort to reduce energy consumption and stimulate job growth, while simultaneously reducing the country’s carbon footprint and promoting a shift towards a green economy. The program was created through a 2010 competitive grant awarded to the City of Phoenix who managed the program in partnership with Arizona State University (ASU), the state’s largest university, and Arizona Public Service (APS), the state’s largest electricity provider. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Better Buildings Neighborhood Program (BBNP) and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 provided $25M in funding for the EPHX program. The Light Rail Corridor runs through the heart of downtown Phoenix, making most high-rise and smaller commercial buildings eligible to participate in the EPHX program, along with a diverse mix of single and multi-family residential buildings. To ensure maximum impact and deeper market penetration, Energize Phoenix was subdivided into three unique parts: i. commercial rebate program, ii. commercial financing program, and iii. residential program Each component was managed by the City of Phoenix in partnership with APS. Phoenix was fortunate to partner with APS, which already operated robust commercial and residential rebate programs within its service territory. Phoenix tapped into the existing utility contractor network, provided specific training to over 100 contracting firms, and leveraged the APS rebate program structure (energy efficiency funding) to launch the EPHX commercial and residential rebate programs. The commercial finance program was coordinated and managed through a contract with National Bank of Arizona, NBAZ, which also provided project capital leveraging EPHX finance funds. Working in unison, approved contractors jointly produced more than 161,000 labor hours in pursuit of EPHX goals over the life of the project. Labor hours were spread among electricians, heating, ventilating and air-conditioning (HVAC) technicians, marketing professionals, engineers, sales, and administrative support staff across the approved contractor workforce. Program participants received both the utility rebate along with the EPHX rebate, and depending on project size and utility rebate structure some projects resulted in low to no-cost upgrades for customers. Phoenix also partnered with ASU, a grant sub-recipient, to leverage the institution’s expertise in research and data analysis. In this partnership, ASU accepted marketing responsibilities for the grant and partnered with DRA Communications (DRA), a Phoenix-based marketing firm, to create and communicate the message out to the marketplace. The EPHX program has completed its energy upgrade activities. A review of the work completed by ASU revealed that the EPHX program substantially exceeded the program’s stated goals by retrofitting/upgrading over 33 million sq ft of commercial space (30 million sq ft goal exceeded by 11%) and 2,014 residential units (1,700 unit goal exceeded by 18%) along the Light Rail Corridor. The program helped stimulate economic growth by adding $31million to the local economy and enhanced an already robust energy efficiency contractor network. This contractor network will continue to promote utility energy incentives to sustain energy efficiency upgrade activities in the future. Finally, EPHX helped reduce participants annual energy consumption by 135 million kilowatt-hour (kWh) translating into over $12.5 million of annual energy cost avoidance for the community. This also resulted in projected payback period of 4.5 years for total investment by all parties and reduced greenhouse gas emissions by over 95,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).
32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
Final Scientific Findings Report- Hydro Research Foundation- Research Awards Program
The Research Awards Program was established in 2014 by the Hydro Research Foundation (Foundation) to support research efforts for the hydropower industry. Using the previously funded Fellowship Program that ran from 2010-2015, the Research Awards Program (RAP or program) captured the lessons learned from the Fellowship program and fine-tuned a nation-wide graduate level research program to support innovation, research and workforce development. The RAP was funded through a $2 million-dollar grant through the Department of Energy’s Water Power Program within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy office (DOE). This award made possible, 33 research projects by 32 students from 21 universities in 11 states. The grant widely engaged the industry by providing the opportunity to work with 25 organizations as well as 63 students and advisors. The funded research focused on a topic list selected by industry and worked to cover a breadth of research needs across many disciplines, basins and types of hydropower issues. The funded work, answered pressing research needs in the fields of the following disciplines; civil engineering, mechanical engineering, environmental engineering, electrical engineering, geography, fisheries, wildlife, water resources, geology, energy science and materials innovation. The Foundation estimates that 116 individuals benefited from this research through either direct mentorship (42), research (32), overseeing the research (31), partnerships (7) and the day-to-day