SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Abstract not provided.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The delivery of Home Energy Scores (HES) has been significantly impacted over the last year by the recent pandemic and ongoing limitations to person-to-person interactions. There are also historic challenges in providing HES to more remote geographies where assessor infrastructure is not in place. Alternative approaches to in-person, on-site home energy assessments could help address these current restrictions, while also potentially providing opportunities for the efficient delivery of HES in certain use cases after COVID-related restrictions are lifted. From the program administrator’s perspective, there needs to be confidence that the remote scores closely match what they would have been if the assessment had been performed on-site. The recommendations shown on a report generated from a remote score should closely match those of an onsite assessment. A remote assessment should be an option for all HES Partners and have direction on how to deliver those scores. From the HES partner’s and assessor’s perspective, there needs to be understanding of what level of experience is needed, what system infrastructure is required, the time expenditure of the remote assessment process, and the limitations of a remote assessment. From the homeowner’s perspective, there needs to be an awareness and comfort with the time commitment, the level of knowledge of the home, the equipment needed, and any physical requirements of the remote assessment process. During this study, Earth Advantage assessed methods for delivering Home Energy Score assessments remotely through web-based technology platforms and resident interaction in a diverse array of home types in different geographic locations. Earth Advantage developed remote assessment test protocols and integrated those testing protocols into existing Home Energy Score programs being overseen by USDOE Home Energy Score partners New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA), the Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE), and the City of Portland (PDX). Earth Advantage staff acted as the Remote assessor and gathered HES data remotely during the video sessions with participants. Authorized Home Energy Score assessors performed the onsite assessments that were then used to compare with the remote assessment data. This allowed the research to effectively test the efficacy of various remote assessment approaches in a diverse array of home-types. Earth advantage identified the key components of a remote assessment infrastructure which included Remote Home Energy Score Assessments Page vi processes, tools, services, methods and mechanisms that would better enable remote assessments. This report details methods, results, and findings of the HES remote assessment research. In addition, the report provides recommendations and best practices that could be used as guidance for the Home Energy Score administrator and the HES partners seeking to effectively conduct remote assessments.
This CRADA presents the strategy that Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) will take to support Seattle City Light (SCL), and the Port of Seattle (Port) in performing a risk assessment of large-scale hydrogen storage. Risk assessment is often used to ensure that adequate measures are taken to protect workers and the public, the environment, infrastructure, and assets. A detailed risk assessment can also be used to direct funding and upgrades, to specific components and sub-systems in order to mitigate risks to the larger system. In this way risk assessments are often employed as a part of a larger risk management strategy, with the goal of minimizing the occurrence of hazards and to identify means to limit their consequences. Risk assessment is often used to engage and inform regulators, and to communicate how specific regulations are being met. However, it is important to note that the proposed work is not intended for SCL and the Port to use in order to gain regulatory acceptance for their proposed activities. The work performed as a part of this effort will be a preliminary risk assessment for early-stage component and system designs and should be considered research and development (R&D). As such, the proposed work will be performed to a quality level and design maturity consistent with R&D and is not considered appropriate for final safety analysis and regulatory compliance purposes. Previous and on-going work at SCL and the Port demonstrated the utility of deploying hydrogen systems at the Port. The deployment of hydrogen at the Port is a part of a larger vision of using hydrogen to address a range of issues for SCL and the Port. These include large-scale fueling of MD/HD vehicles, cargo-handling equipment (CHE), and harbor vessels to reduce emissions; support of adjacent LD vehicles; support of critical port operations during extreme events (i.e., resiliency); deferral of more capital- and time-intensive electrical distribution system upgrades while still supporting evolving port operations and decarbonization efforts; facilitating electrification by establishing energy storage as a grid resource, starting at strategic port locations; creation of a flexible market resource that can be used by SCL to generate revenue via arbitrage; support of planned future maritime operations that involve heavy use of hydrogen for ocean-going vessels; and future end-use applications involving natural gas pipeline hydrogen injection. Ultimately, the success of these activities is underpinned by the deployed storage capacity. Large-scale deployment of hydrogen systems will require hydrogen storage at a scale that has not been demonstrated. In addition, the ideal location for such multi-use systems is near the end user which will often necessitate deploying into urban and/or industrial areas. A detailed risk assessment using the Port as a test case is necessary to ensure the deployment of large-scale hydrogen is successful. Many technologies have been proposed for hydrogen storage; however, these technologies need to be analyzed as they apply to an actual site. The physical infrastructure and hydrogen use cases for the Port will be analyzed, and a risk assessment for compressed hydrogen, liquified hydrogen, and Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carrier (LOHC) storage will be performed. These risk assessments will be useful for understanding how each of these technologies would perform in terms of facility and public safety. The operating states of the proposed hydrogen systems at the Port will be analyzed and incorporated into the storage risk assessment. Scalability will also be analyzed to understand how future port uses would affect the overall risk assessment. Finally, using the risk assessment as a tool to inform engagement and to gain stakeholder acceptance will be explored.
