SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “venture capitalists”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

4 records

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2022

Contech to Accelerate Cleantech: Seeding Emerging Innovation Programs for Construction Productivity and Energy Efficiency Integration; Preprint

Investments in U.S.-based start-ups that focus on advanced building construction technologies to increase construction productivity (contech) surged to approximately $3.1 billion in 2018 (as per Crunchbase data). More recently, emerging programs by government funding agencies, philanthropic foundations, and venture capitalists have been instrumental in supporting contech start-ups for innovations that increase productivity of energy efficiency integration and accelerate clean energy technologies (cleantech) for the buildings sector. These programs include R&D support and funding mechanisms for contech and cleantech. Traditionally, contech and cleantech are considered as two different innovation ecosystems. To enhance and scale up energy efficiency in buildings, creative programs that bring together contech and cleantech are critical. This paper provides a landscape assessment of the "contech-for-cleantech" innovation ecosystem in the U.S. and its impact in accelerating technology readiness and the development pipeline of "contech-for-cleantech". Technologies highlighted are robotics for retrofits, prefabrication of energy-efficient products, and advanced manufacturing of low-carbon net-zero buildings construction. Programs discussed include those led by (1) government funding agencies: American-Made Challenges with prizes like E-ROBOT for retrofits with robotics, (2) philanthropic foundations: Wells Fargo Innovation Incubator (IN2) that includes focus on energy efficiency and prefabrication, and (3) venture capitalists: Shadow Ventures Green Building Accelerator program which provides funding support to start-ups with ambitious plans for decarbonizing the built environment. This paper will also expand upon robust processes and criteria involved in judging and down-selection of start-ups through vetting and feedback from national lab researchers and industry experts in both cleantech and contech.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2024

Supporting ARPA-E Power Grid Optimization (Final Report)

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Arizona State University (ASU), Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech), Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Texas A&M University (TAMU), The University of Texas at Austin (UT), and the University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW-M) supported the ARPA-E Grid Optimization (GO) Competition by providing a common problem formulation, data format, datasets, evaluation mechanism, scoring, rules, and results that resulted in the awarding of $\$9.24$ million dollars to teams from academia, industry, and national labs for solving three sets of increasingly difficult non-linear, security- constrained AC Optimal Powerflow (AC-OPF) optimization problems in order to increase the efficiency of the US Electric Grid. It is estimated that a 1% increase in efficiency can save $\$1$ billion. Current industry practices typically use a linear DC model (DC-OPF) in order solve the OPF problem within the time constraints of the operation schedule. The GO Competition challenges the best power engineers, mathematicians, and computer scientists to make possible operational decisions based on accurate physical models. To accomplish this, the GO Competition created a series of Challenges and funded teams to produce the best solver. Challenge 1 was to solve the security constrained Alternating Current Optimal Power Flow (ACOPF) problem. Challenge 2 extended that to by adding adjustable transformer tap ratios, phase shifting transformers, switchable shunts, price-responsive demand, ramp rate constrained generators and loads, and fast-start unit commitment (UC). Furthermore, Challenge 2 was a maximization problem while Challenge 1 was a minimization problem. While Challenge 3 was being developed, the entrants were invited to find better solutions to the Challenge 2 synthetic datasets with no restrictions on time, hardware, or algorithms. The Challenge 2 solutions turned out to be very good. Challenge 3 expanded the Challenge 2 problem further by using multiperiod dynamic markets, including advisory models for extreme weather events, day-ahead markets, and the real-time markets with an extended look-ahead. These problems included active bid-in demand and topology optimization. Together the Challenges used nearly 30 million CPU hours. Since each team was working on the same problem, using the same data, and running on the same hardware, fair comparisons could be drawn as to the best solver. The datasets were varied enough, however, that the best solver for one dataset was not necessarily the best at another, so cumulative scores were used. The process was managed by the PNNL maintained website https://GOCompetition.energy.gov, where Entrants could find information about the problem, the data, the rules, submit their solver for evaluation, and see the scores of all the competing teams on a Leaderboard. Interest was world-wide but only American teams were eligible for prizes. The Competition has produced 34 journal articles 115 papers and been cited over 500 times in the literature, including 12 dissertations (4 from foreign countries; Columbia (2), Germany, and Italy) and 3 from the DOE ExaScale project. Software developed by Pearl Street Technologies for Challenges 1 and 2 is now deployed by Southwest Power Pool (SPP) and Midcontinent Independent Service Operator (MISO). Other teams have received inquiries from venture capitalists. Google DeepMind has thanked the Competition for making the datasets developed for the Competition public. They are using it to train machine learning models. The larger datasets have billions of unknowns to be solved for, but only a small percent matter in the final solution. Knowing what unknowns are important can dramatically speedup the solution.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

X-57 Systems Engineering Lessons Learned

The X-57 Maxwell is an electric aircraft based on a 4-passenger, twin engine Tecnam P2006T General Aviation aircraft. The X-57 project originally envisioned a straightforward integration of commercial-off-the-shelf hardware components and software into a novel configuration to demonstrate the aerodynamic and performance benefits of Distributed Electric Propulsion (DEP). The project was initially started with a high-risk venture capitalist approach under NASA’s Convergent Aeronautics Solutions (CAS) project, which led to an initial philosophy of Project Management “light” (which was then interpreted as Systems Engineering (SE) “light”). As the project matured, it was forced to transition to one with increasing SE-rigor as the project scope changed, hardware and software deficiencies were found, and the team realized the magnitude of the technical and integration challenges. In hindsight, these technical challenges came in part from an overly optimistic technology readiness assessment (TRA) at the beginning of the project, which resulted in the project assuming that little to no subsystem development would be required. The project’s approach to systems engineering evolved throughout three separate informal phases of the project as it underwent two key transitions as a result of the team wrestling with the technical challenges and resultant changing project scope. This paper discusses the assumptions, approaches, and challenges encountered from a Systems Engineering standpoint in each of the three informal phases of the X-57 project. This paper also provides recommendations on how future projects can apply Systems Engineering best practices upfront along with a realistic TRA to aid projects that find themselves with similar challenges.

Systems Engineering↗

NASA NTRS1995

Entrepreneurship within General Aviation

Many modern economic theories place great importance upon entrepreneurship in the economy. Some see the entrepreneur as the individual who bears risk of operating a business in the face of uncertainty about future conditions and who is rewarded through profits and losses. The 20th century economist Joseph Schumpter saw the entrepreneur as the medium by which advancing technology is incorporated into society as businesses seek competitive advantages through more efficient product development processes. Due to the importance that capitalistic systems place upon entrepreneurship, it has become a well studied subject with many texts to discuss how entrepreneurs can succeed in modern society. Many entrepreneuring and business management courses go so far as to discuss the characteristic phases and prominent challenges that fledgling companies face in their efforts to bring a new product into a competitive market. However, even with all of these aids, start-up companies fail at an enormous rate. Indeed, the odds of shepherding a new company through the travails of becoming a well established company (as measured by the ability to reach Initial Public Offering (IPO)) have been estimated to be six in 1,000,000. Each niche industry has characteristic challenges which act as barriers to entry for new products into that industry. Thus, the applicability of broad generalizations is subject to limitations within niche markets. This paper will discuss entrepreneurship as it relates to general aviation. The goals of this paper will be to: introduce general aviation; discuss the details of marrying entrepreneurship with general aviation; and present a sample business plan which would characterize a possible entrepreneurial venture.

Ullmann, Brian M.↗