October 2018 ECP ST Project Review ECP Project WBS 2.3.1.12.
Abstract not provided.
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.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Abstract not provided.
Overview The Carbon Management Projects (CONNECT) Toolkit is an online exploratory visualization tool developed by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM) with support from other federal agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). It provides a single point of access to authoritative information on federal agency investment in a portfolio of research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) projects that have been publicly announced to advance technologies for point source carbon capture, carbon dioxide removal, transport, storage, and conversion, collectively referred to as carbon management. The RD&D programs covered in this tool are authorized by annual congressional appropriations ("Base Program") and the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The tool also incorporates public information on other federal initiatives, such as the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs, and public information released by other government agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) and Primacy States’ Underground Injection Control Class VI permits and EPA’s facility level greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Developed in a geographic information system, the tool organizes carbon management projects into five groups based on the primary technology that a project aims to advance, each visually represented as a digital layer ("carbon management project layer"). Only federally funded projects are included, which can be awarded projects that are completed or ongoing, or projects that have been selected but are currently under negotiation. Project information can be viewed in the map or in the attribute table below it when turned on. In the map view, each project is displayed at either its host site (for field work), where available, or its performer site (project lead's location, further explained in the table below). Host sites and performer sites are represented in distinct icons. Several reference layers offer additional public information on infrastructural and natural resource environment for carbon management. These reference layers, combined with multiple geographical basemaps, enable users to visualize the carbon management project layers in context. Carbon management project information will be updated monthly based on feedback and information availability. Carbon management project layers Point Source Carbon Capture (PSC) This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from power plants or industrial facilities. Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on capturing CO2 from the atmosphere, including direct air capture (DAC) and DAC hubs, direct ocean capture, enhanced mineralization, and biomass carbon removal and storage. For projects with multiple host sites, each of the sites are displayed individually with the project cost and cost sharing information representing the total for the entire project. Carbon Transport This layer contains DOE- and DOT-funded projects focused on CO2 transport. The Transport Research and Development sublayer contains projects that do not involve physical infrastructure; the Proposed Transport Corridor sublayer contains projects for which either a route for the transport infrastructure has been proposed or a general area for the transport infrastructure has been identified. Carbon Storage This layer contains DOE-funded key projects focused on CO2 storage. For projects with multiple field-work sites, each of the sites are displayed individually on the map with the project cost and cost sharing information representing the overall total for the entire project. Carbon Conversion This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on converting CO2 into economically valuable products. Reference layers The following layers provide additional information in the geographic proximity of carbon management projects. Users should reference the original sources for more details (weblinks provided below and in pop-up windows on the map). Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub and Facility These layers illustrate the approximate areas of the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs announced by DOE's Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) and the approximate locations of individual facilities that constitute the hubs (see "Where are the H2Hubs located?" on the webpage linked above). EPA Facility Level GHG Emissions (direct emitter) This layer shows direct CO2 emissions from stationary sources in 2022, using data extracted from EPA's Facility Level Information on GreenHouse gases Tool (FLIGHT). Captured and injected CO2 are not deducted from direct emitters’ total emissions. Contact EPA for additional details. Underground Injection Control Class VI permit/permit application This layer shows the locations of CO2 injection wells that are granted or in the process of applying for an Underground Injection Control Class VI permit by EPA or a Primacy State (currently Louisiana, North Dakota, and Wyoming). The URLs for the permits or permit applications are provided in the pop-up windows associated with the well locations. Contact EPA for additional details. Carbon Storage Resource This layer contains information on prospective CO2 storage resources in saline formations and oil and gas reservoirs provided by the National Carbon Sequestration Database and Geographic Information System (NATCARB) spatial database. Contact NETL for additional details. Existing CO2 pipeline This layer shows active CO2 pipelines based on information digitized from the map issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). Contact PHMSA for additional details.
