Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Hoffman, Edward

Publications and source records attributed to Hoffman, Edward.

14 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

NE-COST plug-in: Expanding ACCERT's Capabilities for Life-Cycle Cost Modeling

The Algorithm for the Capital Cost Estimation of Reactor Technologies (ACCERT) is a structured methodology and software tool designed to simplify and standardize cost estimation for nuclear reactor technologies [1]. By utilizing a relational database structure and modular cost estimation algorithms, ACCERT delivers a robust, flexible, and scalable framework for evaluating costs across various reactor types and configurations [2]. The recent integration of the NE-COST plugin further expands ACCERT’s scope by introducing detailed life-cycle cost modeling and probabilistic analysis of uncertainties. This addition enables users to evaluate costs across front-end processes such as uranium enrichment and fabrication, as well as back-end activities including waste disposal and geologic storage. Through Monte Carlo statistical cost simulations, the plugin provides probabilistic insights into cost ranges, offering critical decision-making support for stakeholders including reactor developers, policymakers, and researchers.

Zhou, Jia↗
DOE OSTI2024

Meta-Analysis of Advanced Nuclear Reactor Cost Estimations

Supporting Data can be downloaded at: https://gain.inl.gov/content/uploads/4/2024/06/INL-RPT-24-77048-R1.xlsx Nuclear energy is a critical cornerstone of the current United States clean energy supply and may play a larger role in the future in support of a transition to a net-zero economy. The current fleet of nuclear reactors predominantly consists of large light-water reactors (LWRs), while many of the reactor designs under consideration are smaller and/or different technologies. Because these new designs have not yet been built, there is a high degree of uncertainty associated with their cost. This complicates energy-planning efforts because cost projections are not always standardized, consistent, and centralized in an easily accessible location. To help support energy planning in the US, this report provides advanced nuclear cost ranges using a transparent methodology along with other relevant information that can be used to help support decision making and energy planning. The purpose of this work was to conduct a methodical process for cost evaluation using only public information that was vetted with the end-goal to provide reference cost projections for nuclear energy. To provide a solid basis for these values, the approach and assumptions are explicitly laid out throughout the report allowing any user of the data to challenge or reconsider them. Because future US nuclear-reactor costs are still unknown due to little recent observed data, the report opted to compile a comprehensive list of bottom-up estimates and evaluate averages/trends within the data to identify reference ranges. This was deemed preferable to opining on the robustness or validity of one cost estimation versus another. To that end, the work evaluated thousands of lines of cost subaccounts from several bottom-up cost estimates. A wide variety of different reactor types captured in the data are of various sizes and technologies. Some of these reactors will be representative of advanced reactors under development while others will not. Thus, the results here are dependent on the data that are available and the accuracy of the estimates that are used. Each bottom-up estimate was reviewed to determine whether it was complete. Incomplete data sets were corrected to ensure an adequate basis of cross-comparison. The report is not without limitations and should be interpreted as an initial step to develop cost ranges for nuclear technology. Ultimately, future work can build upon the methodology with refined cost estimates to reduce uncertainty. US-based overnight capital cost (OCC) estimates were compiled from extensive data sets into ranges for both large and small reactor sizes for 2030. To project the cost declines over time, learning rates were sampled from literature sources. No SMRs were previously built; hence, learning rates based on bottom-up approaches (e.g., by quantifying the impact stemming from fabrication of different components, modular work, site construction, commissioning) were prioritized. For larger reactors, actual learning rates from deployments were used to project future costs (adjusted to account for standardization or lack thereof between designs). Other costs included are fixed and variable operations and maintenance costs. The final variables were capacity factors and ramp rates to support energy planning.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis Report: Supporting Document 7 Presentation: Du and RU Disposal Costs [Slides]

Worldwide DU and RU in various chemical forms are some of the largest legacy products of the nuclear industry (defense & power) in both mass and volume. Chemical forms include U metal or alloy, UF6, UO2, UO3, U3O8, and UF4. Most of this material is now in above ground storage. Due to chemical stability and low water solubility oxides are the preferred form for safe storage and ultimate disposal. Long term U disposal in large amounts presents more of a potential radioactivity problem than its conversion and temporary storage. Now a near term problem with freshly-mined uranium ore, radon emanation will eventually be a long-term problem for both DU and RU dispositioned in large quantities at a specific location.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis Report: Supporting Document 5 Considerations on Learning

Learning refers here to the increased experience associated to each new build of a given type of fuel cycle facility, which results generally in design improvements, increased construction and operational efficiencies and reduced mistakes, and therefore in reduced costs. These are important considerations, for example, when modeling transitions from first-of-a-kind (FOAK) to nth-of-a-kind (NOAK) nuclear facilities and deciding the magnitude of the cost reduction (if any) to be applied to each successive build. Different assumptions on learning can significantly affect the results of the economic analyses during transitions. Other competing electricity-generation technologies, such as wind and solar power for example, have demonstrated substantial cost reductions through learning during the last few decades.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis Report: Supporting Document 6 A Proposed Methodology for Transformation of Reactor Cost Data to the ‘What-It-Takes’ Table

Note: This document represents work undertaken to refine the CBR approach for arriving at recommended cost values for the reactor sub-modules. This information is provided to indicate the possible direction of evolution in future CBR updates and encourage comments from CBR users. Since this document was developed concurrent with many of the following R-modules, the methodology was applied only in the analysis of the fast reactor (Module R2) data. In future revisions an attempt will be made to use this methodology uniformly.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Safeguarding Commercial Breed and Burn Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactors

