SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “benefits analysis”

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.

At least 37 records · Page 2

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS1990

Systems engineering and integration: Cost estimation and benefits analysis

Space Transportation Avionics hardware and software cost has traditionally been estimated in Phase A and B using cost techniques which predict cost as a function of various cost predictive variables such as weight, lines of code, functions to be performed, quantities of test hardware, quantities of flight hardware, design and development heritage, complexity, etc. The output of such analyses has been life cycle costs, economic benefits and related data. The major objectives of Cost Estimation and Benefits analysis are twofold: (1) to play a role in the evaluation of potential new space transportation avionics technologies, and (2) to benefit from emerging technological innovations. Both aspects of cost estimation and technology are discussed here. The role of cost analysis in the evaluation of potential technologies should be one of offering additional quantitative and qualitative information to aid decision-making. The cost analyses process needs to be fully integrated into the design process in such a way that cost trades, optimizations and sensitivities are understood. Current hardware cost models tend to primarily use weights, functional specifications, quantities, design heritage and complexity as metrics to predict cost. Software models mostly use functionality, volume of code, heritage and complexity as cost descriptive variables. Basic research needs to be initiated to develop metrics more responsive to the trades which are required for future launch vehicle avionics systems. These would include cost estimating capabilities that are sensitive to technological innovations such as improved materials and fabrication processes, computer aided design and manufacturing, self checkout and many others. In addition to basic cost estimating improvements, the process must be sensitive to the fact that no cost estimate can be quoted without also quoting a confidence associated with the estimate. In order to achieve this, better cost risk evaluation techniques are needed as well as improved usage of risk data by decision-makers. More and better ways to display and communicate cost and cost risk to management are required.

Dean, ED↗

DOE OSTI2022

Cost-Benefit Analysis for Energy Efficient Refrigerators and Freezers in Uganda

Refrigeration appliances and equipment available on the market are manufactured with a wide range of energy performance. The goal of this report is to perform a cost-benefit analysis, providing policy recommendations to develop standards and labels for refrigerators in Uganda: in particular, an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of adopting the UNEP U4E MRG for refrigerators given the local context in Uganda.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2023

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Grid-Supportive Loads for Fast Frequency Response: Preprint

Flexibility in inverter-based loads could be used to support the converter-dominated power grid by offering a rapid, autonomous, and adjustable power reserve during system transients to help maintain system stability. Based on technical potential, ancillary service (AS) value, and implementation costs, this study illustrates the cost-benefit analysis of grid-supportive loads (GSLs) for the supply of fast frequency response (FFR). The net benefit for each GSL is demonstrated using a case study and relevant data sources. The findings suggest that implementation costs for enabling GSL features are low compared to the value that grid operators get from the acquisition of responsive reserve services. The authors believes that, given the rising popularity of renewable energy sources, GSLs can be a useful tool for grid stability in low-inertia systems.

cost benefit↗

NASA NTRS2016

Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Advanced Near Net Shape Technology (ANNST) Method for Fabricating Stiffened Cylinders

Low Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) and high levels of uncertainty make it challenging to develop cost estimates of new technologies in the R&D phase. It is however essential for NASA to understand the costs and benefits associated with novel concepts, in order to prioritize research investments and evaluate the potential for technology transfer and commercialization. This paper proposes a framework to perform a cost-benefit analysis of a technology in the R&D phase. This framework was developed and used to assess the Advanced Near Net Shape Technology (ANNST) manufacturing process for fabricating integrally stiffened cylinders. The ANNST method was compared with the conventional multi-piece metallic construction and composite processes for fabricating integrally stiffened cylinders. Following the definition of a case study for a cryogenic tank cylinder of specified geometry, data was gathered through interviews with Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), with particular focus placed on production costs and process complexity. This data served as the basis to produce process flowcharts and timelines, mass estimates, and rough order-of-magnitude cost and schedule estimates. The scalability of the results was subsequently investigated to understand the variability of the results based on tank size. Lastly, once costs and benefits were identified, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to assess the relative value of these achieved benefits for potential stakeholders. These preliminary, rough order-of-magnitude results predict a 46 to 58 percent reduction in production costs and a 7-percent reduction in weight over the conventional metallic manufacturing technique used in this study for comparison. Compared to the composite manufacturing technique, these results predict cost savings of 35 to 58 percent; however, the ANNST concept was heavier. In this study, the predicted return on investment of equipment required for the ANNST method was ten cryogenic tank barrels when compared with conventional metallic manufacturing. The AHP study results revealed that decreased final cylinder mass and improved quality assurance were the most valued benefits of cylinder manufacturing methods, therefore emphasizing the relevance of the benefits achieved with the ANNST process for future projects.