management of the program (4). This investment by DOE showcases how private-public partnerships can leverage limited funds to create a wide range of research products. The project objective was to build on the successful Fellowship Program to develop and execute the RAP on a national level. The program sought to provide competitively awarded hydropower-related graduate-level research awards. The intent of the RAP was to support beneficial, innovative research related to conventional or pumped-storage hydropower. It also sought to stimulate interest among students and universities in this research arena and provide students with a foundation for productive careers within the hydropower industry. The outcome was 33 research findings with 100% of proposed research completed. In addition, 87% of students chose to either join the hydropower industry or continue their hydropower related research at their universities. These research findings advanced the understanding of pressing research topics within the hydropower industry and met the objective of the funding. An ancillary benefit the program identified through this funding was, not only did 63 students and advisors work on hydropower within the academia space, but now there are more professors and students teaching hydropower at the university level. The program saw an addition of 12 new professors, teaching assistants, and graduate researchers continuing to simulate interest in hydropower. Another interesting outcome is that during this grant funding, the program saw alumni of the predecessor program, who are now professors, applying for the RAP with their students. A unique element of this funding is there was significant cost-share provided by host universities, who did not charge facilities and administration overhead to the student’s research awards. In addition, each university provided laboratories, computing capacity and research facilities to support the research which is extraordinarily unique to grant funding at the university level. The total cost share exceeded 30% of the total grant cost. The funding clearly reached many sectors of the industry to provide helpful work and continue building hydropower’s next generation of innovation and workforce. The Foundation has established a broad network of universities interested and engaged in hydropower. The work was supported by the hydropower industry through donations of meeting space, conference registrations, in-kind contributions, mentorship and support of students. The Foundation would recommend finding a vehicle to further advance programs like the graduate level research through competitions, competitively funded awards and student research. It will take many universities to advance hydropower’s most pressing challenges. To let a program like the RAP dwindle away would incapacitate research at universities.
13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
Income Verification Strategies for Income-Based Solar Programs
The Inflation Reduction Act has created substantial new programs that support adoption of solar power by low-income households, including the $7 billion Solar For All program and the Low-Income Communities Bonus Credit Program, which increases the investment tax credit for certain types of deployment. In addition, a growing number of states are using solar programs to reduce energy burdens and create energy justice opportunities for low-income households and disadvantaged communities. Verifying the income of participating customers is an important component of these programs. Program managers are seeking strategies to verify a large number of subscribing customers in an accurate, timely, and cost-efficient manner. To help inform program managers, Berkeley Lab investigated how a number of energy and non-energy programs manage income verification. The most common approach is to require proof through tax documents, pay stubs, or other formal income documentation, which can pose an impediment to enrolling eligible customers and create a paperwork burden for administrators. In order to reduce the burden for both the applicant and the program manager, some programs use alternative methods. We identify three common alternative verification methods: -Categorical eligibility: Customers enrolled in other, similar income-verified assistance programs are automatically eligible for enrollment in other income-qualified programs. -Geographic eligibility: Eligibility is based on the customer’s location within a specified area, typically a low-income or disadvantaged community or census tract, and; -“Self-attestation”: The participant claims eligibility with or without further documentation. We describe these options, their pros and cons, give examples of how they are used, and explore how some low-income programs address administrative issues, audits, or other quality control measures. Finally, we explore the risk of mistaken verifications (finding a participant eligible when they are not) in the different strategies. While this memo was initiated by a request relating to income-based community solar programs, the methods are applicable to any program with income eligibility requirements in the energy or non-energy sector. Funding was provided for this research by the Solar Energy Technologies Office of the US Department of Energy, through the National Community Solar Partnership.