Despite the critical importance of project completion timeliness, management practices in place today remain inadequate for addressing the persistent problem of project completion tardiness. A major culprit in late projects is uncertainty, which most, if not all, projects are inherently subject to. This uncertainty resides in the estimates for activity durations, the occurrence of unplanned and unforeseen events, and the availability of critical resources. In response to this problem, this research developed a comprehensive simulation based methodology for conducting quantitative project completion time risk analysis. It is called the Project Assessment by Simulation Technique (PAST). This new tool enables project stakeholders to visualize uncertainty or risk, i.e. the likelihood of their project completing late and the magnitude of the lateness, by providing them with a completion time distribution function of their projects. Discrete event simulation is used within PAST to determine the completion distribution function for the project of interest. The simulation is populated with both deterministic and stochastic elements. The deterministic inputs include planned project activities, precedence requirements, and resource requirements. The stochastic inputs include activity duration growth distributions, probabilities for events that can impact the project, and other dynamic constraints that may be placed upon project activities and milestones. These stochastic inputs are based upon past data from similar projects. The time for an entity to complete the simulation network, subject to both the deterministic and stochastic factors, represents the time to complete the project. Repeating the simulation hundreds or thousands of times allows one to create the project completion distribution function. The Project Assessment by Simulation Technique was demonstrated to be effective for the on-going NASA project to assemble the International Space Station. Approximately $500 million per month is being spent on this project, which is scheduled to complete by 2010. NASA project stakeholders participated in determining and managing completion distribution functions produced from PAST. The first result was that project stakeholders improved project completion risk awareness. Secondly, using PAST, mitigation options were analyzed to improve project completion performance and reduce total project cost.
Purpose: To describe a novel methodology of converting megavoltage x-ray projections into virtual proton projections that are otherwise missing due to the proton range limit. These converted virtual proton projections can be used in the reconstruction of proton computed tomography (pCT). Methods: Relations exist between proton projections and multispectral megavoltage x-ray projections for human tissue. Based on these relations, these tissues can be categorized into: (a) adipose tissue; (b) nonadipose soft tissues; and (c) bone. These three tissue categories can be visibly identified on a regular megavoltage x-ray computed tomography (MVCT) image. With an MVCT image and its projection data available, the x-ray projections through heterogeneous anatomy can be converted to the corresponding proton projections using predetermined calibration curves for individual materials, aided by a coarse segmentation on the x-ray CT image. To show the feasibility of this approach, mathematical simulations were carried out. The converted proton projections, plotted on a proton sinogram, were compared to the simulated ground truth. Proton stopping power images were reconstructed using either the virtual proton projections only or a blend of physically available proton projections and virtual proton projections that make up for those missing due to the range limit. These images were compared to a reference image reconstructed from theoretically calculated proton projections. Results: The converted virtual projections had an uncertainty of {+-}0.8% compared to the calculated ground truth. Proton stopping power images reconstructed using a blend of converted virtual projections (48%) and physically available projections (52%) had an uncertainty of {+-}0.86% compared with that reconstructed from theoretically calculated projections. Reconstruction solely from converted virtual proton projections had an uncertainty of {+-}1.1% compared with that reconstructed from theoretical projections. If these images are used for treatment planning, the average proton range uncertainty is estimated to be less than 1.5% for an imaging dose in the milligray range. Conclusions: The proposed method can be used to convert x-ray projections into virtual proton projections. The converted proton projections can be blended with existing proton projections or can be used solely for pCT reconstruction, addressing the range limit problem of pCT using current therapeutic proton machines.
Implementing guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C) theory principles and applying them to the human element of project management and control is not a new concept. As both the literature on the subject and the real-world applications are neither readily available nor comprehensive with regard to how such principles might be applied, this paper has been written to educate the project manager on the "laws of physics" of his or her project (not to teach a GN&C engineer how to become a project manager) and to provide an intuitive, mathematical explanation as to the control and behavior of projects. This paper will also address how the fundamental principles of modern GN&C were applied to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Constellation Program (CxP) space suit project, ensuring the project was managed within cost, schedule, and budget. A project that is akin to a physical system can be modeled and managed using the same over arching principles of GN&C that would be used if that project were a complex vehicle, a complex system(s), or complex software with time-varying processes (at times nonlinear) containing multiple data inputs of varying accuracy and a range of operating points. The classic GN&C theory approach could thus be applied to small, well-defined projects; yet when working with larger, multiyear projects necessitating multiple organizational structures, numerous external influences, and a multitude of diverse resources, modern GN&C principles are required to model and manage the project. The fundamental principles of a GN&C system incorporate these basic concepts: State, Behavior, Feedback Control, Navigation, Guidance and Planning Logic systems. The State of a system defines the aspects of the system that can change over time; e.g., position, velocity, acceleration, coordinate-based attitude, and temperature, etc. The Behavior of the system focuses more on what changes are possible within the system; this is denoted in the state of the system. The behavior of a system, as captured in the system modeling, when properly done will aid in accurately predicting future system performance. The Feedback Control system understands the state and behavior of the system and uses feedback to adjust control inputs into the system. The feedback, which is the right arm of the Control system, allows change to be affected in the overall system; it therefore is important to not only correctly identify the system feedback inputs, but also the system response to the feedback inputs. The Navigation system takes multiple data inputs and based on a priori knowledge of the inputs, develops a statistically based weighting of the inputs and measurements to determine the system's state. Guidance and Planning Logic of the system, complete with an understanding of where the system is (provided by the Navigation system), will in turn determine where the system needs to be and how to get it there. With any system/project, it is critical that the objective of the system/project be clearly defined -- not only to plan but to measure performance and to aid in guiding the system or the project. The system principles discussed above, which can be and have been applied to the current CxP space suit development project, can also be mapped to real-world constituents, thus allowing project managers to apply systems theories that are well defined in engineering and mathematics to a discipline (i.e., Project Management) that historically has been based in personal experience and intuition. This mapping of GN&C theory to Project Management will, in turn, permit a direct, methodical approach to Project Management, planning and control providing a tool to help predict (and guide) performance and an understanding of the project constraints, how the project can be controlled, and the impacts to external influences and inputs. This approach, to a project manager, flows down to the three bottom-line variables of cost, schedule, and scope ando the needed control of these three variables to successfully perform and complete a project.
