Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Supplier”

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 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Advanced Reactor Supply Chain Assessment (GAIN Report)

Several net-zero scenario evaluations predict a rapid ramp up of nuclear energy in the coming decades. If this materializes, it will most likely strain the supply chains associated with the potential advanced reactor concepts awaiting deployment. To help assess the current and potential capacities of the various advanced reactor supply chains, the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN) conducted a survey of companies able to produce components for advanced reactors in the near future (namely for sodium, gas-cooled, and molten salt reactors). Using an aggressive nuclear deployment scenario, the objective was to assess the ability of the various supply chains to meet the considerable demand projections for certain key components (vessels, heat exchangers, pumps, graphite, and sensors) and identify potential challenges. While individual companies were unable to meet the most optimistic nuclear deployment rate projections, it was found that on aggregate, a United States-based supply chain projected that expansion could be ramped up to meet a larger future demand of these components. However, meeting projected demand for several more complex items (namely gas or salt heat exchangers) was found to be more challenging. Deploying new reactors at scale necessitates the production of more and more supply chain components, requiring a ramp up in production. Supply chain companies were surveyed, and respondents appeared less able to meet short term demand (next year) versus longer-term demand projections (5 and 10 years). This reflects the need to obtain orders with adequate lead times (can range from 3 to 30 months). Future demand will need to be met by expanding existing capacity. These expansions will require suppliers to raise capital or secure other types of support (federal loans or grants) to invest in facilities, equipment, and workforce. Individual suppliers indicated financial investments could be in the range of $\$ $100 million to $\$ $1 billion for their own facilities (depending on the type of facility). The biggest risk, according to respondents, related to general uncertainties surrounding the future nuclear industry and whether the potential demand projections will materialize into real demand that is actionable from a business perspective. Businesses do not seem willing to take investments risks without clear orders. If businesses are not able to invest to expand the supply, it will either delay the deployment of advanced nuclear technology, or the supply chain will be met by suppliers outside of the United States. This report only focuses on the domestic supply chain’s ability to meet the various projections stipulated here for the specific assessed components (vessels, heat exchangers, pumps, graphite, and sensors). The report does not cover all reactor designs or all components that may ultimately be needed for any one reactor design. It also does not address whether any specific aspect of the supply chain will be cost competitive in the global market, nor how potential state-backed entities could affect the expansion of a United States-based supply chain. The largest challenges in ramping up capacity among respondents appear to be workforce related. This includes workforce availability, experience, training, and turnover. In addition to facility investment, suppliers will also need to invest heavily in long-term workforce training to meet production goals. This issue is not nuclear-specific, and the expansion of any supply chain will likely face similar challenges. While suppliers evaluated expected normal business demand from other markets outside of nuclear, it is possible that other market segments could expand more than predicted and compete for the same suppliers. One potential market that may compete for the same supplier resources is the United States military, as many of these suppliers support both the commercial nuclear sector as well as the Navy with reactors and components. In summary, suppliers in the United States believe that there is a way to increase production in order to begin meeting the demand which will exist for advanced reactors—as long as appropriate investments can be made in the supply chain in an appropriate timeframe. Based on the capacity projections and lead times, investment will be needed to meet the 5-year and 10-year production targets. Therefore, if significant nuclear deployment is to occur in the 2030s, investment and ramp up of the advanced nuclear supply chain will need to begin in the near future for the United States to successfully deploy these advanced reactors with domestic supply chains.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
NASA NTRS2009

Primesupplier Podcast

PrimeSupplier, s supplier cross program and element impact simulation model with supplier solvency indicator (SSI), has been developed so that the Shuttle Program can see an early indicator of supplier and product line stability while identifying the various elements and/or programs that have a particular supplier of product designed into the system. The model calculates two categories of benchmarks to determine the SSI with one category focusing on Agency programmatic and the other being a supplier financial liquidity.

Galluzzi, Michael↗
DOE OSTI2022

The roles of learning mechanisms in services: Evidence from US residential solar installations

Non-hardware costs are majority of the cost of producing solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity. Here we use matched data on patents and over 125,000 residential PV installations to estimate the effects of three learning mechanisms in reducing PV costs: learning by doing, searching, and interacting. While previous work in this area has focused predominantly on learning by doing, we find that learning by searching and interacting are also significant mechanisms to facilitate non-hardware cost reductions. Including these two mechanisms reduces the effect of learning by doing in explaining non-hardware cost reductions by 43%. Our results suggest that prior work may overemphasize the role of learning by doing and the policies that help generate learning by doing. Analysis of the supplier-network between installers and their suppliers shows that concentrated supplier networks are associated with lower non-hardware costs, although there are key differences between installer-panel and installer-inverter manufacturer networks. An important implication is that policies for reducing non-hardware costs need to take a more complete view of how different learning mechanisms engender cost reductions. They should particularly consider the important role of learning in supplier networks in cost reductions—an effect that until now has largely been missing in analyses of solar non-hardware costs.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