A new class of reactors is under development in the United States. These new reactor designs use fast neutron spectra and rely on fuel technology advancements to reach fleet-wide operating conditions where neither enrichment nor reprocessing fuel are required to sustain or grow the fleet. Achieving this level of operation requires nuclear fuel that can remain in the reactor environment for much longer than current limits. The transfer of irradiated fuel is also required as the initial fissile source for new and replacement reactors. This class of reactors is known as breed and burn reactors and can be deployed as a fleet whereby the transfer of fuel is used to power subsequent generations of reactors. The use of breed and burn reactors reduces, and potentially eliminates, the need for enrichment and reprocessing to sustain a reactor fleet. Currently, enrichment and reprocessing plants require extremely complicated safeguards implementation and offer States diversion pathways for indirect use material. By eliminating the need for these facilities, a nuclear power fleet based on the BREED AND BURN reactor concept has the potential to indirectly reduce the burden on IAEA safeguards. However, this complex dynamic system does pose new safeguards challenges that are explored further in this report.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Dakota Graphical User Interface v.6.14

Dakota GUI is a graphical analysis environment for Sandia’s Dakota software for optimization and uncertainty quantification. This version of the Dakota GUI includes new functionality such as plotting capabilities, Eclipse-based resource management, and integration with the SAW-IF Next Gen Workflow editor. Sandia National Laboratories is a multimission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-NA0003525. SAND2021-10629 O

Glickman, Matthew↗
NASA NTRS2010

Forum on Workforce Development

APPEL Mission: To support NASA's mission by promoting individual, team, and organizational excellence in program/project management and engineering through the application of learning strategies, methods, models, and tools. Goals: a) Provide a common frame of reference for NASA s technical workforce. b) Provide and enhance critical job skills. c) Support engineering, program and project teams. d) Promote organizational learning across the agency. e) Supplement formal educational programs.

Hoffman, Edward↗
NASA NTRS2010

International Project Management Committee: Overview and Activities

This slide presentation discusses the purpose and composition of the International Project Management Committee (IMPC). The IMPC was established by members of 15 space agencies, companies and professional organizations. The goal of the committee is to establish a means to share experiences and best practices with space project/program management practitioners at the global level. The space agencies that are involved are: AEB, DLR, ESA, ISRO, JAXA, KARI, and NASA. The industrial and professional organizational members are Comau, COSPAR, PMI, and Thales Alenia Space.

Hoffman, Edward↗
NASA NTRS2002

Something Special

There is plenty of interest and excitement in APPL's (Academy of Program and Project Leadership) KS (Knowledge Sharing) effort. We have received numerous requests for members of the KS Team to give presentations about what we're doing. A recent Knowledge Management Roundtable at NASA Headquarters drew record-setting attendance for the event. A few weeks later, I was invited to give a presentation for the Census Bureau. Ron Taylor, a senior leader of the organization, had requested the presentation. I was looking forward to a group of about 20 people or so. As it turned out, the auditorium was packed. Nearly 300 people were in attendance. They were excited about what we're doing and wanted to pick my brain as to how they could establish something like our KS effort in their organization.

Hoffman, Edward↗
NASA NTRS2002

Sounds like Team Spirit

I recently accompanied my son Dan to one of his guitar lessons. As I sat in a separate room, I focused on the music he was playing and the beautiful, robust sound that comes from a well-played guitar. Later that night, I woke up around 3 am. I tend to have my best thoughts at this hour. The trouble is I usually roll over and fall back asleep. This time I was still awake an hour later, so I got up and jotted some notes down in my study. I was thinking about the pure, honest sound of a well-played instrument. From there my mind wandered into the realm of high-performance teams and successful projects. (I know this sounds weird, but this is the sort of thing I think about at 3 am. Maybe you have your own weird thoughts around that time.) Consider a team in relation to music. It seems to me that a crack team can achieve a beautiful, perfect unity in the same way that a band of brilliant musicians can when they're in harmony with one another. With more than a little satisfaction I have to admit, I started to think about the great work performed for you by the Knowledge Sharing team, including this magazine you are reading. Over the past two years I personally have received some of my greatest pleasures as the APPL Director from the Knowledge Sharing activities - the Masters Forums, NASA Center visits, ASK Magazine. The Knowledge Sharing team expresses such passion for their work, just like great musicians convey their passion in the music they play. In the case of Knowledge Sharing, there are many factors that have made this so enjoyable (and hopefully worthwhile for NASA). Three ingredients come to mind -- ingredients that have produced a signature sound. First, through the crazy, passionate playing of Alex Laufer, Michelle Collins, Denise Lee, and Todd Post, I always know that something startling and original is going to come out of their activities. This team has consistently done things that are unique and innovative. For me, best of all is that they are always trying to improve on what they've done before. Second, success in any endeavor stems from people who know how to interpret a composition to sound beautiful when played in a different style. For Knowledge Sharing to work, it must be adapted, reinterpreted, shaped and played with at the centers. In this regard, we've been blessed with another crazy, passionate, inspired artist named Claire Smith. Claire has turned Ames Research Center in California into APPL-west. She is so good and committed to what she does that I just refer people to her whenever they have questions about implementing project management development at the field level. Finally, any great effort requires talented people working behind the scenes, the people who formulate a business approach and know how to manage the money so that the music gets heard. I have known many brilliant and creative people with a ton of ideas that never take off due to an inability to work the business. Again, the Knowledge Sharing team has been fortunate to have competent and passionate people, specifically Tony Maturo and his procurement team at Goddard Space Flight Center, to make sure the process is in place to support the effort. This kind of support is every bit as crucial as the activity itself, and the efforts and creativity that go into successful procurement and contracting is a vital ingredient of this successful team.

Hoffman, Edward↗