14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
Direct Feed Low Activity Waste Program Integration - 16638
The mission of Program Integration is to champion and steer the development and implementation of common and consistent programs between the Tank Operating Contract (TOC) contractor and the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) contractor. TOC is managed by Washington River Protection Solutions LLC (WRPS) and WTP is managed by Bechtel National, Inc. (BNI). The DOE Office of River Protection (DOE ORP) is the Program Owner. WRPS has been actively managing the TOC at the Hanford Site Tank Farms (TF) since 2008. Programs are already developed, verified, and in use for the TOC, whereas WTP is still in the construction phase. WTP Programs are established for construction only, but not developed for commissioning and future operations. An extensive effort is underway at WTP to develop commissioning programs. In order to drive consistency and minimize differences in program requirements between TF, which will feed the tank waste, and WTP, which will receive and treat the tank waste, DOE-ORP requires the two contractors to integrate and collaborate in program development. Advantages of integration are: - Achieves cost and time savings as WTP is able to review existing TOC programs as starting points in development of its programs. - Promotes interfaces with industry counterparts to share experiences, issues, and lessons learned. ? Minimizes difference in program requirements between the companies. - Helps prepare for and ultimately succeed in Operational Readiness Reviews (ORR). Program Integration is a priority for TOC and WTP, and in order to maintain the focus and drive to this effort, a unified One System Program Integration Council (OSPIC) was created in 2012. Membership of the OSPIC consists of senior managers from both companies and the OSPIC chair's report directly to their respective President. Thirty (30) programs are subject to integration, including but not limited to Conduct of Operations, Worker Safety and Health, Quality Assurance, Contractor Assurance, and Environmental Management. Progress of program development and integration efforts are tracked and monitored, and barriers to integration are resolved in a collaborative fashion within both companies. (authors)
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
Transition of Site Programs and Implementation of Decommissioning Agent Oversight - 18653
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), acting as the Decommissioning Agent (DA), retained its NRC License and contracted a Decommissioning General Contractor (DGC) to manage plant programs and execute the Demolition and Dismantlement (D and D) of the site. To support this effort, over twenty-one programs transitioned to the DGC, including Occupational Health and Safety, Radiation Protection, Maintenance, and Engineering. In addition, SONGS effected a cultural shift from an operating station performing work to one of overseeing it. The framework and road map for this kind of D and D model is new to the industry. This presentation shares the SONGS' experience and lessons learned associated with this transition. SONGS and the DGC entered an Agreement that established the contractual requirements and responsibilities of the parties, the Scope of Work, and the mechanisms to ensure effective transition of DA programs. As a part of defining the Scope of Work, the contract established functional areas and divisions of responsibilities divided into the roles of Governance, Oversight, Support, and Performance (GOSP). SONGS, as the site licensee, retained the Oversight Role, with exception of those areas that, as the licensee, would be considered 'non-transferrable'. Examples of those programs were Quality Assurance, Regulatory Affairs and the Employee Concerns Program. While the Company retained responsibility for those programs the DGC developed their own 'parallel' programs that the Company provided Oversight for. In 2017, SONGS completed program transition within one-year following the notice-to-proceed. The overall strategy was driven by three high-level principles: - Allow the DGC the most unfettered execution of the Scope of Work with limited interference and maximum self-governance. With the overriding principle that transitioned programs have a direct link to a basis in regulation or law. - Identify safety and compliance risks, and then bridge the transition of programs from the SONGS to the DGC such that identified risks are minimized and/or mitigated. - Allow the SONGS organization to transition from a Performance role to a primarily Oversight role as the DA. Working collaboratively with the DGC, programs were strategically grouped and sequenced for turnover. Central to the success of transition was fostering a collaborative environment with the DGC, facilitating knowledge transfer, applying schedule rigor, and keeping the team horizontally and vertically aligned to management expectations. SONGS achieved this alignment by embedding the formal process with management expectations for review and acceptance of proposed programs. SONGS' transitioned core programs to a general contractor and transition from a 'perform' organization to an 'oversight' organization. Lessons learned from this experience may benefit other nuclear generating station owners currently evaluating options for site D and D. (author)
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
Use of Historical EM Practices and Policies for Management of Cleanup Program and Address GAO Concerns - 20222
As Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Management (EM) program policies and management practices are revised over time, it might be useful to periodically reflect on the DOE EM program's past to identify practices that have worked and those that might be appropriate for possible reuse in the future. An added impetus to examine alternative approaches is the recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled 'Nuclear Waste Cleanup - DOE Could Improve Program and Project Management by Better Classifying Work and Following Leading Practices.' The February 2019 GAO report states that EM categorizes most of its work in a way that does not adequately involve independent experts and DOE senior leadership. It also noted that EM has not followed leading practices for program and project management that could help keep the cleanup efforts on schedule and control costs. The GAO report recommended that EM, working with DOE Office of Project Management (PM): - Establish requirements and then assess EM's ongoing operations activities to determine if some activities should be reclassified as capital asset projects based on these newly established requirements. - Review and revise EM's 2017 cleanup policy to include program management leading practices related to scope, cost, schedule performance, and independent reviews. - Update the cleanup policy to require that earned value management (EVM) systems be maintained and used in a way that follows EVM best practices. - Develop a policy to ensure that work is categorized as level of effort (LOE) only in appropriate, specified circumstances, such as when work is not measurable or when measurement is impractical. - Integrate EVM data into EM's performance metrics for operations activities. To assist with improving program performance and implementing audit recommendations, this paper reviewed past successful cleanups such as Weldon Springs, Rocky Flats, Fernald, Ashtabula, Battelle Columbus (abs, and other historical resources and people with experience during the early years of EM program. As such, there are several past practices which may well be suited for reuse today. Some of these practices include: - In 1990's, as the DOE EM cleanup program, known as Environmental Restoration came into effect, the known cleanup scope at each geographic location or site was organized into four levels ranging from overall site-wide cleanup effort to the individual 'release sites', providing high granularity to the program. - The cleanup program was organized by geography (Northwest, Southwest, Eastern Area Programs, etc.). These 'sub-program' managers provided a degree of Headquarters oversight and management allowing upper management (EM-1, 2, and 3) to focus on major decisions and issues. - Budget levels at selected cleanup sites were funded above 'minimum-safety' levels to accelerate actual cleanup work. - Past practice utilized EVM techniques and uniform EM oversight over all discrete project-like activities, providing for a coordinated cleanup effort. - EM managed LOE activities using benchmarking and best in class management practice techniques to help manage costs. - EM managed and reviewed entire site cleanup baselines, not only individual projects, focusing on a successful overall outcome. - Sites had a 'Road map' or 'Management Action Plan' that provided the overall strategy or plan for that site's cleanup - this helped with understanding and coordination of efforts. - EM had a robust lessons-learned program and database to capture and transmit worthy ideas. - EM had well-structured cleanup baseline change control policies to control cost and schedule changes, at the contractor and higher Headquarters levels. Finally, some of the GAO observations may be valid, however it is not clear as to their extent. For example, for some operation types of work, the use of the Level of Effort (LOE) earned value method to track progress may be appropriate. Also, to ensure independence of thought, and to obtain useful insight on past practices, it may be suitable to have former EM employees to assist with understanding past practices or to verify that activities have been properly identified. (authors)
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
Jointly Sponsored Research Program on Energy Related Research
Cooperative Agreements, DE-FC26-08NT43293, DOE-WRI Cooperative Research and Development Program for Fossil Energy-Related Resources began in June 2009. The goal of the Program was to develop, commercialize, and deploy technologies of value to the nation’s fossil and renewable energy industries. To ensure relevancy and early commercialization, the involvement of an industrial partner was encouraged. In that regard, the Program stipulated that a minimum of 20% cost share be achieved in a fiscal year. This allowed WRI to carry a diverse portfolio of technologies and projects at various development technology readiness levels. Depending upon the maturity of the research concept and technology, cost share for a given task ranged from none to as high as 67% (two-thirds). Over the course of the Program, a total of twenty six tasks were proposed for DOE approval. Over the period of performance of the Cooperative agreement, WRI has put in place projects utilizing a total of $\$$7,089,581 in USDOE funds. Against this funding, cosponsors have committed $\$$7,398,476 in private funds to produce a program valued at $\$$14,488,057. Tables 1 and 2 presented at the end of this section is a compilation of the funding for all the tasks conducted under the program. The goal of the Cooperative Research and Development Program for Fossil Energy-Related Resources was to through collaborative research with the industry, develop or assist in the development of innovative technology solutions that will: • Increase the production of United States energy resources – coal, natural gas, oil, and renewable energy resources; • Enhance the competitiveness of United States energy technologies in international markets and assist in technology transfer; • Reduce the nation's dependence on foreign energy supplies and strengthen both the United States and regional economies; and • Minimize environmental impacts of energy production and utilization. Success of the Program can be measured by several criteria. Using the deployment of the federal funding with industrial participation as a performance criterion, over the course of the program, the cosponsors contributed more dollars than the federal funds. As stated earlier, a little more than half of the funding for the Program was derived from industrial partners. The industrial partners also enthusiastically supported the research and development activities with cash contribution of $\$$4,710,372.67, nearly 65% of the required cost share. Work on all of the tasks proposed under the Cooperative Agreement has been completed. This report summarizes and highlights the results