High Temperature Steam Electrolysis Process Performance and Cost Estimates

Technology readiness levels (TRLs) of electrolysis systems have dramatically increased in recent years as the interest in clean hydrogen production and decarbonization of transportation, industrial and other sectors increases across the globe. This is especially true of high temperature steam electrolysis (HTSE) / solid oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC) systems which show promise of much higher system efficiencies than other more developed electrolysis technologies. This possibility of higher efficiencies of HTSE / SOEC systems has been previously assumed to be theoretically possible but in recent years it has become less theoretical and more realistic as an increasing amount of suppliers complete lab and pilot tests showing very promising results. Research in the areas of manufacturing techniques, material selection, electrode and electrolyte compositions, and balance of plant size and integration continues at a fast pace as an increasing number of suppliers both internationally and domestically become involved. The advantages of HTSE become more pronounced when HTSE is coupled with nuclear power plants (NPPs). This is because thermal energy produced by the nuclear reactor can be used in a series of heat transfer loops and heat exchangers to vaporize HTSE feedwater, which drastically improves the economics of the process. Idaho National Laboratory (INL) has been very involved in the research and modeling of HTSE systems for a number of years, in collaboration with other national laboratories, academia, and industry stakeholders both on the hydrogen production as well as the hydrogen demand side. The modeling completed over the years on a large variety of projects has led to a wealth of knowledge at INL including in the area of the technoeconomic assessment (TEA) of HTSE systems. TEAs include process modeling of the HTSE systems to calculate system energy requirements and equipment sizing, followed by estimation of capital and operating costs to enable calculation of the levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH). The TEA work performed has produced incremental improvements and tuning of the methods, assumptions, models, and results of the analyses as well as providing some opportunities for validating these results. The purpose of this document is to record the current baseline HTSE analyses led by INL to show the current status of assumptions and costs of these systems. Given the rapid development of this technology, the variety of suppliers entering the space, and the increasing attention government and industry are giving to such systems, this document may be updated on a periodic basis with updated analysis and assumptions. This document compiles various analyses results and approaches completed over a period of years into a single document to be used as a baseline going forward. It represents what the INL HTSE analysis group assumes to be the internal best estimate of the current operation, costs, and landscape of the HTSE industry state of the art capability for current SOEC technology in an Nth-of-a-Kind (NOAK) plant, which in this study is defined as existence of the manufacturing capacity to support previous deployment of N = 100 count of 25 MWe modular HTSE blocks (with modular equipment component cost reductions specified as following a 95% learning curve). That said, This is a public document and as such so no proprietary data was used or included in this report. There may be HTSE suppliers that have performance specifications, and cost estimates, and test data that differ from the analysis presented in this document. This document is meant to be a best conservative estimate of the technology and not an absolute reference.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2020

Microbial Diversity Associated with the Pollen Stores of Captive-Bred Bumble Bee Colonies

The pollen stores of bumble bees host diverse microbiota that influence overall colony fitness. Yet, the taxonomic identity of these symbiotic microbes is relatively unknown. In this descriptive study, we characterized the microbial community of pollen provisions within captive-bred bumble bee hives obtained from two commercial suppliers located in North America. Findings from 16S rRNA and ITS gene-based analyses revealed that pollen provisions from the captive-bred hives shared several microbial taxa that have been previously detected among wild populations. While diverse microbes across phyla Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Actinobacteria, and Ascomycota were detected in all commercial hives, significant differences were detected at finer-scale taxonomic resolution based on the supplier source. The causative agent of chalkbrood disease in honey bees, Ascosphaera apis, was detected in all hives obtained from one supplier source, although none of the hives showed symptoms of infection. The shared core microbiota across both commercial supplier sources consisted of two ubiquitous bee-associated groups, Lactobacillus and Wickerhamiella/Starmerella clade yeasts that potentially contribute to the beneficial function of the microbiome of bumble bee pollen provisions.

16S rRNA gene↗
NASA NTRS2011

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Supply Chain Management Program

This slide presentation reviews the working of the Supplier Assessment Program at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. The program supports many GSFC projects to ensure suppliers are aware of and are following the contractual requirements, to provide an independent assessment of the suppliers' processes, and provide suppliers' safety and mission assurance organizations information to make the changes within their organization.