The Image Navigation and Registration (INR) Performance Assessment Tool Set (IPATS) is a primary tool for assessing INR performance of GOES-R series ABI images. IPATS assesses five INR metrics: navigation, channel-to-channel registration (CCR), frame-to-frame registration, within-frame registration, and swath-to-swath registration. It was discovered that CCR assessment results between Visible-Near-Infrared (VNIR) channels and Infrared (IR) channels exhibits an annual oscillation in the north-south (NS) direction and a diurnal oscillation in the east-west (EW) direction, with an amplitude of approximately 5 μrad and 2.5 μrad, respectively. However, differences of navigation assessment results between VNIR and IR channels do not exhibit the annual or diurnal oscillations observed in CCR results. This indicates that the observed oscillations are due to measurement errors. The characteristics of the oscillations imply that cloud shadows are a possible cause of these measurement errors. In this study, several methods are explored to minimize the impact of cloud shadows on VNIR to IR CCR assessments: a) assessment at landmark locations only; b) using navigation assessment results to filter CCR assessments; c) using the ABI clear-sky-ratio product as a cloud mask; and d) smaller CCR assessment windows. In this paper, each method and a combination of several methods are evaluated based on assessment accuracy and the number of successful assessments. The selected approach is then used to reprocess GOES-16 ABI CCR data to show reductions in the annual and diurnal measurement error oscillations.
This technical memorandum (TM) presents an overview of the Risk Assessment Information System (RAIS), a collection of web-based tools designed to assist with the environmental risk assessment process. The objective of the RAIS is to be a single resource for the risk assessment process, providing guidance when planning and performing the steps: data assessment, exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, and risk characterization. The RAIS evolved as a result of the initial remediation efforts at various United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE) facilities. The goal was to increase the efficiency and transparency of the human health and ecological assessments being performed by DOE’s Office of Environmental Management, Oak Ridge Operations (ORO) office by providing a repository for toxicity information, physicochemical data, risk assessment procedures, standardized risk calculation methods, and web-based tools. Since the initial launch in 1996, the RAIS has expanded its user base outside of the federal government and now has users from over 100 countries, universities, states, and local governments. What sets the RAIS apart from other risk assessment sites are the publicly available, searchable toxicity and physicochemical databases and the wide range of chemical and radionuclide risk calculation tools. The purpose of this TM is to present the RAIS tools in order of the website menus and explain how they fit in the risk assessment process. In addition, this TM describes differences between the chemical and radionuclide tools of the RAIS. Screening level equations, chronic daily intake equations, and default exposure factors used in the chemical and radionuclide calculators are included in the appendices of this TM. This TM is not intended to be a detailed guide to risk assessment or the RAIS tools. The tools on the RAIS can be used to comply with procedures from multiple agencies, including but not limited to DOE, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), and many state governments. Further information on the RAIS tools can be found in the user guides and tutorials available on the webpage.
Underground hydrogen storage (UHS) in depleted reservoirs presents a promising solution for large-scale energy storage as hydrogen demand grows. As the UHS industry emerges, robust risk assessments are critical to ensuring safe operation of the storage facilities and minimizing the risk of accidents. This work explores risk assessment protocols for underground natural gas storage (UGS) in depleted reservoirs and identifies key considerations for repurposing these facilities for UHS. By examining the differences in physical and chemical properties between hydrogen and natural gas, this work highlights new and modified hazards that merits a reevaluation of traditional natural gas risk assessment practices. This investigation synthesizes insights from previous literature reviews and interviews with UGS industry experts and operators to identify key areas for adapting risk assessment methodologies for hydrogen. The insights gleaned from expert interviews indicate that existing risk assessment standards are non-prescriptive, leading to diverse company-specific risk assessment methodologies requiring substantial additions to become practical. Due to a lack of concrete risk assessment requirements, experience, and relevant data, this uncertainty is expected to be magnified considerably when considering hydrogen. This study identifies several areas for potential modification of existing risk assessment practices that could be considered by those developing standards or performing risk assessments for UHS. Specifically, risk assessments may be improved by including risks unique to hydrogen in existing standards, changing the magnitude of different risk factors in existing risk assessment protocols, and improving methods of data collection and communication across the industry to address large areas of uncertainty.