from the Program. Under the Cooperative Agreement Program, energy-related tasks emphasized petroleum processing, upgrading and characterization, coal and biomass beneficiation and upgrading, coal combustion systems development including oxy-combustion, emissions monitoring and abatement, coal gasification technologies including gas clean-up and conditioning, hydrogen and liquid fuels production, and the development of technologies for the utilization of renewable energy resources. Environmental-related activities emphasized cleaning contaminated soils using microbial fuel cells, development of processes and sorbents for emissions reduction and recovery of water from power plant flue gas, and biological carbon capture and reuse. Technology enhancement activities included resource characterization studies, development of improved methods, monitors and sensors. In general the goals of the tasks proposed were to enhance competitiveness of U.S. technology, increase production of domestic resources, and reduce environmental impacts associated with energy production and utilization. Technologies being brought to commercialization as a result of the funds provided by the Cooperative Agreement contribute to the overall goals of the USDOE and the nation. Each has broad applicability both within the United States and abroad, thereby helping to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. energy technologies in international markets and assisting in technology transfer. Under the Cooperative Agreement Program, WRI has furthered the development of two different coal upgrading technologies. River Basin Energy technology was scaled-up and demonstrated at a nominal 40 tpd size. Similarly, WRI’s patented mercury removal technology further developed into WRITE Coal technology which was then integrated into oxy-combustion and gasification systems for IGCC and fuels production. Integrated systems with WRITE Coal technology applied at the front end represent substantial environmental and efficiency gains. A variation of the RBE coal upgrading technology is being commercialized as a torrefaction technology for woody biomass. WRI worked with EPRI and NIST to develop and improve mercury calibration standards for emissions monitoring. Working with Chart Energy and Chemicals, WRI scaled-up compact reactor technology for the synthesis of fuels and chemicals from syngas. Compact reactor technology represents a five-fold increase in productivity over conventional reactors making smaller-scale distributed synthesis plants an economical viability. Similarly, WRI's patented mixed alcohol synthesis catalyst production is being scaled-up in collaboration with a commercial catalyst manufacturer.
99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
Beyond Widgets: Validated Systems Energy Savings and Utility Custom Incentive Program Systems Trends
Energy efficiency upgrades to buildings to date through avenues such as utility incentive programs have been largely limited to component-based products (e.g., lamps, RTUs). While some utilities do provide ‘custom’ incentive programs with whole building and system level technical assistance, these programs require deeper levels of analysis, resulting in higher program costs. This results in custom programs being restricted to utilities with greater resources, and are typically applied mainly to large or energy-intensive facilities, leaving much of the market without cost effective access and incentives for these solutions. In addition, with increasingly stringent energy codes, cost effective component-based solutions that achieve significant savings are dwindling. Integrated building systems (e.g., integrated façade, HVAC and/or lighting solutions) can deliver higher savings (Regnier et al. 2017) that translate into large sector-wide savings if deployed at the scale of these programs. However, systems application poses a number of challenges – energy savings assessments are inherently more complex and are not easily suited to the deemed measure model, and implementation of systems can be more disruptive. This paper presents the outcomes of a project to develop validated utility incentive program packages for three specific integrated building systems, in collaboration with ComEd, a consortium of California Public Owned Utilities (CA POUs) (Northern California Power Agency(NCPA) and the Southern California Public Power Authority(SCPPA)), and Xcel Energy (CO, MN). Previous work described the potential for energy savings of these systems at the individual and market level, early test findings for the task-ambient lighting system, and described the work products to develop utility incentive programs (Regnier et al. 2016). This paper presents validated end use energy savings of all three systems showing energy savings of ~20% for automated shading combined with daylight dimming (does not include light fixture retrofit savings); 30-46% for task-ambient lighting systems combined with plug load occupancy controls, depending on technology package and office building size (no daylight dimming impacts); and ~94% in the south-façade daylit zone for workstation specific lighting systems with daylight dimming (including lighting retrofit and task tuning). Using a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reference building model (DOE 2018), this translates to whole building savings of 2-5% (large-medium commercial), 12-23% (large-small commercial), and 13-15% (medium-large commercial) for these systems respectively. Early findings from the utilities in deploying these systems through their incentive programs indicate that deployment methods such as direct install programs might be best suited for these integrated systems. Further, early findings from a scoping study across custom utility programs and federal retrofit programs indicate that component level retrofits are still prevalent even in these programs, pointing towards an opportunity for deeper energy savings deployment. High performance retrofit case studies demonstrate that deeper energy savings is possible through integrated approaches. Market stakeholder interviews indicate however that there is generally a low level of awareness of the potential for energy savings of these three integrated systems.