Cook Inlet, Alaska is home to some of the greatest tidal energy resources in the U.S., as well as an endangered population of beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas). Successfully permitting and operating a tidal power project in Cook Inlet requires a biological assessment of the potential and realized effects of the physical presence and sound footprint of tidal turbines on the distribution, relative abundance, and behavior of Cook Inlet beluga whales. ORPC Alaska, working with the Project Team—LGL Alaska Research Associates, University of Alaska Anchorage, TerraSond, and Greeneridge Science—undertook the following U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) study to characterize beluga whales in Cook Inlet – Acoustic Monitoring of Beluga Whale Interactions with the Cook Inlet Tidal Energy Project (Project). ORPC Alaska, LLC, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ocean Renewable Power Company, LLC, (collectively, ORPC). ORPC is a global leader in the development of hydrokinetic power systems and eco-conscious projects that harness the power of ocean and river currents to create clean, predictable renewable energy. ORPC is developing a tidal energy demonstration project in Cook Inlet at East Foreland where ORPC has a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) preliminary permit (P-13821). The Project collected baseline data to characterize pre-deployment patterns of marine mammal distribution, relative abundance, and behavior in ORPC’s proposed deployment area at East Foreland. ORPC also completed work near Fire Island where ORPC held a FERC preliminary permit (P-12679) until March 6, 2013. Passive hydroacoustic devices (previously utilized with bowhead whales in the Beaufort Sea) were adapted for study of beluga whales to determine the relative abundance of beluga whale vocalizations within the proposed deployment areas. Hydroacoustic data collected during the Project were used to characterize the ambient acoustic environment of the project site pre-deployment to inform the FERC pilot project process. The Project compared results obtained from this method to results obtained from other passive hydrophone technologies and to visual observation techniques performed simultaneously. This Final Report makes recommendations on the best practice for future data collection, for ORPC’s work in Cook Inlet specifically, and for tidal power projects in general. This Project developed a marine mammal study design and compared technologies for hydroacoustic and visual data collection with potential for broad application to future tidal and hydrokinetic projects in other geographic areas. The data collected for this Project will support the environmental assessment of future Cook Inlet tidal energy projects, including ORPC’s East Foreland Tidal Energy Project and any tidal energy developments at Fire Island. The Project’s rigorous assessment of technology and methodologies will be invaluable to the hydrokinetic industry for developing projects in an environmentally sound and sustainable way for areas with high marine mammal activity or endangered populations. By combining several different sampling methods this Project will also contribute to the future preparation of a comprehensive biological assessment of ORPC’s projects in Cook Inlet.