MOTIVATION: Spaceflight poses varied and unique risks to the brain and cognitive functioning including radiation exposure, sleep disturbance, fatigue, fluid shifts (increased intracranial pressure), toxin exposure, elevated carbon dioxide, and traumatic brain injury, among others. These potential threats to cognitive functioning are capable of degrading performance and compromising mission success. Furthermore, the threats may increase in severity, and new types of threats may emerge for longer duration exploration missions. This presentation will describe the process used to identify gaps in our current approach, evaluate best practices in cognitive assessment, and transition new cognitive assessment tools to operational use. OVERVIEW: Risks to brain health and performance posed by spaceflight missions require sensitive tools to assess cognitive functioning of astronauts in flight. The Spaceflight Cognitive Assessment Tool for Windows (WinSCAT) is the automated cognitive assessment tool currently deployed onboard the International Space Station (ISS). WinSCAT provides astronauts and flight surgeons with objective data to monitor neurocognitive functioning. WinSCAT assesses 5 discrete cognitive domains, is sensitive to changes in cognitive functioning, and was designed to be completed in less than 15 minutes. However, WinSCAT does not probe other areas of cognitive functioning that might be important to mission success. Researchers recently have developed batteries that may expand current capabilities, such as increased sensitivity to subtle fluctuations in cognitive functioning. Therefore, we engaged in a systematic process review in order to improve upon our current capabilities and incorporate new advances in cognitive assessment. This process included a literature review on newer measures of neurocognitive assessment, surveys of operational flight surgeons at NASA regarding needs and gaps in our capabilities, and expert panel review of candidate cognitive measures and assessment issues and procedures. SIGNIFICANCE: Our process and the results that flowed from it may be helpful to aeromedical professionals charged with transitioning research findings to operational use. Our specific findings regarding cognitive assessment tools are of significance to professionals who must assess readiness to perform in mission critical situations in environments involving threats to cognition and performance
This report provides a roadmap and tool kit for site specific risk assessments across a broad range of industrial customers co-located with advanced nuclear power plants (ANPP) that are not currently built and operating in the U.S. This report builds upon the body of work sponsored by the Department of Energy (DOE) Integrated Energy Systems Pathway that has produced industrial requirements studies and techno-economic assessments on the topics of feasibility of ANPP supported industrial processes. This report also leverages the DOE Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) program that has presented hazards assessment and generic probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) for the addition of a heat extraction system (HES) to light-water reactors (LWRs) co-located with hydrogen production facilities. Many of the hazard assessments and risk assessments performed for the LWRS report are agnostic to whether the nuclear reactor is an ANPP or were adapted to the ANPP focus. The report performs hazards assessments to include industrial facilities: an oil refinery, a methanol plant, a synthetic fuel (synfuel) plant, the production of synthetic gas (syngas) as part of the methanol and synfuel plants, wood pulp and paper mills, and hydrogen production. Hydrogen production facilities are assessed in depth through prior reports in the LWRS program and the results are leveraged in this report. All these facilities are specified through industrial process and requirements research performed by national laboratories, universities, and interaction with industry. Many of the processes used in this report are pre-conceptual designs to use for decarbonization of the current technology facilities. A process of failure modes and effects analysis (what can go wrong) and accidentology (what has historically gone wrong) was used to determine the hazards presented to the nuclear power plant by the addition of the HES and the industrial customer. Chemical properties of feedstocks and products are summarized as part of the hazards assessment. Example analysis procedures are provided for each of the hazard types identified. These deterministic analyses can be used to assess adherence to licensing criteria. They can also be used to meet other safety goals like protection of the public, workers, or industrial facility equipment. A modular high temperature gas-cooled reactor (MHTGR) PRA only existing on paper was modeled and verified in modern PRA software. This will provide a tool for representative ANPP probabilistic analyses for future research.