Ivanco, Marie L.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Cost-Benefit Analysis for Alternatives to Aliphatic Isocyanate Polyurethanes

NASA and Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) have similar missions and therefore similar facilities and structures in similar environments. The standard practice for protecting metallic substrates in atmospheric environments is the application of an applied coating system. The most common topcoats used in coating systems are polyurethanes that contain isocyanates. Isocyanates are classified as potential human carcinogens and are known to cause cancer in animals. The primary objective of this effort was to demonstrate and validate alternatives to aliphatic isocyanate polyurethanes resulting in one or more isocyanate-free coatings qualified for use at AFSPC and NASA installations participating in this project. This Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) quantifies the estimated capital and process costs of coating alternatives and cost savings relative to the current coatings. The estimates in this CBA are to be used for assessing the relative merits of the selected alternatives. The actual economic effects at any specific facility will depend on the alternative material or technology implemented, the number of actual applications converted, future workloads, and other factors . The participants initially considered eighteen (18) alternative coatings as described in the Potential Alternatives Report entitled Potential Alternatives Report for Validation of Alternatives to Aliphatic Isocyanate Polyurethanes, prepared by ITB. Of those, 8 alternatives were selected for testing in accordance with the Joint Test Protocol entitled Joint Test Protocol for Validation of Alternatives to Aliphatic Isocyanate Polyurethanes, and the Field Test Plan entitled Field Evaluations Test Plan for Validation of Alternatives 10 Aliphatic Isocyanate Polyurethanes, both of which were prepared by ITB. A joint Test Report entitled Joint Test Report for Validation of Alternatives to Aliphatic Isocyanate Polyurethanes, prepared by ITB, documents the results of the laboratory and field testing, as well as any test modifications made during the execution of the testing. The coatings selected for evaluation in this CBA are shown in the table below. Only one control coating system is considered in this analysis. These coatings were either downselected for Phase II or performed well enough to be included in the Qualified Products List in the NASA technical standard NASA-STD-5008, Protective Coating of Carbon Steel, Stainless Steel, and Aluminum on Launch Structures, Facilities, and Ground Support Equipment.

Lewis, Pattie↗

NASA NTRS2007

Cost-Benefit Analysis For Alternative Low-Emission Surface Preparation/ Depainting Technologies for Structural Steel

Stennis Space Center (SSC), Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) identified particulate emissions and waste generated from the depainting process of steel structures as hazardous materials to be eliminated or reduced. A Potential Alternatives Report, Potential Alternatives Report for Validation of Alternative Low Emission Surface Preparation/Depainting Technologies for Structural Steel, provided a technical analyses of identified alternatives to the current coating removal processes, criteria used to select alternatives for further analysis, and a list of those alternatives recommended for testing. The initial coating removal alternatives list was compiled using literature searches and stakeholder recommendations. The involved project participants initially considered approximately 13 alternatives. In late 2003, core project members selected the following depainting processes to be further evaluated: (1) Plastic Blast Media-Quickstrip(R)-A. (2) Hard Abrasive-Steel-Magic(R). (3) Sponge Blasting-Sponge-Jet(R). (4) Liquid Nitrogen-NItroJet(R). (5) Mechanical Removal with Vacuum Attachment-DESCO and OCM Clean-Air (6) Laser Coating Removal Alternatives were tested in accordance with the Joint Test Protocol for Validation of Alternative Low-Emission Surface Preparation/Depainting Technologies for Structural Steel, and the Field Evaluation Test Plan for Validation of Alternative Low-Emission Surface Preparation/Depainting Technologies for Structural Steel. Results of the testing are documented in the Joint Test Report. This Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) focuses on the three alternatives (Quickstrip(R)-A, SteelMagic (R), and Sponge-Jet(R)) that were considered viable alternatives for large area operations based on the results of the field demonstration and lab testing. This CBA was created to help participants determine if implementation of the candidate alternatives is economically justified. Each of the alternatives examined reduced Environmental Activity (EA) Costs-those costs associated with complying with environmental regulations. One alternative, Steel-Magic(R), also showed reduced Direct Costs and reduced total costs.