Kelly, Michael P.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Qualifying Bulk Metallic Glass Gear Materials for Spacecraft Applications

NASA is evaluating bulk metallic glass (BMG) gears for extreme environment (cryogenic) applications; e.g., Europa Lander. The main purpose of this report is to recommend a quality assurance (QA) protocol for the production of consistent and reliable gear castings. Currently, there are two, separate manufacturers involved; Materion Corporation produces re-melt stock and Visser Precision Cast, Inc. produces BMG castings. Division of the existing alloy specifications document into material supplier-specific documents is proposed. Until a composition-based specification is established, processability- and performance-based methodologies may be an option during manufacturing development. It is recommended that each of the documents has a distinct focus; the processing behavior of crystalline feedstock, and the mechanical behavior of amorphous castings. The report addresses the “gray area” in QA testing between these materials suppliers by outlining an equitable division of responsibilities. The use of a number of dedicated reference dies to produce witness materials for physical and mechanical property evaluation is strongly recommended. Allocation of QA tests between screen testing of gear castings, and formal testing of witness materials, including cryogenic properties, is also proposed. The most effective suite of tests for both physical and mechanical property determination are down-selected from available national and international standards. The contents of this report create a solid basis for selection of QA tests, thereby setting the stage for negotiations between the materials suppliers and the customer.This technical paper:a) provides recommendations to advance materials specifications document JPL D-56223,Rev. A from “draft” to “preliminary” status;b) proposes division of the current document into two supplier-specific documents;c) separates testing methods by “ingots/castings” and “witness materials”;d) classifies test methodology based on “processability” and “performance”;e) assembles candidate ASTM specifications for “screen testing” and “formal testing”;f) identifies standard tests compatible with evaluation of BMG flexspline gears;g) suggests division of responsibilities for processability and performance testing; andh) addresses the QA “gray area” between production of ingots and castings.The report recommends that:a) processability- and performance-based QA methods might be used in lieu ofcompositional specifications during manufacturing development only;b) reference dies be designed for “acceptance” and “qualification” castings;c) witness materials provide physical and mechanical property data;d) formal testing be conducted at ambient and cryogenic temperatures; ande) processing/properties be correlated with compositional variations.

Hales, Stephen J.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Contracting Quality Early in the Lifecycle Using AS9145 Data Deliverables

Development schedules and a highly dynamic supply chain are a challenge to developers of complex systems produced at low volume. Flaws in designs, parts and materials availability problems, poor manufacturability, and a lack of knowledge about critical items and key process attributes can be realized well before traditional second-party quality assurance activities begin. Supplier audits and product inspections may have little mitigating effect once these foundational problems have been realized. Their impacts can be significant lifecycle disruption, cost overruns, inability to deliver to plan, and even project cancellation. AS9145, Requirements for Advanced Product Quality Planning and Production Part Approval Process, can be used to drive quality engineering practices into early development lifecycles to significantly reduce this late-cycle risk and to reduce the cost of quality overall. Since its initial publication in 2016, it has had very limited adoption by the DoD, no adoption by NASA, and sparse adoption in the aerospace and defense supply chain. A task group within the Aerospace Industries Association's (AIA) Joint Strategic Quality Council (JSQC) identified that both acquirers and suppliers see as AS9145 as a cost-adder and are hesitant to use it as an alternative to late-stage-heavy quality assurance approaches. A lack of prior use creates large capability gaps in request-for-proposal (RFP) teams, proposal teams, suppliers’ quality management systems (QMS), and in experienced personnel executing the early lifecycle approach. To create a more realizable on-ramp for using AS9145 in the space and defense sectors, the AIA JSQC task team created five deliverable requirements descriptions (DRDs) that can be used in a contract to begin to engage both parties in early lifecycle quality engineering and quality assurance activities, that reduce exposure to late-stage cost and schedule collapse due to unidentified risks in design, supply chain, and manufacturability. These DRDs drive the parties to engage in planning and analysis discussions early on to understand what production risks can be known and how they will focus resources based on safety criticality and the key elements of design and construction. The suppliers and acquirers who will produce the data and information required by the DRD will be able to incrementally evolve their QMS and the acquirer will incrementally be able to track and understand the benefits of cost shifting from late to early development phases. A white paper describing this approach and the five recommended DRDs will be published by the AIA in late 2024 or early 2025.