Ambitious international greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets demand a rapid transformation to a low-carbon economy. This transformation includes the accelerated adoption of carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage (CCS) technology. However, as with any large-scale engineering enterprise, the widespread commercial-scale deployment of geologic carbon storage (GCS) raises important questions about technology and cost-effectiveness, safety, environmental risk, and long-term liability. Effectively assessing and managing risks and liability associated with GCS projects is a key technical need throughout the project life cycle-from site selection and permitting to monitoring design, operational risk management, and post-operational site closure. This presentation highlights recent advancements in tools for quantitative risk assessment, being developed by the National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP). NRAP is a multi-year, multinational laboratory research collaboration sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management. Our focus will be on these tools' applications in addressing critical stakeholder questions related to supporting permitting to ensure secure and environmentally protective storage; designing effective and efficient monitoring plans; evaluating the effectiveness of remedial actions and risk management alternatives; and informing liability assessment and investment decisions. This paper will detail the key functionality of NRAP’s Open-Source Integrated Assessment Model (NRAP-Open-IAM), a computational framework for assessing leakage risk and containment assurance. This model features streamlined workflows for calculating leakage risk profiles, delineating risk-based area of review, and assessing contingency plans and post-injection site care requirements. ORION is an open-source, observation-based ensemble forecasting toolkit to help operators assess the seismic hazard at a carbon storage site. The State of Stress Analysis Tool (SOSAT), designed to assess subsurface stress conditions and evaluate geomechanical risk resulting from CO2 injection in an area of interest will also be presented. We will also introduce a prototype model to evaluate storage project costs and liability associated with risk management. The Technoeconomic and Liability Evaluation for Storage (TALES) model uses results from forecasts of leakage and induced seismicity risk to estimate the lifecycle cost of managing risk. Finally, a preliminary example of how the NRAP Risk-based Adaptive Monitoring Plan (RAMP) tool can be used to design efficient and effective site monitoring plans and estimate the detectability of fluid leakage will be provided. The relevance of these tools for addressing key stakeholder questions amidst uncertainty will be emphasized.
Graphite is an important material being used for core components in next-generation high-temperature gas-cooled nuclear reactors. The selection of graphite grade for a specific Designer is a complex task, dependent on reactor conditions, component functionality, and required reliability. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) provides two semi-probabilistic design-by-analysis assessments to evaluate graphite core components against design reliability targets. The simplified assessment uses a 2-parameter Weibull distribution to describe the graphite grade’s tensile-strength distribution to establish component stress limits. The full assessment uses the 3-parameter Weibull distribution and a modified Weakest-Link Theory approach to calculate a component design probability of failure. The paper defines recommended assessment rules, which are the as-written simplified assessment and the full assessment with parameter lower bounds, the modulus update with threshold reduction, and the 2027 grouping rules. Code rules are applied to three grades: 2114, IG-110, and NBG-18. The baseline margin calculation is developed using the experimental tensile dogbone specimen. Percent margin is defined as the percent reduction in the median experimental load to obtain the allowable load per ASME assessments. Under the recommended rules, the SRC–1 margin in the simplified assessment ranged from 40.2 % to 52.7 % among the grades in this study and from 36.1 % to 49.8 % in the full assessment. The full assessment only decreases the margins by 2.5–4.5 % for the SRC-1 components and 0–1.5 % for the SRC-2 components for this baseline case. Margin is inversely related to material median strength (i.e., the strongest grade, 2114, has the lowest margin).
The mitigation of climate change requires research, development, and deployment of new technologies that are not only economically viable but also environmentally benign. Systematic and continuous technology assessment from early technology maturity onwards allows assessment practitioners to identify economic and environmental characteristics. With this information, decision-makers can focus time and resources on the most promising technologies. A broad toolset for technology assessment exists—stretching from the well-established life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology to more loosely defined techno-economic analysis (TEA) methods and the increasingly popular principles of technology maturity assessment such as the concept of technology readiness levels (TRL). However, current technology assessment practice faces various challenges at early stages, resulting in a potential mismatch of study results and stakeholders' needs and an escalation of assessment effort. In this practice review, we outline current challenges in the interplay of LCA, TEA, and TRL and present best practices for assessing early-stage climate change mitigation technologies in the field of carbon capture and utilization (CCU). The findings help practitioners systematically identify the TRL of a technology and adapt technology assessment methodologies accordingly. We highlight the methodological challenges for practitioners when adapting the goal and scope, identifying benchmark technologies, creating a comprehensive inventory, comparing early stage to commercial stage, ensuring clarity of recommendations for decision-making under high uncertainty, and streamlining conventional LCA and TEA assessment approaches and provide actionable recommendations. Overall, this work contributes to identifying promising technologies faster and more systematically, accelerating the development of new technologies for climate change mitigation and beyond.