Lewis, Pattie↗

DOE OSTI2025

Hybrid Powered Command Trailers Cost-Benefit Analysis Tool: User Guide and Examples

U.S. Forest Service (USFS) wildfire base camps use portable power for electrical needs, including yurts and trailers from which logistics staff work during the incident. These yurts and trailers are conventionally powered by portable diesel generators. Hybrid portable power systems consisting of a combination of solar photovoltaics (PV), battery energy storage systems (BESS), and/or backup diesel generators have been used in recent years and were piloted by the National Technology and Development Program (NTDP) on incidents in fall 2024 as part of NTDP's Portable Power Project. As part of that project, this work included the development of two Excel-based tools and two reports explaining the tools. The first tool, the Incident Energy Systems Model, is an Excel-based tool that models the power output of hybrid portable power systems powering yurts and/or trailers at fire camps over a typical day. The associated report (published separately) outlines a user guide for the model and walks through two scenarios. The two scenarios are 1) trailers powered by rooftop solar PV, batteries, and a back-up diesel generator, and 2) trailers powered by ground mount solar PV, batteries, and a back-up diesel generator. The second tool is a high-level cost-benefit analysis of the same two types of portable power systems, and is location independent.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

NASA NTRS2000

Health Monitoring System Technology Assessments: Cost Benefits Analysis

The subject of sensor-based structural health monitoring is very diverse and encompasses a wide range of activities including initiatives and innovations involving the development of advanced sensor, signal processing, data analysis, and actuation and control technologies. In addition, it embraces the consideration of the availability of low-cost, high-quality contributing technologies, computational utilities, and hardware and software resources that enable the operational realization of robust health monitoring technologies. This report presents a detailed analysis of the cost benefit and other logistics and operational considerations associated with the implementation and utilization of sensor-based technologies for use in aerospace structure health monitoring. The scope of this volume is to assess the economic impact, from an end-user perspective, implementation health monitoring technologies on three structures. It specifically focuses on evaluating the impact on maintaining and supporting these structures with and without health monitoring capability.

Kent, Renee M.↗

NASA NTRS1973

Principles of cost-benefit analysis for ERTS experiments, volumes 1 and 2

The basic elements of a cost-benefit study are discussed along with special considerations for ERTS experiments. Elements required for a complete economic analysis of ERTS are considered to be: statement of objectives, specification of assumptions, enumeration of system alternatives, benefit analysis, cost analysis nonefficiency considerations, and final system selection. A hypothetical cost-benefit example is presented with the assumed objective of an increase in remote sensing surveys of grazing lands to better utilize available forage to lower meat prices.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1978

Low energy stage study. Volume 4: Cost benefits analysis and recommendations

The costs and benefits of existing/planned systems, new propulsion concepts, and adaptations of existing/planned systems (as supported by Orbiter interface requirements and operations requirements) were quantified. Scenarios of these propulsion approaches were established which accommodate the low energy regime as defined by the new low energy payload mission model. These scenarios were screened on a cost and then a benefits basis. A propulsion approach comprising existing/planned systems and a new propulsion concept were selected as the most cost effective approach to accommodate the model payloads and the low energy regime they represent. Key cost drivers and sensitivity trends were identified. All costs were derived in 1977 dollars.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1972

NASTRAN benefits analysis. Volume 2: Final technical report

Baseline data are considered for comparisons of the costs and benefits of the NASA structural analysis program and to determine impacts and benefits to current users. To develop this information, questionnaires were mailed to users. Personal and telephone interviews were made to solicit further information. The questions in the questionnaire and in the interview were related to benefits derived from the programs, areas of needed improvement, and applicable usage comments. The collected information was compiled and analyzed. Methodology, analyses, and results are presented. The information is applicable to issues preceding NASTRAN Level 15.

Source record↗

DOE OSTI2021

Light-Duty Vehicle Choice Modeling and Benefits Analysis (van018)

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Vehicle Technologies and Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Offices (VTO and HFTO) support research and development of efficient and sustainable transportation technologies that will improve energy efficiency, minimize emissions, and enable America to use less petroleum. The analysis in this poster is based on technical progress goals established in VTO and HFTO in the years immediately prior to and including 2020, and it summarizes the estimated energy and emissions benefits corresponding with achievement of those goals. The goals span research activities on batteries, electric drive technologies (EDT), combustion, lightweight materials, fuel cells, and hydrogen storage. The Automotive Deployment Options Projection Tool (ADOPT) is used to estimate the benefits for light-duty vehicles. ADOPT is a vehicle choice and stock model that estimates vehicle technology improvement impacts on sales, energy, and emissions. It includes all the existing vehicle options for realism, estimates their sales using extensively validated consumer preferences, creates new market-driven vehicle options through time, and rolls up sales to estimate energy and emissions. ADOPT takes in technology progress assumptions and applies these to the modeled vehicles through time. The assumptions are represented by a No Program scenario that reflects the technology improvements assumed to occur without further contributions from VTO or HFTO, and a Program Success scenario under which VTO and HFTO program goals are realized. The benefits are calculated by comparing ADOPT's estimated national-level energy and emissions resulting from the Program Success relative to the No Program scenario. By 2050, the Program Success scenario results in 11% less annual petroleum consumption and 10% less annual carbon emissions than the No Program scenario.

ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

DOE OSTI2022

Benefit Analysis of CO 2 Delivery Options for Offshore Storage or Enhanced Oil Recovery

The analysis presented in this report evaluates the benefits of CO₂ offshore transport via pipeline or ship within the GOM. It takes a top-down framework to estimate the costs. First, this analysis designed a reduced-order model (ROM) based on the cash flows in the FECM/NETL CO₂ Transport Cost Model (also known as CO2_T_COM). The ROM takes capital expenses (CAPEX) and operating expenses (OPEX) to calculate the CO₂ breakeven price based on the cash flows. Second, this analysis developed regression models utilizing published data from other analyses to estimate CAPEX and OPEX. Since the ROM is a simplified cash flow calculation, it is easy to exchange the core regression models to estimate various costs. The ROM and regression models provided a framework that can be easily used by other researchers, decision-makers, operators, and regulators. The objective of this analysis is to assess the CO₂ breakeven cost range for pipeline and ship transport of captured CO₂ given the CO₂ source and storage reservoir located in the GOM.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Cost and Benefit Analysis of Orbital Debris Remediation, Mitigation,Tracking, and Characterization

Orbital debris may collide with crewed and robotic spacecraft, placing them at risk. The wide range of debris, from 9,000-kilogram rocket bodies to millions of millimeter-size debris, has led to a similarly wide range of proposed actions for addressing the risks posed by debris. However, the costs and benefits of these actions have historically been unknown. This is a challenge for decision makers who are choosing which actions to support through technology development or policy changes. NASA’s Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy is addressing these technical and economic uncertainties by building a capability to (1) complete rigorous calculations of the net present value of each action, (2) identify an optimal portfolio of actions to reduce risk, and (3) quantitatively analyze policies related to space sustainability. This report describes our progress toward that capability and to solicit feedback from the space and economic communities. Our previous work(Colvin, Karcz, and Wusk. 2023), referred to here as Phase 1, assessed the costs and benefits of performing debris remediation on operationally relevant timescales. The current paper summarizes the work of Locke and Colvin (2024), which contains major updates to the risk model used in Phase 1 and expands the breadth of actions considered to include mitigating the creation of debris, improving the ability to track debris, and more methods for cleaning up existing debris. We demonstrate that our approach of measuring risks in dollars allows for the effectiveness of seemingly incommensurate actions to be compared and generates insights that other approaches to measuring risk have missed.

Orbital Debris↗

DOE OSTI2020

Light-Duty Vehicle Choice Modeling and Benefits Analysis

The U.S. Department of Energy's Vehicle Technologies and Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Offices (VTO and HFTO) support research and development of efficient and sustainable transportation technologies that will improve energy efficiency, minimize emissions, and enable America to use less petroleum. This presentation steps through the approach, updates to the approach, and preliminary estimates of light-duty vehicle energy and emissions benefits from the continuation and success of VTO and HFTO programs. The programs include research on batteries, electric drive technologies (EDT), combustion, materials, fuel cells, and hydrogen storage. Preliminary results for battery and EDT program success show an annual 24% reduction in petroleum use and 13% reduction in carbon emissions.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗

NASA NTRS2016

Advanced Interval Management: A Benefit Analysis

This document is the final report for the NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC)- sponsored task order 'Possible Benefits for Advanced Interval Management Operations.' Under this research project, Architecture Technology Corporation performed an analysis to determine the maximum potential benefit to be gained if specific Advanced Interval Management (AIM) operations were implemented in the National Airspace System (NAS). The motivation for this research is to guide NASA decision-making on which Interval Management (IM) applications offer the most potential benefit and warrant further research.