George Meade defeated Robert E. Lee, one of the greatest military leaders of all time. How did he do it? By using the skills he had learned as a project manager and outperforming Lee in all aspects of project management. Most project managers are familiar with the Project Management Institute's "Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge" (PMBOK), which identifies the skills and knowledge crucial to successful project management. Project managers need to make sure that all the elements of a project work together. They must develop and execute plans and coordinate changes to those plans. A project manager must define the scope of the work, break it into manageable pieces, verify and control what work is being done, and make sure that the work being done is essential to the project. Every project manager knows the challenges of schedule and the value of schedule slack. Project managers must get the resources they need and use them effectively. Project managers get the people they need and use their talents to achieve mission success. Projects generate huge amounts of information. A key to project success is getting sufficient and accurate information to the people who need it when they need it. Project managers must identify and quantify the risks that jeopardize project success and make plans for dealing with them. Studying Meade and Lee's performances at Gettysburg can help modern project managers appreciate, develop, and use the skills they need to be good project managers. The circumstances may be different, but the basic principles are the same. This dramatic event in American history shows how the skills of project management can be used in almost any situation. Former project manager George Meade used those skills to change the tide of the Civil War.
The utility-scale solar sector has led the overall U.S. solar market in terms of installed capacity since 2012. In 2017, the utility-scale sector accounted for nearly 60% of all new solar capacity, and is expected to maintain its market-leading position for at least another six years. Two-thirds of all states, representing all regions of the country, are now home to one or more utility-scale solar projects. This report—the sixth in an ongoing annual series—provides in-depth data-driven analysis of the utility-scale solar project fleet in the United States. Drawing on empirical project-level data from a wide range of sources, this report analyzes technology trends, installed project prices, operating costs, capacity factors, power purchase agreement ("PPA") prices, the levelized cost of solar energy (LCOE), and the market value of solar. Given its current preeminence in the market, utility-scale PV also dominates much of this report, though data from CPV and CSP projects are also presented where appropriate. Highlights from this year's edition include: -Installation and Technology Trends: The use of solar trackers dominated 2017 installations with nearly 80% of all new capacity. In a reflection of the ongoing geographic expansion of the market beyond California and the high-insolation Southwest, the median insolation level at newly built project sites declined again in 2017. While new fixed-tilt projects are now seen predominantly in less-sunny regions, tracking projects are increasingly pushing into these same regions. The median inverter loading ratio grew to 1.32 in 2017, allowing the inverters to operate closer to full capacity for a greater percentage of the day. -Installed Prices: Median installed PV project prices have steadily fallen by two-thirds since the 2007-2009 period, to $2.0/WAC (or $1.6/WDC) for projects completed in 2017. The lowest 20th percentile of projects within our 2017 sample were priced at or below $1.8/WAC, with the lowest-priced projects around $0.9/WAC. Overall price dispersion across the entire sample has decreased steadily every year since 2013; similarly, price variation across regions decreased in 2017. -Operation and Maintenance ("O&M") Costs: PV O&M costs were in the neighborhood of $16/kWAC-year, or $8/MWh, in 2017. These numbers include only those costs incurred to directly operate and maintain the generating plant. -Capacity Factors: The cumulative net AC capacity factors of individual projects vary widely, from 14.3% to 35.2%, with a sample median of 26.3%. This project-level variation is based on a number of factors, including the strength of the solar resource at the project site, whether the array is mounted at a fixed tilt or on a tracking mechanism, the inverter loading ratio, degradation, and curtailment. Changes in at least the first three of these factors drove mean capacity factors higher from 2010-vintage to 2013-vintage projects, where they've remained fairly steady among more-recent project vintages as an ongoing increase in the prevalence of tracking has been offset by a build-out of lower resource sites. -PPA Prices and LCOE: Driven by lower installed project prices and improving capacity factors, levelized PPA prices for utility-scale PV have fallen dramatically over time, by $20-$30/MWh per year on average from 2006 through 2012, with a smaller price decline of ~$10/MWh per year evident from 2013 through 2016. Most recent PPAs in our sample—including many outside of California and the Southwest—are priced at or below $40/MWh levelized (in real 2017 dollars), with a few priced as aggressively as ~$20/MWh. The median LCOE among operational PV projects in our sample has followed PPA prices lower, suggesting a relatively competitive market for PPAs. -Solar's Wholesale Energy Market Value: Falling PPA prices have been offset to some degree by a decline in the wholesale energy market value of solar within higher-penetration markets like California, where solar earned just 79% of the average price across all hours within CAISO's real-time wholesale energy market in 2017 (down from 125% back in 2012). In other markets with less solar penetration, however, solar's hourly generation profile still earns more than the average wholesale price (e.g., 127% in ERCOT, 112% in PJM). -Solar+Storage: Adding battery storage is one way to at least partially restore the value of solar, and three recent PV+storage PPAs in Nevada (each using 4-hour batteries sized at 25% of PV nameplate capacity) suggest that the incremental PPA price adder for storage has fallen to ~$5/MWh, down from ~$15/MWh just a year ago for a similarly configured project. As PV plus battery storage becomes more cost-effective, a number of developers are regularly offering it as a viable upgrade to standalone PV. At the end of 2017, there were at least 188.5 GW of utility-scale solar power capacity within the interconnection queues across the nation. The 2017 growth within these queues is widely distributed across all regions of the country, but is most pronounced in the up-and-coming Midwest region, which accounts for 27% of the 99.2 GW of new queue capacity. The widening geographic distribution is as clear of a sign as any that the utility-scale market is maturing and expanding outside of its traditional high-insolation comfort zones.
