Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “MOTIVATION”

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.

At least 235 records · Page 13
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

Validation of Maui PSCAD Model: Motivation, Methodology, and Lessons Learned: Preprint

As power systems become increasingly dependent on inverter-based resources, the dominant physical and control interactions that determine system stability may no longer be accurately captured in positive sequence dynamic simulation tools; electromagnetic transient (EMT) simulations may be needed. This paper describes the process of creating and validating an EMT model of the entire Maui island transmission system in PSCAD software. The model is validated against the utility's PSSE model and against field data for an event that consisted of a single-phase fault followed by a generation trip. The methodology and lessons learned are summarized here.

41 EE - Solar Energy Technologies Office (EE-4S)↗
DOE OSTI2015

The decommissioning imperative - motivating progress in us used fuel management - 15185

When the Yucca Mountain project was terminated in 2010 there was approximately 3500 metric tons of used fuel stored at Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSIs) at which there was no operating reactor (10 shutdown plant sites and the GE Morris facility). By 2015, four additional sites with five reactors will have shut down, causing the amount of used fuel 'stranded' at sites where there is no operating reactor to nearly double to approximately 6900 metric tons which will be stored at a total of 15 sites. At each of these sites, once the reactors are decommissioned, the only thing preventing the land from being returned to communities for other uses is the remaining presence of the used fuel. The cost of maintaining 15 stand-alone ISFSIs is born by electric ratepayers and taxpayers. Going forward, the costs of maintaining stand-alone ISFSIs is certain to grow even if the number of stand-alone ISFSIs does not grow beyond the already announced shutdown of the Oyster Creek reactor in 2019 (which would increase the amount of stranded used fuel by another 10% and create a 16. stand-alone ISFSI). One reason for this cost escalation will be the need for ISFSI owners to renew storage licenses, and implement aging management programs to support these renewals, due to the continued delay in the federal program for removing the used fuel. Storage licenses at 10 of 16 stand-alone ISFSIs will expire by 2021, which is the earliest projected date at which the Department of Energy (DOE) has indicated it could have a pilot interim storage facility available - and nearly 3 decades before DOE projects a repository will be available. The burden and cost of continuing to renew storage licenses - and manage aging storage facilities - at 16 stand-alone sites instead of moving stranded used fuel to a single consolidated storage location or repository will likely be significant. Industry resources are increasingly being channeled into dry storage aging management activities as public and regulator interest in potential long-term degradation mechanism continues to grow. Whether the ultimate destination for used fuel is Yucca Mountain or some other location, the current stalemate preventing progress in the federal program to move it must be broken - and the increasing prominence of the decommissioned reactor quandary may very well be a pivotal factor in breaking that stalemate. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2024

Proactive and Reactive Thermal Comfort Behaviors

The expansion of renewable electricity generation, growing demands due to electrification, greater prevalence of working from home, and increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events, will place new demands on the electric supply and distribution grid. Broader adoption of demand response programs (DRPs) for the residential sector may help meet these challenges; however, experience shows that occupant overrides in DRPs compromises their effectiveness. There is a lack of formal understanding of how discomfort, routines, and other motivations affect DRP overrides and other related human building interactions (HBI). This paper reports preliminary findings from a study of 20 households in Colorado and Massachusetts, US over three months. Participants responded to ecological momentary assessments (EMA) triggered by thermostat interactions and at random times throughout the day. EMAs included Likert-scale questions of thermal preference, preference intensity, and changes to 7 different activity types that could affect thermal comfort, and an opened ended question about motivations of such actions. Twelve tags were developed to categorize motivation responses and analyzed statistically to identify associations between motivations, preferences, and HBI actions. Reactions to changes in the thermal environment were the most frequently observed motivation (118 of 220 responses). On the other hand, almost half (47%) responses were at least partially motivated by non-thermal factors, suggesting limited utility for occupant behavior models founded solely on thermal comfort. Changes in activity level and clothing were less likely to be reported when EMAs were triggered by thermostat interactions, while fan interactions were more likely. Windows, shades, and portable heater interactions had no significant dependence on how the EMA was triggered. These results suggest that better understanding of motivations for HBI may improve effectiveness of demand response programs.

Pathak, Maharshi↗
DOE OSTI2015

MO-FG-213-04: Managing the Relationship

Academic-industrial collaborations are playing an increasingly prominent role in medical physics research. Successful partnerships have enabled truly translational, benchtop-to-bedside research that has significantly and positively impacted our field. Given the current flat or depleting trends in federal funding, and the increasing emphasis in the medical physics community on demonstrating translatability, efficacy, and safety prior to widespread clinical use, it is anticipated that such partnerships will become ever more important in advancing our field. In the future, it is likely that neither academia alone, nor industry alone, will be able to bring significant innovation to successfully impact patient care in radiotherapy. Such innovation will require partnership and symbiosis through the lifetime of the project. This symposium is aimed at professionals from academia and the industry who are interested in either initiating new collaborations or maintaining and improving existing partnerships. We will hear from four thought leaders from industry and academia on critical aspects of building and maintaining successful academic-industrial research partnerships. The following topics will be addressed: 1. Motivations: The industry perspective [Kevin Brown, Elekta] What goes into the development of a company’s R&D roadmap What are the motivations and expectations of the industry from academic partners How can academics make a successful pitch by identifying projects aligned with a company’s roadmap Why are some relationships successful and some not Milestones and progress reports - Why do we need them 2. Motivations: The academic perspective [T. Rock Mackie, Univ. of Madison, WI; Tomotherapy] What are the motivations and expectations of academic partners from the industry What are the cultural differences in academia vs industry on sharing information, exchanging ideas Partnership or entrepreneurship? When does each option make sense 3. Industrial Grants and Research Contracts – a Primer [Norbert Pelc; Stanford University] What topics are suited to industrial grants vs. academic grants How do resources (personnel effort, tuition) get allocated and charged in academia What are reasonable resource and timeline requests for small and big projects; from small and big companies “Fair market value” considerations Sections of a research agreement (IP including software confidential information, publications, data, exclusivity, support) 4. Managing the relationship [John Wong, Johns Hopkins University] How to effectively collaborate with each other How to adapt to changes in the relationship How to renew funding with the industry Moderated Panel Discussion [All speakers + moderators] Learning Objectives: 1. Understand the motivations of each partner 2. Elements that contribute to a successful partnership 3. Avoiding pitfalls - Challenges on either side that may derail a project 4. How to frame a research grant and agreement 5. How to sustain the collaborative relationship Amit Sawant: Funding from: NIH. Varian, Elekta and VisionRT; Michelle Svatos: Employee and shareholder: Varian, Board Member, TopasMC; Kevin Brown: Employee, Elekta; T. Rock Mackie: Consultant, Accuray; Norbert Pelc: Research support: Philips Healthcare, GE Healthcare; John Wong: Funding from NIH, Xstrahl and Elekta. Co-founder and advisor for JPLC Associates, LLC.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