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.
This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2016 edition from Standard 90.1-2013 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.
This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2016 edition from Standard 90.1-2013 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.
This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2016 edition from Standard 90.1-2013 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.
This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2016 edition from Standard 90.1-2013 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.
This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2016 edition from Standard 90.1-2013 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.
This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2016 edition from Standard 90.1-2013 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.
This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2016 edition from Standard 90.1-2013 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.
This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2016 edition from Standard 90.1-2013 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.
This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2016 edition from Standard 90.1-2013 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.
This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2016 edition from Standard 90.1-2013 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.
This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2016 edition from Standard 90.1-2013 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.
This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2016 edition from Standard 90.1-2013 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.
This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2016 edition from Standard 90.1-2013 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.
This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2016 edition from Standard 90.1-2013 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.
This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2016 edition from Standard 90.1-2013 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.
This report summarizes important nuances in local water concerns and potential climate impacts that could influence the roll-out of technologies associated with energy transitions. Current investments in clean energy technologies are very high, which is driving a lot of investments in related manufacturing (i.e., hydrogen, solar, wind, and batteries) and mining (e.g., lithium, copper, and graphite) around the world. To understand how water and climate dynamics could be influencing these activities, we conducted a phased literature review for three countries: China, Germany, and France. China was selected due to its global dominance in manufacturing of solar panels, batteries, and electrolyzers as well as production of rare earth elements while Germany and France were selected due to their emerging leadership in energy transitions-related manufacturing within the European Union. For each of these three nations, we identified areas where manufacturing is occurring within the country and then evaluated relevant water resources and climate impacts. Multiple sources were consulted for this review, including BloombergNEF, international reports, industry sources, peer-reviewed literature, climate data, and media coverage.
Beginning in 2019, the director of the DOE Office of Science began issuing first-of-a-kind charges to the federal advisory committees of several Office of Science programs, asking them to benchmark the programs' international research competitiveness. This report describes the Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee's (BERAC) assessment in response to the charge. The document (1) benchmarks BER's programmatic investments and science contributions over the last decade and (2) provides actionable recommendations to realize emerging science opportunities over the next decade.
The Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM) is a global forum that promotes policies and programs that advance clean energy technology. The CEM's mission is to bring together a community of global leaders to scale clean energy, amplifying the impact to all the sectors of the economy and applying a whole-of-society approach to meet collective climate and clean energy goals. At COP28 in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, the CEM announced the Supercharging Battery Storage Initiative as a vehicle to accelerate battery storage deployment around the world. The initiative supports countries around the world in co-creating strategies that enhance policy, regulation, supply chain, manufacturing, and financing solutions for battery energy storage deployment. Additionally, the initiative seeks to reduce the cost of the technology and promote diversified, sustainable, and secure supply chains (CEM n.d.). Through international collaboration, the initiative supports the integration of renewable energy globally, while securing the stability and reliability of the electricity grid.