The utility-scale solar sector has led the overall U.S. solar market in terms of installed capacity since 2012. In 2016, the utility-scale sector installed more than 2.5 times as much new capacity as did the residential and commercial sectors combined, and is expected to maintain its dominant position for at least another five years. This report—the fifth edition in an ongoing annual series—provides data-driven analysis of the utility-scale solar project fleet in the United States. We analyze not just installed project prices, but also operating costs, capacity factors, and power purchase agreement ("PPA") prices from a large sample of utility-scale PV and CSP projects throughout the United States. Highlights from this year's edition include the following: Installation Trends: The use of solar tracking devices dominated 2016 installations, at nearly 80% of all new capacity. In a reflection of the ongoing geographic expansion of the market beyond California and the Southwest, the median long-term average insolation level at newly built project sites declined again in 2016. While new fixed-tilt projects are now seen predominantly in less-sunny regions, tracking projects are increasingly pushing into these same regions. The median inverter loading ratio has stabilized in 2016 at 1.3 for both tracking and fixed-tilt projects. Installed Prices: Median installed PV project prices within a sizable sample have fallen by two-thirds since the 2007-2009 period, to $2.2/WAC (or $1.7/WDC) for projects completed in 2016. The lowest 20th percentile of projects within our 2016 sample were priced at or below $2.0/WAC, with the lowest-priced projects around $1.5/WAC. Overall price dispersion across the entire sample and across geographic regions decreased significantly in 2016. Operation and Maintenance (“O&M”) Costs: What limited empirical O&M cost data are publicly available suggest that PV O&M costs were in the neighborhood of $18/kWAC-year, or $8/MWh, in 2016. These numbers include only those costs incurred to directly operate and maintain the generating plant. Capacity Factors: The cumulative net AC capacity factors of individual PV projects range widely, from 15.4% to 35.5%, with a sample median of 26.3%. This project-level variation is based on a number of factors, including the strength of the solar resource at the project site, whether the array is mounted at a fixed-tilt or on a tracking mechanism, the inverter loading ratio, degradation, and curtailment. Changes in at least the first three of these factors drove mean capacity factors higher from 2010- to 2013-vintage projects, where they’ve remained fairly steady among both 2014- and 2015-vintage projects as an ongoing increase in the prevalence of tracking has been offset by a build-out of lower resource sites. Meanwhile, several of the newer CSP projects in the United States are struggling to match long-term performance expectations. PPA Prices: Driven by lower installed project prices and improving capacity factors, levelized PPA prices for utility-scale PV have fallen dramatically over time. Most recent PPAs in our sample are priced at or below $50/MWh levelized, with a few priced as aggressively as ~$30/MWh. Though impressive in pace and scale, these falling PPA prices have been offset to some degree by declining wholesale market value within high penetration markets like California, where in 2016 a MWh of solar generation was worth just 83% of a MWh of flat, round-the-clock generation. At the end of 2016, there were at least 121.4 GW of utility-scale solar power capacity within the interconnection queues across the nation. The growth within these queues is widely distributed across all regions of the country: California and the Southeast each account for 23% of the 83.3 GW of solar that first entered the queues in 2016, followed by the Northeast (17%), the Southwest (16%), the Central region (12%), Texas (6%) and the Northwest (3%). The widening geographic distribution of solar projects is a clear sign that the utility-scale market is maturing and expanding outside of its traditional high-insolation comfort zones.
