Engineering topics

Sullivan, Greg

Publications and source records attributed to Sullivan, Greg.

7 records

DOE OSTI2018

Energy Efficiency and Infrastructure Upgrades on Nuclear Clean-up Sites: The Hanford Experience - 18641

The Hanford site, located in southeastern Washington, produced much of our nation's weapons-grade plutonium for the Defense nuclear weapons program. This production lasted the better part of four decades with production ending in 1987. Since 1987, the focus of the Hanford site has turned to clean-up activities. Mission Support Alliance (MSA) is the integrator of the multi-contractor effort to clean up the Hanford site. MSA collaborates with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and all Hanford site contractors in finding and implementing new, cost-saving, safe and practical solutions to cleanup challenges with a continual focus on innovative processes and technologies that reduce costs, energy use and bring safety improvements to the site. Support Services include environmental integration and land management; fleet and road maintenance; water/electric and utilities; cyber security and information management as well as the preservation of the site's cultural artifacts. This paper describes the process, challenges, and focus on infrastructure upgrade and energy efficiency projects in the context of a multi-contractor nuclear clean-up site. Project development and new technology deployment at Hanford has long been plagued with economic challenges. For example, despite extensive auditing, analysis, and project development, most of the energy-related projects on the Hanford site have gone unfunded due to the low cost of electricity, the relatively high cost of labor, and costs associated with detailed safety and cultural reviews. - The Hanford site is a direct-service customer of the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and has a marginal electricity rate of $0.033/kWh. - Labor costs on the Hanford site track high because of the requirements associated with the safety and security necessary to operate a legacy nuclear weapons complex. - In partnership with three federally recognized and other affected Native American tribes (Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Nez Perce Tribe, and Wanapum People), most activities on the Hanford site are afforded in-depth cultural reviews. To work within these constraints, the MSA Energy Management team has embarked on a three-pronged approach to energy project development: Program Visibility: The MSA Energy Management team has promoted both project opportunities and requirements across the Hanford site. This information comes in the form of site-wide newsletters, group meetings, e-mails, success stories, and recognition of staff. Single-point Analysis: To by-pass the inevitable duplications of effort, learning curve issues, and to improve project consistency/delivery, the MSA Energy Management team serves as the single resource to the site for energy project analysis. This resource includes initial assessment, engineering analysis, efficiency calculation and project recommendations. Contractor/utility Interface: In addition to the infrastructure under its own purview, MSA provides all support services for the contractor/utility interface. These activities include formulation and submission of incentive-based efficiency projects, project tracking, and incentive awards. All incentive awards are forwarded to the relevant contractor and then highlighted in the visibility campaign. Successful energy efficiency projects at Hanford have included high efficiency heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) systems, interior and exterior lighting/lighting control systems, pump and motor systems, and the right-sizing of transformers and area-wide electrical distribution systems. Prior to the initiation of this program and structure (roughly 3 years ago) the average annual energy efficiency incentive applied for and received was under $10,000, with an annual energy savings of approximately 36,000 kilowatt hours (kWh). In fiscal year 2017, the annual incentive received was over $419,000, with identified energy savings of over 1.3 million kWh. Details and case studies of the major project accomplishments are included. The success of this program can be traced to an understanding of the constraints, the development of a program to address these constraints, and good communication/coordination across DOE and the multiple contractors serving the Hanford site. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2017

Connected Equipment Maturity Model Version 1.0

The Connected Equipment Maturity Model (CEMM) evaluates the high-level functionality and characteristics that enable equipment to provide the four categories of energy-related services through communication with other entities (e.g., equipment, third parties, utilities, and users). The CEMM will help the U.S. Department of Energy, industry, energy efficiency organizations, and research institutions benchmark the current state of connected equipment and identify capabilities that may be attained to reach a more advanced, future state.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2016

Evaluation of Cellular Shades in the PNNL Lab Homes

This report examines the energy performance of cellular shade window coverings in a matched pair of all-electric, factory-built “Lab Homes” located on the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) campus in Richland, Washington. The 1500-square-foot homes were identical in construction and baseline performance, which allowed any difference in energy and thermal performance between the baseline home and the experimental home to be attributed to the retrofit technology installed in the experimental home. To assess the performance of high efficiency window attachments in a residential retrofit application, the building shell air leakage, energy use, and interior temperatures of each home were compared during the 2015 -2016 winter heating and summer cooling seasons. Hunter Douglas Duette® Architella® Trielle™ opaque honeycomb “cellular” shades were installed over double-pane clear-glass, aluminum-frame primary windows in the experimental home and were compared to identical primary windows with no window coverings and with standard typical white vinyl horizontal blind window coverings in the baseline home.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2016

