Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “DOLLARS”

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 379 records · Page 21
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2016

SynTec Final Technical Report: Synthetic biology for Tailored Enzyme cocktails

Using a novel enzyme screening method inspired by synthetic biology, Novozymes developed new technology under SynTec which allows for more rapidly tailoring of enzyme cocktails. The methodology can be applied to specific feedstocks, and or coupled to address a specific hydrolytic conversion process context. Using combinatorial high throughput screening of libraries of enzyme domains, we can quickly assess which combination of catalytic modules delivers the best performance for a specific condition. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the screening process, we measured performance of the output catalytic cocktail compared to CTec3/HTec3. SynTec benchmark cocktail - blend of Cellic® CTec3 and HTec3. The test substrate was - ammonia fiber expansion pretreated corn stover (AFEX™ PCS).CTec3/HTec3 was assayed at the optimal pH and temperature, and also in the absence of any pH adjustment. The new enzyme cocktail discovered under SynTec was assayed in the absence of any pH adjustment and at the optimal temperature. Conversion is delivered by SynTec enzyme at significant dose reduction relative to CTec3/HTec3 at the controlled pH optimum, and without titrant required to maintain pH, which delivers additional cost savings relative to current state of the art process. In this 2.5 year $4M project, the team delivered an experimental cocktail that significantly outperformed CTec3/HTec3 for a specific substrate, and for specific hydrolysis conditions. As a means of comparing performance improvement delivered per research dollar spent, we note that SynTec delivered a similar performance improvement to the previous award, in a shorter time and with fewer resources than for the previously successful DOE project DECREASE, a 3.5 year, $25M project, though this project focused on a different substrate and used different hydrolysis conditions. The newly implemented technology for rapid sourcing of new cellulases and hemicellulases from nature is an example of Novozymes' continued innovation that results in more effective products for the advanced biofuel market.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2015

A2e High Fidelity Modeling: Strategic Planning Meetings

Atmosphere to electrons (A2e) is a multi-year U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) research initiative targeting significant reductions in the cost of wind energy through an improved understanding of the complex physics governing wind flow into and through whole wind farms. Better insight into the flow physics of large multi-turbine arrays will address the plant-level energy losses, is likely to reduce annual operational costs by hundreds of millions of dollars, and will improve project financing terms to more closely resemble traditional capital projects. In support of this initiative, two planning meetings were convened, bringing together professionals from universities, national laboratories, and industry to discuss wind plant modeling challenges, requirements, best practices, and priorities. This report documents the combined work of the two meetings and serves as a key part of the foundation for the A2e/HFM effort for predictive modeling of whole wind plant physics.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2016

Pathways for Disposal of Commercially-Generated Tritiated Waste

From a waste disposal standpoint, tritium is a major challenge. Because it behaves like hydrogen, tritium exchanges readily with hydrogen in the ground water and moves easily through the ground. Land disposal sites must control the tritium activity and mobility of incoming wastes to protect human health and the environment. Consequently, disposal of tritiated low-level wastes is highly regulated and disposal options are limited. The United States has had eight operating commercial facilities licensed for low-level radioactive waste disposal, only four of which are currently receiving waste. Each of these is licensed and regulated by its state. Only two of these sites accept waste from states outside of their specified regional compact. For waste streams that cannot be disposed directly at one of the four active commercial low-level waste disposal facilities, processing facilities offer various forms of tritiated low-level waste processing and treatment, and then transport and dispose of the residuals at a disposal facility. These processing facilities may remove and recycle tritium, reduce waste volume, solidify liquid waste, remove hazardous constituents, or perform a number of additional treatments. Waste brokers also offer many low-level and mixed waste management and transportation services. These services can be especially helpful for small-quantity tritiated-waste generators, such as universities, research institutions, medical facilities, and some industries. The information contained in this report covers general capabilities and requirements for the various disposal/processing facilities and brokerage companies, but is not considered exhaustive. Typically, each facility has extensive waste acceptance criteria and will require a generator to thoroughly characterize their wastes. Then a contractual agreement between the waste generator and the disposal/processing/broker entity must be in place before waste is accepted. Costs for tritiated waste transportation, processing and disposal vary based a number of factors. In many cases, wastes with very low radioactivity are priced primarily based on weight or volume. For higher activities, costs are based on both volume and activity, with the activity-based charges usually being much larger than volume-based charges. Other factors affecting cost include location, waste classification and form, other hazards in the waste, etc. Costs may be based on general guidelines used by an individual disposal or processing site, but final costs are established by specific contract with each generator. For this report, seven hypothetical waste streams intended to represent commercially-generated tritiated waste were defined in order to calculate comparative costs. Ballpark costs for disposition of these hypothetical waste streams were calculated. These costs ranged from thousands to millions of dollars. Due to the complexity of the cost-determining factors mentioned above, the costs calculated in this report should be understood to represent very rough cost estimates for the various hypothetical wastes. Actual costs could be higher or could be lower due to quantity discounts or other factors.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2015

Accessing Secondary Markets as a Capital Source for Energy Efficiency Finance Programs: Program Design Considerations for Policymakers and Administrators