Purpose: In image reconstruction from projections, data consistency conditions (DCCs) are mathematical relationships that express the overlap of information between ideal projections. DCCs have been incorporated in image reconstruction procedures for positron emission tomography, single photon emission computed tomography, and x-ray computed tomography (CT). Building on published fanbeam DCCs for nontruncated projections along a line, the authors recently announced new DCCs that can be applied to truncated parallel projections in classical (two-dimensional) image reconstruction. These DCCs take the form of polynomial expressions for a weighted backprojection of the projections. The purpose of this work was to present the new DCCs for truncated parallel projections, to extend these conditions to truncated fanbeam projections on a circular trajectory, to verify the conditions with numerical examples, and to present a model of how DCCs could be applied with a toy problem in patient motion estimation with truncated projections. Methods: A mathematical derivation of the new parallel DCCs was performed by substituting the underlying imaging equation into the mathematical expression for the weighted backprojection and demonstrating the resulting polynomial form. This DCC result was extended to fanbeam projections by a substitution of parallel to fanbeam variables. Ideal fanbeam projections of a simple mathematical phantom were simulated and the DCCs for these projections were evaluated by fitting polynomials to the weighted backprojection. For the motion estimation problem, a parametrized motion was simulated using a dynamic version of the mathematical phantom, and both noiseless and noisy fanbeam projections were simulated for a full circular trajectory. The fanbeam DCCs were applied to extract the motion parameters, which allowed the motion contamination to be removed from the projections. A reconstruction was performed from the corrected projections. Results: The mathematical derivation revealed the anticipated polynomial behavior. The conversion to fanbeam variables led to a straight-forward weighted fanbeam backprojection which yielded the same function and therefore the same polynomial behavior as occurred in the parallel case. Plots of the numerically calculated DCCs showed polynomial behavior visually indistinguishable from the fitted polynomials. For the motion estimation problem, the motion parameters were satisfactorily recovered and ten times more accurately for the noise-free case. The reconstructed images showed that only a faint trace of the motion blur was still visible after correction from the noisy motion-contaminated projections. Conclusions: New DCCs have been established for fanbeam and parallel projections, and these conditions have been validated using numerical experiments with truncated projections. It has been shown how these DCCs could be applied to extract parameters of unwanted physical effects in tomographic imaging, even with truncated projections.
Purpose: To perform task-based image quality assessment in CT, it is desirable to have a large number of realistic patient images with known diagnostic truth. One effective way of achieving this objective is to create hybrid images that combine patient images with inserted lesions. Because conventional hybrid images generated in the image domain fails to reflect the impact of scan and reconstruction parameters on lesion appearance, this study explored a projection-domain approach. Methods: Lesions were segmented from patient images and forward projected to acquire lesion projections. The forward-projection geometry was designed according to a commercial CT scanner and accommodated both axial and helical modes with various focal spot movement patterns. The energy employed by the commercial CT scanner for beam hardening correction was measured and used for the forward projection. The lesion projections were inserted into patient projections decoded from commercial CT projection data. The combined projections were formatted to match those of commercial CT raw data, loaded onto a commercial CT scanner, and reconstructed to create the hybrid images. Two validations were performed. First, to validate the accuracy of the forward-projection geometry, images were reconstructed from the forward projections of a virtual ACR phantom and compared to physically acquired ACR phantom images in terms of CT number accuracy and high-contrast resolution. Second, to validate the realism of the lesion in hybrid images, liver lesions were segmented from patient images and inserted back into the same patients, each at a new location specified by a radiologist. The inserted lesions were compared to the original lesions and visually assessed for realism by two experienced radiologists in a blinded fashion. Results: For the validation of the forward-projection geometry, the images reconstructed from the forward projections of the virtual ACR phantom were consistent with the images physically acquired for the ACR phantom in terms of Hounsfield unit and high-contrast resolution. For the validation of the lesion realism, lesions of various types were successfully inserted, including well circumscribed and invasive lesions, homogeneous and heterogeneous lesions, high-contrast and low-contrast lesions, isolated and vessel-attached lesions, and small and large lesions. The two experienced radiologists who reviewed the original and inserted lesions could not identify the lesions that were inserted. The same lesion, when inserted into the projection domain and reconstructed with different parameters, demonstrated a parameter-dependent appearance. Conclusions: A framework has been developed for projection-domain insertion of lesions into commercial CT images, which can be potentially expanded to all geometries of CT scanners. Compared to conventional image-domain methods, the authors’ method reflected the impact of scan and reconstruction parameters on lesion appearance. Compared to prior projection-domain methods, the authors’ method has the potential to achieve higher anatomical complexity by employing clinical patient projections and real patient lesions.