Jeannette Plante↗
DOE OSTI2022

High Temperature Steam Electrolysis Process Performance and Cost Estimates - DOE Hydrogen Program AMR Presentation

Technology readiness levels (TRLs) of electrolysis systems have dramatically increased in recent years as the interest in clean hydrogen production and decarbonization of transportation, industrial and other sectors increases across the globe. This is especially true of high temperature steam electrolysis (HTSE) / solid oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC) systems which show promise of much higher system efficiencies than other more developed electrolysis technologies. This possibility of higher efficiencies of HTSE / SOEC systems has been previously assumed to be theoretically possible but in recent years it has become less theoretical and more realistic as an increasing amount of suppliers complete lab and pilot tests showing very promising results. Research in the areas of manufacturing techniques, material selection, electrode and electrolyte compositions, and balance of plant size and integration continues at a fast pace as an increasing number of suppliers both internationally and domestically become involved. The advantages of HTSE become more pronounced when HTSE is coupled with nuclear power plants (NPPs). This is because thermal energy produced by the nuclear reactor can be used in a series of heat transfer loops and heat exchangers to vaporize HTSE feedwater, which drastically improves the economics of the process. Idaho National Laboratory (INL) has been very involved in the research and modeling of HTSE systems for a number of years, in collaboration with other national laboratories, academia, and industry stakeholders both on the hydrogen production as well as the hydrogen demand side. The modeling completed over the years on a large variety of projects has led to a wealth of knowledge at INL including in the area of the technoeconomic assessment (TEA) of HTSE systems. TEAs include process modeling of the HTSE systems to calculate system energy requirements and equipment sizing, followed by estimation of capital and operating costs to enable calculation of the levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH). The TEA work performed has produced incremental improvements and tuning of the methods, assumptions, models, and results of the analyses as well as providing some opportunities for validating these results. The purpose of this document is to record the current baseline HTSE analyses led by INL to show the current status of assumptions and costs of these systems. Given the rapid development of this technology, the variety of suppliers entering the space, and the increasing attention government and industry are giving to such systems, this document may be updated on a periodic basis with updated analysis and assumptions. This document compiles various analyses results and approaches completed over a period of years into a single document to be used as a baseline going forward. It represents what the INL HTSE analysis group assumes to be the internal best estimate of the current operation, costs, and landscape of the HTSE industry state of the art capability for current SOEC technology in an Nth-of-a-Kind (NOAK) plant, which in this study is defined as existence of the manufacturing capacity to support previous deployment of N = 100 count of 25 MWe modular HTSE blocks (with modular equipment component cost reductions specified as following a 95% learning curve). That said, this is a public document and as such so no proprietary data was used or included in this report. There may be HTSE suppliers that have performance specifications, and cost estimates, and test data that differ from the analysis presented in this document. This document is meant to be a best conservative estimate of the technology and not an absolute reference.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2024

Options for Achieving Cost Reduction in Advanced Reactors through Open Architecture

A key contributor to high capital costs and schedule overruns for new nuclear power plants is lack of standardization, driven by site-specific customization and construction of multiple designs by competing vendors rather than commitment to a single standardized program. While advanced reactor vendors typically individually target repeat construction of standardized units, the many competing designs could exacerbate the problem. “Open Architecture”, the open specification of requirements and interfaces for structures, systems and components (SSCs), has been proposed as a means of promoting standardization, by facilitating existing non-nuclear suppliers to enter the industry and/or allowing SSCs to be configured for more than one reactor within the same technology type. Contracting mechanisms that facilitate information sharing and alignment of incentives between stakeholders may complement such an approach. A preliminary scheme is presented for selection of SSCs for which such strategies could be adopted, based on a vendor make/buy decision model and stakeholder interviews. SSCs are categorized according to number of suppliers and their contribution to the reactor’s competitive edge. SSCs with many potential suppliers and a high contribution to competitive edge may be attractive for widening the supply chain via open specification of system requirements and interfaces, e.g., SSCs in the power island. SSCs with few suppliers and low contribution to competitive edge may be potential avenues for common system specification between vendors, e.g., some of the auxiliary SSCs. Potential cost reductions from such strategies will depend upon the size of the build program and the reactor type.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
NASA NTRS2019

Utilizing Supply Chain Assessments to Achieve Excellence, Reduce Risks and Improve Processes

Utilizing Supply Chain Assessments to Achieve Excellence, Reduce Risks and Improve Processes Supply Chain Management: Why it is important Strategic Challenge: Supply Chain RisksHistory of supply chain assessments at GoddardExamining case studies on successes and lessons learnedEnabling teams to develop tools to manage GSFC supply chainGaining supplier insight through IT tools that combines supplier data and provides supplier alerts

Risk Management↗