Estimates of the total opportunity for investment in cost-effective energy efficiency in the United States are typically in the range of several hundred billion dollars (Choi Granade, et al., 2009 and Fulton & Brandenburg, 2012).1,2 To access this potential, many state policymakers and utility regulators have established aggressive energy efficiency savings targets. Current levels of taxpayer and utility bill-payer funding for energy efficiency is only a small fraction of the total investment needed to meet these targets (SEE Action Financing Solutions Working Group, 2013). Given this challenge, some energy efficiency program administrators are working to access private capital sources with the aim of amplifying the funds available for investment. In this context, efficient access to secondary market capital has been advanced as one important enabler of the energy efficiency industry “at scale.”3 The question of what role secondary markets can play in bringing energy efficiency to scale is largely untested despite extensive attention from media, technical publications, advocates, and others. Only a handful of transactions of energy efficiency loan products have been executed to date, and it is too soon to draw robust conclusions from these deals. At the same time, energy efficiency program administrators and policymakers face very real decisions regarding whether and how to access secondary markets as part of their energy efficiency deployment strategy.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2016

Materials for Advanced Ultra-supercritical (A-USC) Steam Turbines – A-USC Component Demonstration

The work by the United States Department of Energy (U.S. DOE)/Ohio Coal Development Office (OCDO) advanced ultra-supercritical (A-USC) Steam Boiler and Turbine Materials Consortia from 2001 through September 2015 was primarily focused on lab scale and pilot scale materials testing. This testing included air- or steam-cooled “loops” that were inserted into existing utility boilers to gain exposure of these materials to realistic conditions of high temperature and corrosion due to the constituents in the coal. Successful research and development resulted in metallic alloy materials and fabrication processes suited for power generation applications with metal temperatures up to approximately 1472°F (800°C). These materials or alloys have shown, in extensive laboratory tests and shop fabrication studies, to have excellent applicability for high-efficiency low CO 2 transformational power generation technologies previously mentioned. However, as valuable as these material loops have been for obtaining information, their scale is significantly below that required to minimize the risk associated with a power company building a multi-billion dollar A-USC power plant. To decrease the identified risk barriers to full-scale implementation of these advanced materials, the U.S. DOE/OCDO A-USC Steam Boiler and Turbine Materials Consortia identified the key areas of the technology that need to be tested at a larger scale. Based upon the recommendations and outcome of a Consortia-sponsored workshop with the U.S.’s leading utilities, a Component Test (ComTest) Program for A-USC was proposed. The A-USC ComTest program would define materials performance requirements, plan for overall advanced system integration, design critical component tests, fabricate components for testing from advanced materials, and carry out the tests. The AUSC Component Test was premised on the program occurring at multiple facilities, with the operating temperatures, pressure and/or size of these components determining the optimum test location. The first step of the ComTest, the steam turbine test, was determined best suited for a site in Youngstown, Ohio. Efforts were also undertaken to identify and evaluate other potential sites for high pressure testing.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2016

Novel Inorganic/Polymer Composite Membranes for CO 2 Capture

The objective of this project is to develop a cost-effective design and manufacturing process for new membrane modules that capture CO 2 from flue gas in coal-fired power plants. The membrane consisted of a thin selective layer including inorganic (zeolite) embedded in a polymer structure so that it can be made in a continuous manufacturing process. The membrane was incorporated in spiral-wound modules for the field test with actual flue gas at the National Carbon Capture Center (NCCC) in Wilsonville, AL and bench scale tests with simulated flue gas at the Ohio State University (OSU). Using the modules for post-combustion CO 2 capture is expected to achieve the DOE target of $40/tonne CO 2 captured (in 2007 dollar) for 2025. Membranes with the amine-containing polymer cover layer on zeolite-Y (ZY) nanoparticles deposited on the polyethersulfone (PES) substrate were successfully synthesized. The membranes showed a high CO 2 permeance of about 1100 GPU (gas permeation unit, 1 GPU = 10 -6 cm 3 (STP)/(cm 2 • s • cm Hg), 3000 GPU = 10-6 mol/(m 2 • s • Pa)) with a high CO 2 /N 2 selectivity of > 200 at the typical flue gas conditions at 57°C (about 17% water vapor in feed gas) and > 1400 GPU CO 2 permeance with > 500 CO 2 /N 2 selectivity at 102°C (~ 80% water vapor). The synthesis of ZY nanoparticles was successfully scaled up, and the pilot-scale membranes were also successfully fabricated using the continuous membrane machine at OSU. The transport performance of the pilot-scale membranes agreed reasonably well with the lab-scale membranes. The results from both the lab-scale and scale-up membranes were used for the techno-economic analysis. The scale-up membranes were fabricated into prototype spiral-wound membrane modules for continuous testing with simulated or real flue gas. For real flue gas testing, we worked with NCCC, in consultation with TriSep Corporation, Gradient Technology and American Electric Power (AEP). The membrane module demonstrated > 800 GPU of CO 2 permeance and > 150 CO 2 /N 2 selectivity when tested with real flue gas at NCCC. The results obtained were used to update the techno-economic analysis. In addition, the EH&S assessment of the membranes for post-combustion CO 2 capture was conducted.

20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the District of Columbia

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the District of Columbia. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Alabama

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Alabama. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Alaska

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Alaska. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Arizona

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Arizona. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Arkansas

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Arkansas. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of California

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of California. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Colorado

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Colorado. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Connecticut

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Connecticut. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Delaware

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Delaware. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Florida

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Florida. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Georgia

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Georgia. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Hawaii

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Hawaii. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