Grid-tied solar photovoltaic (PV) development began gradually in Montana, initially taking root in the early 2000s, largely in the form of small residential systems, rarely larger than two kilowatts. Utility support for solar technology through public benefit funding triggered the installation of the state’s first solar PV installations on community-owned facilities including schools, libraries, fire stations and local government buildings in the mid-2000s. By 2016, solar PV installations totaled approximately 28 megawatts of installed capacity, generating less than 0.05% of electricity sold in Montana. Montana’s solar fleet in 2016 included 17 megawatts of utility-scale solar farms, and three shared solar projects developed by rural electric cooperatives that ranged from 25 to 50 kilowatts in size. However, with only 3,000 households utilizing solar PV, either through an on-site installation or participation in a shared solar project, the potential benefits and reach of solar technology was limited. The Montana Solar Community Project (MSCP) was developed by the Montana Energy Office (MEO) at the Department of Environmental Quality in order to implement a “community-scale” solar energy strategy for the state that would cost-effectively expand Montanans’ access to solar PV. This project defines three types of community-scale solar projects: shared solar, community-sited solar, and group purchasing programs. The MSCP project conducted research and stakeholder engagement that helped to inform and develop model community-scale initiatives and an overarching community-scale solar strategy for Montana. Specifically, the project included a solar market assessment, stakeholder meetings across Montana, development of a menu of community-scale solar options, a study of solar potential on schools, community solar market research, and community-scale project implementation support. MSCP activities were successful in implementing solar projects and supporting solar development in communities across Montana. Project activities realized 280 kW of newly installed solar from two solarize programs, a shared solar array at a rural electric cooperative, and a solar array atop a Bozeman high school. The community-scale project implementation support and Solar on Schools components of the project resulted directly in the analysis and design of nearly 2 MW of distributed solar systems across the state. The Solar on Schools analysis alone produced solar designs for 25 schools, representing 920.8 kW of solar potential. Many of the deliverables from this project provide guidance on future development of community-scale solar in Montana, and resulted in a number of important conclusions about community-scale solar in Montana. There is strong interest in community-scale solar in Montana, as noted during stakeholder meetings, in response to solar market research surveys, and as seen by applications for implementation support grants provided by MEO. Project activities also suggest that Montanans demonstrated a desire and need for more information about solar energy technology, solar financing options, and the state’s policy and regulatory framework. Additionally, the project found that schools will be key partners for future community-scale solar programs. In addition to being excellent hosts for solar arrays, schools have the opportunity to use the installation of a solar array to develop educational materials and curricula to educate Montana’s future leaders about these technologies, which can be shared and replicated across the state. Project activities laid a clear path forward for solar energy in Montana. Certain activities have concrete next steps. For example, numerous solar arrays were designed for schools and other public buildings around the state. Many of those designs will be used as soon as funding becomes available. Other activities have less developed next steps, though lay the foundation for future work. The solar market assessment, solar market research, and community stakeholder meetings are good examples. These documents can be used as stepping stones to increase renewable energy education, increase stakeholder outreach, and support communities as they seek to develop community-scale solar projects.
How do you improve on an industry that is well established yet often misses the mark on key metrics demonstrating effective planning and execution of project scope, schedule and budget? With the increased complexity of DOE projects relative to either poorly kept records of what wastes are stored or the lack of specific knowledge relative to the waste concentrations/quantities, this is a question continually asked and investigated by many. In fact, in 2017, the GAO's report to Congress indicated that although the DOE has made some progress on its monitoring effectiveness and demonstrating progress criteria, these goals were not met and there needs to be more improvement and monitoring. This paper will offer some insights into the latest developments in project management methodologies and the possible application of these to waste management projects. Traditional data generated via a project schedule that utilizes critical path methodology (CPM) and additional earned value management (EVM) data needs to be accurate and enable the project manager to better understand the probability of project success. Although this data has readily been available on most large-scale projects, success as measured by various stakeholder groups including the client, project team, regulators, etc. is less than optimal. Therefore, an urgent need exists to explore how traditional project data (CPM and EVM) coupled with new methodologies allows for better planning and execution by the project team. Many new approaches/methodologies can even be used to predict the success of options prior to full implementation on the actual project. Three approaches/methodologies will be discussed: - Artificial Intelligence; - Change Management; - Blend of Traditional Management (Gantt chart) and Agile Methodologies. As market forces change, so will the direction of project management. The days of 'one size fits all' are no longer valid. A combination of predictive and adaptive approaches in the management of projects is essential to enable execution of project deliverables on time, under budget, and within the contractual scope. This paper is intended to provide the reader with insight to the close relationship of project management trends and business management trends, and to provoke critical thinking about what it means to align project management strategy with an environment of non-stop innovation. (authors)