Mind the Gap: Summary of Window Residential Retrofit Solutions

Improving the insulation, solar heat gain, and infiltration characteristics of windows in a home has the potential to significantly improve the overall thermal performance by reducing heat transfer through the window and also by decreasing infiltration of outdoor air into the home. As approximately 43% of existing homes still have single-pane clear windows (~50 million houses) and millions of other homes have only double-pane clear windows (Cort 2013), improving window performance also presents a significant opportunity for energy savings in the residential sector. Today, various energy-saving window retrofit opportunities are available to homeowners, ranging from window coverings and storm panels to highly-insulating triple-pane R-5 window replacements. Many of these technologies have been evaluated in the field, in the “Lab Homes” at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and through modeling to prove their cost-effectiveness and performance in different climate regions. Recently, the Pacific Northwest’s Regional Technical Forum approved a utility measure for low- emissivity storm windows based on such data. This action represents a watershed moment for increasing the variety and prevalence of fenestration options in utility programs, especially for the low-income demographic. This paper will review various window retrofit options, the most recent field test and modeling data regarding their performance and cost-effectiveness, and discuss future rating efforts. This information is useful for utilities and energy-efficiency program managers to help effectively implement incentive measures for these technologies.

HVAC↗

NASA NTRS2010

Rocket + Science = Dialogue

It's a cliche that rocket engineers and space scientists don t see eye-to-eye. That goes double for rocket engineers working on human spaceflight and scientists working on space telescopes and planetary probes. They work fundamentally different problems but often feel that they are competing for the same pot of money. Put the two groups together for a weekend, and the results could be unscientific or perhaps combustible. Fortunately, that wasn't the case when NASA put heavy lift launch vehicle designers together with astronomers and planetary scientists for two weekend workshops in 2008. The goal was to bring the top people from both groups together to see how the mass and volume capabilities of NASA's Ares V heavy lift launch vehicle could benefit the science community. Ares V is part of NASA's Constellation Program for resuming human exploration beyond low Earth orbit, starting with missions to the Moon. In the current mission scenario, Ares V launches a lunar lander into Earth orbit. A smaller Ares I rocket launches the Orion crew vehicle with up to four astronauts. Orion docks with the lander, attached to the Ares V Earth departure stage. The stage fires its engine to send the mated spacecraft to the Moon. Standing 360 feet high and weighing 7.4 million pounds, NASA's new heavy lifter will be bigger than the 1960s-era Saturn V. It can launch almost 60 percent more payload to translunar insertion together with the Ares I and 35 percent more mass to low Earth orbit than the Saturn V. This super-sized capability is, in short, designed to send more people to more places to do more things than the six Apollo missions.

Morris,Bruce↗

NASA NTRS2008

Workshop Report on Ares V Solar System Science

The workshop blended three major themes: (1) How can elements of the Constellation program, and specifically, the planned Ares-V heavy-launch vehicle, benefit the planetary community by enabling the launch of large planetary payloads that cannot be launched on existing vehicles, and how can the capabilities of an Ares V allow the planetary community to redesign missions to achieve lower risk, and perhaps lower cost on these missions? (2) What are some of the planetary missions that either can be significantly enhanced or enabled by an Ares-V launch vehicle? What constraints do these mission concepts place on the payload environment of the Ares V? (3) Technology challenges that need to be addressed for launching large planetary payloads. Presentations varied in length from 15-40 minutes. Ample time was provided for discussion.

Langhoff, Stephanie↗

NASA NTRS2006

NASA Crew Launch Vehicle Flight Test Options

Options for development flight testing (DFT) of the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) are discussed. The Ares-I Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) is being developed by the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to launch the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) into low Earth Orbit (LEO). The Ares-I implements one of the components of the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE), providing crew and cargo access to the International Space Station (ISS) after retirement of the Space Shuttle and, eventually, forming part of the launch capability needed for lunar exploration. The role of development flight testing is to demonstrate key sub-systems, address key technical risks, and provide flight data to validate engineering models in representative flight environments. This is distinguished from certification flight testing, which is designed to formally validate system functionality and achieve flight readiness. Lessons learned from Saturn V, Space Shuttle, and other flight programs are examined along with key Ares-I technical risks in order to provide insight into possible development flight test strategies. A strategy for the first test flight of the Ares I, known as Ares I-1, is presented.

Cockrell, Charles E., Jr.↗