32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
Estimating the cost of saving electricity through U.S. utility customer-funded energy efficiency programs
The program administrator and total cost of saved energy allow comparison of the cost of efficiency across utilities, states, and program types, and can identify potential performance improvements. Comparing program administrator cost with the total cost of saved energy can indicate the degree to which programs leverage investment by participants. Based on reported total costs and savings information for U.S. utility efficiency programs from 2009 to 2013, here we estimate the savings-weighted average total cost of saved electricity across 20 states at 0.046 per kilowatt-hour (kW h), comparing favorably with energy supply costs and retail rates. Programs targeted on the residential market averaged 0.030 per kW h compared to 0.053 per kW h for non-residential programs. Lighting programs, with an average total cost of 0.018 per kW h, drove lower savings costs in the residential market. We provide estimates for the most common program types and find that program administrators and participants on average are splitting the costs of efficiency in half. More consistent, standardized and complete reporting on efficiency programs is needed. Differing definitions and quantification of costs, savings and savings lifetimes pose challenges for comparing program results. Reducing these uncertainties could increase confidence in efficiency as a resource among planners and policymakers.
32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
Vehicle Technologies and Fuel Cell Technologies Program: Prospective Benefits Assessment Report for Fiscal Year 2016
Under a diverse set of programs, the Vehicle Technologies and Fuel Cell Technologies offices of DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy invest in research, development, demonstration, and deployment of advanced vehicle, hydrogen production, delivery and storage, and fuel cell technologies. This report estimates the benefits of successfully developing and deploying these technologies (a “Program Success” case) relative to a base case (the “No Program” case). The Program Success case represents the future with completely successful deployment of Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) and Fuel Cell Technologies Office (FCTO) technologies. The No Program case represents a future in which there is no contribution after FY 2016 by the VTO or FCTO to these technologies. The benefits of advanced vehicle, hydrogen production, delivery and storage, and fuel cell technologies were estimated on the basis of differences in fuel use, primary energy use, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, including energy and emissions from fuel production, between the base case and the Program Success case. Improvements in fuel economy of various vehicle types, growth in the stock of fuel cell vehicles and other advanced technology vehicles, and decreased GHG intensity of hydrogen production and delivery in the Program Success case over the No Program case were projected to result in savings in petroleum use and GHG emissions. Benefits were disaggregated by individual program technology areas, which included the FCTO program and the VTO subprograms of batteries and electric drives; advanced combustion engines; fuels and lubricants; materials (for reduction in vehicle mass, or “lightweighting”); and, for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, reduction in rolling and aerodynamic resistance. Projections for the Program Success case indicate that by 2035, the average fuel economy of on-road, light-duty vehicle stock could be 47% to 76% higher than in the No Program case. On-road medium- and heavy-duty vehicle stock could be as much as 39% higher. The resulting petroleum savings in 2035 were estimated to be as high as 3.1 million barrels per day, and reductions in GHG emissions were estimated to be as high as 500 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year. The benefits of continuing to invest government resources in advanced vehicle and fuel cell technologies would have significant economic value in the U.S. transportation sector and reduce its dependency on oil and its vulnerability to oil price shocks.
33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