In late September 2014 development of the Lake Charles Clean Energy (LCCE) Plant was abandoned resulting in termination of Lake Charles Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) Project which was a subset the LCCE Plant. As a result, the project was only funded through Phase 2A (Design) and did not enter Phase 2B (Construction) or Phase 2C (Operations). This report was prepared relying on information prepared and provided by engineering companies which were engaged by Leucadia Energy, LLC to prepare or review Front End Engineering and Design (FEED) for the Lake Charles Clean Energy Project, which includes the Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) Project in Lake Charles, Louisiana. The Lake Charles Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) Project was to be a large-scale industrial CCS project intended to demonstrate advanced technologies that capture and sequester carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions from industrial sources into underground formations. The Scope of work was divided into two discrete sections; 1) Capture and Compression prepared by the Recipient Leucadia Energy, LLC, and 2) Transport and Sequestration prepared by sub-Recipient Denbury Onshore, LLC. Capture and Compression-The Lake Charles CCS Project Final Technical Report describes the systems and equipment that would be necessary to capture CO 2 generated in a large industrial gasification process and sequester the CO 2 into underground formations. The purpose of each system is defined along with a description of its equipment and operation. Criteria for selection of major equipment are provided and ancillary utilities necessary for safe and reliable operation in compliance with environmental regulations are described. Construction considerations are described including a general arrangement of the CCS process units within the overall gasification project. A cost estimate is provided, delineated by system area with cost breakdown showing equipment, piping and materials, construction labor, engineering, and other costs. The CCS Project Final Technical Report is based on a Front End Engineering and Design (FEED) study prepared by SK E&C, completed in [June] 2014. Subsequently, Fluor Enterprises completed a FEED validation study in mid-September 2014. The design analyses indicated that the FEED package was sufficient and as expected. However, Fluor considered the construction risk based on a stick-build approach to be unacceptable, but construction risk would be substantially mitigated through utilization of modular construction where site labor and schedule uncertainty is minimized. Fluor’s estimate of the overall EPC project cost utilizing the revised construction plan was comparable to SKE&C’s value after reflecting Fluor’s assessment of project scope and risk characteristic. Development was halted upon conclusion of Phase 2A FEED and the project was not constructed.Transport and Sequestration – The overall objective of the pipeline project was to construct a pipeline to transport captured CO 2 from the Lake Charles Clean Energy project to the existing Denbury Green Line and then to the Hastings Field in Southeast Texas to demonstrate effective geologic sequestration of captured CO 2 through commercial EOR operations. The overall objective of the MVA portion of the project was to demonstrate effective geologic sequestration of captured CO 2 through commercial Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) operations in order to evaluate costs, operational processes and technical performance. The DOE target for the project was to capture and implement a research MVA program to demonstrate the sequestration through EOR of approximately one million tons of CO 2 per year as an integral component of commercial operations.
Large projects almost always exceed their budgets. Estimating cost is difficult and estimated costs are usually too low. Three different reasons are suggested: bad luck, overoptimism, and deliberate underestimation. Project management can usually point to project difficulty and complexity, technical uncertainty, stakeholder conflicts, scope changes, unforeseen events, and other not really unpredictable bad luck. Project planning is usually over-optimistic, so the likelihood and impact of bad luck is systematically underestimated. Project plans reflect optimism and hope for success in a supposedly unique new effort rather than rational expectations based on historical data. Past project problems are claimed to be irrelevant because "This time it's different." Some bad luck is inevitable and reasonable optimism is understandable, but deliberate deception must be condemned. In a competitive environment, project planners and advocates often deliberately underestimate costs to help gain project approval and funding. Project benefits, cost savings, and probability of success are exaggerated and key risks ignored. Project advocates have incentives to distort information and conceal difficulties from project approvers. One naively suggested cure is more openness, honesty, and group adherence to shared overall goals. A more realistic alternative is threatening overrun projects with cancellation. Neither approach seems to solve the problem. A better method to avoid the delusions of over-optimism and the deceptions of biased advocacy is to base the project cost estimate on the actual costs of a large group of similar projects. Over optimism and deception can continue beyond the planning phase and into project execution. Hard milestones based on verified tests and demonstrations can provide a reality check.