This report documents the initial findings from the Nuclear Regulatory commission (NRC)-sponsored research project Methods for Estimating Joint Probabilities of Coincident and Correlated Flooding Mechanisms for Nuclear Power Plant Flood Hazard Assessments.1 This research project is a part of NRC’s Probabilistic Flood Hazard Assessment (PFHA) Research Program and will aid the development of guidance on the use of PFHA methods to evaluate infrastructure safety for existing and proposed US nuclear power plants (NPPs). More specifically, this project intends to provide technical background for the development of flood hazard curves for multi-mechanism floods (MMFs). MMFs are flood events caused by more than one flooding mechanism (e.g., flood events due to the simultaneous occurrence of precipitation-induced river flooding and storm surge). Project activities include three main tasks: Task 1—Survey of current concepts and methods in assessing MMF hazards; Task 2—Critical assessment of selected methods and approaches for quantifying probabilistic MMF hazard risk; Task 3—Development of example case studies to illustrate best practices for quantifying probabilistic MMF hazard risk The initial findings from Tasks 1 and 2 are documented in this report. Task 1 comprised a survey of approaches and methods that have been applied to understand and assess flood hazards due to MMFs. Task 2 involved a critical review of the selected approaches and methods. To that end, the scope of this report includes documentation of (1) a reconnaissance-level survey of the current state of concepts and practice for MMF hazard assessment; (2) a generalized MMF assessment framework to address the distinctions among various types of flood-forcing phenomena, flood mechanisms (grouped into three mechanism types), and flood severity metrics; (3) a wide-ranging survey of approaches and methods that have been applied to various flooding phenomena and settings; and (4) a critical assessment of MMF hazard assessment methods. Studies were identified involving MMFs related to coastal flooding mechanisms, fluvial (rivers/streams) flooding mechanisms, and associated combinations of coastal and fluvial flooding mechanisms. Studies were also identified that address MMFs involving coastal and fluvial flooding mechanisms as well as coastal flooding mechanisms along with extreme precipitation (without specific attribution to fluvial or pluvial mechanisms). The studies identified for review in this report included assessments at varying spatial scales (from local to global) with differing geographic regions of focus using both observed and synthetic data. The majority of studies identified and reviewed were site-specific assessments focusing on relatively short return periods. Studies considered a range of flood severity metrics, made differing assumptions regarding the occurrence of extrema, and used multiple statistical techniques; the use of copulas for the development of joint distributions was a particularly popular analysis technique. The literature review highlighted the differences among existing studies relative to terminology used, means of presenting results, framework and techniques employed, and level of sophistication regarding the number and types of variables considered. Despite the significant diversity in existing studies, the review identified several promising techniques that will be considered in future work under this project, including the development of joint distributions for MMFs using copula and Bayesian-motivated approaches.
This work is an update of the assessment completed in February of 1996, when a preliminary assessment report was issued for the Cycle 2B simulation model. The primary purpose of the final assessment was to re-evaluate each assessment against the flight control system (FCS) requirements document using the updated model. Only a limited number of final assessments were completed due to the close proximity of the release of the Langley model and the assessment deliverable date. The assessment used the nonlinear Cycle 3 simulation model because it combines nonlinear aeroelastic (quasi-static) aerodynamic with hinge moment and rate limited control surface deflections. Both Configuration Aerodynamics (Task 32) and Flight Controls (Task 36) were funded in 1996 to conduct the final stability and control assessments of the unaugmented Reference H configuration in FY96. Because the two tasks had similar output requirements, the work was divided such that Flight Controls would be responsible for the implementation and checkout of the simulation model and Configuration Aerodynamics for writing Madab "script' files, conducting the batch assessments and writing the assessment report. Additionally, Flight Controls was to investigate control surface allocations schemes different from the baseline Reference H in an effort to fulfill flying qualities criteria.