Timer, Sebastian↗

NASA NTRS2008

Volume Averaged Height Integrated Radar Reflectivity (VAHIRR) Cost-Benefit Analysis

Lightning Launch Commit Criteria (LLCC) are designed to prevent space launch vehicles from flight through environments conducive to natural or triggered lightning and are used for all U.S. government and commercial launches at government and civilian ranges. They are maintained by a committee known as the NASA/USAF Lightning Advisory Panel (LAP). The previous LLCC for anvil cloud, meant to avoid triggered lightning, have been shown to be overly restrictive. Some of these rules have had such high safety margins that they prohibited flight under conditions that are now thought to be safe 90% of the time, leading to costly launch delays and scrubs. The LLCC for anvil clouds was upgraded in the summer of 2005 to incorporate results from the Airborne Field Mill (ABFM) experiment at the Eastern Range (ER). Numerous combinations of parameters were considered to develop the best correlation of operational weather observations to in-cloud electric fields capable of rocket triggered lightning in anvil clouds. The Volume Averaged Height Integrated Radar Reflectivity (VAHIRR) was the best metric found. Dr. Harry Koons of Aerospace Corporation conducted a risk analysis of the VAHIRR product. The results indicated that the LLCC based on the VAHIRR product would pose a negligible risk of flying through hazardous electric fields. Based on these findings, the Kennedy Space Center Weather Office is considering seeking funding for development of an automated VAHIRR algorithm for the new ER 45th Weather Squadron (45 WS) RadTec 431250 weather radar and Weather Surveillance Radar-1988 Doppler (WSR-88D) radars. Before developing an automated algorithm, the Applied Meteorology Unit (AMU) was tasked to determine the frequency with which VAHIRR would have allowed a launch to safely proceed during weather conditions otherwise deemed "red" by the Launch Weather Officer. To do this, the AMU manually calculated VAHIRR values based on candidate cases from past launches with known anvil cloud LLCC violations. An automated algorithm may be developed if the analyses from past launches show VAHIRR would have provided a significant cost benefit by allowing a launch to proceed. The 45 WS at the ER and 30th Weather Squadron (30 WS) at the Western Range provided the AMU with launch weather summaries from past launches that were impacted by LLCC. The 45 WS provided summaries from 14 launch attempts and the 30 WS fkom 5. The launch attempts occurred between December 2001 and June 2007. These summaries helped the AMU determine when the LLCC were "red" due to anvil cloud. The AMU collected WSR-88D radar reflectivity, cloud-to-ground lightning strikes, soundings and satellite imagery. The AMU used step-by-step instructions for calculating VAHIRR manually as provided by the 45 WS. These instructions were used for all of the candidate cases when anvil cloud caused an LLCC violation identified in the launch weather summaries. The AMU evaluated several software programs capable of visualizing radar data so that VAHIRR could be calculated and chose GR2Analyst from Gibson Ridge Software, LLC. Data availability and lack of detail from some launch weather summaries permitted analysis of six launch attempts from the ER and none from the WR. The AMU did not take into account whether or not other weather LCC violations were occurring at the same time as the anvil cloud LLCC since the goal of this task was to determine how often VAHIRR provided relief to the anvil cloud LLCC at any time during several previous launch attempts. Therefore, in the statistics presented in this report, it is possible that even though VAHIRR provided relief to the anvil cloud LLCC, other weather LCC could have been violated not permitting the launch to proceed. The results of this cost-benefit analysis indicated VAHIRR provided relief from the anvil cloud LLCC between about 15% and 18% of the time for varying 5-minute time periods based on summaries fkom six launch attempts and would have allowed launch to proceed that were otherwise "NO GO" due to the anvil cloud LLCC if the T-0 time occurred during the anvil cloud LLCC violations.

Bauman, William H., III↗

DOE OSTI2022

Transmission Alternatives for California North Coast Offshore Wind, Volume 4: Cost-Benefit Analysis Report

The purpose of this report is to compare the costs and benefits of installing offshore wind power plants with capacities up to 500 megawatts (MW) in the Humboldt Wind Energy Area offshore California, focusing on identifying the costs related to transmission upgrades and possible alternatives such as energy storage. We identify several options that result in lower costs than upgrading transmission to provide full deliverability. Our estimates of the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) assuming full deliverability range from $80/MWh for a 144-MW plant to $73/MWh for a 480-MW plant with a 2030 commercial operation date; however, the additional cost of transmission upgrades increases these values to between $86/MWh and $98/MWh. Based on curtailment and revenue estimates developed using a production cost model, the LCOEs for plant capacities of 144 MW and 168 MW with Energy Only deliverability are lower than the combined cost of energy and transmission upgrades for full deliverability. The addition of a 4-hour, 15-MW battery energy storage system increases revenue for both plant sizes, with the 144 MW + storage scenario producing the most revenue relative to LCOE.

17 WIND ENERGY↗